Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Sources - objection to wording

I have an objection to the current wording under the subsection Sources [1]. This overemphasizes academic sources, and this could cause problems in the future. Please see the problematic issues with this overemphasis, as laid out in my evidence in this case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Financial_conflict_of_interest_in_source_material.

Durova (talk · contribs) commented about this at the Workshop page for Prem Rawat 2 case: Actually, there are occasions where the role of scholarly sources might be overemphasized. Would you trust scientific research about the health effects of tobacco that was funded by tobacco companies? I'd be more interested in an investigative report on the tobacco industry's campaign financing practices, which no academic journal would be likely to cover but a good mainstream newspaper would publish. Not everything worth our attention occurs within the ivory tower.

John Nevard (talk · contribs) also made a pertinent comment: an article on the effects of smoking on heart disease in a journal from several decades ago by a research scientist dependent on funding from the tobacco industry may have questionable value. In the same way, a journal article by a specialized social scientist dependent on good relations with new religious movements might be more clouded by subconscious bias than a well researched feature by a journalist for a heavyweight paper who will be on another story next month. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the concerns raised here by Cirt. WP:NPOV requires that all significant viewpoints are covered, and as long as a source is considered reliable by our standards, there should be no problem with usage of a source--especially in cases where the information is readily verifiable by multiple reliable sources. It is dangerous to make generalizations here because situations vary from case to case, and the wording as it stands could be used to subvert the use of legitimate sources. Furthermore, there is a difference between using scholarly sources for a field such as physics or linear algebra, than doing so for social sciences or religious study, which tend to be less rigid. The trouble with such wording was discussed in another ongoing arbitration case: Jayen466 proposed (see "1") a principle for the Prem Rawat 2 arbitration case, citing a Cold Fusion principle as a precedent; Durova pointed out that the principle cited "may not be broadly applicable outside science disputes." ←Spidern→ 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a comment on this specific case, nor a response to the objections raised. However, it is relevant to note that a similar principle recent passed unanimously on the Ayn Rand case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand#Neutral point of view. Vassyana (talk) 09:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked this a bit over a heading of "Quality of sources" and added the "Ayn Rand" principle to cover use of sources, as "Neutrality and sources". — Roger Davies ^talk 09:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The Ayn Rand principle you cite may not be appropriate in this case. We are talking about a field where (unlike cold fusion or Ayn Rand) the number of engaged academics is relatively small, and the subject of the debate (again unlike cold fusion or Ayn Rand) has made strenuous legal and financial efforts to influence what others say about it.

A case in point: Oxford University Press has just this month published a book called Scientology, a collection of essays by a number of scholars. The first essay is a condensed history of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology by J. Gordon Melton, a controversial sociologist who has been criticised for conflicts of interest such as acting as a consultant and expert witness for the groups about which he writes (including Scientology). His history of Scientology - which he falsely describes as the "generally agreed facts" - is riddled with the most basic factual errors. For instance, he says that Hubbard sank a Japanese submarine during World War II, a claim which Hubbard made but which is supported by no historians of the US or Japanese navies, and was specifically rejected by the US Navy itself, as well as Hubbard's unofficial biographers. Melton mentions none of the contradicting evidence and cites no sources for his claims. It's an atrocious piece of work and I'm frankly amazed that it got through OUP's editorial processes. The problem is that, under the principle you cite, Melton's work could be given a higher standing than most of the (better sourced) works which contradict him, even though Melton is the exact equivalent of the tobacco scientists mentioned by Cirt.

Your principle assumes that academic researchers work to a higher standard of objectiveness and factual accuracy than non-academic sources. The problem is that for this specific topic area, that is not always the case because of the degree to which the Church of Scientology has sought to guide academic opinion (see the quote that begins with "12" at [2]). There is no parallel to this effort in the Ayn Rand or cold fusion topic areas. Failing to recognise that will seriously undermine the integrity of articles in this entire topic area. Your principle also makes no effort to define what "the best and most reputable sources" are, and all I can see it achieving will be merely shifting the argument to what sources editors consider to meet those criteria - I can tell you straight off that there will be very polarised views on this point. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that ChrisO is one of several editors in this field who have disclosed that they are involved in what scholars term online propaganda efforts against Scientology outside Wikipedia, and/or who have linked to their own sites as sources. Jayen466 10:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about responding to questions such as the one I've posed below, rather than attempting to slime people? I might add that the editor whose you're citing was banned for harrassment - I don't think it's an example you want to follow. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you both stop the ad hominem stuff? — Roger Davies ^talk 10:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately this isn't the first time that Jayen has made ad hominem arguments when his positions have been challenged. He did exactly the same thing a few weeks ago, without provocation, on Talk:Scientology - see [3]. I had hoped this arbitration would convince him to stop doing this but evidently it hasn't. I regard it as a bad-faith tactic - note Jayen's last line in the diff I've quoted, which reeks of bad faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• As I pointed out to Durova, similar principles were used in two Sai Baba cases. The idea that academic sources are relevant for natural sciences, but don't matter in the social sciences has been voiced before, and soundly rejected. As for the allegation of financially tainted scholarship, this is a matter for the academic establishment to decide, not for us to decide. Fringe groups in all kinds of areas have alleged that the entire scientific establishment is involved in a conspiracy to suppress the truth. That is all fine, but as long as the scholars concerned publish the field's standard reference works via such publishers as Oxford University Press, the Gale Group, Greenwood Publishing and Encyclopaedia Britannica, and their works are required reading in university courses throughout the English-speaking world, I consider any attempt to exclude such sources moot. Anyways, the whole conversation between Durova and myself is here. Jayen466 10:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's a strawman argument. The issue is not that all academic sources are "tainted", as you put it: it's that some academic sources may in some cases be of inferior quality to some non-academic sources. Go back to that specific example that I cited. Melton, the academic source, says Hubbard sank a Japanese submarine. (He gives no citations for that claim). No naval historian supports the claim. The US Navy has specifically rejected the claim. Two non-academic sources, Miller and Atack, also specifically reject it and give numerous citations for their argument. Which source would you cite as authoritative and why? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have not the slightest doubt that some peer-reviewed sources are way better than others and that some authors of some peer-reviewed publications are considerably more partisan than others. However, that is not unique to Scientology and they can only be evaluated on a publication by publication basis. I note what you say about polarisation but this topic is already abundantly polarised and it's the polarisation that makes agreement so difficult not deficiencies in policy. The key thought here is that Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth (whatever "truth" is) and that it is not the job of ArbCom to trash academic reputations: that trashing can be done perfectly well by other academics writing in other peer-reviewed sources. Sorry, but I don't see a magic bullet here for this other than getting the editors to step back a bit. — Roger Davies ^talk 10:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• Again, though, that's begging the question. You're assuming that peer-reviewed sources (and I don't actually know if the work I'm citing has been peer-reviewed) are better than non-peer-reviewed sources. That may be true generally across the full range of all peer-reviewed sources on all subjects, but it isn't automatically true in this particular field, not least because the number of sources is actually quite limited. In the case of the example I quote, you have a possibly peer-reviewed source which lacks citations and asserts facts in opposition to several non-peer-reviewed mainstream sources which do provide citations for their arguments. So what do we do? Do we just roll over and say "even if we know this is a fringe view with no support from any other sources, it's an academic source so must be included"? There has to be some commitment to basic factual accuracy, surely? -- ChrisO (talk) 10:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

You suggest that it is "not the job of ArbCom to trash academic reputations"; please note that nobody is suggesting that you do any such thing. I believe that both academic and other sources can be sufficiently represented in accordance with WP:NPOV. However, giving preference to one over the other has the unintended potential side effect of discouraging the use of otherwise reliable sources, which are abundantly verifiable. For example, on the talk page of Osho, Cirt pointed out that 28 sources described the deportation of Osho. Jayen466 still objected to the word usage of "deportation", and insisted that "more reliable" sources be used in their stead. Ideally, both viewpoints could be represented in a neutral way if in-text attribution of a claim is present. If a source is already deemed reliable by policy, what is the point of precluding or limiting the use of them in favor of views which are held by a handful of scholars? ←Spidern→ 12:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(od) This discussion rather highlights the problems with the whole sorry mess. The point is not to use sources, especially for BLP articles, to make the good guys look good, and the bad guys really evil, but to create balanced articles created from the best information available. — Roger Davies ^talk 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The above scenario may be interpreted as more of a NPOV issue, but the point is that the quantity of sources reporting something is a significant consideration. From what I understand the "best" information is that which is most easily verifiable, since truth is an absolute and can be subjective. It is apparent that the more reliable sources there are reporting a fact, the stronger the possibility that the information is reliable. ←Spidern→ 22:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That's a thought but there's also the school that believes that if absolutely impecccable sources don't exuist for something, it shouldn't be written about. Wearing my ordinary joe hat, I suppose part of the problem may be that many of the things being written are too recent to have a sensible range of good sources. Good analysis nearly always comes with time. — Roger Davies ^talk 22:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(I am recused and these are just the comments of an individual editor.) The arguments against the principles honestly sound like an argument that Wikipedia should be in the business of compensating for the failings of real-world coverage. We aren't and doing so runs counter to several basic principles of Wikipedia. At the root of it, this is the same basic argument that we have encountered from fringe theory pushers and others, which we have consistantly rejected.

The tobacco parallel is a strawman in my mind (in the strict sense, not the internet sense). The problems of industry funded research, biased sources, and so on are extremely well-documented regarding tobacco. Furthermore, the overwheming majority of sources support the mainstream claims regarding tobacco risks. The tobacco industry funded research and propaganda is not minimized because of some exception to our various sourcing rules. It is treated with less weight and credence because of those rules. The proposed decision principles in question reinforce that treatment, if applied to that area. The principles simply reiterate basic content principles that apply across the board.

There will always be arguments that it is inappropriate or unfair to certain topic areas. However, those are arguments that come down to the failings of real-world coverage. The solution is to produce or encourage the production of real-world sources that fill that gap. It is not Wikipedia's place to make the correction. --Vassyana (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly not Wikipedia's place to "correct" any source with allegedly false information. It is often said that Wikipedia is not an outlet for truth, but verifiability. All we can do is summarize that which is reliable (based on the publisher, not the content) and verifiable. By ensuring verifiability, we set our standards sufficiently high enough to state that the information is probably correct. The argument here is not to eliminate the use of academic sources, but to ensure that they do not supersede rigorous investigative journalism. Both types of sources can represent significant views, and neither should be entirely excluded from representation within the confines of neutrality. ←Spidern→ 02:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

When selecting an analogy that people recognize, there's always the risk that its shortcomings will come under criticism. No analogy is perfect. A year of mentoring in this area has raised my concerns that a POV agenda might be overriding ordinary Wikipedia policy standards in this topic. The first instance that stood out was an occasion where certain editors tried to disallow the editor-in-chief of the Village Voice as a source, in an instance where that journalist was writing within his expertise--by trying to deprecate his publication as a tabloid. Well of course the Village Voice publishes in tabloid format in the formal sense of the word, but it's also a Pulitzer-winning newspaper and widely used at Wikipedia as a reliable source. When that argument got rebutted others followed, and I came away with the distinct impression that this wasn't normal editorial policy discussion at all but a series of objections against the source's POV. As an isolated instance that doesn't count for much, of course, but as months progressed Cirt would come to me about various article talk discussions where he had what appeared to be a credible argument, but existing precedents were being cited by other parties in a manner that made it very difficult to raise the pertinent objection. Of course there were also times when Cirt's evidence and arguments weren't as strong as he first supposed, but those instances were much easier to address because we usually discussed them in advance and he was open to feedback and adjustment. Your objections are well taken, Vassyana, and I've occasionally wondered whether my observations are sufficiently critical because I never had much grounding (or interest) in the topic of new religious movements except as it relates to this site's dispute resolution. Bear with me, please.

Examining the evidence in the Prem Rawat and Scientology cases, in particular instances where Momento removed mainstream reliable newspapers from an article with the rationale that they weren't scholarly, and an instance where Justallofthem recently equated USA Today with tabloids, I began to wonder whether source discussions had been framed on quite the best neutral terms. If quality investigative journalism usually sheds a negative light on a topic, and if an editor's aim is to promote some organization within that topic, then wouldn't it serve that editor's POV at the expense of the encyclopedia to deprecate journalism? Note Jossi's aggressive interest in Cirt's featured drive for the journalism portal and the stream of negative quotes about journalism that Jossi supplied there.

Supposing for a moment that I were a POV pusher, and clever about it, it would be necessary to play up some alternative type of source more suitable to my priorities. If a portion of the scholarly material were compromised by a financial conflict of interest then I would first assert the primacy of formal scholarship and then utilize the portion of it that suited my needs, all the while endeavoring to make it as difficult as possible to raise any objection to the pertinent COI. Maybe, as Vassyana suggests, some of that COI is insufficiently documented to challenge within site policy framework. Our conflict of interest guideline itself is framed around editor COI, not source COI, and perhaps it is not too cynical to note how Jossi was heavily involved in shaping that guideline. Jossi's own disclosures followed the guideline's letter while subverting its intent. My evidence also shows that Jossi was editing the guide to requests for adminship and the sockpuppetry policy in ways that would have made it harder for Cirt to gain adminship at the same time as Jossi expressed a very keen interest in preventing Cirt from ever becoming an administrator. Jossi was an active editor of other policies and was skilled at framing discussions in terms that looked palatable to uninvolved observers.

It may be beyond the Committee's remit if Jossi's efforts have successfully influenced WP:RS, etc. on relevant issues. Yet I urge the Committee to take a critical view of Jayen466's keen interest in implementing the Sathya Sai Baba arbitration language about sourcing priorities here and at Prem Rawat. Privately I have been expressing concerns these last few days that an omnibus arbitration about new religious movements may need to follow later this year. If you take Jayen's advice, let's all hope my concerns are mistaken. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Spidern and Durova. I now better understand where you are coming from. As a general rule, news media has a downright terrible reputation when it comes to covering academic topics. For example, it is relatively common to see science-focused Wikipedians (especially in the medicine topic area) push back hard against heavy reliance on journalistic sources for this reason. Religious studies and archaeology reporting are almost as infamously poor as the hard science coverage.

On a counterpoint, plenty of journalistic sources have very strong reputations. A great example is the New York Times, winner of more Pulitzers than any other newspaper. Short of an Jason Blair-like debacle, it's downright absurd to argue it is unreliable. For the record, I consider the Village Voice and USA Today to be towards this end of the reliability spectrum.

One should also bear in mind that many aspects of religion in modern life are quite aptly documented by news coverage. Unless particularly interesting from an academic view, the building of a particular Catholic cathedral (as a tame example) is almost assuredly going to have most of its reliable source coverage in news media. This type of reporting generally falls within the norms of common reputable news coverage.

Essentially, news media is not very reliable by general reputation when it comes to issues like theology, archaeology and church history. However, highly reputable news media is still highly reputable and should not be discounted, even if most news coverage of the topic area is viewed as unreliable. Additionally, general and common social reporting reporting do not suffer from this negative reputation.

It is also worth nothing that while academic sources are usually the most reliable, that does not make other sources unreliable. While we can paint some broad trends, appropriate sourcing needs to be considered with the whole of our content principles in mind, on a case by case basis. I think the reliable source guideline makes a closely related point well: "Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." [empahsis in original]

That all said, the issue that troubles you seems to be more of a behavioral concern than one about the actual substance of the principles proposed. That is, the concerns seem to be about a perceived abandonment of the spirit of the rules for the letter thereof, and the related concern of misappropriating the rules.

tl:dr version. Newspapers have horrible coverage of scholarly topics, including religious studies. Much religion-related news coverage, such as social and lifestyles reporting, is general reliable. Reliability and proper sourcing depends on context, requiring a bit of common sense and discretion. The main concern seems behavioral, rather than an actual objection to the principles. --Vassyana (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Church of Scientology

This finding of fact is extremely appropriate and warranted. I note that a version of this was already adopted by the Arbitration Committee in the COFS case, namely Conflict of interest, Responsibility of organizations, Multiple editors with a single voice, and most specifically, Use of Church of Scientology-owned IPs.

I question this comment [4] by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs) - and ask upon what evidence Cool Hand Luke is basing this on. For one, I am not a contributor to the Operation Clambake website. Cirt (talk) 15:25, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Editors using Church of Scientology equipment are focused on Scientology-related articles, [5] and frequently engage in sockpuppetry to avoid sanctions [6], [7]. The Church of Scientology's influence on articles relating to it on Wikipedia has been widely reported internationally by the media since 2005, damaging Wikipedia's reputation for neutrality (examples: The Guardian, MSNBC, CBS, CNN, Der Spiegel, The Independent, Forbes and Reuters).

---

It should also be noted that this is simply a Finding of fact - and that everything stated in this above text is factual, accurate, and backed up by evidence. Cirt (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're a top-notch editor in this area, and I think that many other editors in this case should be given significant sanctions.

I will not impute an irrevocable COI to everyone who has ever edited from a COFS IP address, just as I will not do so for everyone who has ever contributed to Project Clambake. The COI guideline doesn't work that way. I would support a different finding but not one that's setting the stage for an unprecedented IP range topic ban that will permanently subject every pro-Scientology editor to checkuser. Cool Hand Luke 15:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

@Cool Hand Luke - do you dispute the factual accuracy of any part of this Finding of fact ? Cirt (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Findings of fact also must be relevant. Do you dispute the factual accuracy of my statement—that many Wikipedia users and admins are prolific anti-COFS contributors off-site? Neither of these sweeping statements would be included in a proposed decision unless they were operative, and at this time I oppose both and note the apparent bias of the finding.

This finding would not be relevant to the case unless sanctions against the church's IP ranges are proposed. As it turns out, Roger has proposed such sanctions, and I strongly oppose them as well. I would support a finding of fact that users X, Y, and Z have edited from these ranges (and that doing so, in conjunction with using an SPA and POV editing shows the hazards of apparent COI editing). But this finding of fact has no place in the case, and neither does the upcoming remedy.

Tip to editors who have ever used a COFS range: think of something clever to say about this case, because they might be your last words on Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 16:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

• The FoF is only one-sided to the extent that I have been unable to find correspondingly clearcut evidence for any other identifiable faction. I am unable to say whether this is because they don't exist or because they are better at covering their tracks. I would love to do and would embrace enthusiastically a corresponding FoF for Operation Clamback or whatever. I invite editors to submit evidence (ie diffs and CU data) for consideration.
• It has long been policy that two wrongs don't make a right. Tit-for-tat/retaliatory action has never been sanctioned on Wikipedia.
• I am not the least partisan in this and I would like very much to do a clean sweep of all aligned editors as I believe this is the only way to restore order to this topic, after years of problems.
• I am not sure what other options are realistically open to us to deal with a succession of throwaway sockpuppets and single purpose accounts. Banning them just appears to lead to another utterly disposable account, discarded on discovery. I don't think that CUing everyone who has an apparently pro-Scientology perspective is the answer but there's a strong argument for doing so if they meet several criteria. In this context though, if editors are behaving neutrality, it should be impossible to determine whether they are pro- or anti- the subject matter. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately a lot of what you are saying is assertion not backed up by evidence, as opposed to this Finding of fact, which is. It is also inappropriate to address a Finding of fact in this manner as if one were talking about a sanction. Cirt (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm in a better position than you to know what remedies have and have not been proposed. Simply, this finding of fact exists to support a sanction that should not be passed. It is irrelevant to the case because the sanction should not be passed. Cool Hand Luke 18:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Logging in this morning is quite a surprise. It really is imperative to protest against this assertion by Cool Hand Luke. The assertion about Operation Clambake is entirely unsupported by onsite case evidence. Has there been offsite evidence to that effect?

I have never participated in Operation Clambake, nor in Anonymous, nor in any organized protest of any sort against any religion. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, has Cirt either. If any participant to this arbitration does such things I am unaware of it. Rather, some of us take pride in opposing prejudice of any stripe, as here. For two years now I have endeavored to stabilize this topic by demonstrating that Wikipedia is not a battleground between Scientologists and those who are bigoted against them. When anti-Scientology users come to troll the Scientologists, Cirt takes that to ANI and requests checkuser to expose the anti-Scientology socks. What more can we do to demonstrate that policy, not ideology, guides our actions?

Cool Hand Luke's 'Operation Clambake' post is weighty accusation for an arbitrator to make, particularly in a formal opinion at a proposed case decision, and it has every appearance of being both polarizing and entirely unwarranted. It comes very close to a formal accusation of religious bigotry; it is worded in such broad terms that it could apply to nearly anyone who submitted evidence critical of one set of parties. And if that is not the intention, it would unfortunately be quite easy to quote out of context as if that were its meaning. I entreat you, do consider a refactor. Durova^Charge! 18:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing any individuals here.

My issue is that WP:COI violations must be shown by the behavior, not alleged identity. There's a lot of sanctionable behavior in this case, and we should sanction it. This focus on IP address rather than actual behavior threatens to treat Scientologists as a uniquely unwelcome class of contributors—worse than terrorists, worse than pedophiles. If we proceed to ban one side of this war for IP-based "COI" while ignoring counter-cultists and prolific anti-Scientologists on the other side, I would consider that religious bigotry.

My proposal is to simply focus on the behavior. I believe any other approach cannot be supported by our policies, and will strongly protest any other approach.

Cirt is a top-notch editor. I've said so above. I'll remove the comment. Cool Hand Luke 18:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there has been a lot of misconduct by editors from the COFS. In fact, I agreed with the proposals blaming the church itself. That misconduct may or may not be endemic to the organization itself. Certainly, given its prior history, some individuals might be inclined to think that the Church itself is responsible for that misconduct, and, yes, I'm one of those individuals. But I do think that the recent variations, focusing more on the misconduct itself rather than the IPs from which the misconduct is coming, is probably the preferable option, as it doesn't seem to specifically fault the organization itself. If, of course, reliable convincing evidence of such misconduct ever appears, I would once again support blocking/banning those IPs, but it might be a bit early to set such a precedent only on the evidence we currently have available. John Carter (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, in the light of Jayen's smear attempts, I haven't directly contributed to Operation Clambake either. Operation Clambake has republished things I have written elsewhere (it's principally an aggregation site) but that was certainly not at my request or initiative, any more than for the dozens of other authors, journalists and researchers whose work has been republished by OC. But that's a side issue, since editors have been conscientious in not using personally published sources (Cirt's work on sourcing has been especially praiseworthy). The root issue with Church of Scientology IP addresses is the one that I tackled in the workshop: "The use of shared corporate IP addresses to edit articles obscures the identity of individual editors, making it difficult to determine whether multiple accounts operating from the same corporate IP address are genuinely different people." We know for a fact that there has been improper editing from CoS IP addresses, and we know that some pro-Scientology editors have been editing from similar or the same addresses, but what we don't know - because of the obscuring nature of shared IP addresses - is whether this editing is being carried out by the same people, or by a group of people in coordination, or genuinely separate individuals. Plus there is an obvious conflict of interest in editors using corporate IP addresses to edit articles about their corporate entity. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support a finding treating those addresses as an open proxy. We could block them, and individual editors could ask permission to edit through the blocks. There's lots of ways we could set something like that up. Cool Hand Luke 19:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a very good practical solution. I've been wondering how we might deal with this in practice. — Roger Davies ^talk 19:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Luke, please bear the following principle in mind:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Responsibility_of_organizations

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

That passed 10 to 0 at 03:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC), but I proposed its original incarnation more than two months before.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop#WP:COI

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

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

When Misou challenged it I elaborated.

Suppose a United Way volunteer wants wants to edit about the United Way: if that person edited from COI offices the onsite behavior reflects on the organization. So if the person gets sitebanned for persistent WP:NPA violations it creates a public relations risk for the organization. The organization isn't responsible for actions of a volunteer who acts from home. An employee who edits from home still has a conflict of interest because of the person's financial and career interest in United Way's success. The practicalities of determing [sic] these situations are a different matter; this proposal is about principle. DurovaCharge! 06:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And followed up.

It has a very real reflection in real life. See Congressional staffer edits to Wikipedia. DurovaCharge! 05:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What I did not know in July 2007 was that a graduate student named Virgil Griffith at Caltech was preparing to release the WikiScanner. It came out on August 17, 2007 and promptly caused precisely the public relations disaster that I had been endeavoring to thwart. This situation is indisputably a conflict of interest. If the organization in question were the United Way or the United States Congress then the dilemma would be fundamentally the same. None of the parties here, nor the Committee itself, has the power to argue away a conflict of interest of newsworthy proportions.

Several surprising contradictions arise from that. Scientology is a new religion with an image problem: why would it risk bad pubilicity this way? Why would it allow its own hardware and Internet connections to be used in perpetuating that risk, even afterward? Why would its members boast of this at RFAR? We agree that people do exist in the world who wish ill upon Scientology: does it not serve the aims of those religious bigots to perpetuate the obvious conflict of interest and risk another round of negative press for this church? And if we cared nothing about the Church of Scientology, why risk Wikipedia's reputation--it can't look good for the site if these years of arbitration cases failed to implement any effective solution.

I don't know what the proper solution is for this problem, but certain things obviously don't work. We can't pretend that sleight of word will change the minds of either the press or the public about what doesn't look proper. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom does not exist to give the Church of Scientology publicity advice. We're here to enforce our policies. The COI guideline does not and cannot support topic bans for everyone editing from particular IP addresses, and it does not compel us to actively check users from institutional use, and it most certainly does not require us to single out editors from a particular institution for uniquely onerous treatment. Cool Hand Luke 19:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one suggests that ArbCom is here to give publicity advice. It does bear repeating that this is--in real world terms--a bigger case than usual. That reflects on Wikipedia too. Given a prior unanimous finding on the subject of COI that applied directly to this dispute, we need not reinvent the wheel at the very next case when the very same problem persists, as confirmed by both checkuser and the admissions of the editors themselves. Durova^Charge! 20:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've not said anything inconsistent with that. It's a good caution to such organizations, and I would support a similar finding here. The issue is that blocks and bans must be issued based on out fundamental site policy—which COI is not. It's interesting and helpful to note a user's presumptive COI, but that alone is not grounds for block. COI editors can and do sometimes edit consistently with our policies.

In any event, the focus of this case should be on behavior, not purported identity. Cool Hand Luke 20:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No one supposes that mere conflict of interest itself is blockable, but violation of policies is generally regarded as more serious when it occurs in conjunction with a conflict of interest. Wikipedians are reluctant to block entire schools, companies, etc. for extended lengths of time, but we have been known to do so when the organization's management habitually fails to exercise due control over the misuse of their Internet connections. Your statements confuse me, though: it appears almost as if you posit COI as a mitigating factor rather than an exacerbating factor. Surely we can respond to COI that originates from a religious organization the same as any other COI: it isn't an aspersion against a faith itself to declare that (for whatever reasons), their organizational structure has been ineffective at preventing a substantial COI and substantial associated policy violations, so therefore Wikipedia may intervene with actual remedies. Bear in mind: I haven't supported any of the proposed workshop remedies about banning the Church of Scientology. Yet when cautions fail--as they obviously have here--what would you do? Durova^Charge! 21:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any organization that has been blocked for COI. Typically, these blocks occur when the organization is piping many users through a few addresses, making it into a de facto open proxy. Insofar that we're concerned about socks here, that's an appropriate way to treat these IP addresses.

We should simply restrict editors who do not follow our policies. We have the case because large POV disputes necessarily cannot be resolved by community consensus. In that respect, this case is not much different from many of our other intractable ethnic/nationalism edit wars. I think blocking users who have used a COFS IP address is not entirely different from, say, blocking users who have used a Serbian IP address. There's very little reason to suppose that the COFS takes responsibility for all of its users, and there's no evidence that we've made any attempt to resolve it through them (which usually occurs with other institutional range blocks). I cannot understand how they've been ineffective at enforcing our policies—do they even know that we want them to? I think it would be foolish to impose sanctions against a non=party organization on these facts, besides exceeding our actual policy mandates.

So it's the same solution we have for every other broad edit war: block the problem users for their specific behavior, which sends a signal that users should be blocked for such behavior. Cool Hand Luke 21:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerns on wording of neutrality principle

I am again troubled by the wording of a proposed principle, in this case one describing neutrality. "Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view." The current text has it backwards. Instead of judging viewpoints based on the polarization of sources, the criterion for inclusion should be whether the viewpoint is significant, verifiable, and reliably-sourced. While I agree that there is more to a quality article than simply adding opposing viewpoints, neutrality is sufficiently described by the community-drafted standing policy and no further elaboration is needed. ←Spidern→ 17:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly a point of view: let's see what the arbitrators make of it, shall we? — Roger Davies ^talk 17:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

What I expressed here is simply my interpretation of existing policy. ←Spidern→ 20:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarify BLP issue please?

I may have missed something in the din of the workshop pages, but item 3.2 says "Editing of several articles concerning individuals associated with Scientology and/or with opposition to Scientology has violated aspects of our policy governing biographies of living persons". Which articles and edits? Can someone point me towards the evidence on this point? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross' evidence section shows a lot of troubling editing. There are other one-off examples scattered in the evidence. BLPs are often casualties in POV wars. Cool Hand Luke 19:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the clarification. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Jossi evidence

For the record, I submitted evidence privately to the ArbCom on February 20 regarding the past abuse of socks by Jossi. I haven't received any substantive response from the committee regarding that evidence, and am not sure if it is being considered as a part of this or another case. I think the proposed remedy that Jossi resigned his adminship during a controversy is correct. My concern is that a user with a declared conflict of interest may return with a new account which would have the same but undeclared conflict of interest. Is this the appropriate case to propose that Jossi be limited to one acount?   Will Beback  talk  20:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

History lesson or cabal versus cabal

I see some discussion above of the history of the Scientology articles and who wrote what. As Justanother (talk · contribs), I ignorantly stumbled into that minefield almost three years ago so I have some of the middle history to share.

I started editing to correct a misrepresentation about "silent birth" as that subject was getting some play due to TomKat's pregnancy and I had happened upon the Wiki article and found it a bizarre representation of Scientology practice. At that time the Scientology articles were controlled by a small group of dedicated critics of Scientology, some of whom are/were admins, and many of whom were known in the critic circle for off-site criticism of Scientology, including maintaining critical sites, statements to press, and/or frequent contributors at alt.religion.scientology. These included Modemac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Glen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), ChrisO (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Tilman (talk · contribs), Vivaldi (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), and Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs). The IRL identities of all of those are known to me as I am familiar with both their on-wiki and off-wiki activity. It is not my intention to out anyone here. If an arbitrator thinks their identity is relevant then e-mail me and I will provide privately. These were joined by other critical editors such as Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) and Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs).

By control the articles, I mean maintain them is a condition that was a one-sided criticism of Scientology bordering on caricature. These editors presented themselves as "consensus" and normally carried the day on any content dispute. They had succeeded in running off every pro-Scientology editor prior to me that stuck his nose in their domain. Sorry, if I sound harsh but they put me through hell (not that I am complaining - I could have left, too). Further, the Scientology articles were such a battleground and so unpleasant to edit that neutral editors tended to steer them a large berth leaving the critics free rein. For some proof, here is noted Scientology critic, David S. Touretzky, congratulating the crew on a job well done.

It is a little vanity of mine that perhaps I was of some help in breaking their hold on the articles and making the environment more suitable for neutral players by being the one Scientologist that stood his ground and and would not be railroaded. Not that they did not come close a few times.

As I said, this is the middle history. The early history can be told by others but basically the critics of Scientology were here fastest with the mostest when Wikipedia was starting up and many became admins and above. The articles were written by critics.

Back later with more. For now, my old user page may be of interest. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rick Ross BLP

Please note that I have submitted additional evidence on the history of the Rick Ross BLP and the various noticeboards at which the article was discussed. Jayen466 15:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I'll look into your evidence carefully later tonight. Looked problematic from the evidence previously posted, but maybe that didn't show the whole context. Cool Hand Luke 17:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was just looking at it. The problem with this kind of proceeding (this arbitration) is that it is time-consuming and tiresome to prove and clearly lay out trends so I don't bother. I'll clarify this: what struck me looking at your edits was the way you chipped away at content instead of blasting away, and you ended up successfully changing the entire slant, and this usually reflected what I assume is your POV. The secret to good article writing is that the reader should not be able to detect the allegiances of the writer, and looking at your changes as a whole, I was easily able to. — Roger Davies ^talk 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Found it. The difference in your editorial treatment of Alan Ross and Thomas W. Davis is a good example of this. — Roger Davies ^talk 22:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Roger, in Ross's case, I simply began by searching google books, and reported what reliably published, scholarly sources said about Ross. I invite you to perform the same searches in google books and see if what you find in high-quality, reputable sources is any different from what I found.

Also please look at the content I chipped away. This was the article status before I started. Do you think it was a good article as it stood, well sourced, and well referenced, and reflecting significant viewpoints in accordance with their prevalence in reliable sources? Jayen466 09:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

To be specific, and lest I be accused of only ever deleting badly sourced criticism of spiritual teachers and Scientologists: I deleted the following parts of the criticism section in Ross's article:

• deleted reference and link to Scientology attack site and self-published rebuttal as per WP:SELFPUB;
• deleted poorly sourced (self-published academic website) report of alleged mental problems – that is the last time these allegations appeared in this article – even though there are top sources, including United States Congress records, referring to Ross's psychiatric record: [8], I considered inclusion of this information incompatible with the spirit of WP:BLP;
• deleted reference to Ross's own attack site (WP:SELFPUB making unduly self-serving statements about third parties).

Eventually, I deleted the entire criticism section, including Shupe's characterization of Ross's site as an "entrepreneurial 'lone ranger' attempt to solicit customers".

As for arguably positive material, I –

• added that Ross became vice-president of a company;
• added that Ross's work was covered in an edition of the "48 hours" TV program;
• added info on the theoretical underpinnings of Ross's work, based on an article in The Observer – oddly enough, Ross objected to that paragraph, even though he references Lifton multiple times on his own website, e.g. here, but I followed his wish and later removed this reliably sourced assertion;
• added that he was hired as an analyst by CBS. Jayen466 15:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In Davis' case, the article prior to my editing said that "Davis located Sweeney's Clearwater, Florida hotel and waited in the lobby for Sweeney's arrival. In the documentary, Sweeney described the incident as being "creepy".[15]"

The cited source was this, and the only use of the word "creepy" in it is this: "I told him that Scientology had been spying on the BBC and that was creepy." The source simply does not say that Sweeney found the incident of Davis waiting for him in the hotel "creepy". Sweeney said he felt the BBC had been watched, and that that was creepy.

The article prior to my edits also contained the following sentence: "Davis walked away from Sweeney, offended by the journalist's statement that some may consider the Church of Scientology a "sinister cult", causing Davis to become "Angry, real angry".[17]"

Again, the phrase "Angry, real angry", marked as a quote, was not in the cited source. It sounded like a gloating comment to me, of the type sometimes inserted by vandals, and given that it was unsourced, I removed it.

Apart from that, I did not change the sourcing of the article. I corrected the apparent discrepancies between article text and cited sources, and added material available in the sources already cited. [9] I stand by those edits. I invite you to check them and their agreement with the sources cited. Jayen466 10:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Justallofthem and AFD

Regarding Cool Hand Luke's objection, please review the following passage from my evidence. Justanother attempted to discount the participation of uninvolved experienced editors from deletion discussion. Following are the complaints of three of them. Durova^Charge! 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• 6 June 2008: John Carmichael (Scientologist)—After new editors created the article Cirt began work on it to expand and add sources.[10] Justallofthem appears less than 10 hours later to nominate the article for deletion.[11] During the AFD, Justallofthem attempts to invalidate the input of editors that clearly have varied contribution histories by tagging their AFD posts as if they were SPAs. Several of them complain:

That is a pure lie, check my contributions. In fact I haven't done a single edit to any scientology-related page, if you don't count the dianetics talk page. – User:Nxty[12]

I agree with Cirt, you have been very hasty in tagging some of the users here as SPAs. It might also be worth the closing admin noting that Justallofthem appears to be quite heavily involved in Scientology related articles with a possible POV towards removing/playing down controversy. ChaoticReality 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[13]

With a couple of thousand edits total over several years, it feels odd to have my opinion devalued simply because I've had a busy spring; I have in fact been participating steadily, albeit on a very small scale, since having to scale back at the start of 2008...Robertissimo (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[14]

• I noted that a large number of the keeps were from dormant or new editors, found that suspicious, and marked them accordingly. The username of the original creator is indicative of Anonymous and anonymous' hallmark is off-wiki coordination of attacks or "harpoons". Watching for and preventing abuse of BLP by anonymous is something that I am alert to and I acted accordingly in that instance. I notice that Durova presents only one-sided evidence, she is clearly acting in a partisan fashion. In this specific instance she omitted mentioning the tags I made that were not questionable. Durova's evidence must always be taken with a grain of salt as being incomplete and skewed. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If any of these three experienced editors were part of Anonymous, why didn't they participate in any of the dispute resolution about Scientology? Members of Anonymous do not lurk behind every corner; the few who appear are pretty obvious. Note Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Richard_Rolles which Cirt first requested, and where Justallofthem later followed up with additional requests; also this ANI thread which Justallofthem started and which both Cirt and I supported. The Anonymous side of the problem has been handled through normal channels. It isn't partisanship to address both sides of the Scientology disputes problem. New arbitrators who didn't observe my impartial mentorship of Privatemusings and Jaakobou have the recent example of ScienceApologist. It is unfortunate that Justanother does not reconsider the overly aggressive position he took at the AFD cited above. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, seems over-aggressive, but I also understand why user might have suspected canvassing, especially given the origin of the article. It seems they were more upset with a WP:DNTTR violation than anything else—I don't think this is abuse of AfD. Cool Hand Luke 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"serially breached policy to advance his/her point of view"

No evidence of inappropriate article space edits has been presented to support this. Just sayin'. Carry on. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Justallofthem's alleged sockpuppetry

As for Justallofthem's alleged sockpuppetry, I will happily eat my hat if Justallofthem posted as Truthtell, and here is why. Jayen466 17:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

 Confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother by checkuser YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), this was also confirmed by a second checkuser, Nishkid64 (talk · contribs): I confirm the findings.. Noted this accordingly at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother. Cirt (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, get your own topic. That has nothing to do with this. Wait a minute, are you in my topic trying to bait me with this? Shame on you! --Justallofthem (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Cirt, it just does not make sense. Not the timing of the edits, not the kinds of edits they were, nor the total lack of stylometric agreement traceable over a concurrent history of several years. Jayen466 18:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64 has already said what the evidence is: same ISP in the same city. There's not an IP match. I suppose that plus the interest in Scientology made it seem more likely than not. Cool Hand Luke 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser was shoddy work all around. Truthtell resolves to adjacent county (about 40 miles from me and served by a different Scientology church). Also the so-called common ISP is not the one I usually use as shown by my previous IPs available on my checkuser page (another farce, that) but was a ISP I have only been using recently. Not to mention that the entire thing was inappropriate checkuser fishing. --Justallofthem (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I did notice your service switch. You began using a different residential ISP before Truthtell's edits. Also, I imagine that this was one of the most common ISPs in your region. If you would like to discuss this in more detail, please email the committee at "arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org" Cool Hand Luke 20:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466

I confess to puzzlement over the diff links purported to illustrate that I have edited "disruptively and tendentiously, edit-warring and misrepresenting policy, particularly that relating to biographies of living people and sources, to advance his/her own agenda."

First, we have [15]. Both in my evidence and on the evidence talk page I had expressed a wish to be advised if arbitration scope actually included non-Scientology articles, and said that I would provide further evidence if the committee confirmed that the scope had expanded accordingly. I would have appreciated the courtesy of someone saying that it had. As it is, I have added a section on the history of the Rick Ross BLP to my evidence, as mentioned above. I would request that this evidence be referred to. Once arbitrators have done so, I would like it if someone could give me some hints as to what parts of the material I inserted were inappropriately sourced, or in which parts I failed to reflect significant viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in the most reliable sources, as available in googlebooks, where I did most of my initial research. I simply reported what I found there.

Secondly, we have [16] I am sorry, in today's age, where digital editing equipment is ubiquitous, it is very easy to include a radio station's identification somewhere in a recording. If it is a question of a critical BLP allegation, as here, the site where a purported radio broadcast that is not available anywhere else is located should be reliable. I said that it was not clear to me if this was the case here. As for it not being a podcast, the URL is http://theedge.podango.com/podcast_episode/3805/92359/The_Edge_with_Tom_Smith/Jefferson_Hawkins_Interview_1 (note the word podcast in the URL); besides, the file does not appear to be online any more, for whatever reason. Please note that I have never removed the allegation sourced to this in the David Miscavige article. All I have done is call a podcast a podcast and express, here in these proceedings, an inability to decide whether or not such a podcast qualifies as a reliable source. Is this misrepresenting policy?

Third, we have [17], in which Spidern expressed unhappiness that I marked a RS/N discussion as closed several days after the last comment, and after I thought we had jointly addressed concerns in the intervening time to the extent that the situation described in the original RS/N post actually no longer obtained. I don't think that was unreasonable? At any rate, I apologised to Spidern and he accepted my apology.

Lastly, we have a single diff from Voxpopulis. I obviously should have responded to this in more detail, which I have now done, but I assumed people would check the talk page, and the sources given. To summarise, "The United States have taken a partially supportive stance towards Scientology in relation to Germany" was not "unsourced", as Voxpopulis asserted. The cited article by Schön refers to

• "the amazing difference between the American media's predominantly negative home news on Scientology and the at least partially supportive stance in the Scientology vs. Germany controversy"
• specific criticism of Germany by the US government, notably "the critique in the State Department's annual Human Rights Report since 1993",
• State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns explaining "the American position as follows: "'We have criticized the Germans on this ...""
• the "asylum granted to a German Scientologist".

As for the reversion of the phrase "the most despicable sort of propaganda", this phrase, inserted by Voxpopulis, simply did not occur in the cited source at all, and I had absolutely no idea where Voxpopulis had got it from. Please check the cited source; if what Voxpopulis had written had been in it, I would not have reverted such an addition. Lastly, please note that the GA reviewer expressed puzzlement with Voxpopulis's assertion that the Hollywood lobby should be of central importance to this article (the implication being that Scientologist Hollywood actors dictate US foreign policy, which, frankly, I consider rather unlikely). Jayen466 17:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can help here ... What in your opinion, and in no more than 100 words, is the biggest single step that ArbCom could take to put an end permanently to the endless round of bickering, squabbling and POV-pushing that characterises this set of articles? — Roger Davies ^talk 19:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Clearly privilege scholarly sources, as behooves an encyclopedia and as we do in every other topic area, restrict news sources to the most high-end news sources (Time magazine, New York Times, LA Times, and including mainstream local papers for local reporting), ban the mining of primary sources (court documents, Hubbard's writings, Scientology websites) not referenced in the same way in reliable secondary sources, to prevent WP becoming a vehicle for the publication of original research (as you did in the 2007 Sai Baba case), ban the use of private websites as sources and make it an offense for an editor to insert links to private sites they are involved in, as per the 2006 Sai Baba case, stress the importance of using convenience links only if the relevant site hosts that material with a proper copyright license, as per WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO.

BLPs to be sourced to high-quality sources -- and no derogatory BLP material sourced to porn magazines, to podcasts on private webpages, to student newspapers, to reporters' blogs, or to celebrity gossip mags.

Take seriously the implementation of WP:NPA vis-a-vis members of religious minorities.

Institute a three-strike rule against offenders, first a warning, then a week-long topic ban, then a month-long topic ban, then curtains.

These are some ideas. Jayen466 21:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge that these are 200 words, and a bunch of things, but I hope you'll consider them as good-faith suggestions nonetheless. Jayen466 21:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "porn magazines" has to do with Scientology, but the matter came up in regard to the Prem Rawat dipsutes, so perhaps Jayen is conflating the two. In that regard, I found significant sources that showed Playboy magazine has had an excellent reputation for fact checking.[18][19][20] Further, many college newspapers easily meet our requirements for reliable sources, as do reporter's blogs published in the websites of mainstream newspapers. While scholarly sources are good in within their field of expertise and the topic of the paper or book, many editors will discount their reliability when they make statements contrary to their own POVs (as evidenced in the Prem Rawat case). Jayen himself has advocated the use of a partisan biography published by followers which has been found to contain significant errors and omissions, so I'm not sure what he really means by "high-quality sources". Jayen's suggestion about NPA and "members of religious minorities" is a problem. NPA already covers personal attacks adequately. But a recurring problem with articles on small religious movements is that Wikipedia often attracks followers who become single purpose accounts. If pointing out conflicts of interest becomes a personal attack then it won't be any easier to deal with POV pushing.   Will Beback  talk  22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the cases on the evidence page involved questionable material cited to Penthouse (magazine). No reputable encyclopedia would source articles on mainstream topics on which there is significant academic discourse to such publications. Not Encyclopaedia Britannica, nor the Gale Group.

The suggestion to raise the bar for sourcing on the Scientology articles reflects the longstanding problems we are having here. I believe that by raising the bar, in light of the exceptionally contentious nature of this topic, disputes can be lessened.

As for the Andrea Cagan biography on Rawat, let's leave that discussion to the Rawat arbcom case – except to say that what I have argued for in that arbcom case, as you are aware, is that the Cagan book should be treated as per our standard policies and guidelines concerning WP:SPS and the use of self-published sources in WP:BLP. That means, no statements about third parties, and nothing unduly self-serving. So if you are saying that "Jayen himself has advocated the use of a partisan biography published by followers which has been found to contain significant errors and omissions", you are not really reporting what I did say. What I did say is here. Please compare. I understand that when I say "fine to use as per WP:SPS etc." there is a "fine to use" in that sentence, but the restrictions imposed by WP:SPS are really quite considerable and designed to prevent misuse of such sources.

Lastly, if someone is a SPA, say they are an SPA. Why should there be a need to say, "His religion is X?" Apart from that, I can see no good reason why it should be fine for a Jew to work on the article on their rabbi, a Catholic to work on the article for the pope or a bishop, a muslim to work on the article on their imam, but that it should not be fine for a premie, or an ex-premie for that matter, to work on the article on Rawat. An editor should not have to take recourse to the argument that another editor "is a premie". The person's editing is either demonstrably problematic or it's not; either way, his being a premie is not the problem. Jayen466 00:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The decision here is likely to serve as a !precedent for the Prem Rawat case, and many of the issues overlap. I'm sorry if we're miscommunicating. By "promoting" a book I mean "advocating its use as a usable source", not trying to increase sales or some such. Allowing only selected scholars and newspapers as reliable sources, while allowing "quasi-authorized", sort-of-self-published biographies that have been shown to be biased and erroneous doesn't seem like a good plan for producing high-quality, NPOV articles. The general idea of setting different standards for negative versus positive sources likewise doesn't seem likely to produce NPOV articles. As for conflicts of interest by editors of articles on new religious groups, they are not altogether different from the problesm with articles on other topics about which editors are passionate. However there are demonstrable differences between articles on large, old religious movements versus small, new movements.   Will Beback  talk  08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There are differences between the Rawat and Scientology cases as well as similarities. As for "different standards for negative versus positive sources", I am sure you are aware that such differences are already present in WP:BLP policy, which has several provisions that apply only, or especially, to poorly sourced negative or potentially defamatory information. Examples: "Administrators encountering BLPs that are unsourced and negative in tone, where there is no neutral version to revert to, should delete the article without discussion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion criterion G10 for more details).", "Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally", etc.. Jayen466 09:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, when it comes to poorly sourced information in BLPs, it's more urgent to remove negative information than positive. (Not that it's always pssobile to categorize information as positive or negative). But when it comes to the standards for sourcing, we should avoid having different rules. If we say that only the most reliable sources should be used to BLPs then that should apply across the board, with no special exemption for sources produced by fans or followers.   Will Beback  talk  17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Jayen466 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Jayen466, at first glance I think your suggestions have merit. Theoretically, most of your proposals are already policy, yet I see a lot of questionable sourcing in these articles (heavy reliance on primary sources, often of dubious provenance, often used to "refute" statements in apparent violation of WP:SYN). Do you think you can post some well-organized headings with evidence of some egregious violations—particularly ones in BLPs? It would also be also useful to explain why these policy violations haven't been removed. Cool Hand Luke 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you have several examples. I'm more interested in is how they got this way and why they haven't been fixed. Cool Hand Luke 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement - Cirt

Regarding Propsed enforcement - Cirt - To make this simpler: As is already required for all administrators per WP:UNINVOLVED, I acknowledge that I am an involved party on this topic, and agree to refrain from enforcing discretionary sanctions under the provision of this case. Cirt (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Call for evidence

Further evidence of disruptive behaviour would be very welcome, preferably focusing on editors not already mentioned in the Findings of Fact. In particular, evidence is sought of: interference in biographies of living people; slow edit-warring; incivility, sources; POV-pushing; and tag-teaming. The evidence does not need to be limited to editors already mentioned in this case. For ease of reference, best is if:

1. the new evidence is on the /Evidence page, clearly headed "New evidence by {name}"
2. is concise and factual, with few words and many clear diffs

As mentioned above, it is unnecessary to supply new evidence for people already mentioned in the findings of fact, unless it is particularly clear and compelling. Thanks in advance, — Roger Davies ^talk 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)