User talk:Shutterbug/Archive2

All discussions up to 22 May 2007 have been moved here: User talk:COFS/Archive1

IP Addresses
I find this talk page incredibly intriguing. I have a personal interest in the scientology debate, but that aside let me just clarify for you one or two things.

Firstly, if your network has (as you report) almost 1000 users, your server must be literally state of the art, or you're using multiple servers - thus multiple IPs. Even if you are all running off one server, surely 1000 users will have their bandwidth split across several lines - thus multiple IPs. Finally, even if you're a network of 1000 users who are all operating off 1 server and 1 broadband (DSL, I believe SDSL to work slightly differently for IP assignment) connection, the check sock function (at least has the ability to) check by MAC address, thus narrowing to one computer.

I'd also like to add that the only plausible explanation for your network setup is some sort of filter (imposed by the church of scientology, by any chance?). The following filters do NOT warrant the described network setup, because their policies can be defined by enforced software, which is cheaper and much more efficient. The network load on a 1k client network would be... overwhelming for the best of servers. Anyway, the filters: Spam filter (email) - software is available commercially and open-source to prevent unsolicited emails. Most email browsers come with this pre-installed. Firewall (virus filter) - again, this is available in both hardware and software format, neither needing a 1000 pc network. Spam filter (virus) - most firewalls will block incoming spam that has been created by a virus. Web filter - my very own router has one of these, allbeit a bit basic. You can configure any standard PC/router network to block websites (although some require inputting all websites you want blocking which is time-consuming, there is commercially available software which is much more efficient and again, for home use).

So, you see, I don't understand why you're on a 1000PC network. I'd put it down to a poorly configured workplace network, but you said you weren't at work. Yoda 08:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yoda, I commend your up front acknowledgment and I will follow suit. Unlike yourself, I have no interest in the Scientology debate. Perhaps also unlike yourself, I have a great deal of experience in networks, network administration, internet access, ISP's, BGP routing and hosting services. A user network of over 1000 PC's with a single IP gateway is not uncommon for many large companies. And, although I saw no claim that all 1000 users are simultaneously accessing the internet, even if they were, a single source (outbound) IP would still not be uncommon.


 * Your suggestion that Multiple IP's are required to share across 'multiple lines' is also incorrect. Multiple servers (gateways) can provide connectivity from multiple upstream ISP's and still all route to a single http gateway (proxy) for web traffic. Additionally, it is not uncommon for a company to have an off-site http proxy, which can be used by multiple company locations. The off-site proxy can have 1gbps connectivity, far in excess of the limited DSL and SDSL services you suggest.


 * Unless you have specific knowledge of the network you are discussing, then it is a bit uninformed to suggest the limitations you describe or to imply that that the network is poorly configured.


 * Lsi john 18:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to say, but I am not on Wikipedia to discuss the nature, technology or bandwidth of my internet access (not that I would know much about those things at all) but to edit articles in my area of competence. So if you have a question let me know, otherwise sorry again that I can't make much out of what you wrote. COFS 18:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Spring?
Falling leaves in autumn? Lsi john 03:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Metaphoric for "unimportant because it is so usual that it hurts" or something like that. COFS 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah. ok. It's as significant as saying Grass is Green. Lsi john 03:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ECHR article
I invite you to read the my response to your comments on my talk page, as well as my actual edit. It seems your revert may have been a knee-jerk reaction rather than thought through, and you may wish to self-revert. Best, Really Spooky 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

June 2007 My Mistake
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Church of Scientology. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~ Wi ki  her mit  (HermesBot) 00:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please look at my changes before you are blasting around here. Tilman reverted perfectly sourced changes and put text in which is a clearcut WP:POV violation and full of weaselwords (which is another WP violation). COFS 00:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its cited. You can't removed unsourced matter because you don't like it. -- ~ Wi ki  her mit  (HermesBot) 00:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish it would be. But the reference does not say what the article text claims. Please look at it. COFS 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles do not satisfy reliable primary or secondary source requirements. Therefore, the Foster Report article cannot be used as a citation for the claim. Lsi john 02:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict)Okay, your revert was right. :-) Thanks! ~ Wi ki  her mit  (HermesBot) 02:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! COFS 03:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Foster report in Church of Scientology
Simply because you disagree with the conclusions of the Foster report does not mean that it is "non-scientific." (RookZERO 21:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
 * The Forster report is not a scientific report, some crystal-balling over three test results is not scientific behavior and those looking have not been scientists. I do not appreciate your superficial approach to this subject. Get briefed, thank you. COFS 21:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not violate WP:NPA
I give you notice to stop your personal attacks as documented here: Talk:Lee_Baca--Fahrenheit451 23:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sourced material without discussion
Please do not delete sourced material without discussion, as you did in [this edit]. Your failure to assume good faith and remain civil, as demonstrated in your edit comment, is an indicator that you have a conflict of interest on the subject of Scientology. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 19:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not discussing your attempts to ridicule or slander reputable and correct sources. You really should try to understand that this is not a place for anti-Scientology bashings but an encyclopedia. COFS 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No this is the place for NPOV. If verifiable sources say things about Scientology that you don't like, too bad. Do not revert RookZERO's paragraph in the article again either. If you want to dispute it, do it in the talk page. Wikidan829 18:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on the NPOV and I wonder why you are pushing POV edits then. The one Sheffield complains about was a snide remark without any substance and not NPOV while a simple typo was sitting right next to it for weeks and weeks and have not been corrected. So much for correct focus. On the RookZERO edit I might recommend that you are actually researching this matter a little bit and take note that he today reverted the same paragraph the 12th time, against several at least 7 different editors (including me), and most likely the 25th time if you go back in time for a months or so. Now, what are you going to do about him? COFS 19:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I'm pushing POV edits? Please explain. Wikidan829 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not intentionally, I am sure. However "do not revert RookZEROs paragraph" means in essence "accept his revert of your edits and his WP:NPA attacks without doing something about it". That's why I invite you to take a look. The paragraph was changed and stable until Rook started the revert-game a week or so ago. COFS 19:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How is that POV pushing? His edit is completely legitimate. Just because it does not coincide with your view, doesn't mean that it's invalid. I'm sorry but that's what NPOV is all about. Please join the discussion about this on the talk page. Wikidan829 21:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Being slandered
Hey COFS, you are stalked by friend Sheffield, here. Got the better arguments, didn't you. Doesn't stand a debate, this "editor".Misou 01:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This is somewhat of a poor show. If I just could get to actually improve these articles... COFS 02:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war at Scientology
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Chaser - T 19:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. Please enforce this on the other guys too. A "war" usually has two sides and I somehow miss the enforcement for "other side". This might be because they are 5-10 people sharing doing reverts or covert reverts with some minor changes. Please have a look at it, thank you. COFS 19:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What happened here?
I'm gone for a few weeks and whole Scientology pages did a total make over. How that happened? I was trying to do exactly that and I was blown out in little pieces, that's why I left. Bravehartbear 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, welcome back. Well, what happened is that with some insistence the real story about Scientology found its way in the Scientology article and the controversy about the Church of Scientology found its way at least in the related sections of the article. I see this as putting the right data in the right sections, but as you know almost any changes in those dominated articles create some noise and get plenty of anti-editors active to boot out their perceived "opposition". Happens right now, here. COFS 02:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you remember me. There are still some comments there that I made in the talk page. Bravehartbear 05:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting reading, so a few Scientologist got togueter and started to fight the good fight. Where was the back up when I needed it. Ohh I'm happy. Bravehartbear 05:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the ignorance is still there and the "boo-boo, smear the Scientologists" tactics as well. As long as some neutral guys actually look what's happening there is hope for those articles actually being more than just some smeary propaganda pieces of "critics" but real information. COFS 15:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I just wanna hear when they are going to accuse me of being sucket too, I do my edits from a US military base. :-) Bravehartbear 23:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Block
For repeated edit warring along with Misou I've blocked you both for 24 hours. lists Misou as a confirmed sockpuppet. And no, I don't care whether you are sockpuppets or meatpuppers. Repeated edit warring of this sort removing well-sourced information is unacceptable. To then have your meatpuppet give you an award takes a level of chutzpah that I find simply shocking. JoshuaZ 16:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not even closely related and you know that. There is no sock- or meatpuppet, we simply use the same shared IP. Or didn't you read the related discussion from several months ago? Your action just effectively took me out of a community discussion about myself where I now can't edit or respond to what is said about me. I understand your viewpoint based on what you think is right but why do I get punished for having received of some award I did not ask for? Is that a way to get blocked now? Sorry to say but this procedure is not right. COFS 16:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such related discussion, if you could point me to it I'd appreciate it. In the meantime I'm going to unblock you if you are willing to avoid any edit warring whatsoever until these issues are resolved. Is that acceptable? JoshuaZ 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot, here it is. Thanks for the fast response. COFS 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'll stay away from critical articles until the dust has settled. COFS 16:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, one last issue and then I'll unblock. Could you please show me where it was established that you and Misou are in fact unrelated? JoshuaZ 16:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ, I am very disturbed by your recent blocking here of COFS and Misou (by association). As far as I know they are completely different individuals in completely different countries. Blocking for edit warring, would be one thing. But for you to include unnecessary speculation about meat puppetry is uncalled for.


 * As for edit-warring, I have looked at COFS's contribution list and I do not see 3+ reverts in the past 24 hours. As blocks for edit warring are supposed to be preventative and not punitive, I believe your block is inappropriate and request that you unblock with an appropriate unblock-comment to reflect this.


 * While I happen to agree that handing each other barnstars lacks taste, it certainly does not qualify for a block. And, if it does, then please show even handedness and block the above editors for the same offense.


 * using your meatpuppet wording (for editors with similarly strong views) The precedent of meatpuppets handing out barnstars to each other was set here and here.


 * NOTE: I am NOT requesting a block on the other editors. I am pointing out that if one this situation deserves a block for barnstars, then so does the other).


 * I respectfully request that you unblock both editors with appropriate unblocking comments to reflect that the blocks were punitive and that neither editor was edit warring. Lsi john 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JoshuaZ, sorry, I could not find it first in the archive of AN/I, but thanks to Google here is the discussion to establish the shared IP. I never met Misou as far as I follow the edits and comments he/she is living in Europe and sometimes in the US (that is a guess however). COFS 16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm still very skeptical of your claim and see no strong agreement in the discussion you linked to that the two of you are in fact not some form of puppets. I have however for now unblocked you so you can participate in the discussion on the noticeboad. JoshuaZ 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I do understand that. You got my promise on the editing. Please note that you autoblocked my IP (so now I get a different error message when trying to edit the community board). COFS 16:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You should be able to edit, now.--Chaser - T 17:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It works, thank you. COFS 17:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Help
I got an issue in the main Scientology page. In the talk area. Bravehartbear 03:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration notification
Per recommendation from the WP:CSN closure I have initiated Requests_for_arbitration. You are a named party in the request so you may wish to submit a statement to the Committee. Durova Charge! 02:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/COFS
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/COFS. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/COFS/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/COFS/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 22:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Notice:
I suspect nobody told you, and since I hadn't realized it myself, someone probably should tell you....

When the CSN thread was closed, the closing admin noted that you were topic-banned from Scientology articles pending the outcome of further WP:DR, provided it was done timely.

It's unfortunate that nobody posted an official notice here.

so...

Per closing admin @ WP:CSN: you are enjoined from editing Scientology articles pending the outcome of the arbitration.

Peace. Lsi john 14:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All due respect but I think not. That some unnamed editors or editors refrain from editing some unnamed topic or topics was part of a suggested course of action. I know the above sounds a bit like wikilawyering but the simple point is that you do not topic ban someone by suggestion. There is no ban until someone with the authority to enforce it and the accountability that goes with that authority comes over here and specifically tells COFS that s/he has a temporary ban. --Justanother 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. wikipediatrix 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Rather confusing. There has not been any WP:DR process and thus the current "Arbitration" is a mockery of the Arbitration rules at WP:ARB, namely "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process — it is a last resort, only to be employed when all else has failed. Try other steps first, including discussion between disputants and, where appropriate, mediation. The Arbitration Committee only deals with the most serious disputes and cases of rule-breaking.". Let's see if someone with some say says something about it on the arbitration pages. COFS 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I didn't even realize anyone had suggested it. But, since Jehochman had proposed an injunction, and accused COFS of not following the directions of the closing admin, I felt it was important to at least post here to let COFS know that the closing admin actually made a suggestion. Sorry for the legal wording.. thats just me. Peace. Lsi john 02:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this has been stricken now. Thank you for the note anyway. COFS 02:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I struck the request because Lsi john left the above notice. COFS, I really wish you the best and am not trying to get you blocked or banned. During this arbitration you can help your own cause, in my humble opinion by:
 * 1) Looking at your own actions and seeing what you can do to self-improve.  We're ready to help if you want advice.  If you show signs of flexibility and compromise, that's a strong argument against Arbcom placing any restrictions on your editing privileges.
 * 2) Avoid making unsubstantiated criticisms of administrators or the arbitration process.  The case was accepted.  Arguing that the case shouldn't have been accepted is probably a losing proposition.  Administrators aren't perfect, but they are trusted members of the community.  They get the benefit of the doubt, so don't say administrators are bad unless you have specific diffs to back that up.
 * 3) Try not to get involved in conflicts with other editors.  Every edit you make is likely to be scrutinized.  Be exceedingly polite.
 * 4) Trust that if you back away from these conflicts, we will enforce policies against the anti-Scn POV pushers with zeal.
 * 5) Consider requesting a change of username to reduce the "in your face" appearance that the CoS is editing Scn related articles.
 * 6) Even if an editor has an actual COI, that doesn't mean they are prohibited from editing.  There are ways that insiders can monitor their articles and help Wikipedia keep them NPOV.  If the official PR department of CoS would like help doing that, we can point them to useful advice.

I hope you'll try to find common ground with me. Thus far I've come to an understanding with Lsi john and Justanother. While we all aren't in complete agreement, we've learned to be cordial to one another. Jehochman Talk 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts as a kind of mediator. I want to note that I really appreciate your creative proposals. Please - before we go into that - let me put the record straight what holds me back to happily jump onto those. This is the fact that you are a) SEO and might have been part in the 1990s anti-Scientology online campaign on "censorship" and other nonsense including Google bombing etc and b) "trainee" of Durova, whose behavior so far was just unacceptable for an Admin and somebody who claims to "specialize in complex investigations" (results?). No attempt to violate NPA or AGF here, just straight talk. Just so you know.


 * Looking at your own actions and seeing what you can do to self-improve. We're ready to help if you want advice.  If you show signs of flexibility and compromise, that's a strong argument against Arbcom placing any restrictions on your editing privileges.


 * There is room for improvement, no doubt. My task is not to escalate hot debates or to carry them on talk pages instead of going solid and into a revert ping-pong. I am willing to do that, have done that in the past and will increase the efforts in this direction. I however hold the opinion that true application of Wikipedia policy and proper Admin control of hot areas (like the Scientology articles) would markedly improve the quality of the articles and fully prevent such a situation from occurring in the first place. If this means to assign a "babysitter" (as someone (Misou?) proposed some weeks ago) for such articles, then this shall be it. Alternatively I'd prefer to have proper registration and a scale of registration levels for certain areas, i.e. editors in "hot areas" are required to be verified and responsible individuals with their name, contact and credentials on file. I don't know if such policy exists or is in progress but IMHO this would solve the situation and save a lot of energy which should go into competent editing.


 * Avoid making unsubstantiated criticisms of administrators or the arbitration process. The case was accepted.  Arguing that the case shouldn't have been accepted is probably a losing proposition.  Administrators aren't perfect, but they are trusted members of the community.  They get the benefit of the doubt, so don't say administrators are bad unless you have specific diffs to back that up.


 * Ok, I got that. I hold that this ArbCom procedure is jumping the gun. But as you note I am willing to deal with it.


 * Try not to get involved in conflicts with other editors. Every edit you make is likely to be scrutinized.  Be exceedingly polite.


 * Thanks.


 * Trust that if you back away from these conflicts, we will enforce policies against the anti-Scn POV pushers with zeal. 


 * I have not seen that happening in the past. It's surely not happening right now, see Scientology In Australia as an example. There is huge gap between theory and practice here. Also in terms of using unreliable sources - anonymous or fanatic "anti" sources - in articles I haven't seen any correction happening nor any support when I tried to exchange or remove them.


 * Consider requesting a change of username to reduce the "in your face" appearance that the CoS is editing Scn related articles.


 * Good idea. I could think of "Bitch27" or "Shutterbug". How do I do this?


 * Even if an editor has an actual COI, that doesn't mean they are prohibited from editing. There are ways that insiders can monitor their articles and help Wikipedia keep them NPOV.  If the official PR department of CoS would like help doing that, we can point them to useful advice.


 * I'll ask (that's CSI LA, BTW). Any advice right now? Is there anything you can think of what would be needed from the CoS? (I know what I need, more material digitalized).


 * COFS 21:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. To change username, visit Changing username.  I became in independent SEO in 2004.  From 1990 until 2003 I was involved in import/export business with Russia--nothing to do with Usenet.  I was a computer science student before that.  I've never been involved in the Scientology-Internet disputes.  Jehochman  Talk 23:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For God's sake, though, if you do change your username, make sure you make a big showy announcement of it, else certain you-know-whos are certain to try to claim some sort of you-know-what has occurred. wikipediatrix 00:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * wikipediatrix, you are right, that is most likely what is going to happen. I'll take care of that. Names are significances and "COFS" does not tell anything, actually. Jehochman, I want "Shutterbug" (fits to a long-term passion of mine) and have asked for it at Changing username. Thank you very much for your response on your non-involvement in the online farce of the 1990s. I have not been involved either but when looking for the biggest difference between "Scientology and Internet" and "Scientology and real life" I found that some upright Free Speech advocates had been successfully tricked into a anti-Scientology campaign then and some of this nonsense still continues. What's next? COFS 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a great username. I hope you get it. Jehochman  Talk 02:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your request was denied because that name was registered. It hasn't been used, so it is "usurpable".  You can file a request at Changing username/Usurpations to get it.  Good luck. Jehochman  Talk 02:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, did that, thanks. COFS 05:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(reset) Don't forget this step: All users requesting to usurp a username must leave ~ on the talk page of the username being usurped. Jehochman Talk 05:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tried, but there is no talk page, not user page, not even a log showing that this name was registered. ? COFS 05:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You did it. The message is where it needs to be.  Sit back and wait 7 days to see what happens. Jehochman  Talk 05:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So I sat back, and looked and looked, but nothing happened. What do I do next? COFS 04:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)