Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-09-14 Church of Scientology Moscow versus Russia

Who are the involved parties?

 * User:Fahrenheit451(yours truly)
 * User:Misou
 * User:Really Spooky
 * User:Shutterbug
 * User:Stan_En
 * User:Su-Jada
 * User:Wikipediatrix
 * User:Makoshack

What's going on?
As with a number of scientology-related articles, there is an ongoing edit war. This one is over the inclusion or exclusion of one sentence.--Fahrenheit451 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
Article editors applying Wikipedia policy and guidelines. End the edit war.--Fahrenheit451 20:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediator notes
If you don't mind, I would like to mediate the case. Could you please state what the edit warring is over? What sentence do you want to include? Why don't other users want to add it? What articles are included? Alpta 14:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
Apta, do you want me to notify the involved parties or shall you do that?--Fahrenheit451 15:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Apta, the lesson learned from the thread arrangement dispute in this mediation indicates that to prevent such a thing from occuring, each user should have their own discussion space. One user can respond to another by citing diffs. Also, users should always sign their comments to date stamp and attribute them, thus preventing confusion. I have never seen such a thing before, however, in my 2 and 1/2 years of editing Wikipedia! --Fahrenheit451 07:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
The sentence in controversy is: "The Working Group's statement does not provide any information on the identity or qualifications of the people who prepared it."--Fahrenheit451 15:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Really Spooky claims the sentence is sourced here:. I have not been about to locate the sentence in that document, nor has Really Spooky pointed this out on the article discussion page up to this time.--Fahrenheit451 01:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What is the controversy over it? Does it not content with WP:NPOV? Does the statement have a source? Alpta 15:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement is not sourced and is an editor's comment.--Fahrenheit451 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the solution is quite simple. You need a source that states who (if anyone) provided the information on the statement. Can a source not be found? Alpta 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this case, but I'd like to highlight the specific definition in Attribution: "Material counts as original research if it ... introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article." Policy requires such material to be properly sourced, particularly if it's controversial. -- ChrisO 19:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (Also not involved but interested) Chris, on quick glance I agree that the statement casting any unsourced aspersions, no matter how subtle, on the working group's evaluation is original research. I am glad to see that you and F451 take as strong a stand on the impropriety of subtle and not-so-subtle OR as I do. That will come in handy later as we work together to rid this project of non-notable, non-RS original research. --Justanother 16:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The statement from the working group is perfectly sourced. WP:OR comes in when Really Spooky pushes a sentence wich denies it. Its also POV because it gives the impression that the opposing WP:OR interpretations from editors is better than the explanation in a reliable source. The rest of the article is mainly OR.-- Stan talk 11:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alpta, the disputed sentence is clearly sourced. You can see the link here  immediately after the text F451 deleted.


 * F451 knows this, because I have pointed it out twice already. The first time was here, and the second time was here  when I assumed good faith that F451 had simply misunderstood.


 * I should note that the source is a primary source. However, it is a primary source for the entire section as well, and the use is appropriate as it is merely descriptive and not interpretive (see WP:PSTS in fine).


 * F451’s real objection is not the lack of a source, but his perception that the disputed sentence casts doubt on the credibility of the Working Group’s statement. However, neither he nor any other editor disputes the truth of the disputed sentence, which is sourced.  As a matter of substance, the disputed sentence contributes to the article because the Working Group’s statement makes a number of categorical assertions about the ‘true’ interpretation and significance of the Court’s judgment.


 * For the sake of context, I should note that although there had been a dispute involving several parties last week, this had calmed down with no activity for several days until F451 came along to re-stir the pot. So you may need to take his claimed wish to 'stop the edit war' with a grain of salt.  You may also not be aware that F451 has repeatedly engaged in provocative behaviour toward at least two of the ‘involved editors’ bordering on harassment (Shutterbug here and Wikipediatrix here).  His intervention in the matter seems to be a continuation of this pattern.  He has now extended his attacks to me with repeated and baseless accusations of incivility and the peremptory tone of a self-appointed Wikipedia enforcement officer, apparently in an attempt to intimidate. -- Really Spooky 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Really Spooky's take on the matter. wikipediatrix 05:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really Spooky, in the document cited, please describe where the above quoted statement is. I could not find any such statement. -Fahrenheit451 01:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, I do not know that. You have not provided a citation for the statement in an article that is referenced. If it exists, please provide it.--Fahrenheit451 01:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, it looks to be like you are violating WP:AGF with your false accusations. You have not been able to provide a citation for the sentence. Again, please show us where in that reference it exists.--Fahrenheit451 01:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Really Spooky, you are creating your own context here which demonstrates a disregard for and violation of WP:AGF. Your personal attack on me misdirects from the matter at hand, which is an uncited sentence there has been an ongoing edit war about.  I requested this mediation to resolve this point.  Here is your opportunity to show us where the sentence is in that document.--Fahrenheit451 01:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

1) I don't know of any reliable source wich contradicts the disputed source despite CoS and its front groups. I don't think the source is controversial. Further more the work group is often cited in reputable publications. 2) The document states clearly in the head who autorized and published it and it is published on the same government website. The work group is part of the municipal office of the interior of Hamburg. The website itself makes clear legal notes. 3) A GO and not the author is responsible for its publication. GO's give usually only notice over authorship if they cite a third party. This makes perfectly sence because the GO and not the authors are legaly responible for its publications. 4) Why is such a sentence not inserted whenever the CIA WorldFactbook or state.gov is cited ? Is there a WP policy wich excludes the "biased" German Government from this ? 5) I didn't even dispute or delete the sentence wich states that it is only an opinion by the workgroup. But the disputed sentence is ridiculous. -- Stan talk 11:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

6) examples that show that it is normal that Governments don't cite its authors ..· the logic, ReallySpoky is following is just amazing -- Stan talk 11:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * state.gov and no comment in WP about the lack of authors here(but I inserted it, lets wait how long it takes till someone adds a comment)
 * Even Britannica isn't reliable anymore (no author or its qualification mentioned) ? ... but still good enough in WP (wrong but not a GO anyway).

new issue 7) So more I think about it so more I also dispute the other sentence wich makes the "opinion" claim. It is POV to call the only reliable source wich explains the court ruling "an opinion" as long no one presents a source wich contradicts it. Otherwise we would have to state in almost every other section that the text  prestented only the opinion or interpretation by some editors here. The term "opinion" suggests too much that other reliable sources dispute it wich is apparently not true. It should be reduced to only this existing statement in the section: "The Scientology Working Group of the City of Hamburg posted comments on the city's website, in English, containing its assessment of the judgment and its implications." However, the other sentence is far more important and blatant POV and discrediting the source without a cause. I won't delete the "opinion claim" unless editors agree  agree with me but think that this "assessment of the judgment" part from the first sentence already shows what it is.-- Stan talk 16:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit451, I have moved your last posts below mine as per WP:TALK. In the future please refrain from breaking up other editors’ posts in this way, because it makes it difficult for other readers to follow them.


 * User:Really Spooky, I believe you are misunderstanding the Guideline, you evidently missed this point:"Separate multiple points with whitespace: If a single post has several points, it makes it clearer to separate them with a paragraph break (i.e. a blank line)." Your moving my comments was unecessary.--Fahrenheit451 22:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * But you didn’t separate your points with blank lines, did you? You broke up my post and wove your comments in between.  And you couldn’t resist immediately doing it once again, even after I specifically and politely asked you not to.  I find your behaviour deliberately provocative. -- Really Spooky 00:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really Spooky, I answered your post point by point. I object to your Uncivil characterisation "you broke up my post" and "you couldn't resist immediately doing it once again". I suggest you stay on topic and not focus and dwell on captious interpretations of the format guideline.--Fahrenheit451 03:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Alpta, I think the comments of F451 and Stan En pretty much speak for themselves, but I would like to highlight a couple points. F451 is now changing his position from saying the information is unsourced to saying that it is not a direct quote.  Of course it was never presented as such and that is not the standard required by Wikipedia; if it was, 99% of content would have to be removed.  As I already noted above, the sentence is a description of a primary source that is complaint with WP:PSTS, i.e. it is (1) easily verifiable by any reader and (2) non-evaluative.  As for Stan En’s comments, as you can see his real objection (like F451) is not the lack of a source, but his perception that the disputed sentence casts doubt on the credibility of the Working Group’s statement.  He does not dispute the truth of the sentence, but rather considers it to be ‘ridiculous’.  Stan En is of course entitled to his personal opinion, but the sentence contributes to the article because it is factual, notable and relevant to the section.


 * Stan En, you continue to make the assertion that government organisations don’t identify their authors in reports. I already responded to that here, where I demonstrated to you with multiple examples that US Government reports do, in fact, normally identify their authors.  I also note that if you had read to the end of the Britannica article you provided as an example, you would have discovered that it too gives the identity and qualifications of its authors .  Of course I accept that some reports do not give their authors or their qualifications, and no, I do not think it is necessary to highlight that omission in every case.  Sometimes those documents merely report facts or observations without making any evaluation of matters requiring specialist knowledge.  In this case, however, the Working Group makes some quite categorical assertions about a matter in which it has no known expertise (European human rights law).
 * PS – As for your assertion that something should not be called an ‘opinion’ unless it is contradicted, I’m afraid I cannot agree. Quite the opposite; an expressed viewpoint remains an opinion until and unless it is confirmed as a fact to a recognised standard.  However I would have no objection to changing the word 'opinion' to 'comments', i.e. the very description used by the Working Group itself. -- Really Spooky 22:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * comments instead opinion is fine with me. Right, I was sloppy with Britanica but it isn't a GO anyway. I already said that GO's only state the author if a third party was cited or involved. That was the case in your example. Read it again because it doesn't state what role this people played but only thanked for their support. Only people are listed wich didn't work for the GO there. -- Stan talk 22:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC) Another example where a factbook is used to even cite a controversial claim.(without authors included of course)-- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Its the best source we have right now for the article. If you think the assesement was wrong you should bring up other reliable sources wich have a "different opinion". If the German Government is not able or qualified to evaluate a court ruling like you think you could also find reputable source wich says so. In that case I would even vote for complete deletion of this section but doubt that you will find one. Only OR from editors or cringe-making Propaganda and lies from CoS. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 23:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Really Spooky falsely states that I have changed my position, which I have not. The sentence in contention is not a direct quote, is an editor's opinion, is an evaluation, and is original research. Thus, it is unsourced. It should be left out of the article.--Fahrenheit451 22:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What part of the sentence "The Working Group's statement does not provide any information on the identity or qualifications of the people who prepared it." is, in your view, an opinion or an evaluation? -- Really Spooky 00:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That sentence is an evaluation and an opinion.--Fahrenheit451 03:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please don't add a whole new sections if I already answered below . Yes, I mainly contest the sentence and ever did because it is blatant POV if such a sentence is inserterted exclusivly for this GO without a reason but for your convinience. The sentence is like a warning "be cautious about following !". You still didn't bring one single reliable source wich justifies such discrediting statement. If it would be common practice to do so I would understand but it is not. I already explained you often enough now why. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 00:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The German Government was never involved nor affected from this court ruling. No reliable source stated that, only some editors. Isn't it rather a secondary than primary source ? -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 01:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, Germany canceled its COE membership? I had not heard that. Stan, you got bought off by German anti-Scientology propaganda. Certainly a ECHR judgment is valid for the whole of the COE member states and that includes Germany. They don't like it, ok, they lie about it, as usual, and they will have to follow it anyway. Shutterbug 17:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a great conspiricy going on and all newspapers and 46 Governments lie or don't tell us. Do you have have a reliable source wich states that more countries than russia are affected from the ECHR judgment ? Otherwise, this ECHR judgment is valid only for russia like the source states. --- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 17:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Does that mean you did not even read the judgment? And that you did not even bother to find out how many member states the COE has? Sorry, I don't understand you Germans. You are not on an island, kapiert? Read what you are talking about and we can save a lot of time here. Then read this (it's good for you) and then this one, and finally this one. Shutterbug 22:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I read the judgement and know how many member states the COE has. I left out russia because it is the controversial case we are discussing about. BTW, you have the same habit like user:Misou who also likes to indroduce German language.(kapiert) But I shoudn't be surprised ?!.-- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 23:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Great that you read the judgment. So why do we have a discussion here. It clearly sets case law for all 47 COE states. As for your comment on Misou and myself, well, "ganz schoen frech", or in wikipedian: Knock off your WP:NPA violations and stop attempting to disrupt this discussion (also here. As you seem to have so much attention on this checkuser stuff, I should ask how many sock puppets you are hiding. I've been through all testing machinery, smear and degradation the WP system can muster up and came out clean. I think it's time to get you checked out for real. Shutterbug 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * not sure if you doubt the number of member nations but if you do you should read this old comment I was the one who insisted to correct the number. I re-introduced the number 46 because I left out Russia wich is the only affected country. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather confusing, but I understand your comment now. Shutterbug 02:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back on topic before it was sidetracked by rearrangement of threads, the sentence in contention "The Working Group's statement does not provide any information on the identity or qualifications of the people who prepared it." is not a direct quote, and not a paraphrased quote that is citable, therefore, it is an editor's opinion, it is an evaluation, and it is Original research. Thus, the quoted sentence is Not compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines on editing. --Fahrenheit451 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Good-bye
Alpta, as you can see from:

1. this exchange:  

2. this exchange: 

3. and this piece of childish mischief: 

…F451 and Stan En are just abusing this forum to continue their game of tag-team trolling. I did make an honest effort to engage the process, however, notwithstanding their previous behaviour. Best, -- Really Spooky 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 3)"tag-team trolling" I don't remember that I ever backed up Fahrenheit before. Only because two editors agree on one issue you disagree with you shouldn't place such accusations. You just violated WP:NPA. Fahrenheit informed me about this because I was one of the most involved parties in the dispute. I don't know why but Alpta didn't inform me on September 15 and thats why Fahrenheit did on September 17. I moved one contribution from you because you inserted it in a section where I already answered. If I wouldn't have done that I would have to change my reply because it wasn't appropriate anymore wich would have been a manipulation. I am confident that Alpta is and was aware about everything here and if something was inappropriate he would have told us. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 19:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The diffs speak for themselves. You and F451 cut out a segment of one of my posts, moved it and another one around the page, added a note that I ‘did not sign’ one of them after artificially removing it from its context, and then reverted my attempt to restore it to its original place.  That is a childish 'tit-for-tat' response to my legitimate and polite request that F451 not break up my posts.  It is also disruptive and demonstrates that you are not interested in a normal mediation but only using this a forum for further provocative behaviour, as the other diffs I cited also show. -- Really Spooky 20:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really Spooky, I believe you did some rearrangement of the threads for reasons unknown like here: and here:, but we are not dwelling on that as you seem to be. You moved my reply to a post of yours to another location on the page . Clearly, you are violating WP:AGF. There is no conspiracy against you as you strongly imply.--Fahrenheit451 00:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, you know better and once again are engaging in deliberate obfuscation. Diff 23 above is Stan En's edit, not mine.  In Diffs 24 and 25 above I only moved my own text back to its original location after you dismembered it.  As for the other text movements in diff 25, you have created the illusion that I made them by spanning 13 intermediate edits.  But they were actually performed by you and Stan En.  So I see you are willing to stoop to deceit as well.  Happy trolling. -- Really Spooky 04:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Really Spooky, You are clearly violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL by your accusatory use of the words "deliberate obfuscation", "dismembered", "stoop to deceit" and "Happy trolling". It looks like Stan En inadvertently moved your Unsigned edit in diff 23. I think it is evident Stan En and I are not conspiring against you! In diff 24 you moved your unsigned text back.  In diff 25, you definitely move my reply to another location, which makes the thread more difficult to follow.--Fahrenheit451 06:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I share the impression that you two are ganging up on Really Spooky. Right at the time you ran out of arguments. Poor show. Bah. Shutterbug 06:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Shutterbug, too bad you have that impression. However, this "Good Bye" section is a tangent off the discussion about the inclusion or exclusion of a single sentence that is, documentably, Original Research. --Fahrenheit451 07:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Really Spooky, I moved one section from your text because I thought you inserted it after I answered. I checked again and realize that I was wrong. Sorry, feel free to move your section back. You could have told me and I would have reversed my edit instantly. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 07:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Justanother
I have not been involved in the article but I just reviewed it and reviewed the Hamburg opinion. The only real question I see is whether the Hamburg nanny nanny boo boo belongs in the article at all, i.e. is it notable. The Hamburg group is saying that ECHR did not make a ruling on the CofS vis-a-vis article 9 but only that, since Russia had a history of considering the CofS as a religious organization, article 11 was infringed in light of article 9 (huh?) and anyway, the decision doesn't really apply to us here in Germany and nanny nanny boo boo. Is it notable? Where is the press on the notability of this "reaction"? If it is decided that it belongs then, as I said above, I agree with F451 that the statement casting any unsourced aspersions, no matter how subtle, on the working group's evaluation is original research. I am glad to see that F451 and other critics of Scientology take as strong a stand on the impropriety of subtle and not-so-subtle OR as I do. That will come in handy later as we work together to rid this project of non-notable, non-RS original research. --Justanother 16:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is very noteable because it explains all consequences due to the judgement not only for Germany but all member nations of ECHR especially Russia. However, I would prefer for this assesment a different source if available like state.gov because some editors and CoS think that Germany is on some way affected due to the judgement. If that would be true it would be a primary source wich should be avoided if possible. But as long nobody introduces a reliable source wich supports this claim it is fine and it is still the only source wich explains the consequences in the article so clearly.-- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 04:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why is a biased local group a "reliable source". I may as well say that a CofS press release about what the ruling means is a reliable source. Neither are reliable sources but at least the Church's claims are relevant to the article because the ruling was about the Church. So what the Church claims belongs in the article. The Hamburg opinion is just that, an opinion by an uninvolved and biased group that has no bearing on anything. I am not sure it is notable or belongs in the article. It is not relevant in a notable sense. --Justanother 13:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course everyone can say its biased or doubt reliability of everything. But the work group is 1) often cited 2) government organizations from democratic countries are usually reliable 3) no other established reliable source contradicts the claims. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 17:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Feel free to find more reliable sources wich you consider as not biased and insert them. I don't want to push this source but its the only one we have right now. -- Stan <tt>talk</tt> 17:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural reasons for not naming the authors
There is quite a specific tradition in member cities of the Hanse. In a spirit of equality, senators and other elected and unelected members of the city administration refuse to accept decorations. For example former german chancellor Helmut Schmidt repeatedly refused to accept the Bundesverdienstkreuz arguing that he was a former senator of the city of Hamburg. Details (in german) here:. So the quite plausible reason that the authors of this paper are not named might just be that traditional modesty of public servants. I hope that this probably not very widely known detail will further the proper appreciation of this case, should there still be any need. --Ministry of Truth 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Not signing a legal paper is more a sign of irresponsibility, anonymously hiding behind a title or office like civil servants tend to do, and has nothing of a "traditional modesty of hanseatic public servants". Makoshack 00:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Makoshack, your statement is entirely your opinion. You have no facts on the motives of those on the commission.--Fahrenheit451 00:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not claim otherwise. Remarkably you did not indicate the same - though it is as true - to "Ministruy of Truth" and his opinion of "hanseatic modesty". Your bias thus again is obvious which makes your comment a classical WP:NPA violation. I would appreciate if you could stick to editing articles. Thank you very much. Makoshack 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Makoshack, you falsely accuse me of a personal attack. There was no attack.  What does that indicate about you?  Ministry of Truth is clearly making a speculation, which you clearly did not do in your comment to him. I suggest you abide by WP:AGF in your conduct towards other editors here on Wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 04:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, book burner activity here too. MoT simply missed the whole concept here, that's all. Forgive him and move on. Misou 17:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)