Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/COFS

Statement by ElC
I defered the case to arbitration, or RfC; I would understand if the Committee opts for the latter &mdash;not so much for lack of dispute resolution attempts, but rather, due to incomprehensibility and the need for some sort pre-evidence, evidence page. El_C 03:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Statement by User:Fahrenheit451
I am not a party to this RfA, but would like to call attention to user page vandalism from User:COFS here: and here: .--Fahrenheit451 19:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Probation
Just out of curiosity, how long will the Scientology related articles remain on probation? Elhector 00:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Essentially indefinite, but see Article probation to see how it gets lifted. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Anyeverybody/Anynobody and Requests_for_arbitration/COFS
From the start it's important to understand that I am here to contribute, I can't boast WP:FA after WP:FA since the subjects I have the most knowledge about are controversial. As such they are difficult to edit into Featured shape. Nor is my edit count as high as our more prolific contributors, however as proof of my commitment I can point to over 250 free images created, enhanced or found and added to the project. (I'd guesstimate 85-90% are images I created or enhanced for the project, while the rest are simply Public Domain images found on government/military websites. I'll lowball my efforts and keep the number at 100 to make things easier for those not mathmatically inclined. 85% of 100 is 85. Many of them took more than a few hours of work and are used on several projects. (Essentially I'm also contributing to the Japanese, German, Hebrew, Vietnamese, Russian (in fact both of the two on this page are mine, the list goes on and includes five or six other languages. It also includes an image nominated for Featured status. I'm not trying to brag, but since people seem to think I'm only about trolling or gaming the system it's important to show that to be untrue. I wouldn't spend so much time helping out to turn around and troll someone while gaming the system.

The case itself was, I thought, going to be about the issue of people using Church of Scientology IPs and open proxies to edit Scientology related articles with a pretty clear view towards affecting the POV of said articles. I honestly thought that Bishonen bringing up the disagreement between Justanother and I was pretty unrelated to the case and that the arbcom would think the same thing. By the time it was clear that they didn't, I was being accused of harassment, thereby making any effort to show past, and more extensive, bad behavior on his part seem like confirmation of my harassment of him. It's very frustrating to have so many people assume bad faith on my part because a popular admin does.

For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS/Workshop. The issue of my supposed harassment was recently brought up in the arbcom, then as now, nobody would give specifics about what was/was not harassment. Certainly reminding him that 3RR rules apply to everyone wouldn't be considered harassment, since it's true: Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive55 If you read the thread itself it should be obvious that I simply wanted to warn him that as he had made the same mistake as the editor he was trying to get blocked. (Please note also that I created both the arbcom thread and the 3RR note in good faith, if I was acting in bad faith, why would I turn around and tell the arbcom about it? I also didn't ask for or insist on a block at any time.)

So I'm asking for the arbcom to either let me explain/address whatever evidence they decided warranted an assumption of bad faith on my part, or failing that allow me to present evidence of how any harassment I could have inflicted is minimized by similar behavior which he initiated first and with other editors (who no longer edit anymore). Why am I bringing this up now? Because Justanother has begun using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage where he is currently arguing against including sourced material about a person who's article was recently deleted but is also mentioned in said article, Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive12 by accusing me of editing the wrong part of neutral reportage before other parts are added as the reason why it's inappropriate to talk about the Salt Lake Tribune's use of Neutral reportage to defeat Barbara Schwarz's defamation suit. He's also been posting on my talk page, which begs the question, if I harassed him, why come back for more?

I think the findings re him and I in the case should be dropped, and any future issues be dealt with through dispute resolution which was essentially skipped before. Going to arbcom for editor disputes in the context of an entirely separate issue seems to be pretty rare, except in this case. (Heck, we skipped Requests for mediation entirely.) Anynobody 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Leaving the issue of the appropriateness of Anyeverybody's (Anynobody or AN) attacks on me here and sticking strictly to the facts, I do want to respond to a couple of AN's misrepresentations here.
 * Comment by Justanother (JustaHulk)
 * Re: "For example Justanother recently cited an example of what he called bad faith on my part:" That is a complete misread of my remark at WP:AE. The bad faith I was referring to was this:"'AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me.'"That is bad faith. The other bit in that remark was clearly an answer to AN's previous question:"'Could you please provide a diff from the arbcom where I pulled 'this crap' and was told why what I did was like/unlike this? (Seriously, I'm not holding a grudge I just can't remember doing anything like what I've identified as harassment. Would you please just show where/when I did the same thing?) Anynobody 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)'"
 * 1) AN accuses me of "using this case to leverage his position on articles like: Neutral reportage". That is a lie - I never tried to use the harassment restriction on AN to my own advantage and, in fact, went out of my way to not make the restriction a problem for him. I did not accuse him of violating it in this case until he brought it up on WP:AE and, even then I did not accuse him of violating it until he did so in a gross and obvious manner. As regards editing together, there is no reason why I would stop taking an interest in the representation of Barbara Schwarz here and if AN intends to continue adding Schwarz material then he can expect my continued interest and involvement. Again, I went out of my way to NOT make our disagreement in the article have anything to do with the harassment ruling and I repeatedly clarified for him that he is perfectly free to seek WP:DR on any issues related to article content that we may have. Gotta run now but that pretty well sums it up. Thanks. --JustaHulk (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

AN constantly claims that he does not understand the ruling but when it is clearly explained to him, he ignores the explanation and grossly violates it by trotting out his collections of old, out-of-context diffs regarding me If it ever was explained I honestly don't remember or didn't see it. Please assume good faith and show me where it was explained when/how my behavior crossed into the area of harassment. The examples I've cited are not out of context when discussing the difference between harassment and acceptable behavior. If

This: and ...is harassment...
 * 3/8 The attempted WP:RfC/U by myself, Smee and perhaps other editors who found themselves unable to resolve their disputes with him.
 * Answering a question about it posed by a neutral editor during my RfA
 * Asking neutral editors where I went wrong
 * 6/19 Is it a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

If one assumes good faith I tried to resolve a dispute involving several editors through dispute resolution, requested admin tools to help with some backlogs and in the process answered a question, then asked for independent feedback, later asking uninvolved admins if it is a personal attack to document an editor's uncivil behavior?

If one assumes bad faith, I'm not sure what they think I was doing because they'd have to assume I was out to attack him rather than resolve disputes. This doesn't describe the situation because I'd never intentionally set out to attack someone, since it doesn't actually solve anything and would actually work against me.

...and...

this: ...wasn't, what's the difference?
 * (Note, these diffs are Justanother posting his disputes regarding Smee's editing on WP:ANI/WP:AN3R and that none of them are about me. Why bring up his dealings with Smee up? To show that I'm not trying to attack him when I say other editors have had difficulty editing with him, and help explain why I felt the RfC/U was appropriate. Diffs before the RfC/U are underlined)*

If one assumes good faith Justanother was simply being diligent about perceived violations of the rules regarding this editor. If one assumes bad faith, he was following an editor who was being recognized for adding material he found objectionable.

I honestly think the difference is that people do not assume good faith on my part, based on accusations by a popular admin who no longer seems to be editing here and didn't take the time to actually look at the conversation/context of what she cited as evidence. I never even asked that he be blocked, and have said numerous times that I don't want to see anyone banned. Even now I'm asking just that ordinary dispute resolution be used for future disagreements and am not and never have asked for him to be ruled against. Accusing me of editing under bad faith given these facts has been hard to come to grips with. Anynobody 07:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only specific finding against you was that you were prohibited from harassing Justanother. Another finding specifically said it implied nothing about your editing. As no-one is allowed to harass another user (see WP:HARASS) the effect is to specifically order you not to do something that you should not have been doing anyway. The article probation for all scientology articles affects you just as much as every other editor. In those circumstances I see no cause to interfere with the remedies in this case. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I should explain that I'm not asking for article probation to be changed. Did you see this finding? Requests for arbitration/COFS I have been blocked twice for trying to find out more information about it, Requests for arbitration/COFS. Anynobody 21:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed this submission and see no need for any clarification or modification of the remedies at this time. I suggest that you drop this matter and proceed with your editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining what in your review leads you to say that? Or, with all due respect, is this another comment you can't or won't explain? (If you're just backing up you know who then please say so.) Anynobody 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to strengthen the remedies against Anynobody. What we have in place does not seem sufficient to deter the constant low-level baiting and bad faith that he repeatedly demonstrates, such as the post above. Jehochman  Talk 23:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Little Jehochman correct. Jehochman already much patience and little avail. Anynobody back in very stubborn mode from which arbcom attempted discouragement, see little 'shonen RFAR/COFS evidence. 'Zilla propose special remedy for unusual Anynobody case: Anynobody prohibited from making other users tear their hair out in frustration. Enforcement: on evidence substantial portions pre-existent hair missing, any admin block Anynobody briefly, up to a month for repeat offenses. After five blocks, maximum block increase to one year.   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    10:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).

Folks it's amazing that I have to point this out to such experienced editors but here goes; If it's really bad faith on my part all that is necessary for one of them to simply provide a diff/diffs showing where my questions were clearly answered. I mean no offense to Newyorkbrad but my point was if he had engaged in a discussion rather than ignoring my reply then I'd be unable in good conscience ask it here again. For example if one looks at the old history of the talk page where I was supposedly told the RfC was improper they'll note that the admin's concerns were about attempts by Smee and myself to resolve my dispute with Justanother but said nothing about the dispute between Smee and Justanother I cited above which Smee was hoping to get resolved. (As I have always said, if the issue was just the disagreement between Justanother and I, a third opinion would've been my choice. However given All I am asking for is an explanation of why the arbcom found I had harassed anyone in my efforts to pursue dispute resolution. I'm asking because I assume good faith in the processes here. Anynobody 00:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You really need to drop this. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

jpgordon why did you vote for this:Requests for arbitration/COFS? You could help resolve this by explaining. Anynobody 00:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anynobody, if you want to prove that you aren't the sort to harass people, the best way of doing so is by not harassing people. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer I honestly don't think I have. Are you talking about asking jpgordon why he voted for Requests for arbitration/COFS/Proposed decision? He really seemed to support it, so it should be easy enough to explain why. Is it really harassing to ask why? There honestly must be some kind of misunderstanding, finding out his pov (why he voted that way) is the first logical step in straightening it out. Please understand I am not trying to prove deliberate wrongdoing on anyone's part, only trying to find out how the line was crossed in the eyes of the arbcom. All that would entail is them saying my behavior here [diff] was harassment because: the reason. It appears as though they share Bishonen's declared assumption of bad faith regarding me, which I think is a mistake. If she doesn't want to discuss it then that's ok, I'm not trying to force her to however in the name of fairness I'd hope the arbcom would. Anynobody 06:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A prior case involving harassment was very clear:Arbitration policy/Past decisions I totally understand the findings in this case, it's obviously harassment to add links to webpages which attack or harass other users or to sites which regularly engage in such activity are responsible for their actions. I tried to open a WP:RFC/U with other editors, it's hard to see the similarity. Anynobody 06:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Has the argument "He harassed someone else so I can harass him back" ever worked? Your essential argument is that because user:Smith harassed user:Jones, you should not be punished for harassing user:Smith.  You ignore the facts that user:Smith's harassment was months ago, while your harassment continues to this day; and that user:Smith has promised to mend his ways (and appears to have done so) while you seem persistently ignorant of the problem.  I am loathe to actually ban someone from the pages of the dispute resolution process but you are heading in that directing mighty quick. Thatcher 14:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Amendment request: COFS

 * Original Request

Initiated by  Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) at 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Remedy 7


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator)
 * I've left a message at Talk:Scientology as I can't think of any individual users this affects.


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * Talk:Scientology


 * Information about amendment request


 * Vacate Remedy 7 as the topic area is also covered by discretionary sanctions from the.

Statement by Callanecc
The Scientology topic is currently covered by both article probation and discretionary sanctions which allow a much greater latitude to deal with disruptive behaviour. I'm requesting that the Committee vacate the article probation provision in preference to the discretionary sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Carter
I can see no real reason for the article to have redundant sanctions to the broader topic, and can't see any reason for the redundancy, with perhaps the one proviso that if for whatever reason the remaining sanctions get lifted, perhaps having the article probation restored or at least consideration of such restoration. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Statement by {other user}
{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).


 * Recuse Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * As a practical matter, the discretionary sanctions supersede the article probation. I'm not sure that any formal action is necessary, but will defer to the arbitrators who led the recent DS review and the related update/clean-up motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There should be no need for a separate article probation now that the area is under standard DS, and we should vacate it to avoid confusion. Proposing motion. T. Canens (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Intuitively I agre with Brad, but I'm fine with doing so. NativeForeigner Talk 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Question I should probably know the answer to: wasn't this situation handled in the wording of the relatively new DS motions? Why is this motion even needed? Isn't it kind of like proposing a motion that "policy will be followed"? Sure, it's hard to vote against, but I don't get the point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Motion
Remedy 7 of the COFS arbitration case is vacated with immediate effect. Any extant enforcement actions taken under the remedy remain in force, and shall be treated as if they were imposed under standard discretionary sanctions authorized by remedy 4.1 of the Scientology case.


 * There are currently 11 active arbitrators for purposes of this motion, so a majority is 6.


 * Support:
 * T. Canens (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 02:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  02:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Simple enough to do for housekeeping. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep,  Roger Davies  talk 09:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose it's quicker to just stop whining and support than ask questions, but this certainly seems unnecessary. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments: