Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 1,635: Line 1,635:
:''Thank you little blueboy. Appreciate! 'Zilla now unblocking accounts. JustaHulk, please make sure use ONE account only and state clearly here what name use. Somebody check scary autoblocker please? bishzilla ROARR!! 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC).''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=202136420]
:''Thank you little blueboy. Appreciate! 'Zilla now unblocking accounts. JustaHulk, please make sure use ONE account only and state clearly here what name use. Somebody check scary autoblocker please? bishzilla ROARR!! 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC).''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=202136420]
Despite the odd syntax, the intent is clear. And per the linked discussion the community had already agreed to limiting him to one account at minimum, before it agreed to siteban. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Despite the odd syntax, the intent is clear. And per the linked discussion the community had already agreed to limiting him to one account at minimum, before it agreed to siteban. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

====Additional incivility by Justallofthem====
"Oh shut up, Jehochman"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Proposed_decision&diff=289899398&oldid=289894318] With the edit summary "STFU".


===Cirt is not an SPA===
===Cirt is not an SPA===

Revision as of 04:52, 15 May 2009

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Jossi

I can see that despite my request to be removed as a party, I gather that the ArbCom has decided not to accept my request. Well, I have no evidence to present as I have not been involved in editing these articles; my only interaction in this regard were a couple of comments at WP:AE. If during the course of this arbitration, I find anything useful to offer, I surely will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Durova. There is no doubt that Cirt has worked on related articles and brought them to FA standards, but having reviewed one of them and having participated in its FAR review, all I can say is this: Cirt writes (past and present) with a very specific and too obvious POV resulting in sometime hopelessly biased articles, that only by vigorous debate and collaboration make it through the process. Sure, we can say that this is the Wikipedia way and there is nothing better than that kind of friction to generate excellent articles, but Cirt's prolific involvement in these type of articles sometime results in real problems. Note that I am not defending here any of the CoS editors that have engaged in similar behavior, just that they are two sides of the same coin, and both have to be cautioned. I am still unconvinced of Cirt's "turnaround", all I see is the same MO, just more cautious, playing it close to the boundaries of what is permissible, building enough good will through other contributions as if that would gave him permission to getting away with it... until caught in fraganti and challenged. I know that the community gives good contributors the benefit of the doubt when we make mistakes (as we all do from time to time, as you well know) but that is not a carte blanche or a permission to misbehave. Cirt turnaround will become real, when he learns not only to do research for articles in Lexis/Nexis, Google Books, Questia, and whatever other tools he uses, but being able to write articles that are neutral, unbiased and devoid of innuendo. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: after Jossi himself just changed the NPA policy. (a) I warned the user before expanding a point in the NPA policy, check the difss; (b) the only addition was discussed with Risker in my talk page, and later on discussed on the talk page (ongoing); (c) The discussion at Talk: Rick Ross is unrelated to this arbitration. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Cirt: What does your evidence about me has to do with this case? If you have concerns about my edits, you can address them in the respective talk pages. I am really puzzled by your comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this is the comment I placed on that user's talk page. Judge for yourself if the comment was pertinent, and a good summary of our polices: [1] ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Will Beback: What does that evidence has to do with this dispute? I fail to see the relevance. This is an arbitration about Scientology (which I never edited), not about Sarah Palin, Osho, or Prem Rawat. And thank you btw for the work on these diffs, as these are good examples of useful debates about the use of sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Justallofthem (formerly Justanother)

Cirt fabricated material from unreliable source(s)

Cirt added (here) an utterly WP:OR misrepresentation of tabloid material that was, in itself, questionable to start with. Blatant "errors" include use of an article in MAGWATCH, which appears to be a column about gossip mags. This article is entitled "A ring of truth, but only about the lies (emphasis added)" which should give any editor pause before quoting from it; engaging in WP:OR generalization to invent that "Scientology has "sex lessons" which can be given to couples" when the article is clearly about Tom and Kate, not about Scientology in general; disregarding WP:BLP; failing to see if there is any other reliable source that mentions Scientologists taking "sex lessons". There is not and there are no such in Scientology; oh, and calling it "one of the more notable headlines" is a definite reach. The article simply calls it one of "a slew of blaring headlines" about Katie that indicate that she is popular fodder for the gossip mags.

Cirt takes a one-sided approach to the validity of sources

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

Lermanet vs. Scientologymyths - Different exactly how?

The DeWolf affidavit was previously linked to (www.freewebtown.com/luana/rondewolf-july87.pdf) here to a site that has been reported as an "attack site" as in malware of some sort. I do not believe the malware report was on the specific file(s) in question but rather on the site overall, freewebtown.com (incidentally, I just checked and it seems fine now). Cirt removed the link, here, citing "rm sources which link to attack site, dubious site anyways". I agree with that on both counts. For the sake of our discussion here I performed a Google search and found the document on the scientologymyths.info site. Cirt said of that site "But these particular sites being linked to are dubious, and written by certain individuals from within the Church of Scientology tasked for certain specific purposes. Not reliable sites, not even safe sites." When Jayen brought up the analogous Lerma site, Cirt's comment was "Ref 8 is not an "attack site", though it is self-published. Could be a matter for discussion at WP:RSN, however." I want to compare these site and Cirt's analysis of each. To me they are exactly analogous and I find Cirt's reluctance to deal with them equivalently disturbing and again indicative of an overpowering POV issue.

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

Spammed "Warning"

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

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

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

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

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

Cirt appears to be trying to tar the site. I asked that he provide a source or remove the warnings but he did not do so, instead repeating his unsubstantiated claim.

Aggressive checkuser fishing and misrepresentation

I find Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS of concern. No evidence is presented other than vague supposition. Also Cirt consistently misrepresents the findings of the COFS arbitration with his conjoined "Shutterbug/Misou" and his prior (rude) reference to Shutterbug as Church of Scientology (which I objected to here and which was my entrance point on realizing that Cirt had perhaps not reformed after all). There were no findings that which gave any official status to COFS (Shutterbug) or established any connection between COFS (Shutterbug) and Misou other than that they accessed the same proxy server.

Cirt engages in obstructionism and WP:OWN

Cirt routinely "protects" his favorite version of articles against constructive edits. He is especially hard on unregistered editors, frequently practicing WP:BITE. These examples are from a review of only the last 30 days of Cirt's edits.

  • Here reverts a valid edit by TaborG with the edit summary approp wording as reviewed fm FA. The FA author himself came next to edit the section to address TaborG's valid concern. Note that Cirt has previously reverted edits (here) of valid concern by TaborG with little explanation on Cirt's part and no effort to address those concerns.
  • Here blocking the good-faith efforts of new user StudentNY (talk · contribs) (WP:BITE) to improve the article and insert NPOV. Cirt re-adds one-sided POV unsourced material.
  • Here will not allow another editor to make a minor word change. Cirt's way is always the best way.
  • Here rudely removes a sensibly-placed tag. I have lots of history with Smee/Cirt removing tags and had to take him to WP:ANI to get him to knock that off.
  • Outrageous! - WP:BITES an IP that tried to replace a bad source with a good source because they did not included the page number. DID NOT INCLUDE THE PAGE NUMBER! Then Cirt re-adds the bad source too!
  • this structure is better says Cirt in the edit summary because Cirt's way is always better - especially if you do not share his POV.
  • One - Cirt edit warring because someone wants to use the term "congealed" instead of "evolved". Maybe Cirt needs a better dictionary? One that has something like: con·geal 3. to make or become fixed, as ideas, sentiments, or principles
  • Two - WP:BITE too
  • Three - let's not forget miscalling each good-faith edit "vandalism".
  • Whoops, an IP made the mistake of trying to insert NPOV in one of Cirt's articles. Cirt reinserted POV.
  • Here an IP tried to remove a redundancy. Cirt fixed that - two crimes are always better than one. Funny thing though, "steal" is not even in the source.
  • Again an IP made the mistake of tampering with one of Cirt's articles, inserting a harmless bit of useful information.

Cirt routinely adds tabloid and sensational material to WP:BLP articles

Work-in-progress. Other are encouraged to review Cirt's edits in WP:BLP Scientologists

A comment on Jehochman's "evidence" and Tory's testimony

Jehochman seems to be confusing "evidence" with "accusations". Basically he puts forth the unsupported accusation that I brought my AE issue with Cirt as "retaliation". Well, he is entitled to his opinion but it ain't true and it ain't "evidence". He also takes issue with my opposition to the misuse of checkuser. Jehochman and others seem to have the idea that you can have a checkuser on anyone that you have a "hunch" about, whether they have been disruptive or not. I invite the arbitrators to go through those checkuser instances I object to. On both the AE and the RFCU issue, Jehochman's objections raise concern as promoting a disturbing chilling effect.

I am not sure of the relevance of Tory's testimony. She spends half her testimony defending herself but I cannot see where anyone has attacked her or even mentioned her name here. Apparently she took part in the alleged early "battle" between OSA and ARS. OK. Not sure of the relevance of that. She also informs us of OSA "programs" that basically match what just about every disruptive POV editor here does; skew the articles, attack their opponents, and poison the well. Well, Tory can be forgiven for not being familiar with Wikipedia, but in the Scientology articles, those "programs" have been successfully run by the critics of Scientology, not Scientologists.

Cirt's inability to edit in good faith alongside a Scientologist # 1

Cirt complained in his evidence section because I performed a merge. Did Cirt even bother reading the archived discussion (Talk:Xenu#Merge Galactic Confederacy) in which all editors agreed that a merge was in order; the only minor difference of opinion being where best to merge it. I merged it to both! And since there was absolutely nothing in the article with reliable sourcing that was not already included in the two mergeto articles there was really nothing to merge. Cirt's taking issue with this is evidence of something - just not of me "disrupting" anything. Perhaps evidence of Cirt's inability to edit in good faith alongside a Scientologist? Perhaps evidence of Cirt "disrupting" this proceeding? --Justallofthem (talk) 23:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's inability to edit in good faith alongside a Scientologist # 2

Xenu Xenu Xenu Xenu. There, I said Xenu. Cirt seems to think that Scientologists cannot say Xenu. What an odd concept and what a total misunderstanding of what Scientology is and how it works. And then to imply that a Scientologist that edits anything related to confidential materials must be an agent or something is just plain misleading and bad-faith. Here is the deal. Ex-Scientologists and critics assert that Xenu is mentioned in some upper-level Scientology materials and they use the Xenu story out-of-context to marginalize and ridicule Scientology. OK. That is true, they do assert that and do that. What is also true is that the upper levels are confidential and no Scientologist in good standing that has done these levels may discuss what they contain because that would be a breach of the confidentiality agreement. That does NOT mean that Scientologists cannot discuss how the alleged upper-level materials are already presented in reliable sources. That is all I personally ever do, make sure that articles correctly interpret reliable sources in an NPOV fashion. Do you get the difference? If I have done the levels (and I am not going to reveal personal information), I cannot discuss what they contain from my own first-hand knowledge but I can certainly discuss if a reliable source is being represented correctly and fairly. I do not need any "special permission" for that. Nor have I any. Nor do I "get in trouble" for what I do here on Wikipedia. Cirt proves again that s/he cannot edit in good faith alongside a Scientologist and now tries to get the lot of us barred. Sheesh.

Spidern

I believe that Spidern's edits are an unattributed contributing cause of the current arbitration. (Spidern shows 262 recent edits in Scientology [2])

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=248737791&oldid=248720071

Removed ~2500 characters altering the tone in many instances so as to exclude Scientology's spiritual underpinnings and techniques. Claims to have a problem with primary sourcing but relocated (instead of removed) a very strong statement about psychiatry that was similarly sourced.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=249149147&oldid=248749646

Removed ~4000 characters including many key Scientology concepts including what Scientology considers its "ultimate goal" and the definition of the "thetan", arguably the most important definition in Scientology, while again exhibiting selective use of primary sources.

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=250183196&oldid=249831701

Remove almost 5000 characters including totally removing key Scientology concepts such as ARC, tone scale, etc (which can be easily sourced in secondary materials, see ARC and tone scale), presumably because they are sourced from primary material but continues selectively allowing such with http://freedom.lronhubbard.org/page078.htm which he relocated again.

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=250183196&oldid=249800383

Removed >4000 characters repeating removal of key concepts that I guess were reinserted.

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=253833720&oldid=252158618

Removed almost 30,000! characters further reducing the tone of the article from being about "Scientology" to being about "criticism of Scientology".

I respect Spidern but Spidern is a critic of Scientology and his edits mainly served to make this article even less about Scientology (as opposed to criticism of Scientology) that it already was. I don't claim to object to every one of his edits, just to the direction he seemed to be taking the article. I also object when Scientologists that try to make relatively minor efforts to reverse that course are given grief all out of proportion to any errors they may make in those efforts. We need to stop harassing the Scientologists here and try to get this article back in balance. It is after all, an article on Scientology. As a Scientologist that got worn out very quickly here once said: "The incorrect and counterproductive consideration that seems to pervade the community is this: Scientology is not a subject - it is instead controversy about a pseudo subject."

Cirt's continuing difficulty with BLP and Durova's one-sided representations

I see that Durova has already brought up my exchange with Cirt at Talk:Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography#Suri's Parentage. I was surprised to find that Cirt was supporting a clear violation of WP:BLP given the amount of heat this arb has been placing on him regarding his difficulties with the concepts embodied in that policy. Cirt was supporting the inclusion of an offensive caricature of a child that has appeared on a few sites critical of Scientology - the concept that Suri Cruise was conceived using frozen sperm from Hubbard, on critical sites usually accompanied by a shooped image of baby Suri with Hubbard's face. Morton put that conjecture in his (tabloid) book but, I believe, reported it as rumor that was of doubtful value. BLP clearly cautions against repeating gossip that the author himself does not even believe. I showed Cirt the relevant policies but instead of self-correcting, Cirt tried to pass the buck to others, USAToday and another editor. He offered to take it to RS/N, notably the wrong forum (it should go to BLP/N). This incident again clearly illustrates Cirt's blind spot when it comes to BLP and his POV and is more evidence that Cirt cannot be trusted unsupervised where his POV is concerned.

Regarding Durova's (typical) one-sided misrepresentation (and boy, could I go on about that ps, another situation of my trying to address Cirt's violation of BLP and uninvolved Durova coming to the "rescue". God save us from Durova's rescue.) with her "Every one of Justallofthem’s posts there is sarcastic", she is failing to mention that, in actual fact, my second/third and longest post was a clear exposition of the applicable sections of the BLP policy while my fourth and last post was a heartfelt plea to Cirt to take a look for himself rather than try to shuffle the "blame" to someone else. Hardly sarcastic, that one. Regarding her claim that I am "single purpose editor", well, that is patently and obviously untrue. Even a cursory inspection of my edit history in article space would reveal that I am interested in a great many things and in the quality of the encyclopedia in toto. What I am is a relatively inactive editor but there ain't no law agin that (though Durova hints otherwise). I have very little time that I can devotes to Wikipedia and I devote that small amount of time to things that catch my eye and what most catches my eye is things that relate to an open arbitration wherein I am a named party, to wit Scientology articles and the behavior of another named party. So long as this arb is unresolved I imagine that those topics will continue to garner my interest. Other than that, I am, after all, the sole Scientologist that regularly edits here, albeit at a greatly reduced rate from previous years, and we all know that there are many that want to skew the Scientology articles to their own ends so it is perhaps understandable if the small amount of time I can spend here is disproportionately spent in Scientology articles. Not that there is anything wrong with disproportionate (Durova) but my interests are actually quite a bit more rounded.

YellowMonkey's and Durova's latest (false) claim

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Justanother and that I am Truthtell (talk · contribs), I do not know how YM "wiki-sluethed" that bit out but sorry, ain't me and I never heard of the user. Not to mention that the user predates my debut on Wikipedia by over one year. I hereby swear on a stack of E-meters and in the name of Xenu, that is not my sock. Thank you. (nota bene - the "swearing" is a joke and Scientologists have no such custom. I am telling the truth though about that user not being related to me) --Justallofthem (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt piles on

I see that Cirt is now trying to tar me with every IP edit ever made to the Scientology articles that originated within my metropolitan area, an area of over 5 million souls that includes thousands of Scientologists and ex-Scientologists. Frankly I am glad to have another like-minded editor here but it ain't me and this illustrates the danger of rampant out-of-process checkuser. Neither Truthtell nor myself have done anything to warrant a checkuser - someone was fishing.

Cirt and Durova - long history of harassing Justanother

Cirt and Durova routinely tag-team on harassing Justanother. This came to a head about a year ago when they succeeded in getting a green admin to indef-block Justanother as his first admin action. I ask the arbs to review the diffs and arguments presented [3] by myself and here by Bishonen, the only admin that bothered to look into that little of railroading. Interestingly, it again involved Cirt violating BLP and me trying to reverse that.

Traitor in the infowar - the intriguing case of Wikipediatrix

When I began editing in Wikipedia in August 2006, I found the Scientology articles controlled by a tight group of Scientology critics spearheaded by a tag-team of two editors, Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs) and Wikipediatrix (talk · contribs). Those two acted as the owners and the gatekeepers of the Scientology articles and reverted any edits that sought to disturb the skew. Wikipediatrix I found particularly interesting as she owned and had read a vast amount of Scientology literature beyond the usual critical internet sites that form the bulk of the common critic's education. I would engage her is long conversations [4][5] that served little constructive purpose. Wikipediatrix was a prolific critic of Scientology that started some of the most skewed WP:OR POV-forks in the series including Helatrobus, Para-Scientology, Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, Marcab Confederacy, Scientology and sex, L. Ron Hubbard and the military, and many others.

Wikipediatrix had begun editing in November, 2005 and was editing in the Scientology series within two weeks. As I mention, I started in August, 2006 and had many "go-rounds" with Wikipediatrix and Feldspar. On November 22, 2006 Wikipediatrix had a normal active day then "disappeared" until November 29, 2006 when she made a few edits including one to the Xenu talk page and then was gone. Cue dramatic music.

On December 2, 2006 a new editor showed up in the Scientology articles. Highfructosecornsyrup (talk · contribs) (HFCS) had been created on November 22 and on December 2 proposed a logical and well-reasoned merge at Rehabilitation Project Force. HFCS then proceeded to {{Fact}} tag a number of unsourced statements in Scientology articles along with NPOV tags on the articles as a whole [6][7]. Gatekeeper Feldspar summarily reverted HFCS's changes within hours without responding to HFCS's justifications on the articles talk pages [8][9]. HFCS objected on Feldspar's talk page. On December 3, HFCS continued making measured and explained edits in the articles.

Within hours of starting in the Scientology series, HFCS was under investigation on WP:ANI. The usual "You are not Welcome Wagon". Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose.

Over the next few days HFCS continued editing the Scientology articles and fighting with the gatekeepers, leading Feldspar, on December 8, to message fellow Scientology critic and admin Glen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) asking "for that little check-up". Glen obligingly called in a favor and opened a checkuser case. The results of that checkuser were beyond their wildest imagination, though. HFCS was none other than their old comrade Wikipediatrix, now, in their view, editing for the "other side".

For a year, Wikipediatrix had, with impunity, been creating poorly sourced, WP:OR articles and blocking any attempts to unskew Scientology articles. Flipping and trying to unskew the articles herself under a new username, she was under investigation within hours and shut down within a week.

Wikipediatrix never claimed that she, as HFCS, was any less a critic of Scientology. In her only explanation of her motives, Mirror, Mirror, she says:

"There's a lot of (fully sourced) negative information about Scientology on Wikipedia. (I should know, because I put a lot of it there myself.) Most of it I stand by proudly, but some of it I've had second thoughts about and I went back and tried to fix it. . .

But I deeply regret creating some articles like Supernatural abilities in Scientology doctrine, partially for reasons already stated and partially for reasons I'll only explain via email, if anyone's curious."

I never found out her full reasons myself but I would like to close with Wikipediatrix' assessment of what went on in the Scientology articles in her day. And remember that she was part of the in clique of anti-Scientologists for a full year. Things have changed a bit for the better but, IMHO, it is your task to bring this situation under control and you will not accomplish that by banning Scientologists:

"To pro-Scientology editors: I don't know what to tell you, because, frankly, it's a lost cause. If you make meek moves, you get nowhere. If you make bold moves, you get instantly reverted. If you try to discuss it on the talk page, you get ignored. My best advice is to remind you that Scienowiki is a wide open and uncharted territory, just waiting for you to fill it up as you see fit.

To anti-Scientology editors: there are plenty of negative things about Scientology that need to be mentioned in articles. There's no shortage of stuff, in fact. But tabloid tactics like constantly bringing up the Lisa McPherson case, horrible as it is, and stuff like Gorilla Goals, stupid as it is, aren't the best way to go about pursuing your case. Anyone who wants to know what I think IS the best way to go about it should study my edits, or ask me via email. You are hurting your own case by making all the articles look like total lurid attack pieces, and hurting Wikipedia's credibility as well. One editor actually said to me words to the effect of "we don't have to treat Scientology as fairly as we treat other religions". That was a real wake-up call to me." wikipediatrix 20:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

--Justallofthem (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Anyeverybody's evidence

I thank Anyeverybody for his measured submittal here. I certainly agree with him that editors that cherry-pick information that supports their POV while disregarding information, often in the same source, that does not support their POV do not belong in the Scientology articles. Cirt is "famous" for that as clearly shown by the evidence presented. Be that as it may. I do want to take exception with Anyeverybody's faulty logic and specious argument as regards me personally.

Anyeverybody makes a couple of general statements about Scientologists: "the behavior of many Scientologists" ..., "they tend to remove a statement ..." (emphasis added). He then illustrates those general statements with one lone example where I remove a bit of unsourced conjecture. He claims that I should have tagged it with a {{fact}} tag or reworked that conjecture into something else. All due respect, but that is not how we handle that sort of material and I remind Anyeverybody of just one of the statements by Jimbo Wales on the subject:

"There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." - Jimbo Wales

Evidence presented by Spidern

Two Church of Scientology-owned IPs are closely related to Shutterbug

As seen in two edits, it appears as if Shutterbug's session expired or forgot to log in, revealing an IP address which is subsequently replaced with Shutterbug's signature in one edit (the other one is a modification of Shutterbug's user page). One edit is from Dec 9, 2008 by 205.227.165.151 (talk) and the other occurring on May 9, 2007 by 205.227.165.244 (talk) (resolves to ws.churchofscientology.org). Both IPs are within the same class C range, which is owned by the Church of Scientology International.

Misou used Church of Scientology-owned IP/s, and blocked for using open proxies

During January 2008, Misou (a confirmed sockpuppet on Wikipedia) was found by a checkuser on Wikinews to be using open proxies as well as multiple IPs owned by the Church of Scientology (Misou was subsequently blocked). In addition, as recently as Oct 21, 2008 Shutterbug was blocked from Wikinews for "disruptive behavior" and "Block evasion via proxies".

Additional edits by Church of Scientology-owned IPs are mostly limited to Category:Scientology-related articles

Historically, four more known Scientology-owned IPs performed edits to English Wikipedia. These edits were almost entirely limited to Scientology-related pages; See 205.227.165.14 (talk • whois), 205.227.165.11 (talk • whois), 63.199.209.133 (talk • whois), and 63.199.209.131 (talk • whois).

Little evidence of willingness to contribute outside of Category:Scientology

As seen in the Wannabe Kate tool, Shutterbug and Misou have had virtually no edits outside of Scientology-related articles. This would not normally be as much of a concern; however due to the IP evdience presented above, a conflict an interests is indicative.

Original ArbCom restrictions did not address the root of the issue

Although the original evidence presented indicated that there was indeed overlapping ip address usage belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a conflict of interest and strongly pushing a particular POV favorable to their organization, the affected editors continue to make destructive edits unabated. Since the first ArbCom filing, the pov-pushing (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10), assumption of bad faith, (11, 12), and removal of reliably-sourced material (13, 14, 15, 16) has continued. Additionally, see these diffs which lead up to Misou's blocking on English Wikinews: (17, 18, 19, 20, 21)1

(1) Some diffs shown above were taken from English Wikinews, all occurring after the closure of the original ArbCom case. They are displayed here to illustrate certain destructive editing patterns which are at the root of the broader problem.

Addendum: Scientology-owned websites linked to on English Wikipedia

I completely agree that objective secondary sources (i.e. print and academic) should be relied upon rather than self-published websites. However, it must also be noted that the extent to which official (primary sources) Scientology pages are linked to on English Wikipedia is not insignificant. The succinct difference between these primary-source sites and the critical sites is that they are more spread out among hundreds of domains, rather than being highly focused on a handful of critical sites (xenu.net, lermanet, scientology-lies, etc). Although taken individually the links are of little concern, the result as a whole is quite staggering (Note: Results may be slightly skewed because results do not exclude non-mainspace edits. Also, these statistics are valid as of the time of this writing and may be subject to change at any time.):

Domain Whois information Results on WP Comment
Scientology.org (Church of Scientology International) 334
cchr.org (Citizen\'s Commission on Human Rights) 67 Using ns1.prolexic.net
whatisscientology.org (Church of Scientology International) 66
ronhubbard.org (Church of Scientology International) 63
rtc.org (Church of Scientology International) 55
freedommag.org (Church of Scientology International) 51
scientologytoday.org (Church of Scientology International) 38
dianetics.org (Church of Scientology International) 30
scientologyhandbook.org (Church of Scientology International) 30
appliedscholastics.org (Applied Scholastics International) 13 See this
theta.com (Church of Scientology International) 12
aboutlronhubbard.org (Church of Scientology International) 12
scientology-asho.org (Church of Scientology International) 8
twth.org (The Way to Happiness International) 8 Using ns1.lrh.org
wise.org (ChurchofScientology International) 7
auditing.org (Church of Scientology International) 6
smi.org (Church of Scientology International) 6
volunteerministers.org (Church of Scientology International) 6
essentialdianetics.org (Church of Scientology International) 5
humanrights-france.org (Church of Scientology International) 5
lrh-books.com (Bridge Publications Inc.) 5 Brdigepub.com uses ns1.scientology.org
e-meter.org.uk (Church Of Scientology RECI) 3
scientology.net.au (THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INC) 3
narconon.org (Narconon International) 2 Using ns1.prolexic.net
theflaglandbase.org (Church of Scientology International) 2
correctscientology.org (Church of Scientology International) 1
dianetics-theevolutionofascience.org (Church of Scientology International) 1
freewinds.org (Church of Scientology International) 1
basicscientology.com (Church of Scientology International) 1
getoffdrugs.com.au (Get Off Drugs Naturally) 1 See this
Grand Total: 842

←Spidern→ 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justallofthem's critique of my edits regarding page size

Justallofthem recently made a comment on the Scientology talk page which I interpreted as a subtle jab at my past edits. I responded, voicing my resentment of the fact that it read as if he were accusing me of improper behavior. Although he initially apologized, he then proceeded to attribute me as the instigator of this arbitration case, on the talk page of the article (edit summary and heading of "not tongue in cheek"), ten minutes before also posting his account on this page.

When Justallofthem implies that I reduced the amount of representation of Scientology's "official" view, he is looking at the net effect instead of finding faults with individual edits. I started editing the Scientology page on Oct 31, as seen in my first diff there. In reading through the revision of the Scientology article at the time, I found many problems with the article which I saw that I could attempt to alleviate. Much of the material was inappropriately sourced, and the page size was out of control. The impetus to source properly falls on the person inserting the content. If removing dubiously-sourced material ended up decreasing the "official" representation of, then so be it; for a subject so controversial, we can only rely upon secondary and tertiary sources. However, contrary to what Justallofthem is implying, I relocated salvageable chunks of text to the talk page (particularly regarding Scientology beliefs) because I wanted to rescue the content, not discard it (otherwise I would have removed it altogether). Further, I personally invited Justallofthem and Shrampes to improve to the Scientology beliefs and practices article, an article dedicated to the belief system of Scientology. They both declined.

I believe that I have acted responsibly under the circumstances. After my first 87 edits to Scientology, I made no edits to the page for 2 weeks (14 days) and nobody refuted my edits in general. At the beginning of my period of inactivity, Cirt and Jayen466 voiced their support of my edits in general and nobody expressed any doubts concerning them. Had anyone that disagreed with them done so in a typical Wikipedia fashion, we may have avoided locking the page and ending up in arbitration in the first place. Before the edit war, I was in discussion with other editors to determine any good secondary sources that could be used in the page. When things started to heat up, I did everything possible to avoid coming to dispute resolution.

As anyone looking at my edit history can see, I have edited a number of Scientology-related articles on English Wikipedia. As far as I am aware, the edits reflect my stated intention of removing primary sources, making language more understandable, improving neutrality, as well as making general improvements from an editorial standpoint. Should anyone believe that I am not sufficiently accomplishing any of these tasks, I respectfully ask that they provide specific diffs that indicate otherwise so that I may examine my behavior and improve upon it. ←Spidern→ 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 undermined discussion about sourcing issues

  1. 19:47, February 1, 2009 - (page state) - On Scientology in Germany I place a template to emphasize the over-reliance of reports issued annually by the U.S. Department of State, which were cited a total of 6 times.
  2. 19:56, February 1, 2009 - Jayen466 (talk · contribs) removes the tag with edit summary, "Tag is unjustified, majority of sources are German (or from other countries). Criticism by US has been widely reported in Germany."
  3. 20:53, February 1, 2009 - Realizing that there are other primary sources being used in the article, I instead place a {{primarysources}} tag on the page, explaining my rationale on the talk page.
  4. 21:04, February 1, 2009 - Jayen466 argues that this situation is "not quite the standard one", and that the use of the primary sources is justified by virtue of their relevance and notability.
  5. 21:10, February 1, 2009 - When prompted by Jayen466 to illustrate which sources I was concerned about, I list the problematic sources.
  6. 21:39, February 1, 2009 - Jayen466 argues for the legitimacy of the usage of some of the primary sources, primarily on the basis that they are ancillary citations.
  7. 21:46, February 1, 2009 - At this point, John Carter (talk · contribs) notes our disagreement and suggests that we defer the issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard for further input.
  8. 22:13, February 1, 2009 - I create the RS/N thread on John Carter's recommendation, explicitly requesting third party input.
  9. 22:15, February 1, 2009 - Jayen466 responds with the same argument he posted on the talk page.
  10. 00:02, February 2, 2009 - Jayen466 notes my WP:SYN concern, and points out that there is an adequate secondary source to support the text.
  11. 17:58, February 3, 2009 - After adding some secondary refs and removing one primary source, Jayen466 removes the primary sources tag from the page.
  12. 0:20, February 3, 2009 - Noting that a secondary source was present in the case Jayen466 mentioned, I removed the unnecessary primary source that did not explicitly support the text, and a some others (all of them U.S. Dept. of state reports).
  13. 09:02, February 5, 2009 - Jayen466 marks the RS/N thread as resolved.

Had Jayen466 only removed the two tags from the Scientology in Germany page, I would not be as bothered. However, in this case, I explicitly requested third party input on the sourcing matter under the recommendation of another editor. When an issue is perceived by an editor to exist, I believe that the disagreeing party should wait for an uninvolved editor or the editor who originally held the concerns to close the thread upon deeming the results satisfactory. ←Spidern→ 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Jayen466's edits on the Jason Scott Case

  1. 17:13, October 12, 2008 - Jayen466 begins editing Rick Ross (consultant).
  2. 00:18, October 13, 2008 - Before finishing his streak of edits on Rick Ross (consultant), Jayen466 creates a redirect on Jason Scott case to Rick_Ross_(consultant)#The_Jason_Scott_case.
  3. 23:29, October 14, 2008 - Jayen466 completes 30 edits to Rick Ross (consultant). The Jason Scott section previously contained 344 words, and after Jayen466's revision contained 1146 words, a 8379 character difference.
  4. 17:59, October 15, 2008 - Cirt reverted the edits, with an edit summary of, "way, way, too much WP:Undue weight in a WP:BLP article, not to mention utilizing an obviously biased and financial conflict of interest source." (referring to Anson Shupe).
  5. 18:01, October 15, 2008 - A talk page discussion is initiated by Cirt, discussion seen here.
  6. 18:03, October 15, 2008 - Jayen466 reverts Cirt, with the edit summary, "Undid revision 245486019 by Cirt (talk) uses several sources, including court documentation as backup. Let's take it to RfC, if needed".
  7. 18:09, October 15, 2008 - Cirt again reverts Jayen466, with summary, "This is a WP:BLP article and as such the sources should NOT have an obvious bias and financial conflict of interest. The info should stay out, until after consensus is determined, not reverse."
  8. 18:17, October 15, 2008 - A BLPN thread is created by Cirt. Cirt argues that Shupe has a bias and a financial conflict of interest, and is thus unusable in this case. Jayen466 argues that Shupe is a recognized authority (he is). Cirt reiterates the financial conflict of interest, and Jossi argues that conflict of interests are not a concern for sources. Jossi also suggests that a new article is created for the concerning material. Note: For brevity sake, I have only summarized the first few comments on the thread. Ensuing discussion can be seen here.
  9. 21:07, October 15, 2008 - Jayen466 creates a "spin-out" article based on the material he was attempting to place on Rick Ross (consultant). This initial revision is a 13800 characters in length.
  10. 01:25, October 16, 2008 - In 7 edits Jayen466 shortens his passage, but reintroduces some of the same material to Rick Ross (consultant).
  11. 04:03, January 20, 2009 - I create a new RSN thread questioning whether Shupe should be used, on the basis of his financial involvement with said case (he was called as an expert witness). Anson Shupe's Agents of Discord (2006) is referenced 30 times in the article (mostly in one section) and describes incidents in graphic detail, in a manner damaging of Rick Ross's reputation.
  12. 04:54, January 21, 2009 - YellowMonkey provides the assessment that Shupe should not be used in the article.

There are other concerns for sourcing in the article, such as direct usage of court documents (primary sources) and citing a unpublished CESNUR conference paper. ←Spidern→ 18:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP Statements not backed up by additional sources

Jayen466 presented two searches with the intent to demonstrate notability of the Jason Scott case, a Google Search (609 results), and a Google Scholar (764 results) search. However, these search results are inflated because they are all-inclusive searches for terms like "scott", "pentacostalist", "tabernacle", etc. Made sufficiently specific, the search queries return 14 results for Google Scholar and 17 results for Google Search (please note that 5 of these book search results are published by Icon Group international, which are automatically generated from free sources such as Wikipedia).

Moreover, with a supposed abundance of literature available on the subject, why is the following only sourced to Anson Shupe within one section? After all, Shupe testified in the case itself, hired as an expert witness by Kendrick Moxon, a top Scientology lawyer:

  • To facilitate the deprogramming, Ross put together a two-man "security team".[1] (1 applicable search result)
  • Ross hired a karate black belt named Clark Rotroff to help with the operation.[1] (1 search result)
  • Scott's legs, upper body and back had sustained multiple bruises and abrasions from being dragged to the van across stairs, floors and a patio.[1] (1 search result)
  • Ross and his partners had made the house a virtual prison...[1] (1 search result)
  • Ross argued with Scott about matters of religion, without giving him a chance to say anything in return, often tapping him or hitting him on the head to underscore his points while Scott was being restrained or closely watched.[1] (1 search result)
  • Ross was said to have replied that that was what he was paid to do.[1] (1 search result)
  • The final day of his imprisonment he spent watching films on New Age religions and channeling, even though neither are related to Pentecostalism.[1] (1 applicable search result)
  • Ross, pleased with the apparent success of the deprogramming session, proposed that they all went out to meet with Scott's family for a celebratory dinner.[1] (1 search result)


Reference, used 30 times in article, 20 times in section, 17 times as a sole reference
  • Shupe, Anson (2006). Agents of Discord. New Brunswick (U.S.A.), London (U.K.): Transaction Publishers. pp. pp. 180–184. ISBN 0-7658-0323-2. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Analysis of Jayen466's SPA Evidence

Jayen466 has listed a number of users he labels as "single purpose accounts", but has not demonstrated how the named editors have been non-neutral or disruptive. In fact, many of the accounts listed have made positive contributions to the project. In the end, an editor should be judged by the quality of their contributions, not their primary areas of interest. Applying a label of "SPA" to an account with no demonstrated conflict of interests or disruptive behavior only discourages editors from improving Wikipedia.

  • AndroidCat (talk · contribs) - Majority of contributions are limited to Scientology-related topics. Perusal of recent edits shows good faith contributor who:
    • Engages in discussion at noticeboards, WP:RSN [10], [11]
    • Points out problems with unreliable sourcing [12]
    • Helpfully provides research assistance by compiling sources for inspection on article talk pages [13], [14], [15]
    • Sought to resolve BLP problems: [16], [17], [18]
    • Never received any warnings [19], [20], or blocks [21]
  • Tilman (talk · contribs) - Majority of edits are to Scientology-related topics.
    • Relatively inactive at Scientology-related topics recently, last related edit (August 2008) was to complain about undue weight in a WP:BLP [27]
    • Relatively inactive on the project in general, only made two edits in March 2009, before that one in January 2009. [28]
    • Blocked once for 3RR, then unblocked by same admin less than 2 hours later [29], Tilman was removing libelous material [30]
  • Martin Ottmann (talk · contribs) - Majority of edits are to Scientology-related topics.
    • Main issue with this user - he tried to upload some documents which he thought were free-use (he was at the time unaware of the Wikimedia Commons project) and after community discussion the documents were deleted.
    • No contributions to the project since December 2008 [31]
    • Never received any warnings [32] or blocks [33]
  • Modemac (talk · contribs) - Majority of contributions are to Scientology-related topics. Good faith contributor and administrator.
    • Modemac is a longtime administrator on the English Wikipedia [34]
    • Aside from two edits to the article Scientology in March 2009, and one in February and January 2009, has not been active on the topic since August 2008.
    • Never received any warnings [35], [36] or blocks [37]

←Spidern→ 22:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Jayen466

Generic problems in Scientology articles

Reliance on primary sources

Examples:

Anti-Scientology websites as sources

1400+ links to private anti-Scientology websites – a regular flashpoint in the past.

Poor sources in BLPs

The second para here ("In 1983 ...") is sourced to an affidavit. Taken to BLP/N, discussed and edit-warred over, retained. [64] [65] [66] Inclusion defended by many editors, even though none named a published RS covering this.

Poor external links

The external xenutv links added here to the John Carmichael BLP by NotTerryeo (talk · contribs) were inappropriate. Re-added by AndroidCat (talk · contribs), taken out by Jehochman following AE thread.

Skewing BLPs

Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson, has been in the news these last few days over a robocall recording in which she jokingly used Bart's voice. According to both the Times [67] and Fox News [68], the robocall went out to Scientologists, inviting them to a Scientology event in Hollywood. (The robocall message used Scientology jargon, making it quite clear in my mind that the recipients were Scientologists.) Our article on Nancy Cartwright made no mention of the fact that the robocalls were sent to Scientologists, creating the impression that they went to members of the general public. Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs) edit-wars over a sourced addition to the article which follows coverage in reliable sources (i.e. Times and Fox News and others) in reporting that the robocall message went out to Scientologists.

In my view, withholding the fact that reliable sources reported that the message was sent to Scientologists is anything but more neutral, it is inflammatory. Mothers will worry that Bart will call their children's cell phones and tell them to come and visit the nearest Scientology church. This is not what happened here.

User:Cirt

One of the AE threads that brought us here concerned edits by Cirt; evidence presented at AE below, plus similar cases.

Misrepresenting sources

"Scientology sex lessons" in Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cirt inserts it was "reported that Scientology has 'sex lessons' which can be given to couples", while the source cited did not describe the Scientology religion, but merely quoted a report in a gossip mag that two prominent Scientologists had consulted an "intimate relationship guide".

Diffs: [69] / [70] / [71] / [72] / [73] (rvt by Cirt) / [74]

Related discussion.

"Thousands of booklets sent to cities" in The Way to Happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cirt inserts a paragraph saying "The Way to Happiness Foundation agreed to stop sending copies of the booklet to certain cities in Florida" ... "The organization had sent thousands of unsolicited copies of the booklet to Florida cities". According to the cited source, individual officials received personalized samples, with the choice of ordering more booklets, distributing them or discarding them. They were not sent to city households.

Undue plug for a book, The Scandal of Scientology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cirt inserts the wording "Melton cites the book for insight into the Scientology controversy". What Melton actually says is, "For insight into the controversy, see Paulette Cooper, The Scandal of Scientology, and the church's refutation, False Report Correction/The Scandal of Scientology by Paulette Cooper."

"When citing Operation Clambake as a reference in their 2003 book Understanding New Religious Movements" in Operation Clambake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cirt claims to be rectifying "selective use" of a source. See sentence preceding footnote 61 at bottom of p. 143, and text of footnote 61 on p. 163. OC was not "cited as a reference", it was given as a countermovement example.

Using poor sources

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

L. Ron Hubbard's son Ron DeWolfe[2]

Penthouse/Andrew Morton in Scientology and sex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cirt inserted the quote box shown to the right, based on an earlier edit. The statement cited was

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

Subsequent discussion.

Blogtalkradio in David Miscavige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cirt reverts WP:BLP-motivated deletion of claims sourced to blogtalkradio. Subsequent RfC initiated by Cirt results in source and allegation being dropped. (The present article contains similar ad-hominem claims sourced to a podcast by Tom Smith – no idea if that fulfils BLP requirements either.)

Suggests use of a tabloid article quoting "an unnamed source" in David Miscavige (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just for some light entertainment: [75] See [76] for an assessment of unnamed sources in The Sun. Note that Tilman (talk · contribs), responding, runs a prominent anti-Scientology website.

Giving inappropriate warnings

Good-faith edit receives this warning.

Opposing inclusion of scholarly sources

Anson Shupe

Cirt has several times tried to exclude Anson Shupe as a reliable source from WP articles related to Scientology, describing him as a “collaborator”. [77] [78] [79]

Assessing sources according to POV, not according to reliability

Cirt is of the opinion that Scientology’s primary sources (Scientology websites, Hubbard’s books) should not be used in Scientology-related articles. I agree and have said so before: [80].

However, Cirt’s actual approach is selective, depending on whether Hubbard's texts are likely to make a good or bad impression. There are also contradictions between Cirt's public statements and actual editing actions. E.g., in the AfD for Scientology and Sex, Cirt said that content sourced to primary sources should be “pruned”. [81] When I brought the matter up later on, Cirt was extremely reluctant to remove any of the primary-source material at all: [82]

Cirt defended the use of a self-published piece on an anti-Scientology website, saying the site was “not an attack site”: [83] The site’s title is “Exposing the con”: [84] Scholarly opinion is that such sites are a propaganda effort presenting a caricature, rather than reliable information. [85][86]

Misrepresenting source in BLP of Thomas W. Davis

Cirt, still under the Smee name, inserts

"In the days prior to this incident, Sweeney stated that he had been harassed. Tom Davis also showed up at his hotel at midnight, uninvited to ask Sweeney questions, which Sweeney called "creepy."<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6650545.stm Sweeney's explanation of his outburst]</ref>.

Cited source says:

"After a long day with Mike and Donna we went back to our hotel at midnight, only to find Tommy Davis waiting in the lobby with his own black-clad Scientology cameraman. He harangued me for talking to the heretics. I told him that Scientology had been spying on the BBC and that was creepy. In LA, the moment our hire car left the airport we realised we were being followed by two cars. In our hotel a weird stranger spent every breakfast listening to us. In all, we count 13 strangers - private investigators? - who were following us. Scientology denied sending PIs after the BBC."

Inappropriate use of Wikinews

User:DragonFire1024 inserts a box linking to this Wikinews article entitled "Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting". The article claims that

The accusations appear to be part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs. Wikinews contacted the Church several times by e-mail for a statement, but the Church has yet to reply.

The Wikinews article does not mention that reports connecting the 4chan community to the shooting have appeared (presumably quite independently of the Church) in the mainstream Scandinavian press (article in Dagbladet, article in Aftenposten) and thus likely did not originate with the Church. See and analyse the responses by Cirt to concerns over the appropriateness of including this statement on the article's talk page. Also see the talk page of another very recent Wikinews article.

I believe Wikinews links should not be used in the main part of an article, but in the sisterlinks at the bottom. I also have a concern that Wikinews may be used as a propaganda tool. Jayen466 15:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder to Will Beback

Will, the affidavit we were discussing at the time did not accuse a third party of crimes. It was a formal retraction of earlier statements about third parties that the person had made himself. Such a formal retraction lodged with a court of law impinges on the reliability of the earlier statements. Can you see the difference?

In my view, an unpublished affidavit accusing someone of criminal or illegal actions that has not garnered coverage in reliable secondary sources is not good enough as an encyclopedic source for a BLP. You yourself have given examples of colourful affidavits in the past, especially in the context of divorce cases ("X is a cruel, violent, mentally unstable individual"), commenting on their lack of suitability as RS for BLP.

Re the Rick Ross case you mentioned, you will note that I was quoting university press-published scholars, rather than tabloids, private websites, blogs and gossip mags. Jayen466 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejoinder to Cirt

Thomas W. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), John Sweeney (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • The "positive information" Cirt alleges I removed in the Sweeney article read "The edition attracted Panorama's highest audience of the current series so far.", sourced to an article published in mid-May this year (I think the edition in question was the fourth of the season). While it was true in May, the value of information of this kind decays over time.
  • As for the negative BLP information on Sweeney I am alleged to have added in Thomas W. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – i.e. Sweeney's behaviour having been inappropriate – this was part of the official press statement on the matter made by a BBC spokesperson. Sweeney's being reprimanded by the BBC for his outburst was reported by all UK broadsheets, not just tabloid rags:
  • To summarise, in this article about a notable Scientologist, Cirt defends the inclusion of derogatory statements about Davis sourced to an opinion piece in a journalist's blog, but considers it an inappropriate inclusion of negative information on a BBC journalist who shouted at Davis to report that the journalist was reprimanded by the BBC for his conduct –
  • Even so, Cirt seems to argue, this "negative information" about a Scientology critic is less BLP-appropriate in Wikipedia than the negative opinions Tony Ortega pens about Scientologists in his blog.
John Carmichael (Scientologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The passage I removed read as follows:

In 2007 Carmichael sent a letter to New York City Council member Peter Vallone, Jr. after Vallone was quoted in the New York Post referring to Scientology as a "cult".[3] Vallone had questioned the scientific value of the Scientology clinic Downtown Medical, also known as the New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project, saying: "No responsible elected official would ever back this. We should not be conferring legitimacy on a cult."[4] Vallone responded to Carmichael's letter with one of his own, in which he questions the "very troubling history" of Scientology and responded to points raised by Carmichael.[5]

When Cirt introduced the material, the cited source articles were the following: [87] [88] [89] [90] The first two of these don't mention Carmichael at all, as far as I can see, nor any letter he sent to Vallone. I have no idea why they were cited here. The fourth source, a nypress blog post, does mention that Vallone replied to a letter by Carmichael. The source quotes parts of Carmichael's letter to Vallone. Given that this is Carmichael's BLP, I don't understand why none of the points Carmichael made in his letter to Vallone made it into his BLP, while Vallone's derogatory statements about Carmichael's religion were given ample room (taking up one of the five paras overall). Deleted per WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK.

The Way to Happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

To put Cirt's allegations into context here will take a moment. Please bear with me; I promise the effort will be worth it. To start with, here is the wording Cirt had left the article in:

In March 2008, The Way to Happiness Foundation agreed to stop sending copies of the booklet to certain cities in Florida, after hundreds of elected officials complained.[6] The organization had sent thousands of unsolicited copies of the booklet to Florida cities including Highland Beach and Boca Raton.[6] Each booklet had the name of the mayor on the front, and the town's address on the back, asking the reader to contact town hall with any questions.[6] A note on the back of the booklets mailed to Highland Beach, which purported to be from the mayor, stated: "I'm very pleased to offer this book".[7] The front of the booklet says that it is "presented by" the mayor."[7] The cover also contained an image of the Florida state flag.[6]

Commissioner Doris Trinley of Highland Beach said "I was dumbfounded ... I don't begrudge anyone their religion. However, I do take serious umbrage with saying on the back of the book to contact the town of Highland Beach."[6] Harold Hagelmann, mayor of Highland Beach, told The Palm Beach Post "No, no, no, no. I didn't sponsor anything ... They just sent it to me. I never asked for anything. I never sent them out."[7] Karin Pouw, spokeswoman for the Church of Scientology, told the South Florida Sun-Sentinel "The foundation is definitely something that the church is supporting. We encourage their activities".[6]

This, I think you will agree, will leave many readers with the impression that –

  1. the booklets were sent to individual households ("to cities", the text says),
  2. the citizens receiving them were deceived into thinking that they had been sent the booklets by the mayor, and
  3. deceptive actions like these are something that the Church of Scientology supports.

That was certainly the meaning I was left with upon first reading this passage.

Now, as I showed in my evidence above, and will show here again, Cirt comprehensively misrepresented the cited sources. The personalized booklets were sent to mayors' offices. Neither of the cited newspapers stated that the books were sent to citizens or "cities". Both articles clearly stated that "20 were delivered to town hall", mention "Boca Raton Mayor Steven Abrams, who got about 20 booklets", and say that "Employees discovered 20 booklets when cleaning up outgoing Mayor Harold Hagelmann’s office last week".

I noted that Cirt did nothing in the week after I posted my evidence above to remedy the matter. Seeing that nothing got fixed, I finally rewrote the section as follows, based on the existing sources:

In March 2008, The Way to Happiness Foundation agreed to stop sending personalized sample copies of the booklet to elected officials in Florida, after hundreds of them complained.[6][7] Booklets sent to mayors had the mayor's name on the front, and an endorsement from the mayor on the back, along with the Florida state flag and the address of the town hall.[6] A note advised readers to contact town hall if they had further questions.[6][7] The Foundation said it had sent about 2800 mailings, comprising a total of 250,000 booklets, to Florida mayors, businesses and community groups.[7]

Unlike many mayors who were reported to have been displeased at seeing their names on the personalized samples, Anthony Masiello, the mayor of Buffalo, did authorize distribution of the booklet, complete with the city seal and a picture of the city hall, after a Scientology center opened in Buffalo.[7]

Following the complaints, the Foundation explained that the books were only samples meant to encourage the recipients to buy further copies.[7] Subsequently, the Foundation switched to sending out unpersonalized stock copies only.[7]

Cirt now complains below that "17:05, 17 December 2008 - Jayen466 removes sourced statements from public officials about the unauthorized usage of official city logos in Scientology booklets. Removes sourced statement from an official representative of the Church of Scientology."

It is true that I removed the statements of the Highland Beach Commissioner and Mayor. Highland Beach, Florida is a town of just over 4,000 inhabitants. But I did introduce the information, also present in the articles Cirt cited, that Anthony Masiello, the mayor of Buffalo, New York – the 46th largest city in the United States, with a population of more than a million – authorised the distribution of the booklets, with the city seal and a picture of the Buffalo city hall. Cirt had left that out. Please name me one good-faith reason why the inclusion of two negative statements by officials of a small Florida town with a population of 4,126 should be more important than the actions of the mayor of a major city representing a population of more than a million, who authorised the distribution of the booklets in his and the city's name. Especially since we already had more than 750 words devoted to various other people who complained about receiving the booklet in the preceding paragraphs.

To Cirt, it seems, it just never feels as though the negative information is enough. Even a small-town mayor will be quoted in preference over the mayor of a major metropolis, as long as it results in more negative comments. Lastly, Cirt did not deem the response of the Foundation worth including, also available in the source cited. It's a basic principle of journalism to seek a statement from the other party. But not here. The only statement Cirt saw worthy of inclusion was the one by the CoS saying it "encouraged their activities", because, I would suggest, in the context provided, it sounded conveniently like the Church saying, "We encourage deception."

Lastly, ere I forget, here is Cirt reintroducing what she/he describes as "culturally significant" material. It had been deleted by CalendarWatcher (talk · contribs), who thought it was "trivia" in this article. I am inclined to agree with Calendarwatcher; it is just another example of how any derogatory material will be deemed worthy of inclusion by Cirt, how seemingly there can never be enough derogatory material, and how any deletion of such material, no matter how tangentially related to the article topic, will be resisted by Cirt.

I could easily put something like this aside if it were an isolated incident. But with Cirt's editing, it is not so. It is a consistent pattern, evident here even from the rationale offered by Cirt in condemnation of my edits.

The Xenu test

I do not believe Cirt's reasoning that any Scientologist Wikipedian who edits an article containing the word Xenu must be doing so in official capacity, and with special clearance, is sensible at all. The Xenu story has been prominent in the media for about 20 years. Scientologists are regularly taunted with references to Xenu. Many younger Scientologists will have heard the story before they even became Scientologists. Many of the editors concerned here are clearly non-native speakers with limited language skills. We know that the Church has professional writers, researchers and copy editors at its disposal. Whichever way you look at it, it just does not make sense at all <shakes head>.

Scholars

Cirt implies that various scholars' reputation has been compromised. As it happens, these are some of the most respected scholars around. Lewis has just (Feb. 2009 publication date) edited a book on Scientology for Oxford University Press. Is it reasonable to argue that Oxford University Press have got it all wrong and are doing Scientology's bidding? J G Melton writes the Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Scientology, and those for several dozen other NRMs besides; is it reasonable to argue that Encyclopaedia Britannica is using an author paid to disseminate cult propaganda?

Here are some university syllabuses that have works by Introvigne, Lewis, Melton and/or Shupe as required reading: [91] (Columbia University, includes Lewis, Introvigne, Shupe and Melton); [92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] (a course presently being taught by Benjamin Zablocki, one of the people Cirt cites below, who includes several chapters of a book edited by Shupe in his reading list).

What Cirt is proposing is tantamount to jettisoning the academic mainstream out there in the real world. Yes, allegations were made ten years ago, mostly in Skeptic magazine, they were responded to, and the academic debate has moved on, without the academic reputations of these scholars having diminished appreciably as a result.

Review of Spidern's evidence

Here is a review of Spidern's "POV pushing" evidence:

  • 1: Okay, POV pushing, but not a big deal.
  • 2: Arguably an improvement.
  • 3: Debatable. Melton (2000), pp. 3–5, details writings by Hubbard in a great variety of genres, while allowing that he found his greatest fame in science fiction writing.
  • 4: Improvement. It was POV pushing to have the information concerned constitute half the lede. (Note that the information was moved to the main part of the article, not deleted.)
  • 5: This is merely a change in the order of paragraphs. How is it POV-pushing?
  • 6: Leans towards POV pushing, but is also a reaction to the other side's insistence on giving this specific material such prominence in such a short lede. No scholarly work begins like this, nor does the Encyclopedia Britannica article.
  • 7: This edit kind of makes sense, given that this is the article on Scientology, i.e. a religion or ideology, and not an organizaton.
  • 8: Not ideal, but tries to correct an existing imbalance. (Many courts and governments have taken a different view than the one described.)
  • 9: "Brainwashed by extraterrestrial cultures as a means of population control" was, truly, gobbledygook. Journalists are not authorities on such matters; even though most scholars respect Scientology's desire to keep this material confidential, better writing is available on space opera mythology and how it may be understood and applied within Scientology. Basically, this can be done more sensitively. (A scholar whose book I was reading the other day recalled having considerable difficulty convincing an Asian person that Christianity was not some kind of rabbit cult, where the rabbit was worshipped as the bringer of immortality. When told that rabbits had nothing to do with the core of Christian beliefs, the person didn't believe it, because they had seen bunny rabbits all over the place in shop windows, and had been told this bunny worship was directly related to Jesus rising from the grave. I don't suppose Christians would want to have that sort of nonsense in the lead of the Christianity article.)
  • 10: Again, I don't agree with the previous version either. These are see-saw battles, indicative of polarised editors not managing to find common ground. It is inappropriate to just penalise one side.
RS/N discussion
  • My apologies to Spidern; I thought we had jointly resolved the matter to our mutual satisfaction – I had added the promised secondary sources, Spidern removed some primary sources and migrated others to the external links section, two days had elapsed without further comment either on RS/N or on the article talk page, and the situation described on RS/N no longer existed in the article. I will bear in mind what you said and promise not to mark closed any noticeboard thread you started without asking you first.

Rejoinder to Fahrenheit451

Fahrenheit451, we simply have no proof that this podcast by Tom Smith was ever broadcast and that it is an accurate rendition of the actual broadcast. It is not hosted on the radio station's official website. The content is corroborated by an article in a minor alternative weekly, The Portland Mercury. While the article's author is named, I note that according to our article on it, the Portland Mercury's most popular feature is one "in which local readers are encouraged to submit anonymous, usually impassioned, and often incendiary letters to the city at large". I simply cannot find any coverage of these allegations of Miscavige beating people up in more reputable news media. In fact, on the whole Internet, I get only 91 google hits for Jeff Hawkins + David Miscavige, and almost all of them are to private anti-Scientology sites. If that is so, why do we have Jeff Hawkins' allegations so prominently in our BLP on Miscavige?

Re editing from Church IPs, Shutterbug maintains that the majority of her edits have been made from other locations. Perhaps it would be good for us to go back to Checkuser and establish what proportion of edits were actually made from Church IPs. It has been pointed out that Internet access from Church-owned hotels, business centers, community centers etc. would also result in edits being logged with a Church IP.

As for the http://www.your-freedom.net IP access that several Scientology editors are using, its primary design purpose is to circumvent parental controls and similar content filters installed on a computer. As you know, Operation Clambake has alleged that software released by the Church for Scientologists' private use included such filtering software that basically rendered a PC incapable of accessing sites critical of Scientology. So for all I know, a computer with such filtering software installed might not even be able to access Wikipedia.

I have no idea whether such software is still in use and what the actual circumstances are, but I note that a less jaundiced look at what are pretty incomplete facts also allows a number of kinder interpretations.

Rejoinder to Rick Alan Ross

Mr Ross, as we both know, you had been editing your own article for years, as an anonymous IP, inserting unduly self-serving material such as unsourced or inappropriately (WP:SPS) sourced derogatory comments about your critics, and generally echoing the writings on your website. In your talk page conduct, you have generally resorted to personal attacks [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] and have insisted on having things presented the way you would like them presented, without providing sources. As for existing sources, you have declared many of them "wrong", "not important" or "biased", while failing to come up with sources offering alternative viewpoints, even when invited to do so. The sources you have declared "wrong", "not important" or "biased" were mainstream newspapers and academics. (Diffs will be provided after the holidays, should arbitration scope by then have been expanded to include Rick Ross (consultant) and the Jason Scott case.)

The accusation that I want to suppress your collection of articles on Osho is nonsense. I used to link to your website myself in my early days in Wikipedia, before I became aware of WP:LINKVIO, the advertisements of for-profit professional services on your site, and the fact that the article versions hosted on your site are sometimes altered. Jayen466 14:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross BLP

Before I started editing the Rick Ross BLP, the article looked like this: [123] The criticism section was an unpalatable assortment of name calling. The Jason Scott case, one of the most significant cases in US civil rights history, which established the illegality of forcibly kidnapping adult cult members in order to coerce them into abandoning their beliefs, was barely covered. The work I did on the article over a period of several weeks resulted in this version by mid-November. I believe it was reputably sourced throughout and reflected coverage in reliable sources. In the course of this time, threads were started on several noticeboards:

  • On October 15, Cirt started a thread at BLP/N. Contemporaneous article versions: [124] Note that Anson Shupe, an academic discussed in this thread, is, together with David G. Bromley, generally considered the foremost scholarly authority on the anti-cult movement. [125] CV A sitting arbitrator commented at that BLP/N thread and affirmed the relevance of the material to the inclusion of which Cirt was objecting.
  • On October 23, I started a thread at COI/N, as Mr Ross was deleting sourced criticism of himself. In addition I believe he has, over the years, made hundreds of edits to his BLP as an IP; almost all IP edits the article has seen over the years trace to NJ, where Mr Ross's Institute is located. One of his more recent IPs is this one; he clearly identifies himself, and the IP's oldest edit to the Rick Ross BLP predates his registering a user name here.
  • On 6 November, I sought community input on Mr Ross's wish to have his self-published sources used in his article: WP:RS/N
  • On 21 November, I sought the community's wider input with regard to the article on the NPOV noticeboard, given the criticism I had received, notably from Cirt and Mr Ross himself: NPOV/N In the course of this thread, Mr Ross made multiple personal attacks against me, some of which he has repeated here, without evidence, claiming for example that I am an "Osho devotee", am an Osho staffer, etc. Likewise, Will_Beback has asserted here, without evidence, that I am a pro-spiritual teacher editor who prefers to "use only self-published and sympathetic materials while excluding critical materials". The main spiritual teacher articles I have worked on besides Prem Rawat (see ongoing proceedings in that case) are Osho and Idries Shah, the latter of which I brought to GA status. The Osho article has been subject to a GA review and a subsequent informal review, both by Vassyana. I recently submitted Scientology in Germany for GA. All of these reviews comment on sourcing and NPOV.

To summarise, the article was at various times exposed to community input, which I initiated on several occasions, asking for feedback. In addition, I sought informal advice from an admin in good standing for my work on the article. On none of these occasions was there any clear message from the community that the article was badly sourced and/or failed BLP. A suggestion was made to spin-out the Jason Scott case. I thought this was a good idea, and that article stands substantially unchanged since then. Subsequent disputes were mainly focused on how much of the Scott case to describe in the BLP. In the end I acquiesced to having just a very short summary in the BLP. I had ongoing interaction with Mr Ross on the article talk page; the archives are there to be studied, if needed.

  • For background reading on the Scott case see the following: [126]
  • For background on Rick Ross and his notability in reliable sources see the following: [127]

You will note that most of these publications dwell on the events that were considered WP:UNDUE in his BLP, and that many of them are, to varying degrees, critical of Mr Ross. Even so, I included praise for Mr Ross where I found it and deleted undue criticism that had been present in the article before I started and which seemed to be beyond the pale of WP:BLP.

Further details about my editing history on the Rick Ross BLP are on the Proposed Decision talk page, here. I apologise for supplying this evidence late, but I had not expected that I would have to defend my actions in that article as part of these present arbcom proceedings on Scientology.

Response to Spidern

Regarding Spidern's evidence: First please note that YellowMonkey did not say that Anson Shupe should not be used. YellowMonkey said, "If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party". Now, the Jason Scott case article does attribute material cited to Shupe, explicitly noting "According to Shupe and Darnell's (2006) account of court testimony ...", and it mentions that "Anson Shupe appeared in the trial as an expert academic witness for Scott". Also note that Shupe was not a party in the case, he was called as an academic expert witness. It is not improper for an academic to write an account of a very prominent case in which he participated as an expert witness, a case whose decision was upheld all the way up to the United States Supreme Court. Lastly, the court documents are referred to in multiple reliable sources, which makes their use proper as per WP:WELLKNOWN.

Additional evidence

Justallofthem voices policy-based concerns about the inclusion of lurid detail in a WP article. Two days later, Durova posts evidence here under her name that appears to have been compiled for her by Cirt. Another day later, a disputed sockpuppet accusation is made by Durova here on this page, followed by an immediate workshop proposal to have Justallofthem banned from the project. Bishonen's evidence indicates that Durova, Cirt and, to a lesser extent, Jehochman have a history of engaging in joint efforts against Justallofthem because Justallofthem alleges – correctly in my view – that Cirt is dedicated to writing articles on Scientology that have a strong POV slant [128][129] Justallofthem's comments on Wikinews were not harassment, they were prophetic (see above, note [130]). If someone who is as unable to inwardly support NPOV as Cirt is, and whose response to criticism is a dedicated attempt to have critics silenced, spends 80+ hours a week on Wikipedia and other Wiki projects, then that is a problem for this topic area.

Durova advised me yesterday that I should place my comments on her evidence on the talk page, rather than this page. Today, the comments were removed by User:MBisanz. Instructions at the top of this page state,

If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section.

To make this plain, I feel that Durova's characterisation of Justallofthem's voicing BLP concerns here was a misrepresentation of the facts, and I am voicing that opinion within my section as instructed above. I also think it is noteworthy if editors cooperate behind the scenes to compile evidence for this page without disclosing so, and clerks please note that it is my express wish to submit evidence in that regard, including this evidence as to the removal of my evidence in that regard.

Rejoinder to Voxpopulis

Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) is an SPA registered yesterday, see GA reviewer's assessment as to NPOV, for merits of edits by Voxpopulis see [131], [132], [133].

Voxpopulis posting here under the IP 143.117.78.169 unfortunately makes it clear that this is a sock of Semitransgenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

"The United States have taken a partially supportive stance towards Scientology in relation to Germany" was not "unsourced". 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" and to specific criticism of Germany by the US government, notably "the critique in the State Department's annual Human Rights Report since 1993", as well as the "asylum granted to a German Scientologist". As for the reversion of the phrase "the most despicable sort of propaganda", this phrase simply did not occur in the cited source at all, and I have no idea where Voxpopulis got it from. The GA reviewer expressed puzzlement with Voxpopulis's assertion that the Hollywood lobby was of central importance to this article.

NEW EVIDENCE BY JAYEN466

David Miscavige BLP

SPAs

To complement Cirt's list of SPAs on the Scientology side, here are some other editors who historically appear to have made the vast majority of their article namespace edits to Scientology-related topics:

Wikinews

Yet another Wikinews article co-authored by Cirt has appeared claiming that the Church of Scientology falsely accused the Anonymous (group) of Scientology opponents of involvement in the Jokela High School shooting: I assume that Cirt has read my evidence on this page and thus is aware that reports on the apparent connection between Anonymous and the shooting appeared in the Scandinavian mainstream press (article in Dagbladet, article in Aftenposten) some time prior. Given these circumstances, how is it possible to assume good faith? Or do we think that Scientologists deserve to be treated unfairly? Let's just remember that in previous centuries it was the Baptists and the Mormons who were vilified like this. Since then, the US has had several Baptist presidents, and a Mormon presidential candidate, and our kids in school are taught to be ashamed of the actions of their forebears. And yet, even as they are taught to feel shame, they hate and deride Scientologists (I have a twelve-year old son and know what I am talking about), and we are helping them to do so.

WP:OWN, reverts

Ross BLP

Re Spidern's comment about impact on a BLP subject's reputation: There is a fundamental difference between –

  • including obscurely sourced, unsubstantiated and inflammatory allegations in a BLP, as has been the case here with David Miscavige, and
  • reporting facts established in the course of a landmark court case, whose findings and judgment were upheld all the way to the United States Supreme court, and which was the topic of extensive coverage in mainstream scholarly and media publications.
RS coverage of Ross

These are simply the reputably published books that a search in google books shows, listed in the order in which they appear on the google books search results page. It is not our fault if the coverage that an individual has received in reliable sources, based on their conduct and professional history, is not more flattering.

  • United States Congress records: [238]

Suspected COI edits to Ross BLP

The following is a partial history of anonymous edits by single-purpose IP accounts located in the NJ area to Rick Ross (consultant) and related pages, over a period spanning 4 years:

The record reflects that I had no wish to make this case a part of these present proceedings.

.* Anton Hein is widely regarded as the most prominent Christian countercult activist on the Internet. He runs the following websites: http://www.apologeticsindex.org, http://www.countercult.com, http://www.cultfaq.org.

Rejoinder to Spidern/Durova (SPAs)

Spidern says "an editor should be judged by the quality of their contributions, not their primary areas of interest." I agree with that, but disagree with the notion that online activism against the Church of Scientology does not represent a COI, while being a Scientologist does.

  • Spidern says AndroidCat is a good-faith contributor who points out problems with sourcing. The source in question was taken to RS/N, consensus there being that it was exactly the sort of source we should be citing. Evidence of BLP and OR violations has already been presented (see related Workshop proposal).

Rejoinder to Spidern: Details of the Scott case as reported in multiple RS

  • The details of the Jason Scott case were widely reported. This is from an article by Tony Ortega, no friend of Scientology as we have seen:

    The case springs from a 1990 incident in which three men grabbed 18-year-old Scott, handcuffed him, put duct tape over his mouth and stuffed him into a van. Looking on were Rick Ross and Kathy Tonkin, Scott’s mother. Tonkin had asked Ross to perform the involuntary deprogramming of Scott after Ross had persuaded her two younger sons to leave a Bellevue, Washington, Pentecostal church. ... Scott was taken by Ross’ “security” men to a beach house and held against his will for days as Ross tried to convince him that his church was a destructive cult. Eventually, Scott escaped, and criminal charges were brought against Ross and the three men. All four were acquitted in 1994.

    — Tony Ortega: What’s $2.995 Million Between Former Enemies? Phoenix New Times, December 19-25, 1996
  • Note that the last statement is incorrect. Ross was acquitted because according to jurors "prosecutors had not proved Ross participated in restraining Scott". One of Ross's associates turned state's evidence, the other two served brief jail terms. [281]Ross and others who took Scott to Ocean Shores were arrested and charged with unlawful imprisonment ... (two of his associates) pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of coercion.

Rejoinder to Martin Poulter

  1. I have expressly argued that good news sources should be used alongside academic sources. I have never argued that among scholarly works, only sociological works should be used.
  2. Active editors of the Scientology article voluntarily agreed not to use any primary sources – Scientology websites, books published by Scientology publishing houses, court documents, writings of ex-Scientologists etc. – for that article, but instead to focus on mainstream, unpolarised sources, in the interest of an encyclopedic article and a collegial atmosphere. Atack is an extremely polarised source, written by an ex-Scientologist. There is no overriding WP policy reason to exclude Atack, and I said so in the discussions. However, I advocated that we should be guided by the mainstream literature in how and where to use Atack. I.e., if a scholar or media source references a particular passage in Atack, then we could and might make use of it too.
  3. The paragraph I removed read:

    Scientology's major teachings were written by L. Ron Hubbard.[8] In the course of creating Scientology, Hubbard presented rapidly changing teachings that were often self-contradictory.[9][10] For the inner cadre of Scientologists, involvement depends not on belief in a particular doctrine but on absolute, unquestioning faith in Hubbard.[9]

Martin Poulter inserted it at the beginning of the description of "Scientology beliefs and practices". The problem is that his sources talked about the 1970s, when Hubbard was alive. Hubbard has been dead for nearly a quarter of a century. He no longer changes the beliefs of Scientology. Scientologists today are no longer required to decide whether to continue to believe what they believed, or to follow Hubbard in venturing down a new path. Scientologists today do believe in a stable corpus of teachings. It should be noted that this is basically no different from any other religion – until Moses revealed the 10 commandments, his followers did not have them; once he did, they embraced them. Until Jesus celebrated the last supper with his disciples, there was no belief that his followers could communicate with him by drinking his transubstantiated blood, and eating his flesh, and there was obviously no Eucharist. I suggested to MartinPoulter that he should incorporate this material in the History section, where it certainly has a place. The related talk page thread is here.

Edits to Scientology article

  • This, cited to an affidavit on an anti-Scientology website, no secondary source given, stayed in the article, in one form or another, for nearly three years until Spidern deleted it. What was it doing in the main article on Scientology anyway?

OR – other articles that rely largely on primary sources

Rejoinder to Cirt (encyclopedias)

This is getting slightly daft. I didn't cherry-pick. First off, I simply checked the first two sources which the embedded note claimed used the word "science fiction writer" in their lead sentence. Contrary to what the note stated, they did not. I then checked the [Church of] Scientology articles on answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com, assuming that between them, those three sites would give a representative cross-section of how other reputable encyclopedias handled this issue in their articles on Scientology. What I found was this:

Answers.com
Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Church of Scientology
  • "International movement established in the U.S. by L. Ron Hubbard in 1954."
Occultism & Parapsychology Encyclopedia (Gale Group): Church of Scientology (you need to scroll down to see the entry)
  • "In 1950 writer L. Ron Hubbard announced the discovery of Dianetics as a new system of mental health. Several years later he announced the further development of Dianetics into a comprehensive system of spiritual philosophy and religion, which he termed Scientology."
US History Encyclopedia (by an unnamed Answers Corp. partner: Scientology
  • "The religious movement known as Scientology originated in the United States with the 1950 publication of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. The book's author, L. Ron Hubbard (1911–1986), was a popular science fiction writer ..."


Encyclopedia.com
Columbia Encyclopedia, Church of Scientology
  • "Philosophical religion founded by L(afayette) Ron(ald) Hubbard, 1911-86, b. Tilden, Nebr."
World Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press)
  • "scientology ‘Applied religious philosophy’ based on a form of psychotherapy called dianetics, which was founded (1954) by L. Ron Hubbard in California, USA."


Highbeam.com
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions (Oxford University Press)
  • "Scientology. The creation of L. Ron Hubbard, who in the early 1950s, using his theory of lay psychotherapy (Dianetics) as its basis, developed a religious philosophy which was then incorporated into the Church of Scientology."

(Where encyclopedias are available on several sites, I have only included them once in this listing. For example, the Columbia Encyclopedia is included on all three sites, the Oxford World Encyclopedia on two of them.)

So to summarise, there are Scientology articles from six encyclopedias featured on answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com. Of these, five are definitely reputably published (Britannica, Gale, Columbia, Oxford University Press). Every one of these five encyclopedias says that Scientology was founded by L Ron Hubbard, without characterising him as a science-fiction writer in their lead sentence. This is the same approach as that followed by the immensely reputable Encyclopedia Britannica. Only one encyclopedia on the three sites sampled departs from this approach in its article on Scientology, the Encyclopedia of US History, "from an Answers Corp. partner".

This is a random sample in the sense that the selection of which works to include was made by the operators of answers.com, encyclopedia.com and highbeam.com, who are extraneous to this dispute. These are the articles on Scientology on the three best-known encyclopedia sites available on line. It's not cherry-picking. Cherry picking is if I make a listing of 10 encyclopedia articles, on various topics, that refer, somewhere, to "science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard", and then imply, without evidence, that these wordings are representative of the lead sentences in the overwhelming majority of encyclopedia articles on Scientology. If they were, then the statistical likelihood of a random sample like the one I presented here having an outcome that is in such stark opposition to Cirt's hypothesis would be remote.

By the way, in case this was not clear, what Cirt does not mention is that the reference to Hubbard being a writer of science fiction has of course not been removed at all. In the same edit, while I removed the descriptor from the lede, following the example of Scientology articles in leading encyclopedias as illustrated above, further down I inserted the sentence

Hubbard, an American author writing in several pulp fiction genres, especially science fiction, first published his ideas on the human mind in 1948 ...

This not only kept the information that he wrote SF, but also added the info that he wrote in other pulp fiction genres as well, as per the Portal:Scientology page. And Cirt would still be able to cite our own article, post my edit, as evidence here that encyclopedias refer to Hubbard as a science fiction writer.

Edits to Tom Cruise

[283][284] The allegation is sourced to this article. Is inclusion of this material in this BLP good practice?

The TaborG block

The block of TaborG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a presumed Scientologist editor, may have been hasty. Around midnight (29/30 Oct 2008), J.delanoy had actually apologised to TaborG for the vandalism warnings (see User_talk:TaborG/Archive) which he had apparently meant to remove (perhaps he didn't find them because they'd gone onto the talk archive subpage which TaborG had created after the first ClueBot warning). J.delanoy had also self-reverted his reversion of TaborG's edits to the Berlin article. So J.delanoy and TaborG had actually resolved the situation between them [285] when Cirt stepped in an hour later and blocked TaborG: [286]

To be fair, TaborG made Scientology-POV-coloured, and very likely inappropriate, edits to Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act before [287][288][289][290][291][292] and after [293] his edits to Berlin. Cirt reverted TaborG's edits to Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act at the same time as s/he blocked TaborG.

WP:LINKVIO + WP:ELNEVER

Linking to self-published OR

Edit warring over Primary Sources tag

FoF

This revision is appreciated. But I still don't understand how a question in an arbcom about the admissibility of a podcast as a BLP source is evidence of edit-warring. Spidern's and Voxpopulis's evidence contain exactly one article edit each. Some comments on the four links given as evidence for the finding:

1. This by Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alleges that I misrepresented evidence. I queried whether an interview podcast file containing a station idenfication, but hosted on a private website, is good enough per WP:REDFLAG for a serious BLP allegation (beating employees). That is all. I made no article edits at all, and I don't understand how this link supports the FoF, unless asking for guidance about a REDFLAG issue is evidence of an agenda.

2. This evidence by Spidern includes exactly one revert: I deleted a "US-centric" tag, because the vast majority of sources cited were in fact German. Spidern then added a primary-source tag instead, which I did not revert. I worked on the sourcing, and we worked it out.

3. This evidence by Voxpopulis (talk · contribs) aka Semitransgenic (talk · contribs) again contains exactly one edit. Mattisse was there at the time, GA reviewing. I asked Mattisse for feedback about my behaviour at the time, Mattisse's answer is here: [309][310]

4. The article concerned here, Rick Ross (consultant), was in a mess. No one seemed to have made any effort to go systematically through the available scholarly literature. I did, and the RS I found in google books tended to focus on the Jason Scott case and Ross's involvement in the Waco case. Scholars were overwhelmingly critical of Ross, questioning his qualifications, motives and the legality of his methods.

Cirt and Will_Beback made several efforts to remove sourced material on the Jason Scott case from Ross's BLP. This was Cirt's first attempt:

edit summary: (way, way, too much WP:Undue weight in a WP:BLP article, not to mention utilizing an obviously biased and financial conflict of interest source.)

Edit summary: "This is a WP:BLP article and as such the sources should NOT have an obvious bias and financial conflict of interest. The info should stay out, until after consensus is determined, not reverse."

Cirt succeeded in the end, by edit-warring the material out:

[311] revert by anonymous IP; [312] Mosedschurte; [313] anonymous IP; [314] Cirt; [315] anonymous IP; [316] Cirt (the edit summary is ironic, as the IP was actually restoring sourced material).

I brought an edit-warring complaint against Mosedschurte and Cirt which was dismissed. Standards used to define edit-warring at the 3RR noticeboard are very different from those used in arbitration. ;)

Like Cirt, Ross too has alleged in his evidence that I use "very questionable and biased sources closely aligned with cults, such as Scientology." No noticeboard has ever upheld Cirt's and Ross's contention that Anson Shupe is a "financial conflict of interest source" or that he is anything other than one of the world's foremost academic authorities in this field.

Ross provided 14 diffs illustrating edit-warring in the evidence section that Roger cites. In fact, these 14 diffs relate to exactly 6 edits. This is evident if you remove the square brackets and compare the numbers at the end:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=245486893&oldid=245486019
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=245486893&oldid=245486019
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=246608329&oldid=246604659
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=246608329&oldid=246604659
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=246656324&oldid=246654194
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=246656324&oldid=246654194
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=251749343&oldid=251740581
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=251749343&oldid=251740581
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=255923388&oldid=255919275
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=255923388&oldid=255919275
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=255923388&oldid=255919275
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=255923388&oldid=255919275
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=255934530&oldid=255932714
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rick_Ross_(consultant)&diff=255934530&oldid=255932714

Each diff is given twice. One is given four times.

  • The first revert is my undoing Cirt's undiscussed deletion of umpteen kilobytes of critical material, impeccably sourced, because of Cirt's idiosyncratic view that Shupe is "an obviously biased and financial conflict of interest source". (There was no separate article on the Scott case then.) At the time, I believed WP encouraged a principle called WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss).
  • The next two reverts, reverting edits by Will_Beback, I must say I am less happy with today, given that by then there was a separate article on the Scott case.
  • This revert reverted a large amount of undiscussed changes; as the subsequent edits show, I then went through the points one by one, restored many of the edits I'd reverted and discussed the remainder.
  • This revert, diffed four (!) times in Ross's evidence, reverted the addition of Ross's self-published blog as a source for derogatory and speculative comments about his opponents in a court case. I am sorry, when two parties are involved in a court case, we don't quote the one party's blog as an encyclopedic source for derogatory comments on their opponents. WP:SELFPUB etc. I stand by that edit.
  • The last of these reverts again reverted the deletion of sourced material, which was made without talk page consultation and wrongly claimed that "Ross and two associates were charged with unlawful imprisonment and later acquitted". In fact, his associates were sentenced to brief jail terms.

At the time it seemed to me like there was an effort by editors to shift all unpalatable material from Rick Ross to Jason Scott case, essentially creating a POV fork. The arguments for and against doing so were discussed by Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) and myself here. This is the article version which Mosedschurte claimed devoted "58.97%" to the Jason Scott case and which I restored in the last of the above diffs. It clearly did not devote "58.97%" to the Jason Scott case, except perhaps if you count the copious RS references. In the end though I acquiesced; what convinced me more than anything was the fact that we give very little detail on the criminal and civil trials in OJ Simpson's BLP, even though these cases were obviously far more prominent than the Scott case.

One more response to Cirt

I already addressed YellowMonkey's comment above, under #Rick_Ross_BLP, after Spidern quoted the same comment. As Cirt rightly says, YellowMonkey commented, "If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party."

The point is that the material was attributed. It was prefaced with the words 'According to a detailed account of the case by Anson Shupe, a professor of sociology at the joint Indiana University-Purdue University campus in Fort Wayne, and Susan J. Darnell, in their 2006 book Agents of Discord, "based closely on court documents and testimonies, including Scott's own under-oath account of his deprogramming experience" ...'. The article also mentioned that Shupe testified as an expert witness for Scott. Shupe's testimony as an expert witness was his only involvement in the trial. He was not a party. If a renowned academic testifies as an expert witness in a prominent case and then writes an account of the case, that is a fine source to use. The fact that he may have been paid for his expert testimony does not make his subsequent book a financial conflict of interest source, and YellowMonkey did not say that it did.

Evidence presented by Crotalus horridus

Wikipedia articles on Scientology rely excessively on personal web pages and other unreliable sources

Wikipedia has a grossly excessive number of external links to unreliable personal web pages on Scientology. These include:

More examples could be given. Some of these links are being used as sources, despite the fact that they fail the policies and guidelines for reliability. Others are used as "convenience links" — many of which are copyright violations. A quick perusal of the Xenu and Lermanet link searches will show links to numerous articles that have been reproduced without permission. I am NOT referring to their so-called "sacred scriptures" or anything like that, I mean normal news articles from mainstream sources that have been reproduced and are being linked to in blatant violation of WP:LINKVIO. See ref.19 of Operation Snow White, ref.2 of Ronald DeWolf, ref.45 of Religious Technology Center, and too many others to count.

Many of our external links to these personal web sites would probably be considered spam in most other contexts.

Excessive reliance on primary sources

Excessive reliance on primary sources is another major weakness of Scientology-related articles. Religious Technology Center, for instance, seems to consist of about 90% primary references, with only limited secondary material. As per WP:PRIMARY, it is "easy to misuse" primary sources and engage in original research, perhaps inadvertently; consequently, such sources should be used "with care." I do not think due care has been used in many cases. For instance, many of the Hubbard references in Space opera in Scientology scripture are almost certainly original research since they do not mention "space opera" and this connection has been made by Wikipedia editors.

Some articles appear to have been deliberately written with an anti-Scientology POV

This featured article nomination is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. The comments make it clear that the purpose of featuring this article was to showcase a particular POV. This kind of politicization of the featured content process is a clear violation of Wikipedia's core policies.

There is no shortage of reliable sources on Scientology, including criticisms

A quick perusal of Google Books shows there are plenty of sources on Scientology, including many which are peer-reviewed. Notable criticisms, such as the excessive copyright claims of Scientology and their litigiousness, have been discussed in reliable sources such as books by mainstream publishing houses, and articles from reliable newspapers and newsmagazines.

For instance this Google Books search on "Religious Technology Center" (an article which we currently have sourced almost entirely to primary material) has plenty of reliable references, including many books on copyright issues where the controversy regarding "secret" scriptures has been explicitly discussed. See, for instance, this Google Books result, a book on cyber-law by our very own Mike Godwin, published by a university press.

We have no need to fall back on biased, unreliable personal webpages.

Some narrow Scientology subtopics might be hard to reference from reliable, secondary sources. If that is the case, we shouldn't have those articles at all; we delete "fancruft" and other material on the same grounds all the time. If no reliable third parties ever discussed a particular topic, then how important is it, really?

Investigative reporting on Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance re: Scientology-related issues

These edits: [317] [318] and [319] may be fine investigative reporting, but they are clearly not permitted in Wikipedia under WP:SYNTH. None of these comparisons, to my knowledge, have ever been discussed in a reliable, third-party source.

Nominating Scientology-related articles for deletion is now a blockable offense?

I was recently blocked for 24 hours by Phil Sandifer for alleged "disruption." This supposed disruption consisted of the nomination of three Scientology-related articles (Michelle Stith, Tim Bowles, and body thetan) for deletion on AFD. I believe that the purpose of this block was retaliation against me for attempting to counter POV-pushing, and was intended to create a chilling effect on anyone else who might attempt to buck Wikipedia's "house POV" of anti-Scientology.

These were perfectly normal deletion nominations, with standard rationales (inadequate coverage in reliable, third-party sources). Other articles (e.g. Daniel Brandt, Brian Peppers, GNAA) have been subject to far more deletion nominations, and many were indeed eventually deleted. So there can be no basis for the claim that a 3rd or 5th deletion discussion is in iself a form of disruption (especially when the last discussion took place over a year ago, and consensus can change). Nor can 3 nominations possibly be considered "flooding" the system (compare TTN, who often nominates dozens of articles in a day or more, and, despite numerous complaints and discussions, has never been blocked for his use of AFD, though he was briefly for other unrelated reasons).

I have no brief for Scientology myself. I tend to believe, based on the organization's beliefs and actions, that it was created and still exists primarily for the personal enrichment of its founders and leaders. But I also believe, even more strongly, in neutral point of view. And this has been completely disregarded for far too long on Scientology-related topics on Wikipedia, as the remainder of the evidence shows.

Evidence presented by GoodDamon

There are several issues, each requiring its own evidence. I will try to be succinct.

Poor references

This is the wrong forum for hashing out sourcing issues. I have called for such issues to be discussed at RS/N, and I've been ignored. If the arbitration committee does decide to rule on sourcing (regardless of accounts involved), then the only thing I have to say is that sourcing is a tremendous problem in the Scientology articles, which are rife with primary sources generally favorable to Scientology and self-published sources generally unfavorable to Scientology.

User:Cirt

I have very little to say here, except to urge the arbitration committee to examine the accusations against him, because they fall completely apart on close examination. See here for an example.

Single-purpose, POV-pushing accounts

The facts aren't in dispute; IP addresses used by the Church of Scientology have been editing in Wikipedia articles about Scientology. The only things that are in dispute:

  • Does the argument that the IP addresses are proxies used by hundreds or thousands of people hold water?
  • Does it matter, if those IP addresses have been used solely to edit in Scientology-related articles, pushing a positive POV?

I don't have any additional evidence in the matter. I think the facts speak for themselves, and the proxy argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny, because you would expect edits in other areas from a proxy used by thousands. If we're to accept that argument at face value, it essentially renders WP:SOCK a nonviable, unenforceable policy. It opens the door for any sockpuppet to make similar claims. We need to say, once and for all, whether we are making an exception to the policy in this case, and if we are, we need to say why.

Civility

Several of the above SPAs have civility issues. Examples below:

User:Shutterbug

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

User:Misou

I was not pleased to see Misou's recent return in particular, because this account has had very bad civility issues in the past, enough that at one point I was preparing a report about it. While the evidence below is now fairly old, I think it establishes why seeing this account return at the same time as Shutterbug worried me.

Examples of Misou attacking other editors

  • Misou attacks Foobaz.
  • Misou misrepresents a discussion about a new section Anynobody added.
  • Misou attacks me shortly after I had complimented Misou and others for working together to make a good, neutral change to an article, a change which involved me undertaking to write an entirely new article for Wikipedia.
  • Misou attacks Stan En during the discussions leading to the good change I describe above.
  • Misou reverts the removal of a reference that wasn't actually related to the article text, and attacks me, GoodDamon, explicitly while doing so. In fairness, a later edit of the article text provided a basis for reintroducing the reference, but at the time, the text didn't support the reference.

Odd attacks - using German?

Misou sometimes adds German to statements he makes to editors who edit at apparent cross-purposes to him. For example, here he adds German to a question he asks of Jeffrey.Kleykamp. I've seen this behavior fairly frequently. It appears he is equating some editors with Germans in an insulting manner.

Examples of Misou intentionally misrepresenting Wikipedia rules for his benefit

  • Misou describes a critical website as a "private hate site" as a reason to remove references to it.
  • Misou describes a critical website as a "private hate site" again, and states incorrectly that it violates WP:EL.
  • Misou reverts the addition of new material as vandalism, although it's demonstrably properly ref'd material.
Note: For the record, after some discussion I supported the removal of the section until balancing material could be located, as it did portray the subject of the article in a very negative light. But the references were sterling, and should never have been reverted as vandalism. This would also qualify as an attack on the editor who added the material, Anynobody.
  • Misou reverts the removal of references he added that had nothing to do with the Church of Scientology, and again misidentifies the edit as vandalism.
  • Misou deletes wide swaths of well-referenced material with this explanation: "Sorry Chris, this is just not part of regualar Scientology teachings but some druggies' wet dreams." He does not provide any other arguments for removing this material.

Examples of Misou making factually incorrect edits

  • Misou replaces the word "journals" with the word "scripts", which has the effect of changing the apparent source of a Hubbard quote to a "script," as if it were in one of his works of fiction. The edit summary is also quite insulting.
  • Misou removes a reference he describes as a "porn link farm", which it is not. In fairness, he later removes it again as "non-RS", which may be accurate.
  • Misou removes text as unsourced, when it actually is. He is subsequently reverted.
  • Misou removes fully-sourced text (I read the source article myself), calling it "unsourced and actually just a blunt lie."
  • Misou reverts an edit that neutralized tone, and says "See, GoodD, you actually should read the refs. makes more sense then." I did read the refs. Misou's edit is incorrect.

Misou's current editing patterns have remained true to form. For example, in this edit, the account describes a website as an "anonymous 'attack' site" and removes it. As the site in question was not anonymously hosted -- indeed, the owner's name is part of the URL -- it is another inaccurate edit summary. The link should have been removed for other reasons, such as being self-published and being original research, but Misou's edit summaries are frequently incorrect in this manner.


Evidence presented by Cirt

Initial statement by Cirt

I have responded already to many of the issues brought up on this evidence page in the closed-WP:AE thread ([320], [321], [322], [323], [324], [325], [326], [327], [328]). It should be noted that in some instances at RFC discussions I actually agree with those individuals such as Justallofthem (talk · contribs) that I have come into disagreements with in the past. It should also be noted that historically I have started RFCs in order to resolve content disputes, such as here at David Miscavige, later closing the RFC against my own prior position here, deferring to community consensus on the issue as is appropriate after a content-RFC. See also an example from another Scientology-related article, The Profit. An editor was adding inappropriate links to the external links section of the article. I started a RFC, and later closed it after receiving definitive comments from two previously uninvolved editors who supported my position.

Ideally there would be no need for apologies. We all have our strengths and our weaknesses, though, and I am better at content work than at talk page and noticeboard interaction. Occasionally I articulate a valid concern via the wrong rationale. Usually I contact Durova and show her a draft before posting if I'm unsure how my words will go across in talk and project space. She has little interest in Scientology but she knows and cares a great deal about Wikipedia and she's tough. This time I contacted her after the fact (and believe me, she got exceptionally tough). At a less contentious subject it would hardly have been a bone of contention: I would have posted a correction, possibly opened a WP:RSN thread, and the matter would have gotten a quiet resolution.

At this subject, though, good faith is in short supply and an AE thread opened when dialog would have been better. For my own part I am quite sorry to have inadvertently added another straw to an overburdened camel's back. I hope fellow editors and the Committee accept in good faith that after 11 featured articles and 31 good articles, many of which relate to new religious movements, I really have left behind the edit warrior I used to be two years ago. It seems some people are eager to exploit any misstep whatsoever to scare the community into supposing that the bogeyman has finally returned. Well whatever the bogeyman is, I'm not him, and I really am dedicated to getting it right. Cirt (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Additional confirmations in COFS checkuser case

Coincident IP usage of selected Scientology-related editors.

Account ws.churchofscientology.org ns1.scientology.org hostnoc.net IP in PA IP in Munich different IP in Munich IP in Berlin your-freedom.net open proxy in Asia
COFS (now Shutterbug)  Confirmed  Confirmed  Confirmed - - -  Confirmed  Confirmed
CSI LA  Confirmed -  Confirmed - - -  Confirmed -
Misou  Confirmed -  Confirmed  Confirmed  Confirmed  Confirmed  Confirmed -
Makoshack  Confirmed -  Confirmed - - -  Confirmed -
Grrrilla -  Confirmed - -  Confirmed  Confirmed  Confirmed -
Su-Jada -  Confirmed - - - - - -
Proximodiz -  Confirmed - - - - - -
TaborG - - - - - - -  Confirmed
Derflipper - - - - - - -  Confirmed
Shrampes - - - - - -  Confirmed -
Evidence confirming above

Cirt (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cirt's contributions

Contributions that reflect favorably upon Scientology

It has been alleged that my contributions are exclusively anti-Scientology, but that is not true. All of the following articles are contributions that reflect positively on Scientology and/or its founder, L. Ron Hubbard.

Cirt (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evenhandedness

It has been asserted that I am blinded by prejudice. My actions demonstrate otherwise. A few examples follow of my responses to anti-Scientology disruption and canvassing.

  • Talk:List of new religious movements - the article became subject to off-site canvassing by members of the group "Anonymous" in a disagreement about whether to characterize Scientology as a "extremist" or "supremacist" new religious movement. Justallofthem started a request for comment and I agreed with Justallofthem, opposing the Anonymous activists due to lack of proper sourcing for the position they were advocating.[333][334]

Cirt (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broad interests

I produce quality work on a variety of subjects (see User:Cirt/top). I have contributed a total of 11 featured articles, 31 good articles, 2 good topics, 47 DYK articles, and 14 featured portals. I am the most prolific contributor of featured portals at Wikipedia. Many of those are completely unrelated to Scientology and new religious movements, such as the two where Durova and I collaborated: Portal:Textile arts and Portal:Feminism.

Cirt (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Bravehartbear

I made a total of eight edits to the article Scientology in November 2008. The majority of these were minor in nature only (wikifying a word, de-linking common terms, etc.) One edit in particular restored a prior version of the article [335], after Shutterbug/COFS gave a false and inaccurate rationale in an edit summary about his reasoning for removing sourced material:

Factually incorrect edit by Shutterbug/COFS -

03:25, 25 November 2008 - i read the whole source and this is not in there - Shutterbug
Actually, the information was supported by the source that Shutterbug/COFS removed, and Shutterbug was incorrect in the choice of edit summary here in attempting to remove a valid reference. What the source (Los Angeles Times) says: During the last 75 million years, these implanted thetans have affixed themselves by the thousands to people on Earth. Called "body thetans," they overwhelm the main thetan who resides within a person, causing confusion and internal conflict.

The majority of my other edits were minor wikignoming: [336], [337], [338], [339], [340], [341], [342] Cirt (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justallofthem has selectively nominated Scientology-critical articles to AfD

Justallofthem (talk · contribs) has selectively nominated articles critical of the Church of Scientology for deletion.

Across his usernames Justanother/JustaHulk/Justallofthem, 77% of articles he has nominated for deletion have been kept, one was merged with the content kept, and one was deleted later. The numbers here are certainly surprising, and I leave it to the Arbitration Committee to determine whether this amounts to abuse of process.

To date, I am unaware of any AfD nominations by Justallofthem on non-notable articles that reflect positively on Scientology:

  1. 11 March 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Schwarz (4th nomination) - Result was Keep per the discussion, although later deleted by other means
  2. 13 April 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Bowles (3rd nomination) - Result was no consensus tending to a keep consensus, DRV overturned, fourth AfD result was Keep.
  3. 1 June 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John G. Clark Award for Distinguished Scholarship in Cultic Studies - Result was no consensus.
  4. 12 July 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Stith - Result was no consensus, defaulting to keep.
  5. 25 October 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noah Lottick - Result was merge.
  6. 20 December 2007 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mary DeMoss - Result was Keep.
  7. 6 February 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incident (Scientology) - Result was Keep
  8. 30 April 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David J. Schindler - Result was delete
  9. 6 June 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carmichael (Scientologist) - Result was Keep.
  10. 27 June 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cults - Result was speedy close, sent to Redirects for discussion, where result was no consensus.
  11. 25 November 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientology and sex (2nd nomination) - Result was Keep.
  12. 25 November 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Scientology - Result was Keep.
  13. 4 December 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patter drill - Result was delete.
Cirt AfDs

In case anyone accuses me of bias in AFD nominations, it is worth noting that I have actually succeeded in getting more articles deleted that had shed a negative light on Scientology.

  1. 20 January 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead File - Result was Keep.
  2. 12 June 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Graham (former Scientologist) - Result was Speedy delete.
  3. 12 July 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Variant texts in Scientology doctrine - Result was Delete.
  4. 23 July 2008 - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noelle North - Result was Delete.

Cirt (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 removes sourced information critical of Scientology

Since this Arbitration Case has begun, Jayen466 (talk · contribs) has followed my edits to articles that I wrote, and removed properly cited passages that I had written.

Thomas W. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

John Sweeney (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • 16 December 2008 - Jayen466 removes sourced positive information from the WP:BLP article about a journalist who had produced a program critical of Scientology.

John Carmichael (Scientologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Way to Happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • 17:05, 17 December 2008 - Jayen466 removes sourced statements from public officials about the unauthorized usage of official city logos in Scientology booklets. Removes sourced statement from an official representative of the Church of Scientology.

Cirt (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi alters NPA policy to gain upper hand in a dispute during this case

Jossi (talk · contribs), a party to this ongoing Arbitration Case, has recently continued his pattern of behavior of changing Wikipedia policy to suit his needs while in a relevant conflict related to that policy.

  1. 17:47, 19 December 2008 - While in a discussion with Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs) over Mr. Ross's WP:BLP article, Ross made this statement at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant): This bio is already largely dominated by "cult" (Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Guru Maharaji/Prem Rawat) devotees (Jossi and Jayen466)as it is. It's sad how easy it is to manipulate Wikipedia. For esample, sources now cited for "Reading" such as CESNUR, which is run by a man very closely associated with groups called "cults" and frequent cult employee J. Gordon Melton, whose writings are included about the "anti-cult movement." These sources act as surrogates for cults and are little more than sock puppets.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 16:35, 20 December 2008 - Jossi then proceeds to go to the user talk page for Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs), a user he is currently involved in a conflict with, and warns Ross about WP:NPA. [343]
  3. 17:15, 20 December 2008 - Jossi goes over to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy page, and makes a change which he characterizes in his edit summary as "copy edit", changing the policy itself to suit his needs in his discussion related to Mr. Ross on the Talk:Rick Ross (consultant) page and the related warning he gave Ross on Ross's user page. [344]

@Jossi - The important point the Arbitrators should note here is Jossi's pattern of altering Wikipedia policy to justify a warning he gave, after Rick Ross made the statement. Sequence of events: 17:47, 19 December 2008, 16:35, 20 December 2008, 17:15, 20 December 2008

Addendum - Jossi has edit-warred the NPA policy page to the point of full protection

In conjunction with Jossi's inappropriate warning to Rick Ross, today Jossi edit warred at the NPA policy until full protection was necessary on the policy.

  1. 17:15, 20 December 2008 - Jossi alters NPA policy to suit his needs in an ongoing conflict at Talk:Rick Ross (consultant)
  2. 18:33, 20 December 2008 - Risker: Undid revision 259189503 by Jossi (talk) rv good faith edits, I think this is too limiting
  3. 18:34, 20 December 2008 - Jossi makes non-consensus change, again.
  4. 19:04, 20 December 2008 - Jossi's changes partially undone by Rootology (talk · contribs).
  5. 19:08, 20 December 2008 - Jossi's non-consensus text removed by Will Beback (talk · contribs).
  6. 21:42, 20 December 2008, 21:45, 20 December 2008 - Jossi "restoring Risker original addition"
  7. 21:51, 20 December 2008 - Will Beback: rv to 16:13, December 17, 2008 - no consensus for changes
  8. 21:58, 20 December 2008 - Jossi: incorporating initial formulation.
  9. 21:59, 20 December 2008 - Rootology: Jossi, please wait for consensus under BRD, and I think you're at 3RR now
  10. 22:04, 20 December 2008 - Full protection applied by Aitias (talk · contribs)

Cirt (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justallofthem disrupts Scientology articles during ongoing Arbitration case

Justallofthem (talk · contribs) has disrupted Scientology articles during this ongoing Arbitration case. He initiated a merge proposal on a Featured Article, Xenu, during this case. Users commented about the merge proposal and the value or lack thereof of merging some material into the article Xenu, as opposed to other articles. After a little over a week, Justallofthem closed his own merge proposal himself according to his own initial proposal, and then proceeded to redirect articles to Xenu against consensus. Justallofthem also removed a sentence from the lead of the article Xenu without discussion; this information is sourced later in the article. This, in conjunction with the evidence presented above of Justallofthem's selective nomination to AfD of articles critical of the Church of Scientology for deletion, shows a pattern of behavior that is not constructive on this project and specifically on articles related to Scientology.

Cirt (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology-related accounts edit articles discussing Xenu

Normal Scientologists acting on their own initiative would not be allowed to view or edit Wikipedia articles about Xenu and other sensitive Church of Scientology doctrine, unless they receive special authorization from the organization. And yet the fact remains that Scientology-related accounts are editing articles discussing the Xenu story and material critical of the Scientology organization.

Historically the Church of Scientology has made a practice of installing software on the computers of Scientologists which prevents them from reading material on the Internet that is critical of the organization, as well as any material discussing the Xenu story. See for example: "But if you want to visit alt.religion.scientology, the Web site of Operation Clambake or just about any page that mentions the word "Xenu," you're out of luck. In fact, you'd probably be unable to read this article. Because the starter kit that you just used to build your Web site also installed what Scientology critics are calling the "Scieno Sitter": a filtering program, like those used to hide pornography from children, that prevents Scientologists from seeing terms and phrases that the church has decided to block."

Multiple secondary sources confirm that Scientologists are not allowed to read about the Xenu story until they have reached a certain level within the organization (OT 3), and paid a certain amount of money to get to this level. Scientologists sign a waiver promising not to reveal the secrets of the OT 3 story, and they first read the Xenu story in a private locked room. Even once Scientologists have reached this level, they are not allowed to discuss the Xenu story with others.

Shutterbug, who formerly edited as COFS (of the prior arbitration case by that name), compares any Wikipedia-imposed restriction on editing as tantamount to religious discrimination: "Equal opportunity" for "every person" but not for Scientologists has a taste of open discrimination.

After the Committee passed its "Responsibility of organizations" finding in the COFS case, COFS/Shutterbug simply ignored it and behaves as if the principle did not exist. For example, Factually wrong. This insinuates that users using computers provided by the Church of Scientology are working on their behalf. And that's just not true. Now Shutterbug insinuates that ordinary Scientologists edit Xenu and related articles entirely on their own initiative, even from official organizational servers. The Committee is welcome to check the reliable sources and estimate which is more likely.

Scientology-related accounts edit articles discussing Xenu
Account Article Diff Xenu story present in article as of that edit?
COFS (now Shutterbug) Scientology Diff Yes – Scientologists who have advanced to a state of "Clear" may continue onto the higher OT (or "Operating Thetan") Levels. In the previously confidential OT levels, Hubbard explains how to reverse the effects of past-life trauma patterns that supposedly extend millions of years into the past.[59] Among these advanced teachings is the story of Xenu (sometimes Xemu), introduced as an alien ruler of the "Galactic Confederacy." According to this story, 75 million years ago Xenu brought billions of people to Earth in spacecraft resembling Douglas DC-8 airliners, stacked them around volcanoes and detonated hydrogen bombs in the volcanoes. The thetans then clustered together, stuck to the bodies of the living, and continue to do this today. Scientologists at advanced levels place considerable emphasis on isolating thetans and neutralizing their ill effects.[60]
CSI LA Scientology Diff Yes
Misou Scientology Diff Yes
Makoshack Xenu Diff Yes
Grrrilla Scientology Diff Yes
Su-Jada Scientology Diff Yes
Proximodiz Scientology Diff Yes
TaborG Project Chanology Diff Brief mentions, however the entire page contains material about individuals deemed "Suppressive Persons" by the Church of Scientology – also forbidden reading material to Scientologists without express permission from the organization to read critical material on the Internet
Derflipper Scientology Diff Yes
Shrampes Dianetics Diff Yes
Bravehartbear Scientology Diff Yes
Justallofthem Xenu Diff Yes
References
  • Behar, Richard (October 27, 1986). "The prophet and profits of Scientology". Forbes. The upper levels of sacred scientological doctrine are said to be so powerful that one could die of pneumonia if he tried to absorb them without proper training.
  • Brown, Janelle (July 17, 1998). "A Web of their own". Salon. But if you want to visit alt.religion.scientology, the Web site of Operation Clambake or just about any page that mentions the word "Xenu," you're out of luck. In fact, you'd probably be unable to read this article. Because the starter kit that you just used to build your Web site also installed what Scientology critics are calling the "Scieno Sitter": a filtering program, like those used to hide pornography from children, that prevents Scientologists from seeing terms and phrases that the church has decided to block.
  • Cote, Neil (December 12, 1991). "Tax exemption now obscured by holy smoke". The Tampa Tribune. p. 1. The Scientologists won't openly discuss the diabolical Xenu . For those of you who haven't poured tens of thousands of dollars into Scientology courses, Xenu is the deposed tyrant of the Galactic Confederation, which 75 million years ago collapsed like today's Soviet Union.
  • Farley, Robert (September 17, 2006). "Scientology's scourge". St. Petersburg Times. People come from all over the world to Clearwater to study the highest levels of Scientology, called OT levels, or Operating Thetan levels. Members pay tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars to have those levels revealed. Scientology levels build upon one another, and reading ahead to higher levels is strictly forbidden.
  • Fisher, Marc (August 19, 1995). "Church in Cyberspace - Its Sacred Writ Is On The Net. Its Lawyers Are On The Case". The Washington Post. p. C1. The church believes that 75 million years ago, the leader of the Galactic Federation, Xenu , solved an overpopulation problem by freezing the excess people in a compound of alcohol and glycol and transporting them by spaceship to Teegeeack -- which we know as Earth. There they were chained to a volcano and exploded by hydrogen bombs. The souls of those dead -- "body thetans" -- are the root of most human misery to this day. Much of Scientology's upper-level training consists of re-creations of that galactic genocide. Weiland says most church members pay up to $20,000 to reach the final stages of the training. Critics estimate the total cost at closer to $300,000.
  • Grossman, Wendy (1997). Net.wars. NYU Press. p. 87. ISBN 0814731031. Knowing that Scientologists are not supposed to say the name of Xenu, the alien being Hubbard is said to have named supreme, one poster proposed using it in message subjects to identify non-spam articles so they could be filtered into a sub-newsgroup accepting only those postings.
  • Mallia, Joseph (March 4, 1998). "Inside the Church of Scientology - Sacred teachings not secret anymore". Boston Herald. p. 25. Scientology teaches that humans first came to the earth from outer space 75 million years ago, sent into exile here by an evil warlord named Xenu, according to church documents. ... "'When people hear the secret teachings of Scientology, they think, 'How could anyone believe such nonsense?'" said cult expert Steve Hassan. "'The fact is that the vast number of Scientologists don't know those teachings. Scientologists are told that they will become ill and die if they hear them before they're ready," Hassan said.
  • Ortega, Tony (September 27, 2001). "Sympathy For The Devil". New Times Los Angeles. For example, since the OT III genesis story is a secret that adherents must pay thousands of dollars to learn, the church jealously guards those materials and forbids Scientologists to mention the name Xenu publicly or even to acknowledge that the galactic overlord figures in their cosmology.
  • Reitman, Janet (February 23, 2006). "Inside Scientology: Unlocking the complex code of America's most mysterious religion". Rolling Stone. Scientologists must be "invited" to do OT III. Beforehand, they are put through an intensive auditing process to verify that they are ready. They sign a waiver promising never to reveal the secrets of OT III, nor to hold Scientology responsible for any trauma or damage one might endure at this stage of auditing. Finally, they are given a manila folder, which they must read in a private, locked room.
  • Streeter, Michael (2008). Behind Closed Doors: The Power and Influence of Secret Societies. New Holland Publishers. p. 219. ISBN 1845379373. Former member Chuck Beatty says that the Xenu story was taken very seriously within the organization, and was officially only known to those who had reached the level of OT3. 'It's like a garlic word if you say the words Xenu or body thetans. Scientologists are not even allowed to repeat these words in public,' he says. 'They believe it would jeopardize the case progress or affect their health by stirring up thoughts about the thousands of personal body thetans each person supposedly has. That incident, the story of Xenu, is an extremely important incident theologically, because it explains why everyone is infested with body thetans here on earth. It is a serious event considered to have happened. Only at the highest spiritual levels of the whole Scientology Bridge to Total Freedom do beginner Scientologists even learn about Xenu.'
  • Urban, Hugh B. (June 2006). "Fair Game: Secrecy, Security, and the Church of Scientology in Cold War America". Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 74 (2). Oxford University Press: 356–389.
  • Waller, Martin (May 17, 2007). "Xenu phobia forms defensive shield". The Times. ...Xenu, the alien who is supposed to have visited the Earth 75 million years ago, but you are not allowed to know about him until you have reached a certain level in the "church" and shelled out an amount of cash.

Cirt (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible IP socks of Justallofthem were warned four years ago about sockpuppetry

Checkuser YellowMonkey has confirmed that Justallofthem (talk · contribs) has been actively socking recently with the account Truthtell. As was already shown by the checkuser confirmations from Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Justanother, sockpuppetry is not a new issue for Justallofthem. IP address posters were warned four years ago about sockpuppetry for using multiple IP addresses in an attempt to manipulate discussion at the talk page of the article L. Ron Hubbard - the Truthtell account later made reference to these posts in an edit summary. Note: The IPs mentioned below, as well as others used for similar intentions as the Truthtell account, including 68.130.206.73, 68.130.206.166, 65.144.44.104, 65.139.80.23, 65.141.40.101, track back to the same area as the 9 checkuser-confirmed IP sockpuppets of Justallofthem.

If these are the same user, then Justallofthem has been doing disruptive sockpuppeting for four years. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial conflict of interest in source material

I have concerns about overemphasizing potentially biased sources with possible financial conflict of interest on topics relating to cults/new religious movements.

John Nevard (talk · contribs) recently commented at the Workshop page for Prem Rawat 2 case: To borrow a point from Durova, 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.

I will let the quotes from the below cited sources speak for themselves.

Quotes from scholars
Notes on conflict of interest with cults / new religious movements
Name Notes
Melton, J. Gordon
  • "Counsel for the defense noted that Dr Melton had been criticized for being a 'cult apologist who has a long association of defending the practices of destructive cults' by another expert.." (The Straits Times)
  • Melton describing the group Peoples Temple: "This wasn't a cult. This was a respectable, mainline Christian group." (The Straits Times)
  • "Melton, who has written extensively on cults and religions, has come out in defense of Aum, the Japanese cult linked to the gassing of a Tokyo subway in March that killed twelve people, and the Church of Scientology has asked him to testify in court on its behalf." (Walls)
Shupe, Anson
  • "When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979." (Kent and Krebs)
  • "Shupe did not read the full statements of the plaintiffs and defendants when formulating his opinions for deposition about the events in the case. Instead, he read excerpts from them supplied by the prosecuting lawyer, Kendrick Moxon. When asked if he had considered whether the depositions "may have been taken out of context" Shupe answered that he "trusted Mr. Moxon" to provide a "pretty good sample of the depositions" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 109). ... Shupe's trust in Moxon's judgement, however, about providing a "pretty good sample" of depositions about CAN may have been misplaced. Years earlier, while acting in a legal capacity for Scientology, Moxon was a member of Scientology's Guardian Office, "working in the very office where massive covert operations against the government were being run at the time" (Horne, 1992, 79). In 1992, Moxon misrepresented his actions on behalf of his organization during the U.S. government's criminal investigation of the Scientologists' burglaries into U.S. government offices, denying (to The American Lawyer "knowledge of the criminal operations being run out of the office" (Horne, 1992, 80). ... the grand jury for the case "had" named him an "unindicted co-conspirator" ([ USA ] v. Mary Sue Hubbard, et. al., 1979a, 7)." (Kent and Krebs)
Lewis, James R.
  • "The sect has emerged as the chief suspect in the gas attack on the Tokyo subways on March 20, that left 12 dead. The police are also said to be investigating whether the sect is linked to a 1994 poison gas case that killed seven, and to the shooting of the national police chief who was supervising the investigation of the cult. One of the Americans, James Lewis, told a hostile and evidently incredulous roomful of Japanese reporters gathered at an Aum office Monday that the cult could not have produced the rare poison gas, sarin, used in both murder cases. He said the Americans had determined this from photos and documents provided by Aum. ... The Americans said the sect had invited them to visit after they expressed concern to Aum's New York branch about religious freedom in Japan. They said their airfare, hotel bills and "basic expenses" were paid by the cult." (Reid)
  • "However, because time was of the essence, Aum offered to help move up our timetable by paying the team's expenses, an offer that was accepted only after AUM further arranged to provide all expenses ahead of time, so that financial considerations would not be attached to our final report." (Lewis)
  • "As Kent was checking his page proofs, the publication's editors informed him that an attorney representing The Family, a Family spokesperson, and an American researcher all had sent letters objecting to the publication of his article (which the objectors had not read). The lawyer and The Family representative made vague overtures about a lawsuit. The American researcher, Mr. James R. Lewis, alleged "questionable" aspects of Kent's research on Berg, and also accused him of "violat[ing] professional ethics" (in Mobilio, 1994, 17). Remarkably, after alleging ethical problems with Kent 's study, Lewis misrepresented his own credentials by identifying himself as "James R. Lewis, Ph. D.," even though he never completed the doctorate at the University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill . Indeed, at least three controversial religions and a professional colleague thought that Lewis had his doctorate (Church of Scientology International, [1994/1995?], [3], 67, 68; Church of Scientology International, 1995a [3], 33, 35; Cult Awareness Network, [1996/1997]; Royal Teton Ranch News, 1994, 8; Scott vs. Ross, et. al. 1995a, 134)." (Kent and Krebs)
Introvigne, Massimo
  • "The tight circle of speakers and panelists which Introvigne has gotten together over the course of the years is very partial toward the public defense of those sects (of which they are often members) which have been discredited. Those invited to work at the Amsterdam Free University (VU) include Eileen Barker, who worked for years at ICUS, a research institute sponsored by the Moon sect. The American participant, J. Gordon Melton, let the AUM sect pay for his plane ticket to Japan in past years - after the sect conducted an attack at the metro station - to protest against the "religious suppression" and the "unjust treatment" of the sect. Of the Dutch participants, Richard Singelenberg, sociologist and "TROUW" writer, "translated and worked up" a book published by the Church of Scientology called "A Scientific Approach to the Teachings of Scientology," originally written by the American, Bryan R. Wilson, whose work appeared in the CESNUR collection "Pour en finir avec les sectes" as a kind of hagiography on Scientology." (Louter)
References
  • Amitrani, Alberto (2001). "Blind, or Just Don't Want to See?". Cults and Society. 1 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Brennan, Lawrence H. (May 6, 2008), Declaration of Lawrence H. Brennan (PDF), Executed in Merrimack County, New Hampshire, p. Religious Cloaking in the Church of Scientology: Paragraphs 12 and 13
  • Dvorkin, Alexander L. (October 25, 2006). "Are There Objective and Scientific Studies of NRM?". Center of Religious Studies, Ozernaya, Russia. Center of Religious Studies, Ozernaya, Russia.
  • Kent, Stephen A. (1998). "When Scholars Know Sin: Alternative Religions and Their Academic Supporters". Skeptic Magazine. Vol. 6, no. 3. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Lewis, James R. (1998). "Japan's Waco: AUM Shinrikyo and the Eclipse of Freedom in the Land of the Rising Sun". Prevailing Winds Magazine (2): 52–60.
  • Louter, Michiel (August 13, 1997). "Disreputable forces at work among the sect researchers at CESNUR". De Groene Amsterdammer.
  • Reid, T.R. (May 1995). "Tokyo Cult Finds an Unlikely Supporter". The Washington Post.
  • "Evidence of expert witness attacked: 'Jim Jones, Peoples Temple not a cult'". The Straits Times. July 17, 1997.
  • Walls, Jeannette (June 1997). "Giving Cults A Good Name". Esquire Magazine.
  • Zablocki, Benjamin (October 1997). "The Blacklisting of a concept: The strange history of the brainwashing conjecture in the sociology of religion". Nova Religio: The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions.

Cirt (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence by Cirt

CSI LA is a Scientology SPA

Makoshack is a Scientology SPA

Grrrilla is a Scientology SPA

Su-Jada is a Scientology SPA

  • 88.6% of edits on Scientology-related topics [392]
  • POV pushing at Scientology, pushing reliably sourced material critical of Scientology further down the page [393]
  • Inserting unsourced POV changes text Scientology runs several promotion campaigns through closely-related organizations to Scientology sponsores several social betterment campaigns through closely-related organizations [394] – this has the effect of changing the tone to represent this not as a front organization, but as a social betterment organization
  • Inserting wholly unsourced material [395], [396]
  •  Confirmed by checkuser as sharing IP technical info with Shutterbug, Grrrilla, and Proximodiz, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence#Update:_Additional_confirmations_in_COFS_checkuser_case.

Proximodiz is a Scientology SPA

TaborG is a Scientology SPA

Derflipper is a Scientology SPA

Shrampes is a Scientology SPA

Cirt (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen466 disrupts arbitration and cherry picks sources

Following up on a comment by Jehochman at the proposed decision talk page, directed at Jayen466: You're still cherry picking the sources most favorable to the point of view you have been promoting. Jayen466 had used the proposed decision talk to introduce a question outside the scope of this case, by attempting to compare the content of the Encyclopedia Britannica biography of L. Ron Hubbard to the content of Wikipedia's content of the same person in the article Scientology. [410]

One point Jayen466 attempted to raise at the proposed decision is a difference between the wording of Britannica and Wikipedia. Shortly afterward he edited mainspace to remove the descriptor "science fiction writer" from the article Scientology [411] . What he failed to note was that the overwhelming majority of pertinent encyclopedias refer to Hubbard as a science fiction writer, the same as Wikipedia did.

Encyclopedia articles characterize L. Ron Hubbard as "science fiction writer"
  1. Founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard (1911–86), Scientology began as Dianetics, which was Hubbard’s term for a kind of therapy that claimed to eliminate destructive imprints of past experiences, called “engrams,” that had accumulated in one’s unconscious.
  2. HUBBARD, L(afayette) Ron(ald) (1911-86), American science-fiction writer whose best-selling 1950 book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health, became the bible for the Church of Scientology, founded by Hubbard and his third wife in 1954.
  3. One of the more controversial of the so-called new religions. Begun by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard initially under the term Dianetics , the Church of Scientology is now a worldwide new religion of significance.
    • William H. Swatos, Jr. (ed.). "Scientology". Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Hartford Institute for Religion Research. p. 451. ISBN 0761989560. Retrieved 2009-03-21.
  4. SCIENTOLOGY The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954 by L. Ron Hubbard (1911-1986), best known as a science fiction writer.
    • Karen Christensen, ed. (2003). "Scientology". Encyclopedia of Community. SAGE. p. 1208. ISBN 0761925988.
  5. In 1950, pulp science-fiction writer named L. Ron Hubbard created the most successful psychotherapyy-themed cult of all when he published a book called Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.
    • Luis A. Cordón, ed. (2005). Popular psychology: an encyclopedia. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 60. ISBN 0313324573. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  6. Dianetics - A kind of popular lay psychotherapy devised by science-fiction writer L. Ron HUBBARD.
    • Lewis Spence (2003). "Dianetics". Encyclopedia of Occultism and Parapsychology. Kessinger Publishing. p. 239. ISBN 0766128156.
  7. Founded by science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard, Scientology started out under the name Dianetics
    • Wendy Doniger, ed. (1999). Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions. Merriam-Webster, Inc. p. 803. ISBN 0877790442. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  8. Science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard was the guru of Scientology
    • Tom Pendergast, ed. (2000). St. James encyclopedia of popular culture. St. James Press. p. 508. ISBN 1558624031. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  9. In still another example, L. Ron Hubbard, a science fiction writer, published a book in 1950 titled Dianetics
    • Edgar F. Borgatta (ed.). Encyclopedia of Sociology. Macmillan Reference USA. p. 2366. ISBN 0028648498. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  10. The Church of Scientology, founded by a science- fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard, has a controversial history
    • John K. Roth, ed. (2000). Encyclopedia of Social Issues. Marshall Cavendish Corporation. p. 443. ISBN 0761405704. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

See also:

Cirt (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology-related admin actions by Cirt

Following is a list of all the occasions that I have used admin tools on this topic to the best of my recollection.

Cirt (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jayen466 makes false claims in Arbitration case evidence

Jayen466 (talk · contribs) makes the following claim in his evidence in this case: No noticeboard has ever upheld Cirt's and Ross's contention that Anson Shupe is a "financial conflict of interest source" or that he is anything other than one of the world's foremost academic authorities in this field.

However, Jayen466 neglects to mention a thread from the Reliable sources noticeboard, which was posted for the regular length of time before being archived as an inactive thread - the consensus was that the source should not be used (Archive 27). Quoting former Arbitrator YellowMonkey (talk · contribs), in answer to the question if the source Anson Shupe should be used or if there are conflict of interest issues with the source: "If he participated in that trial/case, then no, unless it is attributed as his opinion/involved party."

Cirt (talk) 18:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Shrampes

Multiple Accounts using multiple ISPs throughout more than two years

User:Cirt and confirmed WP:SPA User:Spidern seem to concentrate their criticism on where an editor seems to come from instead of presenting the kind and value of individual contributions. The evidence submitted [448] is incomplete at best and misleading at worst. Incomplete because it leaves out the important factor of time and value of contributions, misleading because it mixes a variety of editors in one big pot. It follows a breakdown of all concerned editor's activities for review.

Account First active Last active Main space contributions Different pages Scientology SPA?
COFS (now Shutterbug) 15 February 2007 3 December 2008 973 15 15 100%
CSI LA 12 February 2007 25 April 2007 33 7 7 100%
Misou 30 September 2006 6 December 2008 715 15 15 100%
Makoshack 18 October 2006 19 October 2007 138 15 15 100%
Grrrilla 8 December 2006 18 April 2007 45 6 6 100%
Su-Jada 15 May 2007 5 November 2008 306 15 11 73%
Proximodiz 21 November 2008 12 December 2008 9 1 1 so s/he says[449]
TaborG 10 February 2007 8 December 2008 45 7 4 57%
Derflipper 23 November 2007 29 September 2008 69 11 2 18%
Shrampes 24 October 2007 9 December 2008 62 10 1 10%

The above grid shows the undeniable existence of several WP:SPAs. It also shows that four out of 10 arbitrarily chosen editors are not active at all, three of them since more than 12 months.

Shrampes (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Evidence

Additional research follows. Shrampes (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Durova

Content disputes are the community's responsibility

Several editors have attempted to use this arbitration's evidence page to raise content disputes, and in some cases these are fresh content disputes previously undiscussed. Jayen466 calls John Carmichael (Scientologist) a BLP violation upon the vague assertion of poor taste. WP:BLP does not hinge upon subjective measurements of good taste; it states that negative information must be cited to reputable sources. The article has 20 sources that range from the Village Voice to Fox News and The New York Times. And the article talk page reflects no discussion since last June.

Another new content matter that appeared with this arbitration is the external linking issue. First Spidern presented a list of Scientology-owned domains, then Crotalus horridus presented three domains from the opposing POV, and Jayen466 expanded upon the Crotalus horridus list at evidence talk. I reviewed 1398 links to 15 domains and posted a report at User:Durova/Questionable_Scientology_inline_citations.

Several difficulties arise from raising content issues at arbitration. The community has not determined whether or not the challenged domains satisfy WP:RS. Cirt was not offered fair opportunity to discuss BLP concerns about John Carmichael, if any legitimate concerns actually exist. Due to space constraints it is impractical to rebut every instance of this in detail, but accusations which aren't adequately substantiated require no rebuttal. Except in extreme instances such matters belong in the hands of the community. For an example of a BLP issue that does fall under arbitration remit legitimately, see this example.

Comment upon Shutterbug's evidence below

Shutterbug cites my report on certain domains used in Scientology articles in a manner that implies these are not reliable sources. Although the word questionable is in the title, I attempt no judgment upon whether any of these sources is reliable or not, nor has the community assessed them in that regard (as far as I know). These are simply domains that came under challenge during the course of this arbitration. I may alter the user subpage title if I can think of a more neutral term.

Against alarmism

Sudden content complaints and poorly parsed evidence can have alarmist tendencies that ought to be discouraged at arbitration. For contrast and perspective I compared the Scientology articles to two other subjects: music and military history.

Comparison to music

During this year I have reviewed thousands of music articles to bring them into compliance with site sourcing policies. One area of particular concern has been contributory copyright infringement. Even after many months of work removing such links, today I found:

Those results don't make me a bad editor or mean that hundreds of Wikipedians hate music; they mean a lot of Wikipedians don't understand contributory copyright infringement or proper sourcing. These are ongoing problems.

Anyone who wants a boost to their mainspace edit count is welcome to review one set of external links I haven't pruned yet: Wikipedia's 47,556 outgoing links to myspace.com.

Although some links to Scientology-owned websites and some links to anti-Scientology websites are added by partisans of one stripe or the other, the likely reason for many of the links in the current dispute is that plenty of Wikipedians are naive about policies and citations. A lot of people accept whatever they find on Google without forming strong opinions or much critical thought.

Comparison to military history

Most experienced Wikipedians would agree that the military history project is among the site's best Wikiprojects. It provides an interesting baseline for comparison.

Also:

  • Military history: 95.2% of articles are start-class or stub-class
  • Scientology: 81.6% of articles are start-class or stub-class

These figures deserve a couple of caveats. Military history comprises over 77,000 articles while the Scientology project covers only about 400 articles. Stub- and start-class ratings might not be equally rigorous between projects. Yet even if these survey results are off by a factor or three or four, it should be enough to dispel the notion that Wikipedia's Scientology articles are in dire need of direct arbitration content intervention. The subject has far to go, but so does the rest of this encyclopedia. And if these results are even roughly accurate then the subject fares comparatively well.

Cirt has become a net positive

No one disputes that Cirt used to be an edit warrrior two years ago. For a while he looked like he was on his way to a topic ban. Since fall 2007 he turned over a new leaf. It's the most dramatic turnaround I've seen for any editor. He has accrued no new userblocks, become a prolific featured content contributor, and earned positions of trust on several WMF sites.

Positions of trust

Since Cirt's reform he has earned the trust of several Wikimedia Foundation sites in the following roles:

Quality content at Scientology

Cirt wrote 5 the 9 articles at Category:FA-Class Scientology articles, and kept a sixth featured when it went to WP:FAR

Cirt also wrote 5 of the current 7 articles at Category:GA-Class Scientology articles.

Without Cirt's contributions only 1.3% of Wikipedia's Scientology articles would be FA or GA. He is responsible for 2/3 of the site's quality content in this topic. When fellow editors raise content issues in editorial discussion he responds reasonably and collaboratively.

Prior Scientology arbitrations

This is Wikipedia's fourth arbitration case in four years over Scientology disputes. Prior cases are:

Several of the named parties in this arbitration were also named parties in the COFS arbitration. I initiated this case and the COFS case but had nothing to do with the Terryeo or AI arbitrations.

Conflict of interest

Of all Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, WP:COI is the one over which Wikipedians exert the least control. Regardless of what the guideline reads or the Arbitration Committee resolves, conflict of interest is a real world concept based upon a simple principle: the appearance of impropriety. There could hardly be a more tangible example than last year's COFS arbitration and the present one.

To recap briefly, in April 2007 Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS confirmed that several editor accounts which had been editing Scientology articles toward a positive POV were operating through official Church of Scientology servers. Sometimes they also edited unlogged from the organization's equipment. This progressed to the conflict of interest noticeboard and a community sanctions discussion, where I attempted to caution these editors that they were risking a public relations problem much bigger than the one they were trying to solve. They countered with assertions that the Church of Scientology provided computer labs as a service to its members, analogous to university computer labs, but provided no tangible evidence to support their claim.

The arbitration case lasted three months. During its final weeks the Wikiscanner came out and demonstrated empirically that my cautions had been correct.

A few highlights follow:

The news was not forgotten.

And yet the editor who did more than anyone else to precipitate that very large and public problem defiantly insists upon continuing to perpetuate it. At RFAR on 9 December 2008:

I am not going to leave voluntarily and I will continue to use a) my own computer, b) public computers, c) my wireless laptop, d) computers in the Church of Scientology and any station I please. – Shutterbug (formerly COFS)[455]

On 12 December 2008 checkuser confirmed that statement is no joke. I fail to see why s/he failed to learn from that experience or why the organization continues to allow this person unfettered computer access, but a principle from the last case applies here. Some of these editors have switched over to proxy servers, and another principle applies also.

The news coverage associated with this topic did more damage to Scientology than to Wikipedia, but nobody needs a repeat of that. The best way to stabilize a controversial topic is with more good articles and featured articles. It's time to settle things down so we don't get a fifth arbitration case in 2009.

Wikipedia has many volunteers who would be glad to assist in resolving legitimate POV and sourcing complaints at Scientology articles. When Jayen466 detailed the external linking issue the other day at evidence talk, GoodDamon, Spidern, and I all expressed willingness to help set that straight. I wrote up a report and Cirt has already been removing contributory copyright infringement. This case is not about anti-Scientologists v. Scientologists or anti-cultists v. new religious movements. This case is about people who put encyclopedia building ahead of other agendas, and those who don't.

Mentorship is not partisan support

For the record, mentorship is not an exercise in partisan support. When I mentor someone it is with the site's best interests in mind. Whenever possible I bring the editor's actions into accordance with the needs of the encyclopedia, but if one or the other has to give I favor the project. Examples follow:

Privatemusings

After two months' mentorship, resigned. Entered summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Privatemusings.[456]

Jaakobou

An Israeli editor in the Israeli-Palestinian disputes. Mentorship thus far has been mostly successful. During this mentorship I also contributed three featured pictures and assisted a good article drive about Palestinian culture.

In regards to Cirt I am a mentor, not an advocate. In a case such as this I follow the evidence wherever it leads according to reason and conscience.

To the best of my recollection, the only edit I have made to the topic(s) of Scientology/new religious movements was to nominate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Ross (consultant). That was done per my longstanding offer to nominate BLP articles for courtesy deletion upon request from the subject, if certain objective criteria are met. This offer is completely nonpartisan and I have done it for anyone from Angela Beesley to Daniel Brandt. I would gladly extend the same courtesy toward BLP subjects on both sides of the present dispute, if they ask for a deletion nomination and do not have an entry in any reliable paper-and-ink encyclopedia.

Jossi

See User:Durova/Scientology arbitration/Jossi evidence.

Re: Jossi's comment at the top of this page, per the examples of Privatemusings and Jaakobou I am by no means a partisan advocate for the people I mentor. If Jossi wishes to withdraw from this case I will support a motion to remove his name if he does the following:

  1. Moves his conflict of interest disclosure to his main userpage and displays it so fellow editors and Wikipedians who do not already know about it would reasonably find it.
  2. From this time forward, discloses prior disputes with editors when weighing in about them in an administrative capacity at arbitration enforcement or other administrative noticeboards, and also when seeking the assistance of fellow Wikipedians via backchannels.
  3. From this time forward, ceases altering policy in a manner that becomes pretext for issuing user warnings for conduct that occurred prior to Jossi's policy edits, and that did not violate policy at the time when the conduct occurred.
  4. Abides by his pledge from the Prem Rawat case: Despite these minimal edits over the last 12 months, after receiving community feedback, I declared my intent to limit myself to talk page discussions only - (February 10, 2008.)
  5. Ceases wikihounding other editors whose POV differs from his own.

For my part I pledge, per this comment, that the next time I find an administrator weighing in at AE toward administrative consensus against an editor, while that administrator fails to disclose a substantial history of prior dispute resolution with that editor as existed here, I will again 'drag' that administrator to RFAR if no other action is likely to remedy the problem. I hope it never again becomes necessary.


Jossi resigned under controversial circumstances

Per the sequence below, there can be no reasonable doubt that Jossi resigned under controversial circumstances. He announced his wikibreak and then his retirement barely more than one day after I published my evidence regarding his conduct. More specifically, he announced a wikibreak five minutes after discussing that conduct with me, and the language of his edit summary reflected the language of his comments to me outta here v. outa [sic] here. Then ten minutes after his wikibreak announcement he posted to my user talk with his reaction to my evidence.

Shortly after Jossi's comment to my user talk, before Jossi announced retirement, I edited this page with an offer to support his withdrawal from the case--which he had wanted all along. He edited this page without accepting it, then requested that my offer be blanked from his user talk, and has neither replied to nor accepted the offer. Rather than satisfy my request to move his conflict of interest disclosure to his main user page, he instead requested that the disclosure be deleted altogether.[457]

As a former administrator who resigned under controversial circumstances myself, I have endeavored throughout this difficult presentation to provide Jossi the extra chances I had not received. He has shunned every offer. I ask the Committee to weigh whether Jossi's conduct over more than two years--combined with his refusal to step back or express any regret for his action--merits more or less leniency than the Committee granted me.

  • 04:09, 20 December 2008: I begin posting Jossi evidence in userspace.[458]
  • 21 December 2008: Thread on the talk page of this evidence section. Jossi, I, and several other editors discuss Jossi's conduct and involvement in this case.[459]
  • 04:36, 21 December 2008: Jossi posts to evidence talk: You can have the last word, Durova. I am outta here.[460]
  • 04:38, 21 December 2008: Jossi amends the above to add: Next time don't drag me into arbcom cases, just because I made a comment at WP:AE.[461]
  • 04:43, 21 December 2008: Jossi announces his wikibreak with edit note outa [sic] here.[462]
  • 04:53, 21 December 2008: Jossi posts to my user talk under the header Appalled, commenting upon my evidence.[463]
  • Early 21 December 2008 (between 01:26 and 07:28, exact time obscured by Oversight): I enter an offer that I would support Jossi's withdrawal from this case if he follows the steps outlined above.[464]
  • 08:29, 21 December 2008: Jossi announces his retirement.[465]
  • 10:00, 21 December 2008: Cirt enters evidence that Jossi gamed the WP:NPA policy on 20 December 2008.[466]
  • 19:27, 21 December 2008: Jossi enters his retirement at arbitration evidence.[467]
  • 03:57, 23 December 2008: Jossi's administrative resignation entered the logs.[468]
  • 19:01, 23 December 2008: Will Beback enters evidence about Jossi's attempts to game the WP:NPA policy on 20 December 2008.[469]
  • 02:45, 24 December 2008: I notify Jossi at his user talk of my offer to support his withdrawal from this case.[470]
  • 04:03, 25 December 2008: Seraphimblade blanks my offer to Jossi's user talk.[471]
  • 04:55, 25 December 2008: Seraphimblade confirms that he blanked my offer at Jossi's request.[472]

Justallofthem

On February 8, 2009 while this case was underway, John Carter suggested an article addition at Talk:Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography. Cirt agreed that the suggestion seemed reasonable if it were sourced to USA Today, a reliable newspaper. Setting aside the content issue, there is a separate conduct issue regarding Justallofthem’s participation at the discussion. Justallofthem arrived at the page shortly after Cirt’s reply to John. The full thread is available here.[473] Every one of Justallofthem’s posts there is sarcastic, culminating in this:

Cirt, why don't you think for yourself? Do you really not understand the policy and the bit about not repeating gossip that the source itself does not believe? Do you really think that portraying a real child with a real life as some internet critic caricature shows a "a high degree of sensitivity" and is "written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy". How about this one: "The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article." Think for yourself, Cirt, and please stop trying to mirror tabloid crap on Wikipedia. In fact, why not take a stand against mirroring tabloid crap on Wikipedia? Do you really think that ridiculing a child has anything to do with the criticism of Scientology? Or with Wikipedia? Are you a parent? --Justallofthem (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[474][reply]

This is not an isolated incident, but the latest manifestation of a longstanding pattern of behavior. In March 2008 Justallofthem (as Justanother) was nearly sitebanned for confirmed sockpuppetry, block evasion, gross personal attacks, and cross-project wikihounding of Cirt.[475] Consensus at AN was to siteban, and he was actually indeffed with a ban template added to his user talk, until a single administrator unblocked.[476][477]

Since that time Justallofthem’s conduct has changed in several ways. On the positive side, he no longer sockpuppets and no longer makes extreme accusations against Cirt such as drug abuse.[478] On the negative side, Justa has become a single purpose editor.

Although Justallofthem has abandoned the gross policy violations that brought him to the edge of a community ban, he has also abandoned the useful contributions that used to add some breadth to his work at this site. On his old Justanother account he was an active contributor at Wikipedia’s reference desk. He abandoned the help desk over a year ago and has made no edits at all there on his Justallofthem account, which he has used exclusively since March 2008. Justallofthem remains uncollegial and for nearly a year has done little at Wikipedia other than edits that promote a pro-Scientology point of view, and undermine people who aren’t promoting the same POV—particularly Cirt.

I ran two tests of Interiot’s edit counter on the Justallofthem account: one on 9 January 2009 and another on 3 February, and compared the results against his previous main account. For simplicity’s sake this report ignores his minor accounts JustaHulk and Alfadog. According to checkuser results, Justallofthem also used ten different unlogged IP addresses in 2008. Those are excluded from this analysis because IPs may be shared by multiple people and because none of the IPs made many edits.

Justallofthem is a single purpose editor

Justallofthem: 9 January 2009 stats

According to Interiot’s tool, as reported 9 January 2009, Justallofthem’s edit history shows highly focused behavior. [479] 13 of his 15 most heavily edited articles related to Scientology and new religious movements, with the only exceptions being 4 edits to Ex-Nazi Party members and 6 edits to Lipstick on a pig. 14 of his 15 most heavily edited article talk pages relate to Scientology and new religious movements. As of the check, the account has made a combined total of 108 edits to all 15 of his most heavily edited articles for an average of 7.2 edits per article and a high of 15 edits to List of new religious movements. By contrast, he made 45 edits to this case’s workshop page.

Justallofthem: 3 February 2009 stats

In the month after that evaluation, Justallothem made only 3 content edits that were unrelated to Scientology. All three were wikignoming (removes a link,[480], removes a wikilink,[481] copyediting[482]).

Although it was not my original intention to do two separate checks over a time interval, this turns out to be informative. Justallofthem is a veteran editor who could be expected to understand that his contribution history has been unbalanced for a very long time. Originally I had drafted this report a month ago and intended to copyedit and publish immediately. Other obligations put this on the back burner. So neither I, Cirt, nor Justa were aware that these contributions would be scrutinized.

Cirt’s contributions during the same period:

Justanother

As Justanother this editor made 8008 edits.[483] 11 of his 15 most heavily edited articles related to Scientology and new religious movements: So among over 8000 edits, the account made a total of 120 non-Scientology content edits to its 15 most edited articles. None of those resulted in a DYK, a GA, or in any featured content. Among article talk edits, only one of his top 15 talk pages were unrelated to Scientology and new religious movements.

As Justanother, he also made 827 edits to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous and 249 edits to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. So during that time it might be argued in good faith that he was not a single purpose editor. His last edit to the reference desk occurred on 27 October 2007.[484]

Justallofthem wikihounds Cirt

In the interests of saving space, a sequence from April through July should demonstrate the pattern of behavior with Justallofthem following Cirt to disrupt Cirt’s content work. I located no instance of Cirt following Justallofthem or interfering with Justallofthem’s content work. Following the near-siteban, Justanother/Justallofthem went on wikibreak. His first edit after returning was to oppose one of Cirt’s featured article candidates.[485] Other than Justallofthem’s oppose, the the candidacy passed with unanimous support.[486] A minor dispute erupted as a result of Justallofthem’s participation.[487][488][489][490][491][492][493][494][495][496][497][498][499][500][501][502]

Justallofthem proceeded to follow Cirt to articles Cirt was editing:

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[553]
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)[554]
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)[555]

As a final note, until this arbitration case opened the Wikipedia namespace page where the Justallofthem account accrued the greatest number of edits was Cirt’s RFA.[566] Justallofthem made 31 edits to that page and 10 edits to the related Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway, which investigated sockpuppet voting at the RFA. Despite a nearly unprecedented 13 confirmed sockpuppets to that RFA, over 90% of which occurred at the oppose side, Justallofthem accused the administrator who was filing the requests of misusing RFCU.[567] A year and a half ago, when Justa[insert suffix here] was contributing ten percent of his Wikipedia time to the Reference Desk and Cirt was an edit warrior, I could see value to Justa’s presence at the wiki and had serious concerns about Cirt’s participation. One made a turnaround and the other has gotten worse. It really should be possible for a featured article contributor to create more good content without encountering so much interference and snarking from someone who does almost nothing to improve the site.

Justallofthem resumes sockpuppeting in violation of his unban conditions

A new sockpuppet has been added to the list of Justallofthem sockpuppets.[568] The sock was active during this arbitration case editing pages about Scientology.[569] This violates the terms laid down at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive135#Justanother_checkuser_case where the community sitebanned him and the unblocking administrator restricted him to one account.

Thank you little blueboy. Appreciate! 'Zilla now unblocking accounts. JustaHulk, please make sure use ONE account only and state clearly here what name use. Somebody check scary autoblocker please? bishzilla ROARR!! 20:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC).[570]

Despite the odd syntax, the intent is clear. And per the linked discussion the community had already agreed to limiting him to one account at minimum, before it agreed to siteban. DurovaCharge! 18:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional incivility by Justallofthem

"Oh shut up, Jehochman"[571] With the edit summary "STFU".

Cirt is not an SPA

Jayen466 appears not to understand what a single-purpose account is. Cirt is Wikipedia's featured portal director. He has contributed more featured portals than anyone else to Wikipedia:

Cirt has also written three featured topics:

His 50 DYK articles also cover a wide range of topics.

The attempt to classify an editor with this range of superlative work as an SPA is preposterous. At best, it shows up the weaknesses of uncritical reliance on automated number crunching tools. When an editor contributes to many areas, only one of which is contentious, then naturally that editor accumulates more raw edits in the course of reverting vandalism and achieving compromise with other editors.

Jayen466 also attempts to coatrack accusations of religious bigotry regarding a variety of religions from the Church of Latter-Day Saints to the Baptists, on the basis of a single Wikinews article about Scientology, which discussed no other religion, and for which Cirt was not the primary author. This is the state of that article before Cirt's first edit. He added only two short paragraphs and additional sources.[572] As the Committee is already aware, Cirt is an arbitrator at Wikinews and is one of the finest contributors there.

Without comment regarding the other editors named in Jayen466's new evidence, his accusations regarding Cirt are unfounded and reprehensible.

Update re: Jayen's rejoinder Jayen is now directly attempting to leverage Cirt's featured article work against Cirt. There could be no clearer demonstration of why the Committee must reject the proposed remedy on Cirt: since mischief even gets construed from featured article contribution, anything at all will be used as ammunition against him. The finding is unwarranted, and would surely be misused for political ends. DurovaCharge! 21:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by White Cat

So as not to edit conflict like crazy I am compiling my evidence at a sub page. -- Cat chi? 17:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bravehartbear

Extereme amount of edits done in the Scientology Main since 31 Oct 08

  • 31 Oct: Over 50 edits by spidern
  • 1 Nov: 2 edits by spidern
  • 2 Nov: 8 edits by spidern
  • 3 Nov: 3 edits by spidern
  • 4 Nov: 7 edits by spidern
  • 5 Nov: 17 edits by spidern / 3 edits by Su-Jada / 4 edits by Cirt
  • 7 Nov: 11 edits by spidern
  • 12 Nov: 0 edits by spidern / 0 edits by Su-Jada / 1 edits by Cirt
  • 21 Nov: 5 edits by spidern
  • 22 Nov: 5 edits by spidern
  • 23 Nov: 27 edits by spidern
  • 24 Nov: 57 edits by spidern / 3 edits by Su-Jada / 1 edits by Cirt / 11 edits by Shutterbug // Edit waring started
  • 25 Nov: 1 edits by spidern / 1 edits by Su-Jada / 1 edits by Cirt / 7 edits by Shutterbug
  • 25 Nov: Page was frozen

Score 193 edits by spidern / 7 edits by Su-Jada / 7 edits by Cirt / 18 edits by Shutterbug Note: I didn't added the edits from other editors just the primary ones.

As you can see betwen Spidern and Cirt there were around 200 edits and betwen Su-Jada and Shutterbug only around 25 edits. The edit warring took place during a period of 2 days (24 & 25 of Nov). I want to note that Misue didn't made any edits during this period.

What I see is that a single editor (Spidern) took ownership of the page supported by Cirt. Then this rattled out Su-Jada and Shutterbug. An edit waring started and the page was frozen.

Evidence of POV edits done by Spidern

Spidern single handedly destroyed the whole Scientology Believes and Practices section

Removed the ARC and KRC triangles section

Spidern removed the ARC and KRC triangles section [573] claiming lack of notability (these are just the two basic concepts that are represented on the Scientology symbol) and primary sourcing [574] (WP:QS states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field). Even in the talk page he was told that the info was revelent and that there were secondary sources that could be attained. But he never readed the section back. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More examples of Spidern removing information from believes and practices
  1. [575]
  2. [576]
  3. [577]
  4. [578]
Spiderm removing Hubbard's personal accounts of his personal life

Note: Per WP:SPS self published are ok when the when talking about themselves.

  1. [579]
Spidern removing link to self published sources that talk about themselves

Note: Per WP:SPS self published are ok when the when talking about themselves.

Spidern POV pushing

Renamed "Scientology as a Religion" to a more controversial "Dispute of "religion" status": [580]

Editing text to make it more controversial:

  1. [581]

Moving his newly create "dispute of religious status" section out of controversies right under History to futher question Scientologgy as a religion, giving undue weight: [582]

Spidern single handedly removed the whole Scientology missions and churches

Claimimg once again Primary Sourcing and Undue.[583] This was the section that explaining what is the Scientology church struture. If he believe the stats were out of date he could have just updated them. And as I staded before: WP:QS states: Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field . I don't know what he claimed was "Undue". He could have easly gotten secondary sources.

It will take me some time to go throgh all his edits but the page was rape. More to come. Bravehartbear (talk) 04:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cultists and Deprogramers in the Mist

I just want to point that this arbritation has called the attention of top anti-Scientologists; like anti-cultists and deprogramer Rick Ross (consultant). A man has stated: "It might be controversial (good for ratings) to have someone on that had “deprogrammed” fundamentalist Christians." ref: http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN/18/01.htm and http://www.cesnur.org/2001/CAN.htm#Anchor-595 This is just to prove my point that there is an anti-Scientology faction in Wikipedia. There is plenty of anti-Scientologists in the internet (just look at Anonimous) that are more than willing to push their POV in wikipedia and that Scientologists like Shutterbug are required to balance things out. Sorry I'm coming out rash but it is the truth. Bravehartbear (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wuao Tory Christmas here too? This further proves my point of how much the sides are polarized. :-| Bravehartbear (talk) 14:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Will Beback

General observations

Jossi, Jayen, and Justallofthem are the leading editors of articles on their spiritual teachers. (Jossi has made the most edits of anyone to Prem Rawat, with 1/6. Jayen has made half of all 2600 edits to Osho.) In common, they would prefer those articles to use only self-published and sympathetic materials while excluding critical materials. These pro-spiritual teacher editors seem to be ganging up on Cirt, who apparently thinks that articles should be NPOV by including all significant viewpoints. The fact that they bring these complaints here directly, rather than going through any dispute resolution, is a sign of bad faith.

The editing careers of Jayen and Jossi are defined by their efforts to promote positive coverage of their teachers, and they've been advocates of strong BLP enforcement. That changed this year when both of them found topics in which they've sought to add negative material: Rick Ross (consultant) and Sarah Palin. They've also shown flexibility when deciding acceptable sources, topics, and weightings, depending on whether the material's effect was positive or negative.

Affidavits

Jayen says that Cirt made a severe BLP violation by seeking to use an affidavit as a source. This summer, Jossi repeatedly asserted that a non-notarized affidavit hosted on an SPS website is a reliable source.[584]

  • Of course we do. An affidavit siged by the author of that article, that is filed with the Supreme Court of Queensland, and that is verifiable as such. It may be a primary source, sure, but primary sources can be used for descriptive aspects. ? jossi ? (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC) [585]

Here, Jossi complains about Smeelgova removing an affadavit.[586][587] [588]

  • Sorry, Smeelgova, but that is not acceptable. These court records and affidavits are 100% compliant for an articvle about a person who is notable for these court records and affidavits. If you delete the material again, I will stop editing this article and ask for third party opinions. ? jossi ? (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC) [589][590]

Jayen has discussed the use of an affidavit as an acceptable source without condemning it, saying he was "still thinking about the various implications....Jayen466 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)"[591]

BLP sources

Jossi has been a champion of BLP, especially in regards to one particular biography. But his views on what's permissible became inconsistent when he began working on a of a subject about whim he had a less favorable POV, Sarah Palin. This committee has already reviewed the complaints about his editing there. This table shows Jossi contradicting himself regarding the two different BLPs.

Sarah Palin Prem Rawat
Who decides what is mainstream and what is not? And how that argument is relevant to this material? Palin's views on anything related to politics, religion, economy, hobbies, etc can be included in her biography, in particular if covered extensively in published sources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Categorized some press reports as "Mainstream", excluding AP, UPI, Time, Chicago Tribune, and the L.A. Times.[592][593]


Reputable publications have been used in this article. Sources that refer to the 16-year old Maharaji as a "the world's most overweight midget", or "His Divine Fatness" , or that repeat nonsense such as that "he strips devotees, pours abrasive chemicals on their bodies and into their mouths, administers drugs, having them beaten with a stick or thrown into swimming pools", are obviously not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Really? I think that it is unnecessary... It was incident, sure. It may need to be reported, sure. But a paragraph of that size in the context of this article. No, don't think so... It simply does not fit with the rest of the article's subject. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The Enquirer may not be a RS, but if cited in other sources and if notable for that reason, the other sources can be used. For example "Newsweek and other media outlets described The Enquirer's blah blah bah, which was rebutted strongly by blah blah blah and threatened with a lawsuit for libel." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC) *In reference to the Long Beach Press-Telegram:

Also, the source used (INDEPENDENT, PRESS-TELEGRAM), seems at a cursory glance to be quite tabloidesque in its reporting. What is that source, a local newspaper, a magazine? Do you have it accessible? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem, Will, is that this that what was reported is an exaggeration. According to an article in the NYT, dated July 18, 1973, the suitcase contained one necklace (not "jewels" or "gems" as reported by the wires), foreign currency and traveler checks, which is compatible with the assertions that these were pooled moneys by the travelers (if it was a "smuggling" why traveler checks, lol!). So, yes, WP is not censored, but WP is not a tabloid either. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

(... So, please do not dismiss my contributions as if I was a "POV pusher". I would ask that you take a hard look in the mirror). ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool it, Booksnmore4you. A POV pusher to one is the defender of the wiki to others... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, articles always benefit from more eyeballs, and if that is what you are saying, then I agree. But I do not see any evidence of having neutral editors involved, besides the mediator Steve. All active editors have their POVs, including you, Will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


Therefore, when we are describing the POV or the "ex-premie" group, we are describing the POV of a tiny minority of people that have chosen to become vocal critics and that actively pursue an agenda of activism against anything related to Prem Rawat. (Part of that agenda is to try and assert their POV in this article. They even plan "tactics" in their discussion forum, with the helpful assistance of Andries that has publicly declared his allegiance to their cause. For their information, let me say that cabals are shunned in Wikipedia and are considered unacceptable behavior.) So, to ascertain that my assessment is not correct as it pertains to the weight that should be given to this group's POV in this article, I ask the members of that group to provide a reputable source that declares that their POV is anything but the POV of a tiny minority of people. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

We are not here to decide when a reliable source is no longer so. The Washingto Post, NPR, The Times, and many others' reports can and should be used in WP articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"Rather loose"? And who are we to make these value judgements? One can callit "rather loose", others may call it "doing their job" in a country in which there is freedom of press. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*In reply to the question: Is the L.A. Times a reliable source for this article?

I am saying that an LA Times article can be a reliable source. It is not an absolute, as there is no such a thing. Maybe is about time you refresh your understanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and WP:V ... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again: there is no such a thing as an absolute as it pertains to the reliability of a source regardless if it is the New York Times, a local San Diego newspaper, or schloarly book , when we have to take into account the context in which the source is used, how it is intended to be used, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Changing policies while in a dispute

Jossi is the second most active editor on

The third most active editor of

The fourth most active on

Some of that activity probably includes reverts of vandalism or undiscussed changes. However his recent edits call his policy writing into question.

In the last month, and very likely on previous occasions, Jossi edited core policies to favor his position in disputes. He did so without first gaining a consensus for the changes on the relevant talk pages, and without referring to the disputes that presumably led to the changes. In one instance he added significant text to a policy with the misleading summary of "copy edit". He even edit warred over his changes, requiring protection of WP:NPA. Changing policies mid-dispute and without disclosing the dispute is a basic form of "gaming the system".

Dispute: Is mentioning a user's conflict of interest a personal attack? Talk:Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Personal_attacks

WP:NPA

Dispute: May audio interviews posted on a blog be added to an external links section? Talk:Rick_Ross_(consultant)#Media.2Fnews

WP:V

WP:BLP

Dispute: What should be the criteria for inclusion in List of groups referred to as cults?

Other evidence

I am preparing further evidence in this case which I plan to post this weekend. I request the committee's patience.   Will Beback  talk  08:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been convinced that presenting evidence regarding Jossi's past behavior, no matter how problematic it may have been, would be a distraction to the pending issues in this case. Instead, I will hold that evidence in case Jossi returns under that or another name, and present it at that time.   Will Beback  talk  17:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Paranormal Skeptic

In regards to Justanother/Justallofthem/Justahulk

Nice, on a scale of 1-10 for civility, this is probably a 1. He attacks two editors in one shot: [594]

Edit summary: "As scientologists say it" - Why would we care how Scientologist say it? [595]

After a heated discussion, which was not leaning into incivility and personal attacks by most of the parties involved: [596]

Even with multiple references, still arguing against putting Scientology in any possible bad light, finally agreeing to one: [597]

As the discussion was not going in his/her favor, Justallofthem proposed removing any usefulness to the list, which would in effect cause it to loose it's Start Class, relegating it to Stub: [598]

Edit summary: "Snort" How is this being civil? [599]

A personal attack leveled at Cirt: [600]

Using data gathered from a previous ArbCom and referencing it is not wrong for an Admin to do. Admins are there to help prevent COI.

Again, holding the position that the Church of Scientology owned IP's should be able to edit freely on COI articles. [601]

Again, not working towards consensus, but rather using ad hominem to attack an editor (Myself when I laid the fact of a known COI through arbcom against an accusation of COI against Cirt): [602]

Removed an entire section from an ArbCom'd article with no discussion on talk page: [603]

Many other edits are there showing that Justallofthem can not maintain a civil manner while working towards consensus on any topic related to Scientology. While not explicitly prohibited, Justallofthem appears to be a SPA; only coming out to edit when Scientology's good name is at stake, then goes about attacking any user that has conflicted with him in other articles.

In regards to Shutterbug

User had a previous user name as being the Pseudo official editor of the Church of Scientology, now declares it's impossible, always attacking an editor who would like to add anything negative to articles: [604]

No way to maintain civility, and obvious COI when they are requesting a "Rep from Scientology" to appear: [605]

Removing the "bad lighting": [606]

Again, removing any instance of "Bad Lighting": [607]

And nothing on the ctribs except for Scientology Articles, indicating an SPA: [608]

In regards to Cirt

Doing normal janitor/part-tme editor work: [609]

How many featured articles/portals again?: [610]

Declaring the website http://scientologymyths.info as being a malware site has good grounding, as per this link to the Web of Trust system. The scorecard for the website is here, and labeled as being a scam site [611]

Summary of Comments

Much of the evidence I was going to post I removed for brevity due to it being presented be other users. Also, please note my possible COI my user page. What I can see is at least one SPA, one possible SPA, and an Admin doing normal work.

Shutterbug only edits Scientology related articles, from a number of Scientology owned IP addresses. This would fall along the same lines as allowing an employee from the Microsoft corporation editing articles only about Microsoft related topics from a Microsoft owned network address.

Justanother/Justallofthem/Justahulk borders on incivility to the point that one of the running jokes on Wikinews is that "it is a crack whore" [612]; and only comes out of his "wikibreak" when anything related to be-smirching Scientology's name comes up.

Cirt has contributed numerous featured articles, portal, news stories, et al across the Wikimedia Project. FA is nothing to slouch at since it is strenuously reviewed by a number of editors prior to making FA. Same goes for portals and the news stories.

Evidence presented by Rick Alan Ross

WP:BLP violations and disruptive editing by Jayen466

My full-time work involves researching, exposing and/or otherwise professionally dealing with destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. I am the founder and executive director of the Ross Institute Internet Archives, which is a nonprofit tax-exempted educational charity that maintains information about hundreds of destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. The Ross Institute maintains one of the largest collections of historical articles and documents about Scientology on the Worldwide Web [613].

One of the many hundreds of groups called "cults" that I have dealt with historically is the devoted followers of a guru named "Osho," more commonly known to the general public as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. The Ross Institute includes a subsection about Osho[614].

One Osho devotee, Jayen466, has recently exerted considerable effort in an attempt to dominate and control my bio entry at Wikipedia, as well as an article about a failed deprogramming (Jason Scott case) and related court cases. Jayen466 is a named and participating party in this Arbitration Case.

I have emailed complaints repeatedly to Wikipedia via the OTRS system, about the editing of Jayen466.

Sadly, it is possible for a single individual or small group of like-minded people with an agenda, to dominate and control specifically targeted entries within Wikipedia.

This is certainly the case concerning Jayen466 who has narrowly focused on Wikipedia entries about his guru, cults and closely related issues.

For example, my entry has become a means for Jayen466 to discredit a cult critic that has archived critical information about his guru available readily accessible to the general public trough the Internet.


Jayen466 has edited my bio to be as negative as possible. This has been done by parsing language and editing the content to reflect as negatively as possible upon me and my work. He has also edit-warred with other Wikipedia users to keep negative, WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in the article about me.[615] [616],[617] [618],[619] [620],[621] [622],[623] [624],[625] [626],[627] [628]

Jayen466 has repeatedly used very questionable and biased sources closely aligned with cults, such as Scientology, to accomplish this purpose. [629] [630]


Likewise, Jayen466 has edited an article about the deprogramming of Jason Scott and related court cases, to reflect as badly as possible upon me, often ignoring relevant facts and historical context. Again, Jayen466 weighs the article heavily by using less than reliable sources to support his personal preferred point of view, and to keep unduly-weighted negative material about me in the article.

The net result of the editing done by Jayen466 is that visitors to Wikipedia reading my bio and the Jason Scott article are subjected to false and/or misleading information.

I have pointed this out in some detail through the discussion/talk pages provided at both my bio and the aforementioned article.[631] [632],[633] [634]


Hopefully, this situation will be resolved in such a way that Wikipedia will not be manipulated as a platform for propaganda and/or used by someone with an ax to grind bent upon fulfilling their personal agenda.

Rick Ross www.rickross.com <http://www.rickross.com/>

Rick Alan Ross (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Fahrenheit451

Concern about Jayen466's interest in the POV of scientology articles

Here is a quote from the RfA opening page by Jayen466: "However, I would suggest that once a decision is taken, it has to be adhered to without second-guessing. If Shutterbug, say, is allowed to edit, any further references to her edits as "edit by Church of Scientology", or any further attempts to invalidate her views based on her religion, must be considered a clear and actionable WP:PA and AE offence resulting in a temporary topic ban for the editor concerned. Of course, all these standards, incl. the existing remedies formulated in the previous arbcom, should be applied to Scientologist editors as well. Jayen466 01:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)" [635]

It appears to me that Jayen466 advocated censorship in favor of scientology. It may be fact that different individuals are editing from those addresses, but if any edit originates from a corporate scientology IP address, one can only treat those edits as from a single entity, which a corporation is by law. To do otherwise, as Jayen466 seems to advocate, skews the practice of editing in favor of a corporate entity and punishes an individual editor from making a factual statement with civility. Such a thing being redefined as a personal attack would be ludicrous, if it were not seriously suggested by Jayen466.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of evidence by Jayen466

In this section, [636], Jayen466 states: "(The present article contains similar ad-hominem claims sourced to a podcast by Tom Smith – no idea if that fulfils BLP requirements either.)"

What Jayen466 claims to be a podcast, is actually a soundfile of a broadcast on a public radio station made available on a podcasting website.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 07:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jayen466's Rejoinder

Here [637], Jayen asserts that there is no proof that a soundfile that he calls a podcast was broadcast. In the U.S., radio broadcasts are required by the FCC to have station identification, which all these programs do somewhere in the middle of the broadcast. Whether the soundfile is hosted by the station that originally broadcast it is irrelevant. The station identification is sufficient for proof that a program was broadcast. Jayen466 is resorting to captious and misleading argument for some reason on this particular point.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of evidence by Justallofthem

I respond to this section:[638] History diff here: [639] where Justallofthem claims to present evidence. However, he taints his statements with speculation rather than fact:"Cirt's taking issue with this is evidence of something - just not of me "disrupting" anything. Perhaps evidence of Cirt's inability to edit in good faith alongside a Scientologist? Perhaps evidence of Cirt "disrupting" this proceeding?" This is not evidence, but Hubbard's Fair Game tactics used in an attempt to smear Cirt. That sort of thing is disruptive to this proceeding.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by Shutterbg

Source quality of Scientology/Scientology-related articles

Most Scientology/Scientology-related articles share the same problems. Lack of encyclopedic references, editors with an agenda and careless Admins. Here are some extreme examples and some less problematic ones:

- Unqualified sources: All 28 sources for this article are either broken links (links to non-existent PDF files) or primary sources, or - statistically - out of 28 references only 4 are not broken links and all those 4 are primary sources. The 24 now broken links earlier linked to 24 more primary sources. Zero scholar works, zero secondary sources at all.

- NPOV-violating main editor: The main source for the 28 primary sources was a former Scientology member who spent not much time in Scientology but a big chunk of his life being trained by Lutheran apologetics on "sect questions"(EZW) and attacking his former friends. As usual such attacks include the running of several of those private hate sites that provides fake/incomplete/one-sided "evidence" against the Church of Scientology[640], the type that is used in hundreds of "references" in Wikipedia when it comes to Scientology[641]. More about that later.

- Careless Admins: [642],[643]

Second example: (upcoming after the Holidays) Shutterbug (talk) 06:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

crosspost from White Cat's Talk page

Copied for preservation here.

CSI Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

  1. On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around?
  2. I am not asking for any private info but I want to have a general idea on the distances you travel giving me an idea of how many different IPs you would be using. This may help resolve weather or not the ips are public ones or not.
  3. Another thing you state is that you use "computers in the Church of Scientology" yet on the next paragraph you state that you have never been to the "church of scientology san francisco". TO my untrained eye it seems the two statements are contradicting each other. Care to elaborate?
  4. To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
Hi Cat, sorry, I wasn't around to see your question. Here is an answer:
  1. I am working from two locations, one on the East Coast, one on the West Coast. In between I am logging in from airports or internet cafes. When using wireless I am going through a VPN/SSL connection (or something like that, hub, proxy, maybe there are different names for this). The idea is that the wireless line can be hijacked and using a SSL connection helps preventing that.
  2. During a normal week I am using 4-5 different internet lines. I guess that makes 4-5 IPs.
  3. There are thousands of scientology groups in existence (7,500, per the latest publications). I assume most of them have internet. Some of them have wifi and I used it there. Others have computers for use, e.g. to watch the scientology video channel or to log in on other scientology sites. I used those too. Or I plugged in my notebook in a network outlet and used this line for internet, like in a hotel. This whole discussion is ridiculous, trying to tie editors to IP addresses will never work. And I haven't even tried (yet) editing on Wikipedia through my phone. As for the above statement: I have never been to the "Church of Scientology San Franscisco". That's what I meant. I know most Churches in Southern California, New Jersey, Florida and New York as well as Canada. But somehow I missed SF in my trips.
  4. I think I am the cause for the Scientology dispute or at least created enough contrast so the "two sides" (pro/con) could be seen better. I am active as a Wikipedia editor since 2007 and before I showed up the motto was "happy adding of trash material" to the scientology-related articles and "happy ignoring of anything neutral or anything perceived positive". I registered for the purpose of improving the Wikipedia articles on Scientology. My point of critic was and is that primary sources are used instead of reliable sources and that "reliable sources" of the lowest possible quality are used and promoted (I dare say BECAUSE they contain negative material about scientology or related subjects), instead of looking for better material (which would be neutral and defensible). The mass removal of primary sources that happens in the articles right now is what I wanted in 2007. But then, as in Scientology, it again is done in a one-sided way. Dozens of primary sources (to scientology websites) were removed and the trash links to private hate sites kept, including to porn mags (example "Penthouse", which seems to be "ok" as long as the "content" is "anti-scientology").
You could say I am guilty of polarizing. My contributions were not worthless or a violation of Wikipedia policy. They were just unpopular because the majority of those who are hanging out in the article (or "watching over it", such as Cirt and AndroidCat) are anti-scientology editors. Their POV/COI problem has never been addressed and I cannot detect any willingness to look at at. Which - if not addressed - would make this Arbcom another farce and a guarantee for the next edit war. Shutterbug (talk) 05:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shutterbug, I urge you to expend a like effort to this response (at least) on the arbitration page presenting evidence, i.e. show the one-sidedness. We are blindingly aware of it but others are not because they have only been schooled in anti-Scientology material and have no idea that another side exists. As least no idea in any "real" way - most will acknowledge that people are free to believe any (kooky) religion they care to so I guess this is validity of a sorts. For even the so-called neutral here, it is not criticism of Scientology vs. the real perceived worth of Scientology. It is criticism of Scientology vs a set of kooky beliefs that I guess we should tolerate. Only we can show how glaringly one-sided editors like Cirts are. So please put up some diffs. Also you really should put up diffs showing the legitimacy of you edits. Show how 20 of your edits were legitimate. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am lacking the time to go that deep into research but it seems to be necessary. White Cat, Diffs are coming, hopefully by the weekend. Shutterbug (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Ross

Now that's an interesting development. User:Rick Alan Ross and his sock User:Rick A. Ross talks about Rick Ross in an ArbCom about Scientology [644]. Or to discredit some editors? Shutterbug (talk) 02:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is part of an ongoing scuffle between Jayen and Ross over his bio. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see this before. A whole series of red flags should have gone up already, like WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS. Admin Cirt's too busy, I guess.[645] Shutterbug (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ross is entitled to make his case on talk pages. If he has edited his own pages then he should stop and I think he has. Ross is a distraction - nothing really to do with this arb. Ignore him and make your own case as I mention above. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Shutterbug (talk) 04:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology RFAR

White Cat, I just saw your Evidence collection[646]. There is some missing information. User:Justallofthem went by User:Justanother earlier (separate account), Cirt went by User:Smeelgova, then User:Smee, then User:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage(a pseudonym for the founder of Erhard Seminar Training) and finally User:Cirt. Shutterbug (talk) 03:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point of information, Shutterbug: The founder of EST was Werner Erhard, not von Savage.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 08:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justallofthem -> User:Justanother connection is presented in the graph. -- Cat chi? 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anything Pre-2006 is uninteresting for the purpose of my investigation. So I'll leave out anything before 2006. Even 2006 isn't very interesting. -- Cat chi? 02:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing pre-2006 in what I said. Shutterbug (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so User:Smeelgova has 1 edit only which was on 21 Feb 2007. The account itself was created on 11 September 2008. All that of course is confusing, I know. -- Cat chi? 05:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find that's because when Smeelgova became Smee the edits were transferred over to the new account but sometimes some of the edits don't go and get "stuck" on the old account. I had the same problem when I renamed Sarah Ewart (talk · contribs) to Sarah (talk · contribs). Those 2006 edits shouldn't be there because my account was renamed in 2007. Also, when you get renamed you used to have to recreate the old account name to prevent impersonators registering it because the old name became available for registration again once the rename had been done (not sure if that's still the case or not). The Smeelgova account was probably re-registered in 2008 when Cirt or someone else realised it hadn't been recreated. I recently recreated Veritas (talk · contribs) and Strothra (talk · contribs) for people who were renamed when they left the project so those accounts can't be used to impersonate them. Look at the user creation log for Sarah Ewart [647]. It says the account was created on 25 September 2008, but the contributions log says the account made those 2006 edits some two years prior. It looks like the Smee/Smeelgova accounts are in a similar situation. HTH Sarah 11:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think I'll pass altering the table over this since the rename isn't that crutal as it is ancient history. -- Cat chi? 15:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Fahrenheit451, "Curt Wilhelm VonSavage" was a pseudonym of Werner Erhard. He apparently used the name on a marriage license. In fact, Wikipedia had a (now deleted) redirect at Curt Wilhelm VonSavage and variations that were pointed at the Werner Erhard article. Interestingly enough they were created by Smee on 19 June 2006, so he was no doubt aware of the connection. Theres an RFD here: VonSavage RFD Sarah 12:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

End of crosspost. Shutterbug (talk) 03:20, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Jehochman

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Cirt's RFA was targeted by sock puppet accounts

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Eastbayway and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cirt for details. About 20 - 25% of the comments opposing Cirt were struck as invalid.

Justanother opposed my attempts to expose sock puppetry

Justanother/Justallofthem attempted to stymie my checkuser request which was instrumental in uncovering the abuse.[648][649][650][651][652]

Justanother misused arbitration enforcement

Justanother used Arbitration enforcement to "settle scores" with Cirt by making a retaliatory filing.

Response to Durova by Bishonen: Durova speaks untruth about Justanother

Durova's claim, twice in the course of four lines, in her subsection "Justallofthem resumes sockpuppeting in violation of his unban conditions", that Justanother was sitebanned in March 2008 (or at any time) is untrue. I suppose she doesn't remember it right. After I posted this at WP:AN, the ban proposal died. It was only ever alive through a "consensus" of a tiny band of old enemies of Justanother—just the way community bans are supposed not to work. If anybody can face reading the whole drama, in order to check what I say, here it is. P.S., I'm talking with Yellow Monkey about the case of the purported sock Truthtell, I may be back on that later. Bishonen | talk 00:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Evidence presented by Voxpoulis

Biased Scientology related editing by user Jayen

Example of biased editing by user Jayen on the article Scientology in Germany which he has nominated for GA review.

  • The diff evidences:
  • Removal of sourced material detailing relevant and verifiable information.
  • Removal of the following See also links: Scientology and the legal system, Scientology and celebrities, Scientology controversies, Scientology as a business. The internal links added value to the article and are directly related to the articles content for the following reasons:
  • Scientology and the legal system: There was a legal confrontation with the German Government. Scientology has had many legal confrontations, therefore a relevant see also.
  • Scientology and celebrities: The article shows a picture of Tom Cruise, it discusses an American celebrity letter to the German Government, a relevant see also.
  • Scientology controversies: there was controversy surrounding the celebrity letter and it's comparison with the persecution of the Jewish community during WW2, yet another scientology controversy, therefore a notable see also.
  • Scientology as a business: Part of the German case against Scientology was that it viewed it as a business and not as a religion, again a notable see also.
  • Other points
  • Alteration of a heading to sensationalise and reframe content.
  • Alteration of heading from Response to Criticism.
  • Alteration of wording to reframe context: Reverted The U.S. Department of State has taken a partially supportive stance towards Scientology in relation to Germany to what was originally written The United States have taken a partially supportive stance towards Scientology in relation to Germany, despite the latter being inaccurate and unsourced.
  • The lead still contains the statement Germany has been criticized over its stance towards Scientology, notably by the United States depsite this being inaccurate, as previously demonstrated.
  • Selective sourcing
  • The user also appears to be intentionally ignoring a scholarly article by the NRM academic Stephen Kent that explores the US response to the Germany/Scientology debate and the influence of the Hollywood Lobby. The matter of the articles relevance to the Scientology in Germany article was raised on the talk page.

New Evidence by MartinPoulter

I am open about my real identity and my long history of publicly criticizing the Church of Scientology. I am indirectly involved in this case by being mentioned in User:Jayen466's list of alleged SPAs. This posting addresses the proposed finding on Sources and the behaviour of Jayen466.

There are issues of source quality specific to Scientology

There is clearly a lot of work to be done replacing SPSs or primary sources with RSs in Scientology articles. However, both academic and non-academic sources vary widely in their quality. Hence, although academic sources are in general superior, the best non-academic investigative articles and reports are far superior to some academic sources. Below I illustrate two issues that bear on Scientology-related sources in particular.

Bias in academic literature on Scientology is an acknowledged problem

The problem of bias in the sociology of religion literature is itself acknowledged in that literature. Roy Wallis's (critical) book-length treatment of Scientology is known to have had 100 edits made in negotiation with the Church of Scientology, although this fact is not made clear in the book itself (Elisabeth Arweck's chapter in Theorizing faith: the insider/outsider problem in the study of ritual, page 124, Google preview) Wallis's book is an RS - arguably the best academic source - but it is reasonable to seek other sources as balance.

Some other sources are likely to be more robust in the face of threats of legal action from the studied group. There are notable official inquiries, for example, Foster, J.G. (1971). Enquiry Into the Practice and Effects of Scientology, the official UK Government report published by HMSO. Note from the title that the report addresses Scientology, not just the Church of Scientology. A paper in the Marburg Journal of Religion describes Foster as "the definitive study of Scientology". [653] and is far from the only source to cite it.

Another such category is notable legal judgements. Clearly only a subset of lawsuits directly address the beliefs and practices of Scientology, but some do, and notably so. The Latey Judgement in the UK's High Court (Re: B & G (Minors) (Custody)) and Breckenridge in the California Supreme Court are both highly notable.

Concentration on Sociology of Religion is itself POV

That Scientology is a multi-facted phenomenon is recognised in academic literature. See for example Mary Farrell Bednarowski's chapter in America's Alternative Religions (page 388, Google preview). Hence more than one area of literature is relevant.

An issue with sociology of religion in particular is that they are often examining beliefs and practices in terms of their meaning to the believer, not other aspects they might have (legal, political, scientific/pseudoscientific etc.). Such sources can illuminate the topic in a narrower way than a well-researched non-academic source. Consider one of the core teachings of Scientology, the Purification Rundown. In the book Australian Soul, religion and spirituality academic Sylvie Shaw describes the rundown in terms of what is believed about it in the context of Scientology. (page 9, Google preview) The Annals of Emergency Medicine address the same topic in terms of medical dangers, which are never mentioned by Shaw: doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(97)70335-4. An investigative report in the New York Press considers it from scientific, political, current affairs and other angles, consulting a variety of sources [654]. Hence an insistence on academic sociology at the expense of other well-researched secondary sources for Scientology would give undue weight to the believer's own point of view.

Jayen466 repeatedly misrepresents a key source

In Talk:Scientology discussion of the source A Piece of Blue Sky, Jayen466 classified the book as primary source on the (false) grounds that it is an insider's account. Assuming good faith, I raised in talk that the book is not only secondary (and easily confirmable as such) but recommended as a source in an academic bibliography. A discussion ensued involving myself, Jayen466 and four other editors (who were persuaded that the book is secondary). The book's importance is not trivial: it sourced multiple statements in older versions of the article (example) until being removed by User:Bravehartbear [655].

Despite this long discussion, User:Jayen466 and User:Bravehartbear insist on referring to A Piece of Blue Sky as a primary source [656] [657], Jayen466 expressly asking other editors to treat it as such. Although Jayen466 did debate the quality of the source compared to other sources, this is distinct from the verifiable fact of it being secondary by WP policy. Jayen466 offered no argument on this issue beyond repetition.[658]

I have assumed good faith, but if these editors are telling me something about a source that I can falsify by flicking through the paper copy on my desk, then I can't trust their claims about other sources.

Jayen466 removed academically-sourced material

Jayen466 has recently removed a paragraph (that I'd added, based on two academic references), when his objection only questioned the tense and did not provide overriding sources

What I most admire about WP is how editors with strong opinions can produce quality, neutral content, so long as they work within policy. Jayen466's pattern of behaviour, which shows no sign of ending on its own, makes it hard to be optimistic in the case of the Scientology articles. MartinPoulter (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Anynobody / Anyeverybody

I'm simply going to address the core issue of properly editing articles, I won't comment on or discuss specific editor vs editor disputes which seem to have continued since the last case. (I haven't been following the drama, nor do I care to start.)

Neutral point of view = What the sources say - What we think

A sample of some pretty reliable sources:
About the CoS:
Rolling Stone Inside Scientology Unlocking the complex code of America's most mysterious religion 2/23/2006 (page 1 of 8)
Time The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power 5/6/1991 (page 1 of 11)
The Guardian Schoolboy avoids prosecution for branding Scientology a 'cult' 5/23/2008 and Cult church censured on drug ads 3/27/03
LA Times On the Offensive Against an Array of Suspected Foes 6/29/91
About its members:
CBS Scientology - A Question of Faith 48 Hours (page 1 of 9) 2006
Sydney Morning Herald Scientology cited in killings 7/10/07

Overall verifiable, reliable sources tend to highlight aspects and actions Scientologists do not want highlighted. This is reflected in the behavior of many Scientologists engaged in almost exclusively editing Scientology articles. I found an example in evidence already presented. Rather than marking a statement with a {{fact}} or {{OR}} they tend to remove a statement which could simply have been sourced and slightly rewritten like this; Xenu is a prominent figure in Scientology's Space Opera, which L. Ron Hubbard told his followers not to discuss. from the LA Times:"Don't start walking around and telling people about space opera because they're not going to believe you," he said, "and they're going to say, 'Well, that's just Hubbard.'"

In short anyone who ignores information from quality sources which paints the CoS in either a bad (or good*) light should not be editing CoS related articles. (Some good things Scientology does/has done are mentioned in many of these articles as well and should also be included. Moreover if Time published an article next month called "We were wrong, Scientology rules!" a truly NPOV editor would cite it.) Anynobody(?) 06:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Keith Henson

Why am I being attacked?

I have never been a significant editor of Wikipeda articles about the subject of this arbitration. Also it has been more than a year since I edited a related article. (My edit was reverted within hours by AndroidCat. [[659]])The only other edit I can find was more than a year and a half ago to revert a vandalism deletion by a person also mentioned under this subject. That restoration has remained in the article to this day.

In light of these self evident facts, why did Roger Davies added me as a party to his "findings." It seems to me I am being attacked on Wikipedia for being a real life victim of a cult I can't even name (probation conditions).

For evidence (completely unrelated to the subject of this workshop) my accuser states: "In a manner suggestive of a conflict of interest, he has engaged in the promotion of his own position in his own biography[660];

If you follow the link he supplied, in October of 2007 I replaced two requests for cites in my bio with links, not changing a word. Many people edit their bios. This is not forbidden as long as you are sensible about it (for example reverting vandalism or correcting obvious facts such as dates). But I can't see where any of the "evidence" is related to the subject of this workshop. If anyone can see a connection, please let me know.

I might have responded sooner but I was not notified for a week after being been added as a party. Also weeks can go by when I don't log in at all.

My email address, hkhenson@rogers.com, has been posted on my user page since April 2006. If there is a finding against me, I would appreciate being informed where to email and what to say. Keith Henson (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {Another User}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h Cite error: The named reference shupe was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference morton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Seifman, David (April 19, 2007). "MIKE THUMPS TOM". New York Post. NYP Holdings, Inc. Retrieved 2008-06-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ DeSio, John. "The Rundown on Scientology's Purification Rundown". New York Press. www.nypress.com. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
  5. ^ DeSio, John (May 31, 2007). "Vallone's Letter To Scientology". New York Press. www.nypress.com. Retrieved 2008-06-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ a b c d e f g h i Hatzipanagos, Rachel (2008-03-11). "Scientology group stops guidebook mailings: Officials received unsolicited copies". South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i Kleinberg, Eliot (2008-03-08). "Mayor Find Happiness Booklet Irritating". The Palm Beach Post. p. 1C. Cite error: The named reference "kleinberg" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  8. ^ Larson, Bob (2004). Larson's Book of World Religions. Wheaton, Ill: Tyndale House Publishers. p. 430. ISBN 0-8423-6417-X.
  9. ^ a b Lindholm, Charles (1992). "Charisma, Crowd Psychology and Altered States of Consciousness". Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry. 16 (3). Kluwer Academic Publishers: 287–310. doi:10.1007/BF00052152.
  10. ^ Wallis, Roy (1977). The Road to Total Freedom. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 153.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology/Evidence&oldid=290034231"