Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence

Cross-project evidence

(cross-posting from RFAR talk; arbitrator feedback would be helpful) Durova^Charge! 18:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Would the Arbitration Committee consider evidence from a sister WMF site if that evidence establishes a pattern of policy abuse?

That's come up at the Scientology RFAR. So before anyone fetches diffs, block histories, etc. let's find out whether this type of material would help the case move forward or not. A few words now from the Arbs could save a lot of time for everyone, since it looks like the RFAR is moving toward acceptance and some editors are mentioning Wikinews. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The small part in the arbitration policy says:

Evidence and brief arguments may be added to the case pages by disputants, interested third parties, and the Arbitrators themselves. Such evidence is usually only heard by the Committee if it has come from easily verifiable sources - primarily in the form of Wikipedia edits ("diffs"), log entries for MediaWiki actions or web server access, posts to the official mailing lists, or other Wikimedia sources.

That is sufficiently ambiguous to require a clarification for this case, in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My $0.02 is that implies that Wikimedia sources are considered reliable when making a case related to misconduct on Wikipedia. I think it is a given that Wikipedia arbitration is a Wikipedia remedy; it is not the place of this panel to judge the behavior of Wikipedians on sister projects, those sister projects having their own analogous mechanisms. Therefore any material brought over from sister sites should not be intended to show "actionable" offenses on those sites or even to show a pattern of behavior cross-project but should be limited to supporting a specific allegation of misbehavior on this project. To do elsewise elevates this forum to "Wikimedia arbitration", which it clearly is not. --Justallofthem (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Justallofthem on the scope in which behavior from other projects should be used as evidence here. --GoodDamon 19:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Still curious what any of the arbs have to say. Is this sort of evidence worth presenting or not? Durova^Charge! 00:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoted directly from Jimbo Wales' user talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey Jimbo, quick question: Should diffs/bans/checkuser details from sister Wikimedia sites be treated as objective evidence in ArbCom cases on en.wiki? Specifically, can such evidence be used to support a disciplinary action on en.wiki? ←Spidern→ 21:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC) I don't think there is any simple yes/no answer to that. Behavior in other places can be relevant evidence in ArbCom cases, but often is not. Certainly the idea that one can behave perfectly well here, while engaging in offsite attacks, etc., and the ArbCom can do nothing about it, just doesn't fly. But as well, the idea that a person could be arbitrarily sanctioned at wikipedia for behavior in another forum doesn't fly either. It's a judgment call.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not going to investigate violations of other projects' policies, per se, but please feel free to present any evidence that you believe relates to conduct issues on en.wiki. Kirill ^(prof) 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to self-published anti-Scientology sites in Wikipedia

Here is a slightly more complete listing of private anti-Scientology sites, and the number of links to them in WP:

• 374 links to Operation Clambake (xenu.net)
• 222 links to Lermanet
• 178 links to holysmoke.org
• 134 links to Operation Clambake (clambake.org)
• 122 links to "whyaretheydead.net"
• 83 links to home.snafu.de/tilman/
• 57 links to xenu.directory.net
• 54 links to gerryarmstrong.org
• 46 links to truthaboutscientology.com
• 44 links to lisamcpherson.org
• 31 links to scientology-lies.com
• 28 links to spaink.net
• 15 links to suppressiveperson.org
• 5 links to fairgamed.org
• 5 links to xenutv.com

Total: 1398 links. Historically, use of such sites has often caused edit wars and bad blood: [1] [2] [3] [4] Jayen466 03:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Although the use of self-published sources is equally concerning (and must be dealt with) as primary sources, it is important to note that the latter come from a single organization, where the links presented above are all individual entities. ←Spidern→ 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

We have several hundred articles on Scientology-related topics. Inclusion of an official site, where one exists, among each article's EL is standard practice. I don't quite see your point about the "individual entities" – all the above sites are very much alike, they link to each other, and are all by various otherwise unpublished individuals. But yes, where Scientology sites are quoted to source article content, that should usually be thrown out, unless a secondary source quotes the same content. Jayen466 03:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This is not a mere question of likeness of content. What we have here is opinions represented by multiple websites operated by multiple individuals which have their own convictions and reasoning. It is most concerning that the 30 individual domains mentioned (and literally hundreds more unmentioned) are owned and operated by a single legal organization. The practice of opening a disproportionate number of websites to represent their own opinion deceptively inflates the amount of perceived unbiased information on a subject. As an analogy, imagine that Pfizer opened 30 or more websites which they used to promote their products, presenting them as an objective sources for information on said products. You may say that it is the same of the critical sites to link amongst one another, but at least it can be seen that they are operated by individuals, and not a corporation. ←Spidern→ 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• These are our current external links for Scientology: [5]. Apart from the official Scientology site, they're all clearly inappropriate as per our copyright and reliable sourcing policies and guidelines. Jayen466 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• However, without a clear and unambiguous arbcom remedy addressing this, I daresay it will be an endless and thankless task cleaning up the EL section and keeping it clean. Jayen466 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Spidern, the self-published sources clause of the reliable sources guideline specifically favors article subjects by allowing them to speak on their own behalf. Jayen466 may have identified a legitimate problem. Jayen, do you have information on how many of those links are used as inline citations v. how many in external links sections? And this averages out to how many links per article? I'm uncertain whether this matter falls within the scope of this arbitration because the Committee has traditionally been resistant to rule on content issues. Might be more of a matter for the community to discuss re: the external linking policy, but I suppose it can't hurt to query the arbs here. Regarding attempted inline citations to unreliable sources in articles, I'd be glad to help extract those myself. Normally I don't edit this subject, but have done quite a bit of bad-citation-extraction from music articles. That much should be uncontroversial and useful, but I'd defer to the consensus of more knowledgeable editors about the rest. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that I am and always have been in favor of getting rid of the self-published sites Jayen466 lists, and I don't think anyone currently involved in this arbitration is in favor of keeping them. None of them are reliable sources, in my opinion, and much of the material cited to them is available in much better sources. But seriously, isn't sorting out reliability what WP:RS/N is for? Does this really belong in arbitration if it hasn't even gone to that noticeboard yet? --GoodDamon 05:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up: I've gone through the first 100 instances of xenu.net external links. It's cause for concern although not quite as alarming as I'd feared at first. The majority of these links appeared on talk pages and noticeboards rather than in articlespace, and in a few instances these were arguably legit self-published links (for the articles about the site and its founder). I've decided to include only articles where the site was used as an inline citation, as opposed to the external links section. Whether or not this would be an acceptable external link is a different discussion The 13 remaining pages included several high level articles. Would like to discuss this with other editors before proceeding. Durova^Charge! 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Church of Scientology
• Scientology controversies
• Scientology
• Dianetics
• L. Ron Hubbard
• Scientology and the legal system
• Lawrence Wollersheim
• Disconnection
• Harry Palmer (author)
• Scientology: The Now Religion
• History of Dianetics
• Harvey Jackins
• Re-evaluation Counseling

Suppose this needs to be said: removing the link is obvious enough, but what to do about the statement a link tries to support? Pin a fact tag onto it or remove? Mention what at talk? At 1950s pop song articles it's usually good enough to leave the statement in place unless it's obvious vandalism, and pin an unreferenced tag on the article if none of its citations were valid. This topic is controversial, so seeking recommendations. Durova^Charge! 05:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever anyone comes up with, it's likely to piss someone else off. I'm of the opinion that fact tags should only stay briefly on any controversial statement, unless its one that's widely accepted as true. Anything else should come off the page. To avoid angering as many people as possible, perhaps a system of sandboxes for content lacking in good references to give people the opportunity to find those references? --GoodDamon 05:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is an issue to which there is not always a clear answer; it depends very much on the situation. In every possible case when removing primary sources from Scientology-related articles, I attempted to preserve the original content being referenced should the proper citations appear. I believe this to be the most constructive way of doing things, considering that you are making use of the prose refined by editors before you. If content was too outrageous or irrelevant to keep on the article, I pasted the contents to talk pages in order to preserve all work, and in some cases removed the content altogether. The process of deciding upon what is likely to be sourced and what will not be is subjective, and a judgment call for whoever is making the edit. That being said, monitor the citations and if a sufficient time period passes and there is no sign that any citation can be found (and you can't find one yourself), then remove the statement. Just remember, however, that there is no true deadline (except for all WP:BLP material, of course). ←Spidern→ 05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like this is a worthwhile undertaking. Anyone want to create a subpage for review of individual articles? I lack the background to tell what's reasonable or unreasonable in terms of content, but would gladly help stock a page with material for review. Should speed matters up a bit. Durova^Charge! 06:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Google Scholar cite list

Operation Clambake - Google Scholar AndroidCat (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. This confirmed xenu.net being an attack site. It makes no attempt to hide that it is run by a private individual whose purpose is to gather and spread anti-scientology arguments. His site is as bad as a citation source as any other private single-track minded website. Only when it comes to Scientology some special measure seems to be applied. Shutterbug (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I invite other editors to review the results and decide for themselves if Shutterbug's view reflects any kind of .. fair .. assessment of the results from Google Scholar, or just more soapboxing. AndroidCat (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your help with this, Durova. Looking back through the edit histories, you can see how use of these sites, or particular statements sourced to them, has time and time again caused personal friction, edit wars and so forth. The examples I gave above are typical ([6] [7] [8] [9]). Usually, the anti-Scientologists have formed majorities and won these battles. More edit wars have been fought over the inclusion of anti-Scientologist sites than over the exclusion of Scientology sites.

I think if we could just address this issue, a lot of our work would already be done, and there would be a clear path ahead for how people could work together to make these articles better – researching published literature, rather than the readily-available websites. There needs to be a clear commitment from both sides to strive for the best sources, and a means to get newbies on board, who will come into these articles on a daily basis, eager to include the tidbit they have just read on Lermanet or Operation Clambake.

For an example of inappropriate use of primary sources/private websites in a main article, see Scientology#Celebrities. Almost all the second paragraph in this section is sourced to an affidavit on whyaretheydead.net. No evidence that this is mentioned in any secondary source, yet we have a whole paragraph based on it, in our main article on Scientology, and it's about ploughing a field (!). This paragraph has been there, without interruption, since autumn 2007. That, along with the external links presently given in the Scientology article, is clear evidence of (1) the existing balance of editor numbers (2) that we need to get the anti-Scientology majority on board. Jayen466 13:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that arbcom has traditionally been reluctant to rule on content issues, but this is not about content, it is about the quality of external links and sourcing, which is governed by policies and guidelines. So I hope we can get something along those lines out of this process. Note that there are sites directly analogous to the anti-Scientology sites for other religions, such as http://www.prophetofdoom.net and http://www.islam-watch.org etc. for Islam. Those sites are not listed as EL in our featured article on Islam, or used as sources there, but they are listed as EL in our article Criticism of Islam. I think we should proceed in much the same manner here – create a proper article on Criticism of Scientology, which is currently just a redirect to Scientology controversies, and cover these sites there. There is enough secondary literature on them. As it is, Wikipedia is used almost as an extension of these sites, adopting their tone and content. Jayen466 13:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So Jayen, how would you recommend we solve this? I don't know the subject well enough to tell when a particular statement sourced to an unreliable citation ought to stay or go when I remove the citation link. Perhaps the best thing is if I pore through this list identifying articles where these inline citations to unreliable sources occur, and write up a list for the editors who know this field to discuss? Durova^Charge! 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to have some backing from arbcom before we start on this, for example in the form of a finding of fact that numerous Scientology articles have inadequate sourcing that is not in line with our policies and guidelines. I have no desire to argue or edit-war with other editors about the suitability of self-published essays, primary sources, affidavits on holysmoke.org and whyaretheydead.net etc. For example, look at the sourcing in Rehabilitation_Project_Force#Controversy. Bet you if we take those out, someone will come along and say, Hey, that was sourced. Jayen466 19:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On an interesting note, comparing the ratios between links used on Wikipedia mainspace articles and total links for xenu.net (yahoo search for mainspace articlestotal external links) and scientology.org (maintotal) shows a higher ratio of links to the main Scientology fluff site appear in articles than do links to the main critical site with news, research, and analysis. If this holds true for the rest of the sites, it makes any comparison between ~1400 critical links and <800 Scientology organisational links dubious. Nevard (talk) 07:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Misrepresented evidence

This is a request to Justallofthem, concerning the evidence provided here. If this is the wrong place to respond directly to evidence provided by other parties, I ask an admin to let me know.

Justallofthem, I just reviewed that edit, and not only was it appropriate (perhaps minus the restored redlink), but when the FA author showed up and expanded that text, he expanded on the version Cirt restored, not the version TaborG put in place. There is a valid discussion of improper primary sourcing on the talk page there as well, but that's it. This is downright absurd straw-grasping, and in this case, you're trying to render a good edit negative when taken out of context. Please stop, it's inappropriate, and frankly it's below you. Any admin who takes two seconds to go through the three diffs that follow and glance at the talk page discussion will be fully aware of the context. You may have valid arguments, but this isn't one of them. You really should strike it. --GoodDamon 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. You need to take another peek at that. Originally, the bit did not tie Ron's Journal 67 to the Bill so the reference to RJ67 would seem as off-topic or OR. TaborG apparently listened to the tape or went to the transcript and made a good-faith revision that tied RJ67 to the article with cogent edit summary correct quote and concentration on bill (here). He improved the article. Cirt reverted (here) back to the bad version that appears as OR. ChrisO, by far the writer of the article, came in next and tied RJ67 to the Bill. Now TaborG and ChrisO could prolly go back and forth as to how that bit should look and they could do that in good faith. Cirt's edit was WP:OWN and far from good faith. Trust me, I am just getting started on this theme. You will see more and better instances but I stand by this one too. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

And please be patient. I will not present anything on the Workshop page until I have laid out my evidence. Right now I have scant evidence but others can see where I am going if they want to help. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I look forward to the rest of your evidence then, but I hope you'll include more context in the future, because this one is very weak. Frankly, if TaborG went and listened to the tape himself, that's also OR, and it is quite correct to revert an OR addition back to a version that made FA. That the FA version also contains OR is a good topic of discussion, but not a good reason to go after Cirt. --GoodDamon 00:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Cough ... so if someone goes to the library (or the internet) and reads a book and makes an edit based on what he read then that is OR? The RJ67 tape is published material ... or was, don't know if you can still buy one but that does not matter. The whole point is that Cirt will not allow improvement of an article unless he approves of the editor - he is the gatekeeper and that just ain't right. --Justallofthem (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. If I go to the library, check out a reliable secondary source like a newspaper or book, and report its contents to Wikipedia, I am not engaging in original research. I am reporting the research of others. If I track down some old, long-unpublished audio recording originally produced by a primary source, and then report the contents of that otherwise unverifiable, primary source to Wikipedia, I am not relying on the research of others, I am doing my own research. Thus, OR. --GoodDamon 03:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(left) You are right in that that article is very much a bit of original research. It interesting and worthy of note that it passed featured review. Food for thought. As far as our topic, if we take it as given that the RJ67 tape is in the article anyway (as OR), for TaborG to connect it to the subject of the article was a good-faith improvement. --Justallofthem (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder here that two users who disagree over language like that can both be making good faith improvements. In this case, Cirt actually had the stronger argument, his argument was then bolstered by other editors, and TaborG didn't contest the changes. Now frankly, on the talk page, I think TaborG is correct and ChrisO mistaken on whether that section is a valid use of WP:PRIMARY sources, but that's a different topic. --GoodDamon 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have since added numerous examples in my evidence section on OWN showing Cirt's habitual behavior. There are many more egregious instances. --Justallofthem (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Previous related discussions

• Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/archive2#Personal websites and reliability
• Talk:Suppressive_Person/Archive_1#A suggestion regarding the Clambake documents

There have been quite a lot of others over the years, particularly one involving book links. I believe that some of the people involved here (under one name or another) were involved in these, so I'm surprised that they haven't mentioned them. AndroidCat (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. I hadn't known that ChrisO (talk · contribs) contributes to Operation Clambake. Jayen466 15:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd want to qualify exactly how he has contributed to Operation Clambake and if he presently does before trying to use it as a stick against him. (I assume you'd be going for WP:COI as a tactic?) A lot of material on Operation Clambake was swept up from different places and archives on previous sites. (It's not so much the first archive as The Site Who Lived.) AndroidCat (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AC, has Operation Clambake ever actually gone to WP:RS/N to be vetted as a reliable source? A banned user named Terryeo makes references to it in one of the links you have above, but didn't link it directly, and I can't find it in the archives. If RS/N has ruled on Clambake (for or against or whatever), that's something that we should all be interested in looking up. If it hasn't, would anyone mind if, as an adjunct to this ArbCom, I brought up sites like Clambake at the noticeboard now? It would be nice to get some solid guidelines on whether they're usable and under what circumstances. --GoodDamon 16:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There have been so many, I forget and don't have time to look for them right now. Obviously material from xenu.net itself wouldn't be RS, just like the personal pages of Introvigne on cesnur.org. The grey area has always been otherwise WP:V WP:RS material archived from somewhere else. AndroidCat (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Durova and Cirt have begun to take those links out. It is probably best that they do it; anyone else would be reverted. Jayen466 16:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... That assumes that they will continue to do it, and no, I have reverted Cirt on at least one occasion when he removed a book link with a boilerplate summary description of "not needed for WP:V." That could be said of any reference link, but there's a reason that Wikipedia doesn't flip the switch to turn off all links to other sites. As well, no effort was made to replace those links with ones to less objectionable sites, as was agreed to in the past. AndroidCat (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

AC, I hadn't actually intended to use his participation there as a stick at all. But it is still noteworthy that a number of editors have significant commitments to anti-Scientology work, and the anti-Scientology community, outside of Wikipedia. Being an anti-Scientologist is not soooo different from being a Scientologist. In the John Carmichael AfD, Geni (talk · contribs) provided a link to the enturbulation forum (an anti-Scientology forum), where forum participants were discussing the creation and/or possible deletion of that Wikipedia article. Terryeo said, in the discussion you linked above, that ChrisO had written 134 essays on Operation Clambake. If true (I'll check in a minute), that is more than an afternoon's work. Jayen466 16:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Operation Clambake has plenty of material on Wikipedia's Scientology effort, too, offering editors here hearty congratulations for a job well done: [10][11] Jayen466 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but you have to join Scientology, whereas you become an "anti-scientologist" the moment that you disagree with the Church official line, especially if you provide documentation. Any site that gathers an archive will soon be labeled as an anti-scientologist, anti-cult, attack site or counter-cult site. That's a no-win situation.

I've reverted my share of unsourced additions by people from places like the late enturbulation, pointed them to the Five Pillars, tried to explain why Wikipedia articles must be NPOV and sourced. I don't even edit the Anonymous articles (except at the start when it wasn't notable and the sources were fluff) due to the effort to be NPOV. I've also created a cite link library to avoid the copyvio and RS problems (like alterations) of "courtesy" news article copies. AndroidCat (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

All I need to do is go to a Church, take part in a TR-0 routine and perhaps do some auditing and bingo, I am no longer a human being, but am now "a Scientologist". Is that what you mean by joining? As for being an anti-Scientologist, there's plenty of people who disagree with some organisation's "official line", yet do not become anti-communists, anti-capitalists, anti-Islamists, anti-religionists or what have you. There are plenty of people who leave Scientology and leave as Scientologists in good standing. I generally respect your editing. Jayen466 01:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I haven't been taking links out, just documenting where they are. And Cirt has limited his removals to contributory copyright infringement, although it turns out he might have been a little overzealous because some of those were legal hostings. We're not trying to determine which of those sites are reliable and which aren't; that's probably better left for the reliable sources noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen466, if you know of anyone who left scientology, and who was not celebrity status, and no adverse action was taken by the organization against those people. Please email me their names. Such people are rare indeed.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

To the clerk

Can you please instruct Will BeBack to post his evidence and rebuttals in his section rather than thread them in my section? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've moved it below. Sorry of placing it in the wrong section. It's not evidence, it's a discussion of the case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding new evidence by Cirt and Jossi

In order to reduce clutter on the evidence page, suggest working out back-and-forth matters here. The workshop page is for formal motions.

As for any potential chilling effect upon arbitration enforcement, it would seem to be a healthy thing if administrators who had long histories of formal dispute resolution with particular individuals either refrained from weighing in on the individuals they had been in conflict with, or else made disclosures.

Regarding the scope of the case, it was Jossi who expanded discussion to cover all new religious movements with his workshop proposals. Jossi also sought to expand it to cover Cirt's prior accounts. Having been the one to open those doors, Jossi can hardly object to other people going through them. It is the arbitrators (not Jossi) who ultimately determine the scope.

If they determine that Jossi has misused site processes in attempts to gain the upper hand against people who disagree with him, then Cirt's documentation of the NPA edits and the warning on Rick Ross would be relevant. And if the arbitrators determine otherwise, then little harm is done by the short addition to Cirt's evidence.

Respectfully suggesting that if there is merit to that line of reasoning, it would serve Jossi better to acknowledge it and become more circumspect about such matters. Durova^Charge! 00:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Thank you for the advise, Durova, but I think it serves the project rather badly. ArbCom cases are to be focused on the issue at hand, and not suddenly becoming a free-for-all zone. Surely, the arbCom will look at the evidence presented and make their call about their relevance or not, but IMO, using these pages as Will and Cirt have done in this regard simply stinks, sorry. And btw, you need to take some blame for dragging me into this case :) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In the case of the evidence I added, it is relevant because Jossi is claiming that the BLP policy has been violated due to misuse of sources even though he has disagreed with himself over what those standards really are. As for the evidence concerning Rick Ross (consultant) and user:Rick Alan Ross, those disputes are closely connected to this case because Ross is a prominent critic of Scientology as well as Osho and Prem Rawat. Both Jayen and Jossi have been involved in working on the biographies of individuals connected to new religious movements as well as the biographies of commentators, scholars, and critics of NRMs. The issue of changing a policy while in a dispute is likewise important as it affects Jossi's editing of those biographies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, if you see an ethical problem with Will's actions and Cirt's, do you perhaps also see a problem with trying to use formal workshop proposals to get a featured content contributor topic banned from a subject where you've been in formal DR with him ten times? Without disclosing that history of conflict? Durova^Charge! 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh? Workshop pages are designed to offer options to the ArbCom, don't they? They look at the evidence and at the proposals and make a determination about their usefulness or lack thereof. As for my "history" with Cirt, that is common knowledge and the arbs are aware of it. So what is the big deal about a "disclosure" in this case? And if that is needed, why not make it compulsory for all parties? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is not about "ethics" it is about the focus of a case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually it isn't common knowledge. I had no knowledge of it all those months you were emailing me, and it wasn't until after this case opened that I discovered the scope of the problem: ten formal dispute resolution attempts. The onus is upon you in such situations to disclose such things when you interact in an administrative capacity. It isn't tenable for you to expand that the scope of this case extends to all new religious movements with respect to Cirt, while denying that scope extends to yourself. Durova^Charge! 00:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys, we have enough on our plate with Scientology. As for Rick Ross, he spent years trying to write his BLP himself (have a look at the IPs in WikiScanner), citing his own website, and now he is miffed because he can't do it no more. If someone has a financial and ideological COI, he most assuredly has. So let's keep Sarah Palin and all the rest of it out of this. Jayen466 01:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Background on an editor's character is often and justly used for evidence in cases involving them. If Jossi is uneven in his application of BLP, it could be seen to call into question his calling out Cirt, is all. rootology (C)(T) 01:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) This is not a playground or a sibling fight, it is an encyclopedia project. Edits are either in line with policy or they are not; if something is wrong with Jossi's work on Sarah Palin, please address those issues there. Cirt's edits don't become worse or better because of who collects the diffs.

Another thing: Cirt quoted a bit from Mr Ross's scurrilous attack on me and various scholars. As far as the scholars are concerned, there was a recent RS/N thread on that, it's here. If people aren't happy with the sources I provided there, I suggest they please do some research on Melton and CESNUR. To be on the safe side, please do it in google books and on .edu websites, rather than Wikipedia. Lastly, let's remember one thing: What we have here are people who wish to – and do – cite their own websites, gossip mags, tabloids and personally selected primary sources in Wikipedia, shouting "Bias!" and claiming the encyclopedic high-ground against editors who cite books published by university presses and leading academic publishers. Sound odd? Sure does to me. Jayen466 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

[E/C] Editing by editors with COIs is central to this case. Editors using Scientology equipment are editing Scientology articles. You point out Ross's COI, and Ross points out Jossi's COI. Then Jossi tries to make Ross's comment a violation of NPA, after the fact. According to Jossi's workshop postings, the scope of this article includes the editing of BLPs and of NRM-related topics. The Ross article certainly qualifies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think you guys are straying way off topic here. I certainly made sure that the evidence I collected related to Scientology. I don't accept that we have to discuss Sarah Palin, policy edits, Rick Ross, Prem Rawat, Osho and Idries Shah here, and I personally have no intention of doing so until and unless arbcom tells us that this case is now called Requests for arbitration/All and everything. Jayen466 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this thread is going to go anywhere. The ArbCom rarely defines the scope of a case until they've closed it. Let's just lay out the relevant evidence and see what it amounts to. The ArbCom can figure this out for themselves. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wish you'd stop dragging your ongoing struggle with Jossi over the Prem Rawat articles into any discussion and venue that Jossi participates in. Jayen466 01:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Jayen, when Jossi posted workshop proposals to expand the remedies upon Cirt to all new religious movements Jossi opened that door. Two of the prior formal dispute resolution attempts between Cirt and Jossi were at a featured article Cirt wrote about Jossi's employer. If Jossi had disclosed the DR background himself that wouldn't have presented such a problem, but it became necessary for someone to articulate that a problem existed, particularly after Jossi's protestations that he was uninvolved. Will didn't open that can of worms. Durova^Charge! 02:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Phew, at least we seem to be agreed then that Sarah Palin can stay outside the door, are we? And have a think about what you are proposing. An über-arbcom dealing with all WP articles on new religious movements, plus their associated scholars and critics? How many years should we budget for it? What kind of specific remedies would you hope to get from that? Jayen466 02:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm not proposing that; Jossi did. And Jossi's own comments with regard to Cirt's understanding of BLP invited scrutiny of Jossi's understanding of the same policy. We should all expect to be scrutinized according to the same scope and standards we apply to others. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If editors are claiming that poor sources are a problem but have used equally poor sources themselves then that should be addressed. Back in April 2007, an editor added a blog and an open wikis as sources for a BLP and linked to Youtube.[12][13] Now, the same editor is saying that an editor is at fault for making similar edits. We can let the ArbCom decide how relevant that is. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Very funny, Will. At that time – February 2007, actually – I had all of three hundred edits to my name. I also still linked Rick Ross's website as a source, even though I hadn't quite figured out how that citation stuff worked yet: [14]. I am not sure I had even found WP:RS at that time. The YouTube video, however, was made at the University of Oregon and I believe placed on YouTube by its maker, so I don't think it's a bad source. The other stuff was of course ridiculous, picked up from User:Sfacets, IIRC. I'll spare you the embarrassment of trawling through your first 500 edits. Cheers, Jayen466 11:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If I were to complain in an ArbCom case about the behavior of others when I've acted the same way in the past then it'd be appropriate to call me on it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not an ego contest, Will. It's about edits. Jayen466 19:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, and my point is that we've all made edits like that. I have, you have, Jossi has, maybe even some committee members have. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom is composed of intelligent people that will see through these silly attempt to hijack this arbcom case. The case is about, ahem, "Scientology" and editors that have edited these article and that does not include me. So please, spare us the wikilawyering and get on with proving evidence that is pertinent and useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi. I agree with your estimate of ArbCom's intelligence. With that avowal, do you also intend to withdraw your workshop proposals that expand the scope of this case to BLP and all new religious movements? Durova^Charge! 04:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

You can have the last word, Durova. I am outta here. Next time don't drag me into arbcom cases, just because I made a comment at WP:AE. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Durova has conceded the irrelevance of most of her evidence concerning Cirt's interactions with Jossi

Durova has argued against the undeletion of User talk:Smee and User talk:Smeelgova by citing [15] the comments of arbitrators who stated that "I don't see how the talk pages of accounts which have not been used in over a year would be relevant here. Is it expected that there might be comments which would have some bearing on the present matter?"[16] and "I believe there's no relevance here. We are in the business of dealing with current issues, not old history."[17]. However, such comments are only still applicable to the extent that the arbitrators ignore Durova's evidence of the interaction of Jossi and Cirt beginning in 2006 presented in User:Durova/Scientology arbitration/Jossi evidence, when Cirt was editing as Smeelgova. Effectively, then, Durova has argued that most of the evidence she has presented regarding Cirt's interactions with Jossi is irrelevant to the current arbitration case. John254 04:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I also note that Durova's sole response to my critique of her evidence regarding Cirt and Jossi has been to blank my comments from the talk page thereof [18], while permitting other editors' comments to stand. John254 04:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Jossi's talk page was also deleted, as of March 2, 2007. As for what's relevant, let's let the ArbCom decide. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Will speaks true. If you want Cirt's pages undeleted, John, please also request that Jossi's be undeleted. But I'd advise against it, since people CAN get their stuff erased to hide sensitive or private information. rootology (C)(T) 05:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Neither Durova nor Cirt were actually willing to expressly state "the talk pages of Cirt's prior accounts must remain deleted for privacy/security reasons", perhaps because it quite simply isn't true. In that case, please stop making insinuations to the same effect. As for Jossi's talk page history, it appears that it was deleted pending oversight [19] (presumably, it was intended that a few revisions, and not the entire talk page history, be removed through oversight). Provided that someone holding the privilege confirms that the oversight was effectuated, the talk page history could be restored; not restoring it sooner appears to have been a simple mistake. John254 05:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Tory Christman's statement

I move that Ms. Christman's statement be removed from the evidence page. This is not the place or the medium to discuss Scientology itself, and I do not see how her comments specifically apply in this case. They aren't evidence as such. Wikipedia already has an article about the tumultuous relationship the Church of Scientology has with the Internet, and I see no need to rehash it here without specific, additional evidence not already on the page. --GoodDamon 23:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've left a comment on her talk page for her to refactor/remove her comment. But I second it's removal after a period of time to allow her to do it/refactor herself. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm curious what Ms. Christman has to say and add in the way of evidence. If she does refactor her statement, or if it is removed by someone else, I hope she doesn't take it all as a sign that she has nothing of value to add. On the contrary, I would imagine everyone would like to see any links and evidence she could provide. That she is a new Wikipedian and may not be familiar with all the necessary wiki syntax should probably also be taken into account. --GoodDamon 19:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Guess you guys are right - WP:BATTLE and all that. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated accusations and a clerk request

Am I the only one that finds it somewhat inappropriate to post an accusation here with the statement "I will add the evidence later" as in "when I get around to it". Referring of course to the Jossi sockpuppet accusation. If you have the evidence then post it, otherwise don't post the accusation until you are ready to post the evidence. I request that a clerk remove that without prejudice until Will is ready to post his evidence. --Justallofthem (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I've substantially edited my posting,[20] which was only intended to notify the committee of upcoming activity on the page. I hope the current version is inoffensive. Clerks are welcome to delete it entirely if that's more appropriate.   Will Beback  talk  08:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 14:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification from the clerk or the ArbCom

I made a couple of comments at WP:AE in the thread that triggered this case. I then find myself as a party in this case, when actually I never edited these articles. Now editors are using this case to present "evidence" against me which is unrelated to this case, which I find puzzling. Accepting these types of "evidence" is not only most unusual but will likely result in chilling effect and reduce participation at WP:AE. Can the clerk and/or the arbcom make a comment about this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

@Durova: Given your one-sided account and the fact that you have decided to make public private communications we had over the last few years regarding your protege, I will not respond to the evidence against me. I believe it is irrelevant to this case, and a to obvious attempt to muddle the waters about a case about which I have no involvement whatsoever. I am taking a break for a couple of weeks now I have retired from WP for good because I am disgusted quite enough. Happy holidays. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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 kinda wonder what (mis)use of the checkuser procedure even led to that error? Personally, I think that the panel should delve into the continued misuse of checkuser against Scientologists that edit here. There is a procedure for a suspected sock and I do not see where that was followed here. --Justallofthem (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments on Durova's evidence on Justallofthem

Having looked at the discussion that took place earlier this week between Cirt and Justallofthem at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Cruise:_An_Unauthorized_Biography&oldid=270023672#Suri.27s_Parentage I think Justallofthem has a point in his BLP argument. Either we abide by what BLP says, or we should remove those passages in BLP.

Also, one of the diffs relating to the John Carmichael article in Durova's evidence in the section #Justallofthem_wikihounds_Cirt is was originally entitled "(my first edit to the article)". The diff shows an edit by Cirt, rather than Durova, even though the evidence is presented by Durova. Is it fair to assume that this evidence was in fact compiled by Cirt rather than Durova?

Another thought, if the "value" of our remaining as contributors to this project is measured by whether we write as many featured articles per month as Cirt, then we might all go home. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayen466 (talk • contribs)

Evidence presented by John254

Cirt's repeated WP:BLP violations

Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has added inadequately sourced controversial material concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles on several occasions, in egregious violation of Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. Please see [21] and [22] in which Cirt uses a blog, and the tabloid magazine New Idea, respectively, to make controversial claims concerning living persons. One of the very sources that Cirt cites in his edit describes New Idea as one of "the celebrity gossip weeklies". Furthermore, Cirt used the tabloid magazine as a source [23] after the conclusion of an RFC as a result of which he conceded that a blog does not constitute a reliable source for the purpose of making controversial claims concerning a living person. John254 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As if that weren't bad enough, after a another editor removed Cirt's tabloid-sourced WP:BLP violation, Cirt restored it with a misleading edit summary (the reliable sources expressly described the matter as factually questionable tabloid-sourced gossip). John254 14:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cirt's prior accounts

Cirt (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) was previously User:Smeelgova, an account which was renamed to User:Smee [24]. He was blocked seven times for edit warring largely related to new-age religious groups under both accounts, as chronicled in their block logs [25] [26]. At the time Cirt was granted adminship, he refused to disclose the identities of his prior accounts. Moreover, the deletion of the prior accounts' talk pages [27] [28] served to further conceal Cirt's misconduct at the time of his RFA, even from users who were aware of his prior identity. John254 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment on statement by Justallofthem

In this edit: [29] I will quote Justallofthem and follow the quote with my comments.

"Xenu Xenu Xenu Xenu. There, I said Xenu. Cirt seems to think that Scientologists cannot say Xenu." Cirt never stated that. Justallofthem is expressing a speculation.

"What an odd concept and what a total misunderstanding of what Scientology is and how it works." How does Justallofthem know that Cirt has a "total misunderstanding"? Justallofthem has not lived Cirt's life. That is a flagrant exaggeration.

"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." Minimally such a scientologist is a volunteer or staff member working under direction of the Office of Special Affairs, who has completed OT III. That is factual, not misleading or in bad-faith. I can state this because I was an OSA volunteer at one time, being active when OSA began monitoring and posting to newsgroups in the early 1990's.

"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."Xenu is mentioned in the OT III materials written by L. Ron Hubbard. That is fact. If Justallofthem truly thinks that such a fact is expressed out-of-context, then he can provide more information to establish context. Justallofthem does not present any evidence specifically WHO is attempting to marginalize and ridicule scientology.

"OK. That is true, they do assert that and do that."No, it is not established as a fact. That is Justallofthem's statement.

"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." Those levels are confidential WITHIN corporate scientology and the confidentiality agreement is only enforceable within corporate scientology.

"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."To comment on this material, one would have to have knowledge of it from some source. "Fairly and correctly" would be from Justallofthem's point of view.

"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." Any member of corporate scientology who edits scientology-related articles on Wikipedia is working in cooperation with the Office of Special Affairs. If OSA does not want a cofs member editing scientology-related articles, that member is warned via a public ethics officer or master at arms. That member can be retaliated against by various threats of punishment such as lower ethics conditions, a non-enturbulation order, a committee of evidence, or a Suppressive Person declare.

"Cirt proves again that s/he cannot edit in good faith alongside a Scientologist and now tried to get the lot us barred. Sheesh." Cirt has not proven what Justallofthem alleges, Justallofthem is propagandizing to that effect. There is no evidence that Cirt is trying to get any scientology editors barred. It looks to me that certain scientology editors are doing that for themselves.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Other fish to fry

It looks to be that this ArbCom is being abused to attack other editors, be it Durova attacking jossi about something very much disrelated to this Arbcom or Rick Ross going after jayen466 for - again - something with no relation to Scientology (the title of this ArbCom). I understand Spidern/GoodDamon being upset with Misou, so he would dig out all kind of old (long punished) violations of Wikipedia policy. But overall I think this ArbCom has too many people with other fish to fry. Could one of the Arbitrators please make a comment on that? Shutterbug (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Clerk note

I've gone through an moved several sections from the /Evidence page to the /Evidence talk page on the basis that they the evidence page is not for general discussion and that statements which analyze evidence and other assertions should be made at the /Workshop page. If I have missed a section that should be moved, please let me know. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Preview button

I wonder if it would be possible for user Jayen466 to use the Show Preview button more often rather than dumping a page full of minor edits into the log within the span of an hour? AndroidCat (talk) 06:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for new evidence

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

For ease of reference, best is if:

1. the new evidence is posted here (/Evidence), clearly headed "New evidence by {user}"
2. is concise and factual, with few words and many clear diffs

As mentioned above, it is unnecessary to supply new evidence for people already mentioned in the findings of fact, unless it is particularly clear and compelling.

— Roger Davies ^talk 18:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for Cirt

Thank you for your new evidence. These all from what could probably be called the "pro" faction. Which other editors, perhaps from the "anti" faction, would you say are being disruptive or are SPAs? — Roger Davies ^talk 14:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We have been proactive about keeping POV-pushing SPAs from the other side of the fence from becoming entrenched problems. As noted in my evidence and this post by Durova I had reported an anti-Scientology SPA account, Richard Rolles (talk · contribs), to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles. The checkuser turned up  Confirmed socking and the account was blocked. Another administrator later unblocked one of his accounts without my approval, and this disruptive SPA recently posted to your user talk [30]. Since I do not intervene with the tools in this area, I was not notified about this unblock and found out after it had been implemented. I have been keeping an eye on this user's new contributions and intended to take it to the appropriate boards if problems resumed. As mentioned in my evidence, WillOakland (talk · contribs) was adding controversial unsourced material to a Scientology-related article, I reported him to ANI, WillOakland later admitted to being a sockpuppet of banned user Gazpacho. At Talk:List of new religious movements, offsite canvassing from the group "Anonymous" led to anti-Scientology SPAs showing up at the article, I opposed their position due to lack of reliable sourcing [31][32]. Some of the (likely canvassed from offsite) anti-Scientology SPAs from Talk:List of new religious movements issue included Richard Rolles (talk · contribs), as well as 84.9.236.80, 82.39.241.81, Marc abian, Ddqsdnlj, Ken Moxon (later blocked as a sock of Richard Rolles), DevilSavior, and Felixmeister. Their postings were generally limited to the issue at Talk:List of new religious movements, I had planned to report them for investigation by other uninvolved administrators if they became disruptive. Cirt (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

Actually it was me that caught and reported Richard Rolles both on his first and second checkuser. Cirt came in on the 3rd. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles. Be that as it may. I notice that the talk page of Richard Rolles has been deleted. That is not the norm and there is something there I would like to research. Would one of the arbitrators or an uninvolved admin please restore that talk page. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, let me clear up Justallofthem's concern over the deletion of my old talk page, 'Richard Rolles'. There's nothing suspicious as I suspect he's hoping. Originally, it was my Richard Rolles account that was unblocked (by Nishkid64). However, given my wish to 'turn over a new leaf' as it were, I had set up a new account (the current one) and indicated that this is the one I wish to post under, therefore the 'Richard Rolles' account was deleted. I have made no effort to hide the fact that I was 'Richard Rolles'. To Cirt, I understand your keeping an eye on me and would direct you to my user talk page to view the terms of my unblock, which I intend to stick to. I had not intended to get involved with this case at all, until Roger Davies' call for more evidence.

Secondly, to clear up a frequent myth, there was NO initial 'canvassing' of LRNM as has been implied here. Evidence available clearly shows that this article was merely linked to on an Anonymous board, pointing out content already present in the article. Nothing more than that. The 'anti-Scientology SPAs' only began editing AFTER Justallofthem removed Scientology from two categories within that article. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Second request

Again asking that the talk page be restored. I am not looking to add Rolles to this as an interested party and my reasons are only tangentially related to him. Thank you. --Justallofthem (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

-To clarify, my userpage was deleted by Nishkid64, and some time later, the talkpage was deleted by user East718 ('talk page of an indefinitely blocked user'). Anyhoo, I don't have a problem with the talkpage's restoration as requested by Justallofthem, although I fail to see the relevance since Just himself has said that "I am not looking to add Rolles to this as an interested party and my reasons are only tangentially related to him". I'm not exactly sure what he's looking for, but this feels like a fishing trip. I am a big 'Columbo' fan, though, so let's see where this goes. The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Edits to Tom Cruise

Um, just what exactly is the similarly named section on the evidence page supposed to be evidence of? In answer to the question asked there, I guess my response would be that I'd like to see the reliability of the source, Radar Online, established first. I have no personal experience one way or another with that site, so I can't comment myself, but it would seem to me that would be the deciding question. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

That revert on the part of ChrisO is a very mild example of the sort of BLP violation and protectionism that goes on in the Scientology articles regularly. The claim is clearly one that BLP would apply to in the strictest sense, i.e. that Cruise dispatched goons to pressure Grey and that let to Redstone booting Cruise from the studio. That is a pretty strong BLP claim and should be backed up by extremely strong sourcing. Let's take a look of what we have and how it was interpreted by the text that ChrisO restored. ChrisO writes (and I think that if you revert to text then you are responsible for it):

"Radar has claimed that the "personal conduct" complained of by Redstone was an allegedly Cruise-inspired attempt to intimidate Brad Grey, CEO of Paramount."

However, I do not see that at all in the source. Radar is quoting an unidentified "high-ranking media executive" that the Grey incident took place. That is pretty shaky sourcing when an online gossip mag is quoting an unnamed source. But Radar does not even say that the source made a connection between the incident and Redstone's actions. Radar makes a simple comment:

But Radar has learned Redstone may have let Cruise off easy

that looks like the Radar editor simply supposing that Redstone did not mention the incident. Just supposition not even presented as fact but ChrisO turns it into a "claim" by Radar when it was nothing of the sort. (According to reliable sources the behavior that Redstone objected to was Cruise's "controversial public behavior and views", not this alleged incident.) More violating BLP and altering sources to worsen them so as to cast Scientology and Scientologists in the worst possible light. A Scientologist tried to correct but was reverted by ChrisO. ChrisO has extremely good skills when it comes to critical analysis and I can only assume that he did not closely look at the source but simply performed a knee-jerk reversion of a known Scientologist's edit - another common occurrence in the articles series and why those that claim that Scientologists can somehow influence the articles unduly are clueless as to what really goes on in those articles. --Justallofthem (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)