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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:49, 2 January 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]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Evidence presented by Justallofthem

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.

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.
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?
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:

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

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 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]

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. [2] [3] [4] 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.

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: [5] / [6] / [7] / [8] / [9] (rvt by Cirt) / [10]

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^[1]

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

made by Hubbard's estranged son;
originally published in Penthouse;
later retracted;
cited to a source that remains unpublished in many English-speaking countries, as it risks falling foul of libel laws;
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: [11] See [12] 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”. [13] [14] [15]

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: [16].

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”. [17] When I brought the matter up later on, Cirt was extremely reluctant to remove any of the primary-source material at all: [18]

Cirt defended the use of a self-published piece on an anti-Scientology website, saying the site was “not an attack site”: [19] The site’s title is “Exposing the con”: [20] Scholarly opinion is that such sites are a propaganda effort presenting a caricature, rather than reliable information. [21][22]

Misrepresenting source in BLP of Thomas W. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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."

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 though this was a matter which the BBC itself says caused huge controversy,
even though the BBC had its spokeswoman make an official statement saying that Sweeney's behaviour was inappropriate,
even though Sweeney himself reported he had his "arse kicked" by the BBC,
and even though the matter received coverage in all major UK broadsheets, as well as the international press.

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".^[2] 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."^[3] 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.^[4]

When Cirt introduced the material, the cited source articles were the following: [23] [24] [25] [26] 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.^[5] The organization had sent thousands of unsolicited copies of the booklet to Florida cities including Highland Beach and Boca Raton.^[5] 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.^[5] 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".^[6] The front of the booklet says that it is "presented by" the mayor."^[6] The cover also contained an image of the Florida state flag.^[5]
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."^[5] 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."^[6] 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".^[5]

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

the booklets were sent to individual households ("to cities", the text says),
the citizens receiving them were deceived into thinking that they had been sent the booklets by the mayor, and
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.^[5]^[6] 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.^[5] A note advised readers to contact town hall if they had further questions.^[5]^[6] The Foundation said it had sent about 2800 mailings, comprising a total of 250,000 booklets, to Florida mayors, businesses and community groups.^[6]
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.^[6]
Following the complaints, the Foundation explained that the books were only samples meant to encourage the recipients to buy further copies.^[6] Subsequently, the Foundation switched to sending out unpersonalized stock copies only.^[6]

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.

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.

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 [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] 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]

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:

374 links to Operation Clambake
222 links to Lermanet
122 links to "whyaretheydead.net"

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: [37] [38] and [39] 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 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 [40] and [41] 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 [42] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [43]. He was blocked seven times for edit warring largely related to new-age religious groups under both accounts, as chronicled in their block logs [44] [45]. 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 [46] [47] 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)[reply]

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 ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56]). 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.

To the Stars (album) - brought to DYK, GA
To the Stars (novel) - brought to DYK, GA
Buckskin Brigades - brought to DYK
Castle Kyalami - brought to DYK
Final Blackout - brought to DYK
The Secret of Treasure Island - brought to DYK
Space Jazz - brought to DYK

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.

Richard Rolles - an anti-Scientology activist appeared and made inappropriate comments about Justallofthem[57],[58],[59],[60] When the disruptive user began socking I filed 2 of 4 checkuser requests to put an end to the problem. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Richard Rolles

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.[61][62]

WillOakland - the user was being disruptive, adding unsourced controversial claims to Tom Cruise: An Unauthorized Biography, which relates to Scientology. After discussion with the editor failed to resolve the problem I opened an ANI thread to address the matter. WillOakland later admitted to being a sockpuppet of banned user Gazpacho.

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 [63], 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: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70] 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:

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

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

21:34, 16 December 2008 - Jayen466 removes a citation sourced to the BBC from the article without discussion. This edit also rewrites a large amount of information to reflect negatively on a BLP journalist, John Sweeney (journalist).
20:10, 17 December 2008 - a source written by the Editor-in-Chief of The Village Voice was questioned on the talk page. Jayen466 removes that source - in addition to an entire paragraph sourced to CNN.

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

13:06, 17 December 2008 - Jayen466 removes two entire sourced paragraphs from the article with zero discussion, including multiple sources to the New York Post and the New York Press.

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.

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]
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. [71]
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. [72]

@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.

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

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

Additional evidence

In addition to above, will post some evidence here below. Cirt (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2008 (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 [73] 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[74]
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%

"Last active" refers to last main space edits.
"Scientology" refers to articles that are part of WikiProject Scientology.
"SPA?" refers to edits on WikiProject Scientology pages vs other pages.
Tool used: Wannabe Kate.

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:

147 links for lyricsfreak.com
127 links for azlyrics.com
108 links for stlyrics.com

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.

Military history: 1.1% GA, A-class, and FA
Scientology: 4.0% GA and FA (no A-class)

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:

Administrator: Wikipedia [75]
Administrator: Wikimedia Commons [76]
Administrator: Wikinews [77]
OTRS volunteer
Arbitrator: Wikinews Arbitration Committee

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

A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant
Battlefield Earth (film)
Hell Is Other Robots
The Joy of Sect
The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power
Xenu (did not write the original version, but improved to current FA standards at featured article review).

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:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI (2005)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo (2006)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS (2007)

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:

MSNBC, reprint of the Associated Press report
CBS News
CNN
National Public Radio
Slate
Der Spiegel, the leading German newsmagazine
Wired ran a reader poll entitled “Vote on the Most Shameful Wikipedia Spin Jobs”. Both second and third place went to the Church of Scientology, with a combined total of votes that exceeded the first place finisher.[78]
The International Public Relations Association singled out the Church of Scientology’s Wikipedia edits as an example of how not to attempt reputation management.
Gerry McCusker, the author of the book Public Relations Disasters agreed.[79]

The news was not forgotten.

August 2008, Forbes.
27 October, 2008, Reuters.

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)[80]

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.[81]

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:

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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.[82]

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.[83]
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.[84]
04:36, 21 December 2008: Jossi posts to evidence talk: You can have the last word, Durova. I am outta here.[85]
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.[86]
04:43, 21 December 2008: Jossi announces his wikibreak with edit note outa [sic] here.[87]
04:53, 21 December 2008: Jossi posts to my user talk under the header Appalled, commenting upon my evidence.[88]
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.[89]
08:29, 21 December 2008: Jossi announces his retirement.[90]
10:00, 21 December 2008: Cirt enters evidence that Jossi gamed the WP:NPA policy on 20 December 2008.[91]
19:27, 21 December 2008: Jossi enters his retirement at arbitration evidence.[92]
03:57, 23 December 2008: Jossi's administrative resignation entered the logs.[93]
19:01, 23 December 2008: Will Beback enters evidence about Jossi's attempts to game the WP:NPA policy on 20 December 2008.[94]
02:45, 24 December 2008: I notify Jossi at his user talk of my offer to support his withdrawal from this case.[95]
04:03, 25 December 2008: Seraphimblade blanks my offer to Jossi's user talk.[96]
04:55, 25 December 2008: Seraphimblade confirms that he blanked my offer at Jossi's request.[97]

Additional evidence

(upcoming)

Evidence presented by User:White Cat

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence/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 [98] claiming lack of notability (these are just the two basic concepts that are represented on the Scientology symbol) and primary sourcing [99] (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

Spiderm removing Hubbard's personal accounts of his personal life

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

[104]

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": [105]

Editing text to make it more controversial:

[106]

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: [107]

Spidern single handedly removed the whole Scientology missions and churches

Claimimg once again Primary Sourcing and Undue.[108] 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]

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.[109]

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) [110]

Here, Jossi complains about Smeelgova removing an affadavit.[111][112] [113]

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) [114][115]

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)"[116]

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.[117][118] 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

Wikipedia:No original research

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

17:12, December 20, 2008 (from WP:COI)
17:15, December 20, 2008 (copy edit)
18:34, December 20, 2008 (not limited) a revert.
21:42, December 20, 2008 (rm added text that was undiscussed)
21:45, December 20, 2008 (restoring Risker original addition)
21:58, December 20, 2008 (incorporating initial formulation.)

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

WP:V

22:25, December 19, 2008 ( these are all related to self-published. Non self published blogs, podcasts, etc. are acceptable.)
16:59, December 20, 2008 (This is supported by current policy and it is not a "change") a revert

WP:BLP

17:17, December 20, 2008 (per WP:V)

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

22:16, October 5, 2007 (Selection criteria: ++)

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: [119]

Edit summary: "As scientologists say it" - Why would we care how Scientologist say it? [120]

After a heated discussion, which was not leaning into incivility and personal attacks by most of the parties involved: [121]

Even with multiple references, still arguing against putting Scientology in any possible bad light, finally agreeing to one: [122]

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: [123]

Edit summary: "Snort" How is this being civil? [124]

A personal attack leveled at Cirt: [125]

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. [126]

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): [127]

Removed an entire section from an ArbCom'd article with no discussion on talk page: [128]

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: [129]

No way to maintain civility, and obvious COI when they are requesting a "Rep from Scientology" to appear: [130]

Removing the "bad lighting": [131]

Again, removing any instance of "Bad Lighting": [132]

And nothing on the ctribs except for Scientology Articles, indicating an SPA: [133]

In regards to Cirt

Doing normal janitor/part-tme editor work: [134]

How many featured articles/portals again?: [135]

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 [136]

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" [137]; 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 [138].

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[139].

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.[140] [141],[142] [143],[144] [145],[146] [147],[148] [149],[150] [151],[152] [153]

Jayen466 has repeatedly used very questionable and biased sources closely aligned with cults, such as Scientology, to accomplish this purpose. [154] [155]

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.[156] [157],[158] [159]

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)" [160]

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, [161], 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 [162], 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]

Evidence presented by Shutterbg

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)[reply]

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:

Church of Scientology International

- 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[163], the type that is used in hundreds of "references" in Wikipedia when it comes to Scientology[164]. More about that later.

- Careless Admins: [165],[166]

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 WP:RFAR/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.

On your statement you talk about your use of public internet hubs and not proxies. To what extend do you move around?
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.
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?
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:

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.
During a normal week I am using 4-5 different internet lines. I guess that makes 4-5 IPs.
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.
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 [167]. 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.[168] 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[169]. 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 [170]. 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.[171][172][173][174][175]

Justanother misused arbitration enforcement

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

Evidence presented by {Another User}

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

{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.

^ Cite error: The named reference morton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ 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)
^ DeSio, John. "The Rundown on Scientology's Purification Rundown". New York Press. www.nypress.com. Retrieved 2008-06-08.
^ 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)
^ ^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.
^ ^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).

[morton-1] Cite error: The named reference morton was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[2] 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)

[3] DeSio, John. "The Rundown on Scientology's Purification Rundown". New York Press. www.nypress.com. Retrieved 2008-06-08.

[4] 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)

[hatzipanagos-5] ^ ^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.

[kleinberg-6] ^ ^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).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

@@ Line 1,189: / Line 1,189: @@
-==Evidence presented by Tory Christman==
-I was in Scientology for 30 years and helped volunteer for Scientology's [[Office of Special Affairs]] off and on for 20 years. In the 1990's a group of ex-Scientologists began talking on Usenet, which grew into [[alt.religion.scientology]] Newsgroup.
-My friend and auditor, Bill Yaude, told me, "I have been on ARS since the very beginning. I've created 10 different identities to handle them with". Basically, he would go onto ARS, pretend to be an Alaskan Fisherman, work on either white washing any "hot" topic, or distracting people off of it. Also, OSA ran "ops" (operations/programs) to degrade various critics they felt were a threat to them.
-He would vary these different identities, pretending to be many different people. The common denominator of an OSA operative is no one has ever met them, or even spoken with them on the phone. Also, they will be running one of 3 programs:
-) To distract off of Scientology, or white wash any "hot" information
-) Degrade any critics (Or Anonymous people) they feel are threats to them
-and 3) Slime the area so no one wants to ever post there again. I was asked to open up these anonymous accounts, not knowing what they were using them for.
-I did it as I trusted my friend who promised me, "This is ''totally'' Legal, Tory".  Once I connected the dots, and realized they (OSA) were using these "anonymous accounts" to try to stop [[free speech]], by spamming ARS, soon after I left Scientology, forever.
-Scientology and the Office of Special Affairs have since slimed my name, repeatedly, since I've exposed their actions. Anyone unfamiliar with this can type in my name, Tory Christman, in Google, and read many different things they have written about me--most of which are totally false. Key false statements are that I am a liar, I deserted my family (I left a Cult, not my husband), that I am a drug addict, I only speak out for attention, and other completely false statements. One other thing that will tell you that you are talking with one of the OSA operatives is that they will *never* answer you questions, really. Lastly, they constantly promote "Tory thinks everyone is OSA". No, I do not, but I do totally know and recognize these programs for what they are.
-[[User:Tory Christman|Tory Christman]] ([[User talk:Tory Christman|talk]]) 07:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 ==Evidence presented by {Another User}==