Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Scientology Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:17, 13 December 2008 editShrampes (talk | contribs)111 edits →Evidence presented by {Shrampes}← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:10, 30 May 2009 edit undoThatcher (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,287 edits better wording 
(475 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{NOINDEX}}
{{notice|Create your own section to provide evidence in, and '''do not edit anyone else's section'''. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.}}
{{ombox |image=none |text= This page has been ]. {{#ifeq:yes|yes|For the final decision, click ]; the evidence can be found in the .}}

}}
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 ] 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 ], an editor's contributions, or a ] 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 ].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the ]. 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 provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at ]. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

__TOC__

==Evidence presented by ]==
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 ]. If during the course of this arbitration, I find anything useful to offer, I surely will. ] <small>]</small> 04:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Justallofthem==
===Cirt fabricated material from unreliable source(s)===
Cirt added () an utterly ] 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 ] 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 ]; 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 ]:
;Lermanet vs. Scientologymyths - Different exactly how?
The ]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 ] 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, , 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 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. ] 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'' ()
#''scientologymyths site is run by the same organization that runs the religiousfreedomwatch attack site.'' ()
#''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 :<blockquote>"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."</blockquote>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 ] and ] 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) to Shutterbug as ] (which I objected to 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 ]===
Cirt routinely "protects" his favorite version of articles against constructive edits. he 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 () of valid concern by TaborG with little explanation on Cirt's part and no effort to address those concerns.

==Evidence presented by Spidern==
===Two Church of Scientology-owned IPs are closely related to ]===
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 by ] (]) and the other occurring on by ] (]) (resolves to ws.churchofscientology.org). Both IPs are within the same class C range, which is .

===] used Church of Scientology-owned IP/s, and blocked for using open proxies===
During January 2008, ] (a ] on Misplaced Pages) was found by a checkuser on ] to be ] as well as multiple IPs owned by the ] (Misou was ). In addition, as recently as Oct 21, 2008 ] was for "disruptive behavior" and "Block evasion via proxies".

===Additional edits by Church of Scientology-owned IPs are mostly limited to ]-related articles===
Historically, four more known Scientology-owned IPs performed edits to English Misplaced Pages. These edits were almost entirely limited to ]-related pages; See ] (] • ), ] (] • ), ] (] • ), and
] (] • ).

===Little evidence of willingness to contribute outside of ]===
As seen in the Wannabe Kate tool, and 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 ] overlapping ] belonging to a specific group of editors appearing to have a ] and strongly pushing a ] ] favorable to their organization, the affected editors continue to make destructive edits unabated. Since the first ArbCom filing, the pov-pushing (, , , , , , , , , ), assumption of bad faith, (, ), and removal of reliably-sourced material (, , , ) has continued. Additionally, see these diffs which lead up to Misou's blocking on English ]: (, , , , )<sup>1</sup>
<hr>
(1) Some diffs shown above were taken from English ], 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 Misplaced Pages===
I completely agree that objective secondary sources (i.e. print and academic) should be relied upon rather than ] websites. However, it must also be noted that the extent to which official (primary sources) Scientology pages are linked to on English Misplaced Pages 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 <sub>(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.):</sub>

{| {{table}}
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Domain'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Whois information'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Results on WP'''
| align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Comment'''
|-
| ]||()||334||
|-
| ]||()||67||Using ns1.prolexic.net
|-
| ]||()||66||
|-
| ]||()||63||
|-
| ]||()||55||
|-
| ]||()||51||
|-
| ]||()||38||
|-
| ]||()||30||
|-
| ]||()||30||
|-
| ] ||()||13||See
|-
| ]||()||12||
|-
| ] ||()||12||
|-
| ]||()||8||
|-
| ]||()||8||Using ns1.lrh.org
|-
| ]||()||7||
|-
| ]||()||6||
|-
| ]||()||6||
|-
| ]||()||6||
|-
| ]||()||5||
|-
| ]||()||5||
|-
| ]||()||5||Brdigepub.com uses ns1.scientology.org
|-
| ]||()||3||
|-
| ]||()||3||
|-
| ]||()||2||Using ns1.prolexic.net
|-
| ]||()||2||
|-
| ]||()||1||
|-
| ]||()||1||
|-
| ]||()||1||
|-
| ]||()||1||
|-
| ]||()||1||See
|-
| ||'''Grand Total:'''||'''842'''||
|-
|
|}
]<font color="green">]</font>] 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by Jayen466==

=== Generic problems in Scientology articles ===
;Primary sources
Many articles rely on primary sources. Examples:
* ] – all PS – most of the reflinks are dead
* ] – almost all PS – many links are dead
* ] – PS or poor sources like "scientology-lies.com" (I am not joking)
* ] – almost all Hubbard
* ]
* ] – etc.

;Use of anti-Scientology websites as sources
WP has ] to private anti-Scientology websites – the past.

;Use of poor sources in BLPs
The second para in ("In 1983 ...") is sourced to an . Taken to , discussed and edit-warred over many times, ultimately retained. Inclusion defended by many editors, even though none could name a reliable published source picking this up, beyond anti-Scientology newsgroups and websites. Should we not mirror the most reliable published sources in BLPs, rather than detractors' websites?

===]===
One of the two AE threads that led to this arbitration raised concerns over some recent edits by Cirt; this is a summary of evidence I added at AE, plus a few similar cases.
====Misrepresenting sources====
;"Scientology sex lessons" in {{article|Scientology and sex}}
Cirt that it was "reported that Scientology has 'sex lessons' which can be given to couples", while the did not make a statement about the Scientology religion, but merely quoted a report that two prominent Scientologists had used the services of an "intimate relationship guide".

Diffs: /
/
/
(rmv by Justallofthem) /
(rvt by Cirt) /
(rmv again by Jayen466)

].

;"Thousands of booklets sent to cities" in {{article|The Way to Happiness}}
Cirt a paragraph saying {{quotation|"The Way to Happiness Foundation agreed to stop sending copies of the booklet '''to certain cities''' in ]" ... "The organization had sent thousands of unsolicited copies of the booklet '''to Florida cities''' including ] and ]. 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."}} The mentions nowhere that the booklet was sent "to cities". According to the source, ''individual officials'' received unsolicited copies with their name on them (in the manner in which some companies send you personalised pens with your name and address on them). The officials had the choice of either distributing the booklets or discarding them, making it their decision to which extent their cities were exposed to this material.

;"Melton cites the book for "insight" into the Scientology controversy" in {{article|The Scandal of Scientology}}
Cirt the wording "Melton cites the book for insight into the Scientology controversy". This apparent endorsement of Cooper's ''The Scandal of Scientology'', by a renowned scholar who himself has written one of the most sympathetic books about Scientology (The Church of Scientology, ISBN 1560851392), misrepresents the scholar and is unduly flattering to Cooper's book. What Melton 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''." Cirt dropped the second half of the sentence from the quote given in the ref. Thus Melton did not say that reading the book gives "insight" into the Scientology controversy; he said, for insight into the controversy that occurred 35 years ago, go and read both the book and its refutation. Not the same thing at all.

;"When citing Operation Clambake as a reference in their 2003 book ''Understanding New Religious Movements''" in {{article|Operation Clambake}}
Cirt to be rectifying "selective use" of a source, but ends up misrepresenting it. See the sentence preceding footnote 61 at the , and the text of footnote 61 . OC was not "cited as a reference", it was given as a countermovement example.

==== Using poor sources ====
{{quote box|width=30%|align=right|quote="In Scientology the focus is on sex. Sex, sex, sex."|source=]'s son ]<ref name="morton" />}}

;Penthouse/] in {{article|Scientology and sex}}
Cirt the quote box shown to the right here, based on an . The statement cited was
#made by Hubbard's estranged son;
#originally published in ;
#later ;
#cited to a ], as it risks falling foul of their libel laws (it also claims the interview was in Playboy rather than Penthouse and slightly rewords deWolfe's original comment to make it "punchier")
#unrepresentative of prominent viewpoints on what Scientology focuses on, as published in the most reliable sources.

Subsequent ].

;Blogtalkradio in {{article|David Miscavige}}
Cirt ]-motivated deletion of claims sourced to ]. Subsequent initiated by Cirt results in source and allegation being dropped from the article. (The present article contains similar ad-hominem claims sourced to by – no idea if that fulfils BLP requirements either.)

;Suggests use of a tabloid article quoting "an unnamed source" in {{article|David Miscavige}}
Just for some light entertainment: See for an assessment of unnamed sources in ]. Note that {{User|Tilman}}, responding, runs a anti-Scientology website.

====Giving inappropriate warnings====
IP makes a , with a lucid edit summary drawing attention to a valid concern. The edit is reverted by another user, and the IP receives from Cirt.

====Opposing inclusion of scholarly sources in articles related to Scientology====

;]
Cirt has several times tried to exclude ] as a reliable source from WP articles related to Scientology, describing him as a “collaborator”.

====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: . Our descriptions of Scientology beliefs should be based on scholarly or other sources considered RS on religious matters.

However, Cirt’s actual approach is selective, depending on whether Scientology sources are likely to paint the religion in a good or a bad light. There are also contradictions between Cirt's statements in public and her or his actual editing actions. E.g., in the AfD for Scientology and Sex, Cirt said that content sourced to primary sources should be “pruned”. When some time later I brought the matter up on Cirt's talk page and the article talk page, Cirt was extremely reluctant to remove any of the primary-source material at all:

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

==== Writing BLPs of individual Scientologists that are in questionable taste ====

* The BLP of is almost all Cirt's work – it seems to be in poor taste, almost a taunt. Not my idea of an encyclopedic BLP.

==Evidence presented by Crotalus horridus==
===Misplaced Pages articles on Scientology rely excessively on personal web pages and other unreliable sources===
Misplaced Pages has a grossly excessive number of external links to ] personal web pages on Scientology. These include:
*] to ]
*] to ]
*] to "whyaretheydead.net"
More examples could be given. Some of these links are being used as sources, despite the fact that they fail the ] and ] for reliability. Others are used as "convenience links" &mdash; 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 ]. See ref.19 of , ref.2 of , ref.45 of , and too many others to count.

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

===Excessive reliance on primary sources===
Excessive reliance on primary sources is another major weakness of Scientology-related articles. , for instance, seems to consist of about 90% primary references, with only limited secondary material. As per ], it is "easy to misuse" primary sources and engage in ], 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 ] are almost certainly original research since they do not mention "space opera" and this connection has been made by Misplaced Pages editors.

===Some articles appear to have been deliberately written with an anti-Scientology POV===
] is an embarrassment to Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages'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 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, , a book on cyber-law by our very own ], 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?

==Evidence presented by GoodDamon==
Many of the arguments above against certain sources are valid, although this is the wrong forum for those arguments. Links to strongly POV sites such as Operation Clambake and whyaretheydead.net are definitely out of bounds, and would not pass muster with ]. I don't dispute that, I don't think Cirt disputes that -- I hope he doesn't, at any rate -- and wholeheartedly agree that they should be purged from the articles and replaced with properly reliable sources. But that is not a matter for an ArbCom report until after the reliability of those sources has been formally determined, and as far as I know, that process was never followed.

Similarly, arguments about scholarly resources such as ] should have gone to RS/N. I find myself going back and forth on their reliability, for several reasons, including their direct fiduciary relationships with the Church of Scientology. That probably does not trump their credentials, and they certainly have been published by high-quality publishers, but it is definitely worth exploring.

If Cirt, or any other user, has been pushing bad sources for POV reasons, that needs to be dealt with, but from what I've seen in the diffs above the behavior has mostly been exclusionary of sources such as Shupe. Again, this is the sort of thing that should have gone to RS/N.

There are three distinct issues here.
* Content issues that should have been reported to RS/N.
* Single-purpose, conflict-of-interest editing by accounts that are apparently controlled by the Church of Scientology.
* Civility.

===Content issues.===
Whether I feel the content issues would have been better handled at RS/N or not, they are here now and need to be dealt with. We need to determine with some sort of finality whether and which critical sites can be used, who does and does not count as a scholarly source, and so forth. And it needs to be binding. One thing we must absolutely establish: '''No Church of Scientology-owned sites'''. They far outnumber critical websites as used for sources, so complaints about a few xenu.net references pale in comparison.

And on further thought, this is not something to go after Cirt for. '''ANYONE''' could have brought concerns about an included or excluded source to RS/N, and didn't. Yes, there are problems with sources, but why didn't anyone, ever, bring any of these sources to the appropriate noticeboard? --<font color="green">]</font>] 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

===SPA, COI editing===
But more importantly, by far, is dealing with the issue of Church-connected accounts once and for all. The as yet evidence-less claim of a shared proxy that somehow only ever edits articles relating to Scientology, if accepted at face value, essentially renders ] 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 WP:SOCK in this case, and we need to say why.

===Civility===
;Shutterbug
This is taken from the original incident report I filed:

In , I decried the sudden ] over the ] article after months of calm, and accurately described a particular performed by a different user. In response, Shutterbug said As I had not made one, and I didn't appreciate the accusation, I asked Shutterbug to it, and asked on the user's talk page. The speaks for itself.

;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 ].
* Misou a discussion about a new section ] added.
* Misou 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 Misplaced Pages.
* Misou ] during the discussions leading to the good change I describe above.
* Misou the removal of a reference that wasn't actually related to the article text, and attacks me, ], 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, he adds German to a question he asks of ]. I've seen this behavior fairly . It appears he is equating some editors with Germans in an insulting manner.

====Examples of Misou intentionally misrepresenting Misplaced Pages rules for his benefit====
* Misou a critical website as a "private hate site" as a reason to remove references to it.
* Misou a critical website as a "private hate site" again, and states incorrectly that it violates ].
* Misou 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, ].
* Misou the removal of references he added that had nothing to do with the Church of Scientology, and again misidentifies the edit as vandalism.
* Misou 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 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 a reference he describes as a "porn link farm", which it is not. In fairness, he later it again as "non-RS", which may be accurate.
* Misou text as unsourced, when it actually is. He is subsequently .
* Misou fully-sourced text (I read the source article myself), calling it "unsourced and actually just a blunt lie."
* Misou 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.

===Final thoughts===
I am troubled by some of Cirt's edits, but not nearly so much as by the histories, combativeness, willingness to accept Church-owned sites as sources (while simultaneously railing against non-Church sites) and the single-minded purposes of accounts editing from Church of Scientology IP addresses. Issues they had with Cirt's rejection of certain sources pale in comparison. Had they been editing in good faith, a trip to RS/N would have resolved any issues. --<font color="green">]</font>] 19:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by ]==

===Cirt's repeated ] violations===

{{Admin|Cirt}} has added inadequately sourced controversial material concerning living persons to Misplaced Pages articles on several occasions, in egregious violation of ]. Please see and in which ] uses a blog, and the tabloid magazine , respectively, to make controversial claims concerning living persons. that ] cites in his edit describes New Idea as one of "the celebrity gossip weeklies". Furthermore, ] used the tabloid magazine as a source ''after'' the conclusion of ] 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. ] 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

===Cirt's prior accounts===

{{Admin|Cirt}} was previously ], an account which was renamed to ] . He was blocked seven times for edit warring largely related to new-age religious groups under both accounts, as chronicled in their block logs . At the time ] was ], he refused to disclose the identities of his prior accounts. Moreover, the deletion of the prior accounts' talk pages served to further conceal ]'s misconduct at the time of his RFA, even from users who were aware of his prior identity. ] 23:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by ]==
===Initial statement by Cirt===
I have responded already to many of the issues brought up on this evidence page in the (, , , , , , , , ). It should be noted that in some instances at RFC discussions I actually those individuals such as {{user|Justallofthem}} 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 at ], later closing the RFC against my own prior position , deferring to community consensus on the issue as is appropriate after a content-RFC. See also an example from another Scientology-related article, '']''. An editor was adding inappropriate links to the ] section of the article. I , and later 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. ''']''' (]) 23:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
===Update: Additional confirmations in COFS checkuser case===
Coincident IP usage of selected Scientology-related editors.

{| class="wikitable"
! Account !! ws.churchofscientology.org !! hostnoc.net IP in PA !! IP in Munich !! IP in Berlin !! different IP in Munich !! ns1.scientology.org !! your-freedom.net !! open proxy in Asia
|-
| ] (now ])
| {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}}
|-
| ]
| {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || -
|-
| ]
| {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || - || {{Confirmed}} || -
|-
| ]
| {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || -
|-
| ]
| - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || {{Confirmed}} || -
|-
| ]
| - || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || - || -
|-
| ]
| - || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || - || -
|-
| ]
| - || - || - || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}}
|-
| ]
| - || - || - || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}}
|-
| ]
| - || - || - || - || - || - || {{Confirmed}} || -
|}

;Evidence confirming above
*''']'''
*''']'''
''']''' (]) 04:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

===Additional evidence===
In addition to above, will post some evidence here below. ''']''' (]) 04:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by ]==

===Multiple Accounts using multiple ISPs throughout more than two years===

] and confirmed ] ] 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 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.

{| class="wikitable"
! Account !!First active!!Last active!!Main space contributions!!Different pages!!Scientology!!SPA?!!
|-
| ] (now ])
| 15 February 2007|| 3 December 2008 || 973 || 15 || 15 ||100%
|-
| ]
| 12 February 2007|| 25 April 2007 || 33 || 7 || 7 ||100%
|-
| ]
| 30 September 2006|| 6 December 2008 || 715 || 15 || 15 ||100%
|-
| ]
| 18 October 2006|| 19 October 2007 || 138 || 15 || 15 ||100%
|-
| ]
| 8 December 2006|| 18 April 2007 || 45 || 6 || 6 ||100%
|-
| ]
| 15 May 2007|| 5 November 2008 || 306 || 15 || 11 ||73%
|-
| ]
| 21 November 2008|| 12 December 2008 || 9 || 1 || 1||so s/he says
|-
| ]
| 10 February 2007|| 8 December 2008 || 45 || 7 || 4 ||57%
|-
| ]
| 23 November 2007|| 29 September 2008 || 69 || 11 || 2||18%
|-
| ]
| 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 .
* "SPA?" refers to edits on pages vs other pages.
* Tool used: .

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

] (]) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

==={Additional Evidence}===

Additional research follows. ] (]) 22:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''
==={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.

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''
==={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.

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''
==={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.

==Evidence presented by {your user name}==
''before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person''
==={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.

Latest revision as of 01:10, 30 May 2009

This page has been blanked as a courtesy. For the final decision, click here; the evidence can be found in the page history.