Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Ten Commandments. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 08:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I share your view that the article is slanted toward the religious rather than the academic perspective. I hope you choose to stick around. Wikipedia can be a very fulfilling place to donate your time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent edits to Volunteer Ministers could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Coffeepusher (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a legal threat, it is a fact. I think it would be considered by you to be "uncivil" if some little hacker published your private emails in Wikipedia. In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-25/anonymous-hackers-jailed-for-paypal-attack/4483552
There are vested interests at work in Wikipedia, articles are being vandalised by members of Anonymous and also possibly Skeptics. Most articles about the Church of Scientology in Wikipedia violate the agreement in that they are a soap box for the paranoid theories of neofascists. Why neofascists? Because they do not allow another point of view.
In the Talk Scientology as a Business, you might note that I caught out Andrewman327 he said there was "no consensus" for the edits that I had made, yet he was the only other editor active beside myself at that point - page stats were spiking dramatically every time I made an edit, so I could only conclude that he was discussing it in another forum which is proof of what I said in the preceding paragraph. Here's the relevant section:
"There was no consensus for the non-neutral edits that you made so I reverted them. Janet Reitman addresses the connection between Dianetics and Scientology in her book, so I added a bridge sentence to address that concern. I can expand it if you'd like. I have not seen any reliable sources that indicate Hubbard living anything close to a "frugal lifestyle". In fact, several sources I've seen indicate that he had a private ship staffed by "Sea Org" members before he moved into hiding on his private ranch. More to the point, this article is about the business practices of Scientology, it is not an essay for a comparative religions class. If you would like to create Scientology compared to other religions, you are free to do so. Andrew327 08:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
When you say "there was no consensus for the non-neutral edits that you made" (your edits of course being neutral), and I notice visitor stats spiking, are you discussing this article in another forum, perhaps Anonymous?"
And I noticed you deleted the reference to the Secret Gospel of Mark article from the OT VIII article, this reference of purported comments has no external validity but the Secret Gospel of Mark controversy is real and it is what is purportedly being quoted. Did you actually read that or did you just reactively revert the article?Drg55 (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, we will try this again. Stating "wikipedia could be sued" in an edit summary is a legal threat. This is against policy. You can be blocked for making this threat just one time. I am assuming good faith in that you didn't realize that statement was against policy and I was just informing you of the policy itself so you don't accidentally get in way over your head in wikipedia administrative proceedings. NORMALLY I would have already reported this to the administrative notice board and you would be explaining to them why you broke the policy, I didn't because I recognize you are a new user and probably didn't understand what you did. Do you understand that making legal threats is against policy?Coffeepusher (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I really need you to understand that your edit summary, along with the statement "In 1998 the Church of Scientology sued an organisation called Cult Awareness Network and got full possession of all its assets. That is a matter of history. Furthermore Anonymous is coming under increasing legal attack by Governments and their members are being jailed." makes it very hard for me to not report this. Please change your behavior and let me know that you understand and will follow the policy.Coffeepusher (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears that you have made a habit of making off hand comments regarding legal action when you are involved in a content dispute "This article is supposed to neutral and not libelous". Do you recognize that this behavior is against wikipedia policy and do you plan to avoid any future violations of this policy?Coffeepusher (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a fairly thin skin, you can give criticism but not take it. You are trying to create a red herring, lets stick to the subject, what is to be in the article.
The last time I was involved in a dispute with editors who persistently deleted material to promote their own POV, it was me who was trying to get in Archaeological evidence, against a religious point of view. This went on for months against editors persistently deleting material that didn't fit their line. But in the final result I reorganised the Ten Commandments, Critical Historical Analysis Section, largely from a sub editing point of view, which still remains today. You will note that another editor made a positive comment about me.
But lets just have a look at your OT 8 edit, what is the purpose of that quote, except to create bad feeling. It wouldn't get published in a newspaper because you don't have original documents. It would be a legal problem for a newspaper - now I'm just telling you that in terms of standards of writing. We want Wikipedia to be professional standard but this is pure prejudice. You want to quote some half truth because it suits your prejudice. It has nothing to do with OT 8 which is one of the higher levels in Scientology and deals with being exterior to the body. Now if Hubbard actually said that his source would have been the Secret Gospel of Mark, which is a controversy about homo-erotic material on Jesus found in a Monastery and is so accurate from all the tools of Biblical and linguistic analysis, that the only criticism that can be made of it is it is too perfect and lacking the small errors in all old manuscripts. By the way, Hubbard is also purported to have said that Jesus didn't actually exist, I have a book by a leading theologian, Bart Ehrman, on that topic titled: "Did Jesus Exist". And finally there is the quote I put in, one of many actual quotes, this time from a book with a page number where Hubbard made admiring comments about Christ. Which is it to be? You choose the least accurate and the most shocking one. It could only be from a desire to create prejudice. I will play ball with you if you will play ball with me, this ought to be deleted, but it could remain if the other two positions and explanatory comments. I'll have another go at that and see if we can get a consensus on it.Drg55 (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Drg55. I'm not an administrator, but I happened to come across the posting at WP:ANI#Legal threats by User:Drg55. In the context of your clarifying comments, I do not believe you were threatening to take legal action. However, words such as "libelous" can often cause an editor to incorrectly percieve that a legal threat is being implied. As such, at Wikiepdia we also have a policy on what is called "Percieved Legal Threats". That policy can be found at WP:NLT#Perceived legal threats. Basically, Wikipedia askes editors to avoid calling other editors' comments or contributions "libelous" or "defamatory", and instead asks editors to use less charged words. Continued use of those types of comments can be considered disruptive, but I am fully confident that now that this policy has been pointed out to you, there will be no need to worry about that. Please let me know if you have any questions. Singularity42 (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I saw the thread at WP:ANI#Legal threats by User:Drg55 too. Coffeepusher is, of course wrong. You have not made any legal threats. Singularity's comments are correct, however: warning others about the legal consequences of Wikipedia edits and using terms such as "defamation" and "libel" are actively discouraged here because of the possible chilling effect outlined in that policy. Hewing close to the copyright, neutrality and verifiability policies should be sufficient to avoid any litigation concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so now that we have the legal stuff under control, I will answer your question about the deletion of the material in the OT VIII section. this is the edit you are talking about. So there are multiple problems with this edit. As I stated in the comment section this is Original research through synthases of two sources, the source is a primary source which isn't a reliable source. If you would like to make this edit you need to find a source that directly ties the quote from the fishman papers to the secret gospel of Mark. To avoid WP:SYNTH make sure both parts are mentioned in the same article.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because I have been mentioned by name, I would like to respond. Assume Good Faith is one of the foundational rules of Wikipedia. I have not discussed any article off-wiki and it is common for viewcount to increase as people notice new updates to their watchlists after edits are made. I pride myself on my edit history and dislike being accused of conspiring with a group of hackers. No personal attacks is another very important rule of Wikipedia. If you would like to know if something is appropriate or not, consider visiting the Wikipedia Teahouse for advice. There are plenty of editors willing to help you, but we have a limited amount of time to volunteer to Wikipedia, and if you continue your pattern of making damaging contributions to the project, you will have to deal with scrutiny from administrators. Andrew327 06:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles are not written from a neutral point of view. Fact, Anonymous is behind most of it. Fact, the Church of Scientology is being attacked because it took on copyright theft on the internet. It is a Scientology datum that people become critical of others when they think they might have been found out for something bad they did, Christ put it slightly differently when he talked about people criticising others when they have a log in their own eye. I'm glad you say you are not from anonymous, and actually I think you are a reasonable person at least some of the time. But your argument doesn't hold up, someone is monitoring this, there are less than 30 watchers per the stats on the page, and yet visitors spiked to 200 from the average 50 odd.Drg55 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument about pageviews doesn't make much sense, since there were no changes to the page made by anyone else until you attracted CoffeePusher's attention by making legal threats. What you are accusing me of is covered under Wikipedia:Canvassing, and an administrator would be able to evaluate your accusation if you would like to file a report.
- You need reliable sources for all claims that you make. If you want to say that Anonymous is behind significant amounts of Wikipedia editing, then you need to find a source that makes that claim. If you want to say that people attack Scientology because it fights copyright theft, then find a reliable source. Same goes for interpreting Bible passages in favor of Scientology and literally any other claim you want to make: find a reliable source. Andrew327 22:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Scientology as a business. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Your recent edits to Scientology as a business continue to misapply Wikipedia policy and have been reverted. Moving forward, please bring your concerns to the Talk page of the article to be discussed before making edits. Andrew327 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Andrew327 23:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee has imposed certain restrictions on people who edit articles related to Scientology. One of those requirements follows: "To disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page." In accordance with that ruling, I would like you to explain the history of your relationship with the Church of Scientology. Andrew327 01:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Andrew, in my response to the complaint about legal references I wrote:
- "I also have a slightly more liberal view than perhaps Church of Scientology management to whom I sometimes give my advice (mostly ignored) in that I believe they should use more facts and a conservative approach in their PR so as to let people form their own opinions, which is most effective. And rather than seeking to delete what might be offensive to us I am pragmatic enough to let it be, provided I can put in some qualifying facts. I was active many years ago in some of the Church's victories unfortunately I don't have most of my old files and this was pre-internet so I do the best I can."
- I do not work for the Church and have not since 1990. In fact I do have some alternative views on Management direction, but that is none of your business. They are still more right than wrong.
- If you want any more details, which might be a bit hard as they would identify me, could you give the reference to this requirement. I wonder under the same requirement if you and Coffeepusher could also explain why you have so much interest in us.Drg55 (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- no problem. So you are asking us "to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page." I have none. I met some Scientologists in my local area. They asked me if I wanted a personality test, I answered "no not really" and continued to enjoy the street festival. OH and this one time in DC a guy in front of the DuPont Circle org wanted to talk to me but I was running late so I didn't have the chance. OH and I used the bathroom in the org once because it shared the bathroom with a coffeehouse, as I recall it was clean. That is it really.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- so to clarify, "I have not now, nor have I ever worked for the OSA."Coffeepusher (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to explain. My interest in Scientology is part of my fascination with American culture. To that end, I have created articles that capture different elements of the national culture, like Frank 'n Stuff, Henry Roland, and USS Recruit (1917). When I read about the most prolific science fiction writer in American history inventing a religion, I couldn't help but learn more. Andrew327 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "my interest" in Scientology just comes from a general fascination with groups and organizations, stemming from a professional interest in democracy studies. You will see that I also edit Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12 step movements, pages on Freemasons, and I also did the Westboro Baptist Church for a little bit. I also have an interest in the occult movement of the 1800's and 1900's which was influential to LRH.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I hope you are both learning a lot.
I don't think I need to say more, unless you can point out a member of anonymous who has so identified himself while editing Scientology articles. I'm not taking direction from the Church on this, so why should by be different to anonymous who may be conspiring in a separate forum?
Certainly if Wikipedia had developed software which would identify Anonymous members similar to Wikiscanner, the world would have welcomed it. As it is there are high level monitoring tools for the internet being used by Intelligence, they recently found a building in China used to hack US secrets http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3694942.htm Of course Sabu from Lulzsec got busted and was working for the FBI to reduce his sentence, it was rumoured he had planted a trojan to give him control of Anonymous users computers. Numerous Anonymous members have been busted so authorities can trace them when they want to.
While US law protects Wikipedia from consequences of user generated content, issues with Facebook have shown around the world that there is concern about it. When a group is knowingly using Wikipedia to attack a Church for the ulterior motive that they "want to make an example" of people that attempt to protect their intellectual copyright entitlements - then I would think something is required, and Wikipedia did go someway towards that, which I welcome. But I think it was easier to block Scientology than the other side. Here's a bit from the arbitration:
This longstanding dispute is a struggle between two rival factions: admirers of Scientology and critics of Scientology. … Each side wishes the articles within this topic to reflect their point of view and have resorted to battlefield editing tactics, with edits being abruptly reverted without any attempt to incorporate what is good, to maintain their preferred status quo.
To that end, the Committee also sanctioned a number of anti-Scientology activists whose editing was proving problematic.
Drg55 (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the people who write objective or even critical things about Scientology have no connections to Anonymous. Many of the most well known are either Scientologist escapees, respected journalists, or human rights activists. It makes no sense for you to keep telling me that I'm a member of a hacker group. Andrew327 01:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you say you are not with anonymous. I think my point was that people editing Wikipedia with a connection to groups attacking Scientology should also declare it. I have so far seen one example of a member of the Skeptics that has done that. I'm afraid that away from Wikipedia the people attacking Scientology are riff raff, I know quite a bit about most of them, they don't make for reliable sources. Some of them apparently never heard the Nazis lost the war, in fact a jewish psychologist "cult expert" recently attacked the Jehovah's Witnesses, the same people who were incarcerated in concentration camps by the Gestapo Persecution_of_Jehovah's_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany The words "respected" and "journalist" don't really go together considering what a circus the media is and its use for social control and propaganda by various interests. And I've had discussions via email and forums with leading former Scientologists and found them wanting. Many of them are full of criticism and justification and about as accurate and objective as a former spouse about their partner. However the reason the majority of scholars of new religious movements acknowledge that Scientology is a religion as acknowledged even by our critics as I have pointed out, is that Sociologically it follows a pattern. Even the Salvation Army experienced tremendous persecution (http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/en/Who-We-Are/History-and-heritage/Church-Growth-in-Australia/) and I hope we don't follow them down the path to middle class acceptability and, as the new Pope has said, just become another charity with no spiritual renewal(http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-15/francis-uses-first-mass-to-urge-spiritual-renewal-for-church/4574282). Really your sources are pitiful. Despite that, although I have disagreed with you about certain issues I don't have a personal objection toward you.Drg55 (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take note of WP:FTN#Ego (spirituality). Looie496 (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of a source is dependent on what it is being used for. The economist is not reliable for psychology. Generally TV is not particularly reliable for characterising society. Generally sources of an academic calibre are expected for these claims. Neither of these sources were directly on topic either. original research is frowned upon. More examples include using [1] in a novel way, and using bible quotes to advance an original point. Please do not re-insert original research into articles, merely invoking WP:IAR is not how IAR works, IRWolfie- (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR is relevant when evaluated from does this make a reasonable point, as compared to advancing an individual point of view. I repeat that 40,000 people have viewed this and found it interesting since I first posted it in October 2012. Thankyou I'll have a go at rewriting it.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Bare-faced Messiah, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Prioryman (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that Bare-faced Messiah is under discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. If you continue to edit disruptively you will be referred for arbitration enforcement. Prioryman (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ego (spirituality) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ego (spirituality) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Drg55. Prioryman (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Topic ban
Per the discretionary sanctions rules established at WP:ARBSCI, you are now banned from making any edits, including discussion contributions, to any topics related to Scientology, broadly construed, including edits relating to religion in general. The ban is of indefinite length. You may appeal it through the methods set out at the top of the WP:AE page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appeal lodged: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_drg55
- The appeal cannot be heard at WP:ANI. Please follow the directions more carefully. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
- Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
- With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
or 
) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you. -- Trevj (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed your recent posting with claims about other editors identifying information. If you reinsert these again, you will be blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:43, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are indefinitely blocked for disregarding the above warning and reinserting claims about the nonpublic identity of another user in WP:AE and my talk page. I will request that the material be oversighted. To reduce the risk of you continuing to post such material here, I have removed your talk page access. Direct any unblock request to WP:UTRS or per e-mail to WP:BASC per the instructions there. Sandstein 04:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this editor be Prioryman and the "identifying information" be his name, then you are both very wrong about it being outing. If that is not the case then you may disregard this message.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- @Future Perfect at Sunrise: and @Sandstein: can you please confirm whether that is in fact the case. If it is, it will be necessary to bring this block to WP:AN for discussion. — Scott • talk 11:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The conduct by Drg55 at issue here constitutes outing, and at any rate general harrassment. This is confirmed by the decision of the oversight team to oversight these edits. The Devil's Advocate is mistaken. See in that regard my sanction of The Devil's Advocate's at [2], which prevents them from responding here. I strongly caution against a public on-wiki review, such as at AN, of this case, because it will again draw attention to the breach of privacy this block was intended to counteract, and may contribute to further it (which it appears was Drg55's purpose). Whoever initiates an on-wiki review discussion should be prepared to be held accountable for this. In addition, the block is unsuited for on-wiki review because it relies on now-oversighted edits that the community can no longer access. Any review of the block should therefore be requested privately through WP:UTRS or WP:BASC, as indicated above. Sandstein 16:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. WP:OUTING states that "[posting] references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing." As you have not directly answered my question, what will you do if I post a link to self-disclosed information that has sat in full public view for over four years, and use it to reiterate my question to you? — Scott • talk 20:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an old canard. I can just about imagine what incident you are going to present here. It doesn't count, for a number of reasons, which however I am also not going to discuss in public here. Incidentally, I can confirm that that identification was not the only thing that made Drg55's postings unacceptable. (Needless to say, the topic ban that preceded the block is quite independent of all this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever the other issues were, I am not concerned about those, and if they were sufficient for oversighting, so be it. I am, however, concerned about your apparent decision to rely on your psychic intuition and consequently dismiss other people's queries on such a completely flimsy and ill-justified basis. Therefore, I'll wait for Sandstein to provide me with a policy-based answer to my direct question, thank you very much. — Scott • talk 21:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Non-administrator comment) For what it's worth, I bumped into Drg55 on multiple articles over the past few months and I support the block on the grounds of disruption and harassment. He actively detracted from the encyclopedia despite many many chances to improve. Andrew327 16:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have initiated a request for clarification by the Arbitration Committee that may interest or involve you on the page linked to above. Sandstein 22:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I just belatedly read your email. I presume that, being blocked, you cannot post on my talk page. You do not make any specific request in your email and that is just as well. Frankly, I am out of the lot of it and have only marginal interest in Scientology goings-on in general and next-to-none as far as this site is concerned. So I can not really provide any current information or opinion. If you are interested in what I thought back when I gave a crap, then please see this historical page. Perhaps the bit on cabal is applicable. Other that that, I am happy to make your acquaintance and am always open to communication. Be advised that I rarely read the email account that connects to my wiki ID but I will see anything you post here. Best wishes. --Lyncs (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
