Wikipedia bans Cult of Scientology
p2pnet news view | Freedom:- “Case Opened on 04:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC). Case Closed on 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC).”
That says it all, and it represents the demise of the Cult of Scientology on the Wikipedia at the conclusion of the organisation’s longest-ever arbitration case.
They’re the second and third sentences on our friend Durova’s blog.
The first says, “After five months and 17 days it’s finally over: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology”.
And what it means is:
Any and all CoS IP addresses are effectively banned on the Wikipedia, which in turn spells the end of the cult’s use of it as a configurable propaganda and indoctrination engine.
But CoS functionaries aren’t the only people affected.
In the Scientology arbitration case, two years ago, “I responded to a positive checkuser finding and a noticeboard request related to this dispute,” says Durova.
An administrator and various other editors were less fortunate, she says, adding »»»
… they are now under formal sanction regarding actions they had ceased long before the case began. In several instances, diffs cited in the decision were cherry picked, inconclusive, or very old.
Remedies in Wikipedia are supposed to be preventative rather than punitive. When it comes to arbitration this is no longer true. It is not possible to endorse the Committee’s request for “knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing Scientology-related articles” to involve themselves in this dispute.
The dispute does need help, but it’s like stepping into quicksand.
CSI LA = Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles?
On 25 April, 2007, someone asked for a checkuser on an account called COFS, which had been editing Scientology related articles with a pro-Scientology viewpoint, p2pnet has learned.
Five different registered accounts, all technically related, were found, and two of them had usernames that looked like organisational acronyms:
- COFS = Church OF Scientology?
- CSI LA = Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles?
Account editors weren’t consistent about logging in, so some posts revealed the IP addresses, which happens whenever someone edits unlogged.
The edits resolved to official Church of Scientology connections.
Blocks, or complete bans
Editors who access Wikipedia through an organization’s IP address, and who edit Wikipedia articles which relate to that organization, have a “presumptive conflict of interest,” we’ve been told.
Regardless of the editors’ specific relationship to the organization, or their function within it, the organization itself is responsible for appropriate use of its servers and equipment.
If it fails to manage that responsibility, Wikipedia may answer persistent violations of site policies with blocks, or complete bans, as with the Scientology case.
Normally this would’ve resulted in IP blocks based on editing patterns, and the likelihood was: these were either operated by the same person, or by a small group of people who coordinated toward the same goal, we understand.
But no one at Wikipedia initiated a block, and the incidents wound up as Conflict of Interest Noticeboard threads and eventually, as a community sanction proposal.
The rest is now history, as they say.
Screening software
As p2pnet understands it, only a select group within Scientology would’ve been allowed to edit Wikipedia from Scientology computers.
It operates as a closed circuit and certain aspects of doctrine aren’t revealed until acolytes have passed several levels of initiation.
This means Scientologists use screening software, even on their home computers, and obviously, it’s on all CoS systems.
Equipment exempt from screening would be operated only by people who, by dint of long and faithful service (and paying lots of $$$) have become well established and trusted, and as a consequence, have very specific specific clearance and orders.
Ordinary rank-and-file members wouldn’t have been allowed to edit Wikipedia from CoS equipment.
And, we’re told, “For an ordinary Scientologist to read Wikipedia’s Xenu article it would actually be quite expensive. Because afterward they’d need to go through special ethics training, and that ethics training costs several thousand dollars.”
Conflict of interest
“Many Wikifiddlers have vehemently criticized this sweeping crackdown,” says The Register, adding:
“Historically, the site’s cult-like inner circle has aspired to some sort of Web 2.0 utopia in which everyone has an unfettered voice.
“An organization editing Wikipedia articles where it has a conflict of interest is hardly unusual, and in the past such behavior typically went unpunished.
“But clearly, Wikipedia is changing. In recent months, the site’s ruling body seems far more interested in quashing at least the most obvious examples of propaganda pushing.”
Durova – Wikipedia’s longest arbitration case, May 28, 2009
The Register – Wikipedia bans Church of Scientology, May 29, 2009
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy! Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
May 30th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Holy EllRon – CSI = Scientology… ?
May 30th, 2009 at 3:19 pm
I think this is just stupid. Scientologists can just use proxies and work around the block. This is an ineffective and bad PR.
May 30th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
ÐейÑÑвиÑелÑно полезнÑй поÑÑ, ÑпаÑибо.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
I can’t see that this will make much difference in the end.
After MediaDefender’s IPs went on P2P blocklists, they started using proxies, several external hosting companies, and ordered employees to donate their home internet connections (in direct violation of the ISPs TOS, which bans commercial use) As a result, MediaDefender’s attacks started coming from many different IP ranges.
Scientology will no doubt do something similar.
Hey, whatever happened to that guy who wanted to give David Miscavige a good stiff dose of “Auditing Process R2-45″?
May 30th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Is this topic closed for comments?
May 30th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
I can’t see that this will make much difference in the end.
After MediaDefender’s IPs went on P2P blocklists, they started using proxies, several external hosting companies, and ordered employees to donate their home internet connections (in direct violation of the ISPs TOS, which bans commercial use) As a result, MediaDefender’s attacks started coming from many different IP ranges.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Scientology will no doubt do something similar.
Hey, whatever happened to that guy who wanted to give David Miscavige a good stiff dose of “Auditing Process R2-45″?
May 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Scientology will no doubt do something similar.
Hey, whatever happened to that guy who wanted to give David Miscaviage a good stiff dose of “Auditing Process R2-45″?
May 30th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Hey, whatever happened to that guy who wanted to give David Miscaviage a good stiff dose of “Auditing Process R2-45″?
May 30th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“Is this topic closed for comments?”
it seems it can take several tries finding an edit that the filter won’t block. Other cos articles have been similar.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
I guess we need to decide which is worse, Scientology, or Wikipedia’s cult of controlers?
(i vote CoS)
stw
May 30th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
“it seems it can take several tries finding an edit that the filter wonât block. Other cos articles have been similar.”
Scientology shills always flood p2pnet, therefore it’s moderated so I can weed out the chaff.
Cheers!
May 30th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
A little off the subject of Scientology (but still tangential) is a discussion of the power and influence that entertainment celebrities have over our minds and our culture.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/2460102/Celebrities-do-more-harm-than-good
Personally, I’ve never understood the cult of celebrity worship, but I can see that it was a very shrewd decision by L. Ron to not only target them for recruitment into Scientology, but to spare no expense keeping them in the movement.
May 31st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
Wikipedia controlling system is not perfect but hey it keeps wikipedia cleaner that traditional encyclopedia even though sometime it is frustrating.
The use of Wikipedia will become much more frustrating for those SCO trolls who try to infiltrate Wikipedia as a propaganda tool.
Miscaridge made a very very big mistake the day he decided to attack the freedom of speech on Internet. This exposed the numerous crimes of the cult THANKS TO ANONYMOUS!
Suddenly these courageous rescuers of scientologists, some of them former escaped scientologist themselves , who decided to warn the world about the cult, came under the on-line light.
Suddenly the world knew what a destructive cult this is.
Suddenly, victimized scietologists knew that they were not alone and that help was available and comming.
If you are part of an organization who have something to hide do not giggle the internet!
There is a something similar between the SCO and the entertainement industry. Both were and still are conducting themselves like criminals, both are trempling our laws, our institutions and both are attacking the internet.
As a result, both are going donwn.
The priority number one is to destroy SCO of course since this cult is the most dangerous with it’s fair game practice that include the destruction of famillies, destroying the life of who they don’t like or even assasinate them. (I am not kiding!)
Since the anonymous mouvement started, things are clearly unravelling for Miscaridge the curent self proclamed leader of SCO.
Record deffections, new enrolments way down, SCO is banned in Germany and might soon be banned in France with more countries to follow.
Once SCO is gone those who still want to be scientologists still will be able to joint the free scientology movement. This will be ok (even though it seem silly to me!) but as long as nobody get hurt! No more fair games.
At least it will no longer cost a fortume to be a scietologist nor one will have to be used as a slave by a parasite such as David Miscaridge.
Once Miscaridge is down watch oiut for a possible repacement! This scientology stuff made so much money, it is too tempting for some others greedy parasites around the world to resist.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:38 am
This is just dumb beyond dumb, I gotta say.
1. Yes, we all know it’s trendy to hate Seicntology, because the CoS does evil things.
The strange part is, nobody on the anti-scientology bandwagon bothers to apply this to “real” religions, or the denominations thereof.
Great example: the Roman Catholic church is just about the most closed-minded, thought-controlling denomination of Christianity out there, with a really bloody history (Crusades, Inquisition, opposition to legal abortion culminating in large numbers of dead women etc.) But we don’t see anti-Catholic bigotry around very much, because people are still at least somewhat able to differentiate between the *Followers* of an organization, the *Doctrines* of the organization, and the *organization itself.*
Why doesn’t this happen with Scientology?
We saw this stupid bandwagon effect back when that chick from the Simpsons used the Bart voice in a CoS promo, and people were ready to boycott the show itself as a result. It’s dumb, it’s sloppy, it’s dangerous, and, at the very least, it calls the issue of “freedom of religion” into serious question.
Blacklisting wasn’t noble when HUAC used it against so-called “Communist Sympathizers” on the basis that they’d maybe attended a few meetings, so how is it somehow noble to demonize an entire catagory of people simply because you don’t agree with their beliefs? Or is this strictly about the actions of the CoS itself? Then Wikipedia should blacklist the Vatican’s IP addresses, as well.
2. This isn’t going to actually stop Scientology-related “propaganda”, because at lest some run-of-the-mill scientologists engage in proselytizing about it. It’s not that difficult to find Scientology/Dianetics related info at just about any bookshop or used-book sale or whatever, either, so this isn’t going to stop any scientologist from actively promoting their beliefs.
3. Another issue here is: since when is it the Wikimedia foundations Job to act as Thought-police? I can see them banning particular users for random vandalism or something, but making the decision *for everyone who uses Wikipedia* what constitutes “propaganda” just strikes me as really dangerous.
Honestly, the double-standard here is amazing. Scientology is a “cult” and should be run to the ground like the dogs they are, but Roman Catholicism/Southern baptists get a free pass, even though Christian individuals and groups are EXPLICITLY COMMANDED by the tenets of their own religion to “spread the good news” to everybody — whether they want to hear about it, or not.
But hey, if people dig the idea of Wikipedia acting as “Big Brother” and telling us what we can — and cannot — learn, then that’s peachy.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
to Henry Emrich
Your points are well taken.
Wikipedia (or anyone) should take anything about religion seriously.
Reason?
Religion is not a science, no one has shown that god exists and all religious writings are hogwash propaganda to get people to praise and suborn a faulty god, so they think, always (the money part) through intermediaries, to then get god’s favors, so they think.
Never has there been so faulty thinking.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Adults should have the right to believe in god and to pray, to read religious books or to go to any church or to gamble as a way to salvation. But don’t infiltrate schools, scholarship or Wikipedia. Children should wait until THEY decide what they want to do.
Why is god always needing money, the root of all evil?
June 1st, 2009 at 1:18 pm
“The strange part is, nobody on the anti-scientology bandwagon bothers to apply this to ârealâ religions, or the denominations thereof.”
COS is not a religion nor a cult. It is a business and a business of extrotion just like the music industry in worst.
Both will be destroy.
Established religions are not totally harmless and has been used to do evil in the pass.
However none of them have “fair games.” None of them advocate assasination.,None of them charge a fortune for their stuff. None of them turn their followers who can not pay into slave. None of them maintain illegal prisons! None of them claim copyright of their stuff and behave like the entairtainment industry: as grredy Criminas! No other business with the exception of the 7 majors spend so much resource corrupting or govenements, and or institutions.
COS will be destroy.
June 1st, 2009 at 1:31 pm
I’d say the Wikipedia situation is a bit of a conundrum.
First, freedom of speech was being enjoyed for a while.
People contributed. People corrected other people, under the watchful eyes of still more people.
But then, groups like CoS start “exercising their right to free speech” by editing everything that refers to them and replacing the contents with their own propaganda, as well as going to pages of those that would expose them and doing more “editing”. Naturally, that’s going to piss off a whole bunch of people and cause them to go back and “correct” what they’ve done, and soon you have an “editing war”.
After the bullshit the CoS pulled on YouTube, it was pretty clear they were willing to complicate Wiki the same way.
If I were Wikimedia, what would I do?! Do I allow the whole thing to continue, thus inviting more mayhem to the ‘pedia and similar legal complications from the CoS as happened on YouTube?! Or do I need to lock it all down?!
Personally, I’m glad I didn’t have to make the decision.
Is it censorship to stop CoS from “contributing”?… Maybe.
But is the FORM of their editing to be considered “free speech”, when all they’re doing is removing all other entries, and trying to block everyone else’s “free speech”, in favour of only theirs??… I’m thinking, “Maybe not!”
I believe your “right to free speech” does not trump the rights of others to the same.
By “editing” the “free speech” of others, I think you’ve already tossed away your own right in this regard.
Perhaps this makes the Wiki format unsuitable for a “free speech” scenario, if it were to stay totally open?
At this point, I’m just not prepared to form an opinion about that.
As to the difference between Scientology and other “widely-accepted” religions…
What should be no surprise to anyone who knows me or has read my words often is that I’ve never been an advocate for any religion. Just because some are “established”, in that, they “go back a long way” and have remained adopted by many, I don’t view them any differently than “cults” like Scientology. They all have the one common denominator when in their classic forms – worship of a ficticious (unconfirmed) “higher power”, whether contrived from “scriptures” or from a “science fiction” scenario.
In this respect, “Jesus”, “Moses”, “Vishnu”, “(fill in your own)”, et al, are really no more “legitimate” than “Xenu”.
Things that probably separate Scientology from the pack might be the “methodology” written into it to extract money from its followers, and the level of “interference” it is willing to inflict on the surrounding society.
Yes, I have a problem with Scientology, and certainly acknowledge the attrocities connected with it, but, like Henry, I also have the same problem with all cults and religions. They have all been guilty at certain points in history of heinous acts, all in the name of unproven “higher motivations”, and have been instrumental in keeping this world in conflict.
I’d really like to see people practice their own, independent “religions”, where they only appeal to the “higher powers” of beneficial HUMAN CONCEPTS, like “good will”, “tolerance”, “honesty”, and “true advancement of the whole collective”, for the good of THEMSELVES and OTHERS, rather than the “teachings” of non-existent deities handed down by 2nd-rate Sci-Fi writers or “prophets” (read “WRITERS”!), for the good of “the Church”.
June 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
I for one was made into a christian against my will (no one asked me).
I was brainwashed before I could even think. By age 6 I was reading the bible.
Fortunately I learned to think by myself and break the chains.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
The issue is not about religious dogma. It’s about how an organization treats its members, and how it responds to criticism from outsiders.
In the case of Scientology, their behavior has been abysmal — in fact, it’s been outright criminal.
To say that Scientology is ‘a criminal extortion racket that masquerades as a religion’ would not be an understatement!
June 2nd, 2009 at 1:21 am
“The issue is not about religious dogma. Itâs about how an organization treats its members, and how it responds to criticism from outsiders.”
Well, actually, given the actual topic of this page, the “issue” is whether a “free speech” argument has any merits in regards to Wikipedia’s banning the Church of Scientology from participating, as well as related issues.
: )
May 26th, 2011 at 11:48 pm
make earth a ball of iron to overthrow the sun. EVE = L1 LO HV
May 26th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
only way the earth can overpower the sun is as a ball of iron. EVE= L1 LO (start of aids) dates back to central africa. HV the start of hiv dates back to eskimoes killing off the sperm whale the closest mammal’s bone marrow to the human being. look into salor moon for anwsers! thc speeds the white count to the bone marrow the immune system is the target of it. Oh w0w let girls take over the planets insteAD of men!!