Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:17, 16 December 2008

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

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 state that you think the case was filed prematurely. Several other editors seemingly feel that the arbcom case was inevitable.

You also mentioned that some of the older editors (pro-scientology ones in your words) are back. Wouldn't that qualify as sockpuppetry?

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Scientology slanted editors came out because drastic changes were done in the page. If you look in the Scientology main page over 180 edits were done by one person: Spidern since Oct 31, 2008. The edits were done in such a speed that it rattled out the pro-Scientology slanted editors. I have to say that those edits were done in anti-Scientology slant with lots of references to personal anti-Scientology websites. Before that, the page didn't change much a very long time. In the month of August there only 12 edits done in the page. My last edit I think it was done prior to this period in 28 Oct 2008. I was busy at work and I didn't know that there was a dispute until the page was frozen recently. I'm really no very familiar with the dispute. All I know is what I read in the talk page. To be fair Shutterbug did some edits before this period on 30 Sept 08 and before.

Edits done in the Scientology Main since 31 Oct

• 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 by Cirt

Score 193 edits by spidern / 7 edits by Su-Jada / 7 edits by Cirt / 18 edits by Shutterbug

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...

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 ratled out Su-Jada and Shutterbug. An edit waring started and the page was frozen. I believe that Su-Jada and Shutterbug contributions are required to balance out the anti-Scientology slant of some editors, some that keep anti-scientology websites. The question of sockpuppetry has being brough in before but these editors have clearly different styles and personalities that rule that out.

On your statement you state that you think the case was filed prematurely. Several other editors seemingly feel that the arbcom case was inevitable.

I do not understand how can the arbcom case was inevitable when the edit warring took place in a period of two days and the page was frozen! I don't see much done to resolve the dispute but the I believe arbcom case was broght to removed an oposing POV instead just solving the dispute.

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute?

No much, just gave my POV in the talk page, I got involved just before the arbcom case was brought up, I noticed some serious discrepacies and point them out in the talk page, afther the page was frozen. 121.55.224.238 (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

Yes, that is mostly my main interest in Misplaced Pages. I work in the military and stay busy. I have done some edits from my work so they can't acuse me of sockpuppetry because is clear that I have access to military (.mil) servers. And I'm also a Scientologists, I'm sure if I had done edits from a church location I would be accused of being a sock puppet too. 121.55.224.238 (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)