Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Terryeo

Statement of the dispute
Since joining Wikipedia in December 2005, Terryeo has repeatedly come into conflict with a wide range of other users. He has engaged in a persistent and wilful pattern of personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, making strongly POV edits, refusing to abide by consensus, misrepresenting Wikipedia policies to support his POV edits, making legal accusations that at the very least violate the spirit of WP:NLT, removing sources with which he doesn't agree and declining to cite sources for his own edits. He has spent much of the last two months fighting edit wars with around a dozen other users in a range of articles and one template, all concerning Scientology. A mediation attempt has failed, necessitating this RfC.

My own involvement in this matter came about following a request by User:David Gerard that I take a look at the Dianetics article, which was experiencing a prolonged editing dispute between Terryeo and a number of other editors. Although the article is now in considerably better shape than it was a few months ago, Terryeo's approach to editing has caused and is continuing to cause many difficulties. I also became aware that Terryeo was behaving in the same disruptive way across many of the articles that he was editing, indicating a persistent and serious problem.

The root cause of this problem appears to lie in a combination of Terryeo's strongly held POVs and his persistent inability or unwillingness to work with others. I have no confidence that he will ever become a useful, productive or effective Wikipedian and his disruptive behaviour has caused a great deal of wasted time and ill-feeling on the part of many other more conscientious editors. -- ChrisO 23:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This request for comments is now closed. The matter has been submitted to the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration. Please do not add further comments to this page. -- ChrisO 18:07, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behaviour
Please note that this is not an exhaustive list, but provides samples of Terryeo's conduct for the purposes of this RfC. Due to the range of policy violations, applicable policies and guidelines are listed under each heading below.

Personal attacks and incivil conduct
Applicable policies & guidelines: No personal attacks, Civility, Assume good faith, Etiquette

Terryeo has repeatedly made personal attacks against a number of users. He appears to believe that a "gang" of editors and administrators, supposedly led by myself (User:ChrisO), is attempting to "destroy" articles with which he is involved. This is a prima facie assumption of bad faith.


 * Attacks User:ScienceApologist for providing an outside opinion on Dianetics, then refuses to withdraw it when requested.


 * Subsequently rejects a request to "tone it down".


 * Attacks User:ChrisO for supposedly "embrittling [sic] the divide" on Talk:Dianetics


 * Attacks User:ChrisO "and his gang"


 * On User:Antaeus Feldspar: "Beanbrain. Dogfood. Idiot."


 * On User:Fahrenheit451: User_talk:Fahrenheit451 Harassment for edits he did not agree with.


 * On User_talk:Davidstrauss, lack of assuming good faith: "They show you [...] oppose Dianetics and Scientology from being presented to the reader, and criticize any mention of psychology except in an exemplary manner." This was in response to several Talk:Dianetics comments.


 * On Talk:Dianetics, Terryeo condescendingly told a user to "...perk on over to and get the straight skinny[.]" at 04:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC). When User:Davidstrauss told him to "Stop the personal attacks.", Terryeo challenged David on his user talk page.


 * On Dianetics:_The_Modern_Science_of_Mental_Health, introduced sarcastic comment in the article: "Critics, having little else to criticize, have focused on reasons why a volcano appears on the cover." 04:33, 15 February 2006.


 * On User_talk:Raymond Hill, discussing about the disambiguation of Engrams: "hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!".

Edit warring
Applicable policies & guidelines: Three revert rule, Ownership of articles, Etiquette, Writers' rules of engagement

Terryeo has shown a consistent willingness to engage in edit wars with multiple users, despite repeated requests that he not use such tactics. Typically, his actions have involved either the repeated addition of POV material or deletion of other material for POV reasons (as outlined under below). This has also involved violations of the 3 revert rule, in some cases involving multiple reversions or deletions on a daily basis for several weeks in a row. I believe that Terryeo may have an "ownership" issue in that he has never objected to anything added to Scientology-related articles by his co-religionists, but complains bitterly about edits by non-Scientologists.


 * Dianetics -
 * Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
 * MEST (Scientology)
 * Thetan
 * Space opera in Scientology doctrine - article history. Despite a 24-hour block for violating the 3RR, he has continued to revert without discussion on at least a daily basis since 23 February.

An egregious demonstration of Terryeo's tendency to initiate drawn-out edit wars, seemingly just to make a WP:POINT, is the disambiguation page Engram, and Terryeo's attempts to insert a dictionary definition copied from an external source and rearrange the entries to put Engram (Dianetics) first in order:
 * 03:50, 16 January 2006 "okay then, age before beauty, errr, science before the 1950s Dianetics. ~"
 * 16:42, 16 January 2006 "Common first you said Povmec. Well, what is more common than a common dictionary? ~"
 * 18:58, 16 January 2006 "This is a disambiguation article. Leave the Dictionary Definition here. ~"
 * 02:36, 3 February 2006 "arranged into the ever popular, much used by Potomec [sic], alaphabetical order"
 * 18:33, 4 February 2006 "rearranged to comply with Pomec's [sic] ever popular, "alaphabetical arrangement""
 * 00:50, 5 February 2006 "Resequenced to comply with Povmec's alaphabetic sorting"
 * 01:49, 5 February 2006 "rm redirect"
 * 18:13, 5 February 2006 "reinstated the obviously useful dictionary definition and obviously appropriate alaphbetical sequence"
 * 03:02, 6 February 2006 "Enplaced Povmec's ever - popular alaphabetical order. Re-included what wikipediatrix views as a POV-pushing dictionary"

Terryeo persisted with these edits even after other editors in edit summaries and talk page discussion  pointed him to pages (When should I link externally, Disambiguation, WP:MOSDAB) which spelled out that the edits he was insisting on were unsupported by policy or even directly in contradiction to it.

POV editing
Applicable policies & guidelines: Neutral point of view, Writers' rules of engagement

Terryeo clearly holds a very strong pro-Scientology POV (as of course he's entitled to do). Unfortunately this has also led to him making a great many POV edits to Scientology-related articles, often leaving bogus explanations in the editing comments. His edits have principally involved the removal of information for POV reasons, rather than making substantive additions. Examples include:


 * Dianetics:
 * "removed some editor's personal opinion of what the book contains"
 * "I disagree. NPOV dictates the non-sequiter and not germane german rendition of the word be removed and an internet link allow a reader to learn for themselves." (repeatedly deleting a Greek (not German!) etymology on the grounds that it's "dispersive" [sic])
 * "Will you please keep your pseudoscience out of the description of Dianetic theory" (same section)
 * "corrected some misinformation in the article, removed the dispersive other-language addition"
 * "This section was so POV that I removed some of its more far out rants and made it more readable." (repeatedly deleting much of the section, which is based on the Intelligent design article)
 * "removed the placard which takes up article space without contributing to the article" (same section)
 * "removed a piece which explains what Dianetics would have to fulfill to be a "science". This is not spelled out to do in Wikipedia guidelines and I have removed it."

Violations of Three revert rule
Applicable policies & guidelines: Three revert rule, Ownership of articles, Etiquette, Writers' rules of engagement

Terryeo repeatedly reverts articles against consensus in order to impose his own POV. He has already been blocked for violations of the 3RR but has continued regardless. On another user's talk page, he has stated that he will continue to revert articles but at a lower frequency: "I am re-doing the Dianetics article about once a day and staying under the 3 times a day thing". This is clearly prohibited at WP:3RR.


 * Space opera in Scientology doctrine
 * 23:11, 26 February 2006
 * 02:50, 27 February 2006
 * 08:56, 27 February 2006
 * 10:02, 27 February 2006
 * 18:58, 27 February 2006


 * Thetan:
 * 14:38, 4 March 2006
 * 00:21, 5 March 2006
 * 08:31, 5 March 2006
 * 10:12, 5 March 2006

Removal of references for POV reasons
Applicable policies & guidelines: Cite sources, NPOV

In connection with the above, Terryeo has also repeatedly deleted valid citations and references to external websites on the grounds that the material in question - which is not hosted anywhere on Wikipedia - is "unpublished, legally contentious". It hardly needs to be said this is his personal POV. It is also self-evident that Wikipedians are not in a position to determine whether external websites are making fair use of copyrighted material or not. This has been pointed out to him by a number of other users and administrators, without effect.

This has principally affected Space opera in Scientology doctrine, a featured article which appeared on the Main Page on September 10, 2005. The article lists in the references a lecture by L. Ron Hubbard, "Assists", which has been widely quoted by commentators on Scientology and from which extracts can be found on many websites on the Internet (e.g. http://www.xenu.net/archive/multimedia.html). Terryeo asserts that the lecture in question is "legally contested" and therefore Wikipedia should not even mention it, let alone link to external websites which quote extracts from it. Although he has received no support for this position, he has nonetheless continued to pursue an edit war which is still ongoing:


 * Space opera in Scientology doctrine - (history) (23 February 2006 to 7 March 2006)

Another instance of Terryeo deleting valid references is to be found at Golden Era Productions; a particular statement was supported by a reference that gave not just the URL to an article from a major metropolitan newspaper that verified the statement, but a quote from the article itself spelling out just what evidence confirmed the claim. Terryeo removed the URL from inside the reference, moving it into an external links section he had just created, and in the same edit placed a fact template inside the reference, claiming "more appropriate placed the references and notes, citation needed about voting registration records" in his edit summary:


 * 20:34, 23 February 2006

Another example:


 * 14:10, 1 March 2006 - removal of citations he requested himself originally : "placed a better, online definition of MEST, removed some non-contribuatory  [sic] information"

And yet another:


 * , Edit summary for the second link: "The mention of Breggin should point to breggin's site. doh." (The citation Terryeo alters already points to Peter Breggin's site, to a specific page where Breggin discusses quite frankly his antipathy towards Scientology, which is the very fact that was being cited.  Terryeo alters it twice so that it no longer points to that specific page, only to the highest-level page of Breggin's site.)

And again:


 * 17:08, 25 January 2006 Terryeo removes the very citation that he himself requested.

Inappropriate removal of content from talk pages
Applicable policies & guidelines: Talk page guidelines

Terryeo has repeatedly deleted content other than his from Talk:Dianetics. On 5 February I added a box to the top of Talk:Dianetics (see diff), taken almost unchanged from Talk:Intelligent design, which cited the applicable editing policies. My intention in doing this was to highlight the rules of engagement for the article and encourage the editors to think about whether their contributions met Wikipedia's requirements.

Instead, Terryeo repeatedly deleted the box on a variety of spurious grounds (several times giving no explanation in his editing comments). His stated grounds attracted incredulity from other editors (User:KillerChihuahua: "I am very surprised to hear that a notice to apply NPOV, NOR, and be sure to CITE is somehow POV per Terryeo. Dumbfounded might be more accurate, leaning in fact towards completely disbelieving"). This also provides another illustration of Terryeo's edit warring tactics and violations of the 3RR:


 * 2006/02/06 06:42:25 - "Removed "guidence template" because it posts which policies are to be followed. And that is not accurate and not correct and not complete. We should treat Dianetics like a theory."
 * 2006/02/06 16:35:06 - "Removed ChrisO's template. It is neither accurate nor on-policy. It doesn't reflect a concensus of editor opinions. See the discussion."
 * 2006/02/06 16:50:12 - "some replys. template removed."
 * 2006/02/06 17:54:33 - "Removed ChrisO's completely POV template, misunderstandingly restored by Wikipediatrix"
 * 2006/02/06 23:52:56 - "removed introduction template. We all edit under common wiki policies. they all apply ChrisO's POV applies to ChrisO."
 * 2006/02/07 00:20:45 - "reply to User:KillerChihuahua and reply to User:ChrisO removed template"
 * 2006/02/13 01:32:58 - "removed the redundant top of page template"

Disregard of consensus
Applicable policies & guidelines: Consensus, Wikiquette

As outlined above, Terryeo has repeatedly and wilfully disregarded the consensus of other editors. This has manifested itself in a number of instances and has often been accompanied by peculiar justifications (e.g. that the use of a disambiguation template constitutes original research):


 * Space opera in Scientology doctrine (history, 23 February - 7 March 2006) - repeated deletions of valid references against consensus from the other active editors on the article.


 * Dianetics - repeated replacement of the existing introduction with a poorly worded and vague alternative, against consensus from all but one of the other active editors on the article:, , , , , , and many more


 * Dianetics again - repeated deletion of the disambiguation link to Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (about the book of that title), also against consensus:, , ("removed the dumbo, header. Second guessing what the reader wants is OR"), ,

Inappropriate deletion of content
The Thetan article provides an overview of this Scientology concept, with one-paragraph summaries of subsidiary articles covering the Body thetan and Operating Thetan concepts. Terryeo considers these summaries "redundant" and "dispersive" (sic) and has repeatedly deleted them against consensus, violating the 3RR in the process. These deletions are continuing on a daily basis at the time of writing.


 * 00:21, 5 March 2006 - "removed the redundant piece on "body thetan" which is to be found in its own article"
 * 08:31, 5 March 2006 - "Removed the redendant "body thetan" piece"
 * 10:12, 5 March 2006 - "removed a good deal of information extant already in 2 other articles. ChrisO certainly dispersed and created confusions with his edits here."
 * 20:07, 6 March 2006 - "reverted article, removing dispersive, redundant informations extant in other articles."

Terryeo continually removes the disambiguation link from the Dianetics to the D:MSHM article.

  - "Removed the self referencing template. An article should not self - reference."

Talk page disruption

 * Template talk:ScientologySeries Terryeo has created second ("enlinked template") and third ("Why not?") sections for discussing the self-linking of Template:ScientologySeries. This fragments the opposition to his continual re-addition of the link.

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve this dispute
See:


 * Talk:Dianetics
 * Talk:Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health
 * Talk:Space opera in Scientology doctrine
 * User talk:Terryeo
 * Requests for mediation/Dianetics

A mediation was requested concerning several points on Dianetics but it ended up being "talked out" by several of the other parties (for once, not principally Terryeo) and the Mediation Committee rejected it as "completely unmanageable". Following informal discussions with a number of other administrators, I came to the conclusion that the locus of the dispute was user misconduct - not a matter that can be resolved through mediation - and I abandoned the mediation effort.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * Antaeus Feldspar 23:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Krsont 00:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Calton | Talk 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Modemac 02:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Tenebrous 05:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * ScienceApologist 13:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Davidstrauss 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Vivaldi 19:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * wikipediatrix 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Raymond Hill 12:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * FOo 10:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * BTfromLA 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * 1)  Cyde   Weys  23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I endorse. --Fahrenheit451 00:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) (Entheta 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC))
 * 4) Jkelly 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) rmosler 11:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Lost Goblin 11:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) [[Image:glenstollery.gif]]POW! 15:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde Weys
What we have here is a clear case of someone who does not have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind, but rather, someone with an agenda who wants to force Wikipedia to conform to their viewpoint. He has violated many Wikipedia policies and guidelines in doing so: WP:NPA, WP:3RR, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, etc. --  Cyde   Weys  23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for an opinion Cyde Weys. From your redundantly signing this document, it is unclear to me if you are presenting yourself to be a part of the dispute (you signed as endorsing the summary), or whether you are presenting yourself to be an "Outside Viewer" (you signed once again under "Outside Views." Terryeo 18:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

 * 1)  Cyde   Weys  23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I endorse.--Fahrenheit451 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) I too endorse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) wikipediatrix 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Terryeo is deliberately causing trouble. Madame Sosostris 23:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Jkelly 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) rmosler 11:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Lost Goblin 11:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Hpuppet - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 14:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Joe 06:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Users who oppose this summary:

 * 1) These users share a similar POV which is in contrast with Terry's POV. That's all. It is easy to demonstrate that Terry is usually very polite even when under personal attack and opposition from THIS CABAL... (names of members noted) --JimmyT 09:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Entheta
I've been trying not to get into the arguments with him too much, but I know he likes to cite wikipedia policy when it benefits his point of view, but not in other cases. I can't remember having been in much comm. with him, but I've been reading some of the arguments he's had with other editors and iy seems very diffiult to make him listen to reason. (Entheta 01:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC))
 * He also freqently complains about alleged original research, even after being given references, see for example Talk:Ron's Journal 67. He has been adding "citation needed" in the most absurd places on several articles. As for the David Miscavige article that was mentioned by Fahrenheit451, it didn't take me long to give up trying to keep up with the editing wars on and discussions about that article. (Entheta 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Another example of extensive rewrite (i.e. removal of criticism, etc.) - which was reverted several times by various other contributors - is on Scientology terminology, with some comments about the article's lack of coherency on the talk page. (Entheta 22:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Well, it is entirely clear to me that RJ67 mentions nothing about either OT III nor Xenu. That it does to you illistrates to me (probably to anyone who reads it) that neither RJ67 or other documents mention the same subject.  That it is clear to you that they are talking about the same subject is undocumentable OR.  What is unclear about that? I'm pretty sure I must have signed this when I wrote it, this page is getting pretty convoluted. Signing again now. Terryeo 06:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Entheta uses an offensive username. EN+THETA means enturbulated theta which may indicates that the being is severely dramatizing his own reactive mind also and manifesting A=A=A=A=A. That might explain why User:Entheta thinks RJ67 mentions Xenu. --JimmyT 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist
The user was outright rude and hostile to me, and he refused to admit that he was engaging in personal attacks when I briefly tried to help edit the Dianetics article. He seems to be of the opinion that anybody who isn't lock-step in favor of his point-of-view is not worth engaging in discussion. Every exchange is on his terms, and he seems to revel in ignoring the most fundamental rule of this encyclopedia: Consensus. I have yet to receive even a tacit apology for his behavior. --ScienceApologist 13:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you giving an OUTSIDE view when you are not OUTSIDE of the dispute? --JimmyT 09:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Fahrenheit451
Terryeo became increasingly hostile in our discussions on edits of the David Miscavige and Sea Org articles. It went from hostile disagreements to ad hominem attacks rather quickly. Even with references and citations provided for edits, he was still hostile about editing he did not like. --Fahrenheit451 18:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because you feel it appropriate to comment in response to a user who, like you, has placed his statement on this page, I will likewise reply after your statement. The David Miscaviage and Sea Org articles had repeated instances in them which you posted, which were not well documented.  You frequently hammered at the idea of "patter drills" being, in some manner, not standard tech, unsupported by policy and originated (you several times said against policy) by Miscaviage.  Because there are few editors on here who have a full set of modern policies, I felt it necessary to cite appropriate references to you in the talk pages, with the result that you now see in those articles.  "Hostile desagreements" and "ad hominem attacks" are not okay and none of us should engage in them.  Terryeo 18:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Then, knock-off such attacks, Terryeo. You are not to attack editors for something that you opine is "not well documented". --Fahrenheit451 17:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit451, in general my tone isn't hostile. In general other editors are more antagonistic and hostile than I am.  I get impatient in some cases.  For example, I would bet a dime you are still convinced that patter drills defy Hubbard's technology.  I would bet a dime you have accepted none of the extensive discussion, reasons, reasoning, quotation of policy, etc and are still holding to exactly the same attitudes about patter drills you had 3 months ago.  Yet I have sought out appropriate policy letters, quoted them for your information, and so on.  You could be considerate enough that when you raise an issue and someone replies to you, looks up policy letters which apply, reads them to find the appropriate portion, quotes the pertineent portion for you,  you could take the consideration to understand what they have said to you, Fahrenheit451.  The presentation of information, as a reply to the issue you raise, is hardly a "personal attack." Terryeo 06:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

And you have not provided us with one reference authorizing such "patter drills". So, I would think it appropriate to close the debate with the conclusion that L. Ron Hubbard never authored or authorized the talk to the wall patter drills. --Fahrenheit451 00:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Fahrenheit451, doesn't it seem to you that your tone is challenging and unproductive? "Knock off the attacks" is your reply to my statement about Patter Drills which I took a good deal of care, careful quotion, and looking up references in replying to you about.  Yet you don't mention any of that.  I reply to your accusatory tone about patter drills.  I quote policy letters to you straight out of the green volumns, I point out definitions in the Tech Dictionary which define "practical" (as in practical drills) in an effort to reply to your generally hostile tone about patter drills.  You reply that am attacking because I don't agree with your POV?  You tell me to "knock off my personal attacks?"  You put uncited information into the Miscaviage article which implies Miscaviage has subverted Hubbard's technology, has decreed policy which expells and declares anyone who even questions patter drills (again uncited), use a biography (The Miscaviage article) to introduce personal arguements (uncited) against him which are false arguements anyway and when I disagree with some element of your broad, attacking attitude (instead of encyclopedic writing), you call it a personal attack.  And further, then you tell me to "knock off my personal attacks."  Terryeo 07:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The patter drill material is cited in the David Miscavige article. What is more, you still, after repeated requests, have not given us any citation by L. Ron Hubbard authorizing the talk to the wall patter drills. Instead, you evade the request and obfuscate, spinning off in non-sequitur no-answer answers. --Fahrenheit451 00:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll put it like this to you Fahrenheit451. I will not supply you with "patter drill" references nor discussion here in this article.  See the above for why I won't.  If you wish to discuss, please take it to my user page where I will cooperate as much as I can.  If you choose to constrain the discussion to articles like the Miscavage article, then that's fine too.  But the purpose of this article isn't to supply people with references. Terryeo 22:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Take note of Fahrenheit's behavior as I pointed out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FTerryeo&diff=44927848&oldid=44866870

That happens to be a comment pointing out an ad-hominem attack by JimmyT, and then his reply to that. There is nothing sequitur in his citation.--Fahrenheit451 00:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Fahrenheit, you say "hostile and a personal attack when you falsely accuse" in response to Terry's "Then you should go to that article with your verifications and place them in it." Care to explain where in Terry's comment he made a hostile personal attack falsely accusing you? A=A=A=A=A refers to one of the phenomenon of the reactive mind. It is not ad-hominem. It is my observation of YOUR conduct and it's potential detrimental effect on Wikipedia. --JimmyT 09:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)"
 * "Fahrenheit, you say "hostile and a personal attack when you falsely accuse" in response to Terry's "Then you should go to that article with your verifications and place them in it." Care to explain where in Terry's comment he made a hostile personal attack falsely accusing you? A=A=A=A=A refers to one of the phenomenon of the reactive mind. It is not ad-hominem. It is my observation of YOUR conduct and it's potential detrimental effect on Wikipedia. --JimmyT 09:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)"

--JimmyT 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipediatrix
Where to start? Several times - enough that it must be intentional - Terryeo cited inflammatory statements attributed to me that I did not make, and posted them to multiple discussion pages. When pressed on the matter each time, Terryeo's response was minimal and unapologetic, or no response at all. I've seen him sharply insult fellow Wikipedians in one post and then scold others with WP:CIVIL in the very next breath. I've seen him openly criticize previous edits and their editors in the actual text of an article itself followed by shrugging off the matter on the discussion page. I've seen him remove the entire text of someone's edit that offends his openly-admitted pro-Scientology agenda - sometimes almost the entire article - over a technicality like a microscopic typo. Most distressingly, I've witnessed at length what seems to be his prime tactic: to talk each edit to death with impossible-to-follow logic, apparently hoping that if he filibusters long enough, everyone else will give up and go away. I can't count the number of times I've tried to seriously engage Terryeo in discussion about an edit and receiving only short and surreal non-sequiturs in response, if anything at all. Then he suddenly makes a big, showy, novella-length post complaining that no one is discussing the edits with him. Terryeo dismisses any information about the numerous controversies, crimes, and court cases regarding L.Ron Hubbard-related subjects as a non-neutral POV push, and his edits frequently whitewash articles into blatant advertisements for Scientology. wikipediatrix 23:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you making an OUTSIDE comment when you are not OUTSIDE this dispute? Terry stating "The same person(s) who misunderstand the meaning of the word "practical"" is hardly a criticism and your link to the discussion of that "critism" helps neutral oberservers to see that your complaint was unwarranted as it was not a personal attack, it does appear that edits were made that should have been discussed. But you chose to start personal attacks ("Bad dog") which attracted personal attacks from Fahrenheit. And, either you did say what Terry cited as inflammatory statements attributed to you or he made a mistake. You should ask Terry for a link. Terryeo dismissing information about controversy is his choice, his POV is not criticism. Focusing on criticism is non-neutral POV. What you think "to be his prime tactic" and "Terry's approach" is your opinion. --JimmyT 10:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * In the words of Steven Wright, "uh... of course it's my opinion. I'm the one who said it." I'm only focusing on criticism because Scientologists like Terryeo are working so hard to obliterate it entirely. As long as the numerous court cases and controversies are included where relevant, I don't mind if we also provide the other side's view about how golly-neato the new e-meters are. And "Bad Dog!" was actually a bit of levity, not a personal attack, since it was much more jovial and polite than what I really wanted to say. Since Terryeo is known for calling people "beanbrain" and "idiot", I didn't think he'd mind. And since your penchant for saying far more insulting (and obscene) things is well documented, you're kinda disqualified from judging others. wikipediatrix 14:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, in support of Terryeo
I support Terryeo's good faith in his attempt to work fairly with Wikipedians, support Wiki policies, the mediation and Wiki readers expectations when they come to Wikipedia.

Only one side of an issue has been presented here. I believe it is unfair and unjust to present only one side of an issue. It lends all the weight to that one-sided discussion rather than weighing the two sides against one another.

As a principle, this is the more basic issue surrounding Terryeo and ChrisO.

ChrisO with the other calling parities to the mediation, have consistently represented one side of an issue. They singled out Terryeo in the mediation as a single "opposing party". Terryeo represents a second side to the issue, not an individual only. In this Request for Comment, they again single out one person only, to represent what they oppose and heap the weight of their arguments only, against one person only.

I outlined the issue of this conflict in Mediation for Dianetics. In short, ChrisO and the calling parties have consistently acted together to reduce the scope of the subject of Dianetics as published by L. Ron Hubbard and the reach of editors that they feel are opposing parties. Example: Pseudoscience treatment on Dianetics despite extensive refuting citation from reputable publishers.

I feel the works of the author of Dianetics, and the controversy should both be presented. This should be the defining point for NPOV allowing fairness to both sides. The calling parties seem to feel there should be no fairness to both sides, and all weight that is considered on Wikipedia should be on their side only. I have called this side, the Controversy side or Pseudoscience. Thus the Dianetics article contains little besides their edits and the Author's side and the citations of the subject, are consistently deleted or rewritten or suppressed. So if 90 to 100% of the article represents their point of view only, policies like WP:NPOV has a new meaning and balance point, not at 50:50 of an issue, but nearly 100% towards their POV. Yes, I would say if you redefine NPOV from such an extreme view, Terryeo has violated that extreme view. But is that adjust of the neutral line just? Terryeo has placed himself in the middle of this effort, closer to a 50:50 handling in support of Wikipedia, the Author of Dianetics and the Reader. ChrsO has singled him out for punishment. But other editors on this second side, like myself, have received innumerable summary deletions of our citations with reputable publishers, to have the personal research of the calling parties remain and be reverted. It isn't fair. Example: DMSMH ChrisO edit has newspapers "quoting" details Hubbard did not say, despite known fact checking in the Discussion that refutes it.

I think mediating guidelines need to be established to balance the WP:SCN project force actions represented by the endorsing parties. I do not support simply banning the opposition to the end that Wiki not present this subject fairly. Spirit of Man 00:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no "banning the opposition" here. Terryeo has repeatedly violated wikipedia editing policy. That is documentable fact.--Fahrenheit451 03:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see you have presented a one-sided case on his editing. We disagree on why such a one-sided case was raised here. Spirit of Man 04:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA
I actively edited some Scientology-related articles, particularly Dianetics, through early February, and have been less active on Wikipedia since that time. It is my policy to assume good faith on the part of Terryeo, and to value and encourage the information that a practicing Scientologist might bring to the Scientology articles. I did have some small successes working with Terryeo, as when, after a long talk-page exchange, he made clear to me a few basic concepts of Dianetics that weren't described in the article: I was able to incorporate those into the body of the article in a manner that seems to have been acceptible to everyone, and, in my opinion, the article was better for those additions. Unfortunately, though, I must concur with the prevailing view that in the aggregate Terryeo's participation has done more to frustrate and interfere with the editing of good articles than to better them. As mentioned by others above, he has aggressively and voluminously cited Wikipedia policy in a POV-driven fashion, deleting or demanding sources for the slightest "uncited" or "uncitable" phrase that suggests something unflattering about the subject, while he applies no such standards to the pro-Scientology bits, including his own contributions. He has persisted in rewriting sections (such as the intro paragraph to the Dianetics article) after it was long clear that he was doing so against an established consensus. Many of the problems seem to stem from what I perceive as Terryeo's difficulties accepting the basic premises of Wikipedia editing and of encyclopedic writing. Countless hours have been spent by editors who have tried to explain to Terryeo the meaning of well-established editorial concepts--ideas such as "primary source," "reputable publisher," and "original research"--only to find these relatively straightforward definitions becoming the basis of lengthy and often bizarre arguments that careen across many Wikipedia pages. One such example had to do with Terryeo's unique interpretation of the guidelines for an article's introduction. In what was plainly a misinterpretation of the stated guidelines, Terryeo insisted that an introduction must conform to the formula "1.Term 2. Topic 3. Context." I, for one, did my best to explain why he was mistaken, but to no avail, as he clung to this strange fundamentalism about introductions in a series of counter-productive arguments across several articles and with multiple editors for a period of weeks (if others care to locate examples and cite them here, please do). Several weeks ago, on one of the talk pages (sorry--I can't find the citation), I offered Terryeo a set of suggestions. I suggested that he refrain from editing Scientology-related articles for a period of time, during which he would edit articles about less emotionally-charged subjects in order to better understand the culture of editing Wikipedia and the concepts of encyclopedic writing. I also suggested that he focus on developing expository writing skills, as many of his contributions to date are written in a vague or confusing manner. I stand by those recommendations, if he indeed sincerely hopes to contribute productively to Wikipedia. BTfromLA 21:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are you providing an OUTSIDE view when you are not OUTSIDE the dispute? --JimmyT 10:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

DavidCooke, in support of Terryeo
It's unfortunate that the Wikipedia articles on Scientology have so far focussed on the controversies, and not on the subject itself. This may be because most of these contributions have been written by people with a hostile view of Scientology, and there has been little input from trained Scientologists. Not much chance of a neutral point of view in these circumstances. This is in sharp contrast to Wikipedia's genuinely NPOV coverage of other religions: in the articles on Judaism and Islam for example.

If the aim is a fair consensus viewpoint, this should reflect the balance of opinion in the real world. There are many Scientologists in the world, but only a handful of anti-Scientology campaigners. I believe Terryeo's contributions are of value in redressing this imbalance. DavidCooke 04:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * David, the "balance of real world opinion" has no precise definition, and has nothing to do with wikipedia editing. There may be only a handful of anti-scientology campaigners, as you state, but this has nothing to do with the forementioned gross and chronic policy violations Terryeo has committed. Too many of Terryeo's "contributions" have been destructive.--Fahrenheit451 02:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What precisely does this have to do with his conduct? Tenebrous 08:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that username "DavidCooke" has never edited a Scientology-related article, never taken part in any of the discussions of the edits on them, and only started editing on Wikipedia about seven weeks ago. wikipediatrix 14:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * DavidCooke has indeed taken part in a Scientology article. Just a few hours after Wikipediatrix wrote this, he made a change to promote the dangerous organization called Narconon.  Also it is revealing to note that DavidCooke is a skeptic of psychology (like the Church of Scientology) as he points out on his user page.  And I tend to wonder about someone that says there are more Scientologists than people that do not like Scientology.  How does one come to that conclusion and then complain that critics are too numerous on wikipedia?  It seems like tens or even hundreds of millions have heard about Scientology and only 55,000 people in the US claim to be scientologists as of last count. Vivaldi 19:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, DavidCooke, I appreciate your having said something.Terryeo 16:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * May I point out to both Wikipediatrix and to Vivaldi, by doing as you have just done here, it defeats the organziation of the page, as carefully spelled out by ChrisO in the beginning paragraph. Everyone has an opportunity to state their case, you see, but by adding additional things into other's comments, and especially by adding them above the last post (vivaldi in support of wikipediatrix, together the two against Cook's statement in support).Terryeo 04:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost Goblin
After looking at his User contributions page it is clear that Terryeo has no intention of giving up his blind quest for silencing any content that disagrees with his dogmas.

I am afraid that there is little hope that he will listen to reason in the future as he has repeatedly ignored any kind of rational argument and has continuously tried again and again to push for the changes he wants until others just give up in despair, any scientology-related Talk page is witness of this.

With this in mind I think the only solution is a lengthy ban, and even that is probably too optimistic, I fear that he will be back with unchanged intentions once the ban expires, so care should be taken to deal with him promptly if that happens, way too much time has already been wasted by valuable contributors because of his behavior, and if he is not trying to change, or even admitting to any wrong behavior, there is no reason why this should be tolerated indefinitely. Lost Goblin 12:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stollery
Until the past week I have had no "personal" interaction with Terryeo, however about a week ago I started noticing consistant reverts of his edits (almost hourly in some cases) popping up on my watchlist. So, I figured I better pay a little closer attention to the articles in question as he was/is obviously causing some work for the admins having to police those articles (hats off to Wikipediatrix, Vivaldi, Antaeus Feldspar and ChrisO who remedied his persistant edits which I will go into shortly). In summary, what I discovered (and very quickly experienced personally!) follows from my perspective:
 * Terryeo is confrontational. He believes that he as a Scientologist, knows vastly more than any mere "Wog" (a non-scio) could ever know about any CoS related article, and thus any edit he makes is the end of the matter and is not up for discussion. It is obvious that some of the admins (esp those editing CoS material) are exceptionally well educated about the church, front groups, its practises, history, "scriptures" (FWOABT) both secret and non, and have more than a firm grasp on it's culture (Vivaldi is a perfect example) however, expert or not what Terryeo doesn't seem to understand is that the fact he is a scio makes it very difficult to write NPOV edits, and one of the jobs of an admin is to ensure NPOV. You don't have to be an expert if you see someone write a PR release as an article. One can edit it and make it NPOV without having an iota of knowledge about the subject. As such he needs to give editors more respect rather than considering their opinions uneducated and irrelevant. Instead he reverts and is agreesive in his rationale. Examples:
 * Talk:Dianetics "It is considered "workable technology" by Dianeticists. It works, positive results, better life for practitioners. That's what matters to Dianeticists. Who cares about "science or pseudo?" Well, editors who don't know the subject care. Editors who know the subject would probably present it as "workable technology" (emphasis added)
 * I did say that, but I have frequently done other than state what I know and at no time do I expect that what I know be accepted by everyone. On a number of occassions I have comprimised.  On other occassions I have supplied quotations and explanations.  while your statements make the situation sound as if I am a bible thumper which tolerates no other point of view, quite the opposite is the situation in general discussion. Terryeo 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Talk:Thetan "What you are, that is what is meant by the word thetan. That of you which is aware that you are aware. Why do people edit articles they refuse to understand? You want to edit and don't know the subject? No Problem Wikipedia encourages you to. Just edit what you do know and understand, add controversy, etc. Please do not edit what you do not understand. (emphasis added)


 * Terryeo continues to revert and revert and revert without further discussion once he has made up his mind This is probably due to his beliefs above. A couple of examples:
 * Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health Note history 29-30 January here Terryeo is reverted seven times in under 2 days.
 * Dianetics Note history around March 16 here Terryeo is reverted again 6 or 7 times over a couple of days over the same issue.


 * Terryeo's tone is unfriendly and comes off as rude Without ever having a single letter of corrospondence with Terryeo he left the following note on my user page as he was unhappy with a revert and it's summary on the David Miscavige article:
 * "...However, Stollery, that you did not read the past discussions regarding "patter drills" and make no statement at all about the validity and uncitedness of the edit which you so strongly objected to, does not make your edit wrong, it merely points out that you have not fully informed yourself of the history of the situation. I am one of 2 or 3 editors who somewhat keep an eye on the article..."
 * Point is I did read the talk page, my reversion was that of the removal of a large potion of text and "the edit which [I] object so strongly to" (as he claimed) in its summary said "Rv bulk deletion without concensus" as none had been reached on the talk page. Terryeo had expressed his opinion and contrary to his belief that is not a consensus.

I am doubtful that Terryeo will take anything away from this as he rarely seems to see a gray area but I believe something must be done to demonstrate to him that he needs to take a few deep breaths and show a little more tolerance of others. POW! 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment
 * Stollery's ostentatious and biased outside view condones overall violation of NPOV in Scientology articles [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] states that the high number of reverts indicate that Terry is doing something to cause admins having to police those articles. He then gives "hats-off" to users who endorsed this RfC. What [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] fails to also consider is that the high number of reverts might be due to the fact that Terry is up against those same hats who share a critic-POV, some of whom will revert (without hesitation) an ordinary edit from a known scientologist but let a critical-POV fellow's edit slide by without question. Such activity is a violation of NPOV. [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] also claims to know Terry's belief ("He believes that he as a Scientologist, knows vastly more than any mere "Wog") which indicates that [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] thinks he knows more than he really does about the whole thing, which probably includes the topic of Scientology itself. [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] states that Terry is unfriendly and rude. Terry is more friendly and considerate than the ordinary editor involved with controversial articles. A look at his discussion will show that he often responds very considerately to the constant personal attacks and ad hominem. But, I don't think [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] is interested in shining any light on those. Finally, [[Image:glenstollery.gif]] thinks he knows Terryeo personally: "he rarely seems to see a gray area". --JimmyT 11:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * JimmyT: It's all well and good to make all these claims but why don't you cite some specific examples that prove your points?


 * Sure, but let me give a quote of you first. --JimmyT 14:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "...your ridiculous cult" - [[Image:glenstollery.gif]]


 * 1. Show examples of my "ostentatious and biased" beliefs
 * The way you've presented yourself in criticizing Terryeo. You are clearly biased and you've just provided new instances. Perhaps pompous would have been a better word than ostentatious?


 * 2. my "violation of NPOV in Scientology articles"
 * I never accused you of "violation of NPOV in Scientology articles". I said your "outside view condones overall violation of NPOV in Scientology articles" and I have explained why I think so in my comment in response to your outside view. You know this according to your question #7, so your creation of question #2 is senseless.


 * 3. and also how "friendly and considerate" your fellow clam is?
 * My fellow what?


 * 4. You claim I am not "interested in shining any light" on how considerate "Terry" is... well I would be except there's absolutely ZERO evidence of this! If there is then why don't you show me? Actual examples please?
 * Have you tried looking at his edit history? Don't waste my time by making me dig the many instances up, it will only make you look worse.


 * 5. You obviously have absolutely nothing to base any of your claims on in reality or you wouldn't have to make stuff up! You state: "[[Image:glenstollery.gif]] also claims to know Terry's belief" - where did I state this? Example?
 * You stated it clearly above that you claim to know Terry's "belief". You said "He believes that he as a Scientologist, knows vastly more than any mere Wog".


 * 6. "[[Image:glenstollery.gif]] thinks he knows more than he really does about the whole thing, which probably includes the topic of Scientology itself. " Example?
 * No. YOU prove that you know Terryeo and his behavior. You're the one talking like you're an expert on him and his behavior.


 * 7. Finally: "Stollery's ostentatious and biased outside view condones overall violation of NPOV in Scientology articles" - Proof please.
 * I explained it all in my response to your comment above. Please read it again.


 * I look forward to you citing actual examples of all the above and really putting me in my place. Otherwise everything you've contributed can fall into the same category as Xenu, OT powers, thetans, the Galatic Confederation and the rest of your ridiculous cult: i.e. 100% COMPLETE AND UTTER FICTION [[Image:glenstollery.gif]]POW! 12:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:glenstollery.gif]], I shouldn't have had to point these things out to you. --JimmyT 14:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You gave one example out of 7 requests and that example was from this page, a "request for comment" and thus a request for a POV! So thank you, thank you for proving my point. Your brilliant insight and superior intellect is a credit to L Ron, and no doubt this outstanding display of logic will save Terryeo from any negative ramifications from this RfC [[Image:glenstollery.gif]]POW! 14:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, you don't seem to care about your online reputation just I do not. However, I know who NOT to choose as an enemy. Stupidity --JimmyT 14:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by JimmyT
RfC's should be filed likewise on some of the users. Terryeo should not be singled out just because his POV is divergent from most of the other editors who obviously wish to guarantee a critical/sceptical POV. NPOV policy protects his POV in discussion and grants him a hand in editing. Terryeo's presence at Scientology articles ensure NPOV. Without Terryeo the Scientology articles would be skewed towards cynicism.

Terryeo helps to keep thing free from the non-sense that is often introduced from falsely cognizant, biased, and abhorrent references.

--JimmyT 11:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that JimmyT has admitted to being a Scientologist, and his "arguments" are often loaded with incomprehensible Scientology jargon. On his talk page, he called another editor an "out-ethics conspiracy kook" and praised Terryeo for his "high theta". He has been blocked for personal attacks and incivility. He has made many ludicrous anti-Wikipedia statements such as "Wikipedia IS full of fools. Who takes money and makes people work free? WIKIPEDIA, which is Jimbo's CULT."  I can't see any reason to take seriously anything from a person whose idea of discussion is "Shut up Tenebrous" and "you are obsessed with me because you are insane or gay" and "Quit defending Wikipedia you whiner. Now, shut up". I can't believe he hasn't been permanently banned yet! wikipediatrix 12:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My outside view remains regardless of any criticisim from anyone. My argument are not loaded with incomprehensible Scientology jargon, they are plain english and where I do use scientology I provide reference to a definition. On MY talk page, a user who endorsed this RfC (Fahrenheit451), kept trolling me with ad hominem and I called him a 1.1, out-ethics conspiracy kook. He was obsessed with me for some reason, probably because he was insane or gay. Now I am wondering about Wikipediatrix who reverts my changes without discussion and who seems to be a whiner herself. So she should just shut up because anything that happens on Wikipedia does not matter. I have no need to protect myself from this website. But I would really appreciate it if the lies and distortions about my church of Scientology were cleaned up without the presence of a CABAL constantly preventing it. --JimmyT 14:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * JimmyT's block log:
 * It's hard to understand why an editor who holds the ideals of Wikipedia in such contempt continues to edit articles. With supporters like JimmyT, who needs enemies? Tenebrous 13:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Tenebrous, I told you on your talk page, now I'll tell you here. SHUT UP!!! And for any administrator, investor, or owner (even Jimbo Wales) who disapproves of my behaviour while ignoring the big problem. I have this for them: Click here: Jimmy awaits Wikipedia'ss vanity ban. Here's a quote of me "SHUT UP, YOU KOOKS!!!" --JimmyT 14:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * JimmyT appears to have got what he wanted; he has been banned for two weeks. I'm sure that the only surprise associated with that statement will be that he wasn't banned for a longer duration. Tenebrous 23:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I read JimmyT's view and I will agree with him. He seems to have problem but he is right about this comment. --UNK 18:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Which comment would that be? Please explain yourself more fully. Tenebrous 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * His Outside View. I been keeping eye on all of you and disputes. --UNK 06:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that David_Gerard found that UNK is JimmyT . Raymond Hill 13:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Response
I see serveral editors are collecting all the things they can think of and posting them as part of ChrisO's original posting. hmmm. I think, rather than make the situation more convoluted and complex than it is, I'll let it go as it is. I haven't done anything too extreme, certainly several editors have done much more extreme things in conduct and editing that I have done. Terryeo 20:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been honest and forthright. My POV is on my userpage. I have been careful to not be misleading. I have knowledge in a few particular areas. My interest is to have those articles which are within areas I know well about, introduce their subjects in a manner which is easy for a reader to understand the subject. From my point of view this seems an incredibly easy task. I know Dianetics. I know Scientology. I have some information about how the Church of Scientology operates, what it educates about, what processing is, how it disseminates into the world today and to a slight degree, what its future plans are. I have a POV. Everyone has a POV and to think otherwise, well, a person would only be fooling themselves.

Controversial topics, such as these Dianetics and Scientology topics, should simply follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines. A subject gets introduced. In the case of Thetan, for example, it is a word new to the reader (probably). I intend the reader understand the idea which the term is meant to represent. This is usually, in these articles, where the first confrontation with other editors happens. I work toward the topic of the article being introduced. Other editors (who probably don't understand the term) revert my edits. So I try to talk about it on discussion pages to lead other editors to see that the topic has not been introduced. The result is very little talk, but sometimes a little talk. And then other editors quit talking and *boom* we have an "edit war". But whether Wikipedia presents these subjects or doesn't, I can tell you, most of the Dianetics and Scientology articles do not present the subjects which they purport to be about. Because inevitably, editors who do not understand the subject prevent them from being introduced. After a subject is introduced, then of course, the controversial aspects of the subjects should be spelled out, cited, and so forth. That is what a reader comes to Wikipedia for, after all. My main (but not singular) problem is that other editors refuse, time after time, to understand that the subject has not been introduced. I have spent a great deal of time on discussion pages trying to get articles introduced.

But there is one other point of contention. And then I'll get to my conduct which could be better. ChrisO has frequently cited a particular document, I think 2 articles presently carry his citation of a Church of Scientology created, unpublished (to the public) by the Church of Scientology, Confidential (within the Church of Scientology) Class VIII (high level of training) "Assists" lecture (an audio lecture with an associated typed transcript). Presently it is cited in ChrisO's Space_opera_in_Scientology (an article that has been a featured article) and in the Xenu article. ChrisO and I have bumped heads on that citation before because I don't feel it is appropriate and he feels it is. He modified WP:Cite in an attempt to justify his use of it, though that discussion page's discussion led to the removal of his modification to that guideline. At least it would be a contestable citation because it can not exist on the Wikipedia servers in Florida where it is under USA law. It is linked and exists on servers in another country where the same copyright laws don't apply. It is at least contested. Court actions may prove it good, or may prove otherwise, but there is no need for Wikipedia to involve itself with that anyway. Even more to the point is its use in the articles it is cited in. It forms a very minor portion of such articles. Whether it is used as a citation or not, the articles in question would remain almost exactly as they are. I've placed a more complete statement about that here.

Then there is my user conduct. I am not likely to simply go along with ChrisO nor some other editors because I know these subjects. That most of an article is controversy, appropriately cited controversy, is perfectly right with me. That's what Wikipedia is all about, after all. But I want the articles introduced, so the reader can understand what is being talked about. For example, when I begin editing, the Fair Game article stated that Fair Game was a current practice of the Church of Scientology. It has not been a practice for some years. The article now contains more accurate statements and, last I edited it, contained the church's present day policy which states why fair game (as spelled out in the article) can not be practiced because a church member must not "violate the laws of the land". One comment made about my contribution to that article is on its talk page, Talk:Fair_Game_%28Scientology%29.

My conduct has not been effective. If it had been this Rfc would not exist. I know without doubt that Xenu should not be in the Scientology Naviation Template as it presently is, but should be in "Controversy" on the template. I have talked about this on discussion pages. People talk a little but when my informations are not to their liking, they simply ignore my informations on discussion pages and revert. I revert back, they revert back and so on. My user conduct has not created what I hoped to create. I have not gotten subjects which I know about, introduced. I have tried. I have talked a lot on discussion pages. I have pointed to links where editors could read what I was talking about. I have been responsive. At times I am fustrated. For example, about the time the Dianetics article begin to have an introduction that made sense (to me, a person who knows the subject), then ChrisO went to User_talk:ScienceApologist and asked him for "a hand". I wasn't terribly polite to Science Apologist, but on the other hand the Dianetics and Scientology discussion pages are full of such editor comments as: and even ChrisO has made such comments as, "you don't understand Scientology very well, do you?" It is a volatile area because it touches on people's beliefs. Some see Scientology as an "evil cult", others see it as a useful tool in day to day life, others find it has been helpful and want to help others with some of its tools. It is a volatile area, full of strong emotion. I would say that in general my conduct has not produced the results I hoped for. I would also request that however it is accomplished, Articles be introduced so a reader can understand what is being talked about before the controvery is placed into the article. I would further request and point out, it is inappropriate to say, "All Science has stated that Dianetics is pseudoscience" when perhaps a dozen individual Doctors of Medicine have stated their individual opinions. I guess I could reply to more of ChrisO's individual points and will do so if requested, but I think this response is sufficient. Whether I do it or someone else does it, I would say we editors have not at this time, appropriately introduced most of the articles this Rfc is about.Terryeo 14:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your criminal Church is actively promoting a lie and you are working as an agent for that church.
 * You are a fraud and the Church of Scientology is a fraud.
 * I have no idea how to communicate with people as ignorant as you, Terryeo.
 * Don't worry Terryeo. There is still time for you to save yourself from your criminal cult.
 * You pathetic liar.
 * You are a filthy liar. Talk:Thetan

Finally there is the individuals who are initiating and signing this Rfc. Obviously most are of good intent and edit as individuals. However, it is obvious from the following comment which I have cut and pasted, that at least some editors want one and only one POV present all across the Dianetics and Scientology articles. Alt.religion.scientology has been known for years to be very hostile to Scientology. I found this commment to ChrisO in one of the Scientology related articles:
 * "I'm not sure what that entails, but I'm certainly in favor of anything but puts a stop to Terryeo's passive-aggressive-vandalism, not just on this article but on many others. I already put a notice on the Incidents noticeboard here, not that I really expect anything to come out of it. More than anything else, I'm just trying to point out to more editors - and hopefully admins - that his edits bear constant scrutiny. Perhaps a post could be made to alt.religion.scientology about the matter. wikipediatrix 20:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)".
 * To which, ChrisO replied (approximently) ..not just yet.. Terryeo 03:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Particularly exacerbating examples
ChrisO spent some time creating this Rfc. It is pointed to me. At User talk:Terryeo, he says his intent is a "lengthy ban". I have responded by stating my intent and by giving an example of the sort of personal attacks I have received. There is much more to it though. NPOV is our foundation. ChrisO presents the extremes of his POV, but there is more to the situation. Here is some of the background of the dispute.
 * Evidence of exacerbating the dispute by the endorsing parties.
 * "Playing the System" - ChrisO attempted to modify WP:CITE to justify the inclusion of a citation. The Confidential Class VIII "Assists" citation contributes very little to the article (according to its author it requires about 2 years of education in its specialized area to understand it).
 * When that failed and I attempted to get a good introduction to the article (Dianetics), ChrisO called my attempts "Bizarre" .Terryeo 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Specifically, what he said was that he found it bizarre that you were deleting large chunks of the article that were very similar to an earlier version of which you previously had not contested. The very link you cite also shows your response to him, was, in fact, IMHO, bizarre. And more importantly, your response to him did a lot of frothing and fingerpointing, but did not answer his query. As usual. wikipediatrix 03:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He gave me no opportunity to answer a question because he did not ask a question. One sentence ends with a question mark; "So are we to assume that he disagrees with himself?" (refering to me). That isn't a question but is an evaluation.  It tends to embrittle the difficulty rather than asking a direct question which would resolve the difficulty.  He could have asked:  "The recent edit you did, (link), appears substantively like what was here (link) which you apparently agreed with.  What is the difference that you objected to when you deleted with your recent edit?"  But he didn't do that.  He didn't even ask a question.Terryeo 14:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't know what to tell you, Terryeo: where I come from, if it ends in a question mark, it's a question. And I shouldn't have to explain to you that his post was wondering out loud why you deleted what you did when you previously didn't object to the same deleted text, and that you made no effort to specifically answer this. wikipediatrix 21:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do know what to tell you, it is neither a direct question to me nor does it show respect for me as an editor. It says, "if you are so dumb that you disagree with yourself then you should reply to this".  He didn't ask, I didn't answer because he didn't ask. Terryeo 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But you DID think it was more important to take the time to type "Well, aren't you friendly, Mr. Cite-unpublished-confidential-documents and modify-wikipedia-guidelines-to-justify-it and then in the talk page, keep your fingers crossed that I don't get called into the discussion and explain that your editing of the guideline happened because you "just felt right" about editing a guideline to justify including an unpublished, confidential document. HA ! bizarre! HA!" instead of explaining your repeated deletions in your edit, which was, after all, the issue ChrisO was expressing confusion about? wikipediatrix 03:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my response to ChrisO at that time.Terryeo 12:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Playing the system" - ChrisO (after a lengthy period of absence) came into the Talk:Dianetics page, found editors working toward a consense of opinion about "pseudoscience" and, perhaps, on the way to a concensus. He stated his opinion and placed the article into mediation, which locked the article from edits and prevented a concensus from being achieved.  More importantly (to editing efforts) it dispersed the efforts of editors toward concensus.
 * Excuse me, but you claim that ChrisO's request for mediation "locked the article from edits". Dianetics was in mediation approximately from February 6th through February 20th. I see that you alone made at least thirty-five edits to Dianetics during that period.  What exactly do you mean by "locked the article from edits"?  It's pretty clear that whatever you mean by that is not what anyone else would assume it means. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I mean the following. at:
 * you find:
 * 17:57, 12 February 2006 Katefan0 (protected)
 * 17:08, 17 February 2006 Friday (removing ) ; during which period of time (Feb 12 to Feb 17) the article was locked from being edited, or to say it another way, it was protected from being edited. This was because of the mediation that was happening.  The mediation that was happening was because ChrisO placed it into mediation.  I am stating and you will find if you explore it on the Talk:Dianetics history page, that editors were nearing a concensus about "pseudoscience" just before ChrisO submitted the Dianetics article to mediation.  The Dianetics article, though mature, gets about 6 edits a day.  There was a previous time too when editors were near a concensus.  At that earlier time, ChrisO made large, sweeping edits with a large number of citations.  Many of those citations were poor citations.  By "poor citations" I mean that to explore his citations in the article, a person would need 2 copies of the book Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health, two copies printed at different times and on different continents.  Another example is that he used a 6 word phrase and cited, as a source for his 6 word phrase, an entire book from Freud's Complete Works.  That's a poor citation.  There were other examples too.  The point I'm making here is that ChrisO introduced a large amount of new information with lots (probably 'way too many) citations into the article, poor citations, at a time when editors were nearing a concensus.  That is Two, count them, One, Two, interruptions at times when editors were near concensus about certain points in the article.  That is what I mean by "Playing the System" and what I mean by "locked the article".Terryeo 13:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Playing the system" - ChrisO noticed the Dianetics article was being discussed by editors toward treating Dianetics as a theory per WP:NOR. He apparently did not want such discussion.  Therefore went to the Intelligent Design talk page, copied the top - of - discussion - page template and pasted it on the top of Talk:Dianetics. It states that no discussion can happen on the page except discussion about Dianetics as pseudoscience.  Editors were discussing the possibility of treating Dianetics as a theory WP:NOR, his placing the template was timed to prevent such discussion.  Intelligent Design is a theory and proposes a way of observing, about how to look at things. Dianetics is an activity, an action.  Intelligent design provides a point to view from, proposes a manner of observing what exists.  Dianetics is an action, an activity.  It has ideas behind it but it is not a simply an observing, it is an activity, something a person does.  Intelligent design is not a good parallel example, but ChrisO insisted the two subjects be treated similarly, be discussed on talk pages similarly and attempted to prevent any other discussion from happening.Terryeo 21:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Entheta
Now I haven't been as involved in your disputes as some other users here, but your response does not explain why you ask for citations on elementary statements and why you accuse me of making original research on Talk:Ron's Journal 67 (that article has since been expanded by someone else).

Of course stating that "all Science has stated that Dianetics is pseudoscience" is inappropriate without a proper citation. It would be proper to say that there have been no independent verifications of the workability of Dianetics, and that the scientific research that has been done shows it to have no effect (I can't remember the name or date of the experiment right now, I'll try to find it or maybe someone else knows). This can be backed up by references. Scientific research (as opposed to "drinking lots of rum and popping pinks and greys") is also not just "opinions". (And then, of course, Dianetics and the teachings of Scientology are copyrighted, so you're not allowed to practice it without the consent of the RTC, so nobody is allowed to make independent research into this anymore.) As for the "confidential" upper level materials they may not have been published publicly by the church, but they have been published elsewhere, sometimes by the church to chosen people, sometimes by others - legally or illegally, sometimes as a part of a court case, so they should qualify as references. How come you don't want references from your own church to be used in some cases, while at other times you do, and you want critical references removed?

I will give you credit for one thing tho, and that is for not claiming that "anyone can go into a bookstore and find out everything about scientology", like Mike Rinder does. (Entheta 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I've only seen Rinder speak once, I don't know much about his point of view. For public purposes, for purposes of finding out about Scientology I think that is fairly accurate.  No, you can't learn all there is to know in a public bookstore, but then too, you can study Scientology Technology for 4 solid years and do nothing else and still not know all there is to know about it. Terryeo 21:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The point you raise about scientific demonstrations that Dianetics is unscientific. The Dianetics talk talk page has worked on that for a long time.  Apparently there have been three scientific studies which were done by people trained in some element of psychology.  All of them could have used a larger sample size.  Two of them were done without a Dianetics trained person overseeing the procedures.  One of them, the sample group was drugged before doing the Dianetics procedures, thus the study results are at least questionable if not plainly wrong.  Dianetics procdure requires people not take any drugs for a period of time before Dianetics is run.
 * I'm sure you're aware that the Fox study you're referring to was done both with the assistance of the Dianetics Research Foundation and with a subject supplied by the Foundation, the anesthetic (needed to produce unconsciousness in the subject) was administered in the presence of representatives of the Foundation, and the Foundation participated in the experiment for a period of six months afterwards. The procedure was even modified at the suggestion of a Foundation representative to increase its effectiveness.  What is your explanation for why they participated so willingly in the study if the results were sure to be "at least questionable if not plainly wrong"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the "Fox study" had drugs administered in the presence of and with the blessings of the Dianetics Research Foundation. You mean the one in Kansas?  That sounds pretty fishy to me but then, as I've said before, I don't know it all.  Where is the link to that at, please ? Terryeo 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The citation is at Dianetics. Fox was in Los Angeles and the Foundation there is referred to. The timeframe was late 1950, and remained unpublished till 1959. It is a study of one. PUB:MED misassignes it to a New York University study. Dianetics people were present for the drugs represented, but not at all times. An unlimited number of drugs or other shocks could have been used. The study had no such controls. There is no record any words were said beyond the the claims of Fox who said 36 words were administered, and no Dianetic control person observed all the activities.  The preclear had the ability of sonic recall before the drugs and not after. Fox took no responsibility for destroying this ability with the test. This was a research study, so the prohibition on drugs might not apply. Modern procedures, with hindsight, make it clear what the obvious errors were. He had chemical drugs in his system and had not removed them before auditing began. I would like to put the preclear on a meter and found out what really did happened. I suspect no words were actually said. If the tapes could be supoened, then one might know. If the tapes did not even represent what was done, then one would have to use a meter to find the truth from the preclear. Sample size of one, no controls, chemical drugs in the guys system, reduced ability after given the test,...leaves a study far removed from the realm of science, it is more like a psychiatric demonstration of military "Pain, Drug, Hypnosis", PDH technique in psychological warfare and Disinformation. Spirit of Man 20:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting theory, Spirit of Man, but I do have to point out that it represents an actual example of that legal phrase which you took such a liking to, "malicious disregard for the truth". You are alleging that Fox not only committed scientific fraud and deliberately sabotaged his own test, you're suggesting that he committed electroshock on the test subject -- and you have absolutely no evidence that anything of the sort ever happened.  None at all except that the test did not produce the results that your theory of the world predicted that it should.  I have to point out:  this is why scientific experiments are done in the first place, to tell us whether our theories of the world are accurate or not.  To accept studies that tell you what you want to hear, and dismiss those that challenge your worldview as obviously sabotaged by corrupt electroshocking psychs, is not science.  It is prejudice.  You are trying to reason backwards from the conclusion you wish to reach:  you say Fox "took no responsibility" for destroying the subject's "ability of sonic recall" with the test; that the subject had that ability before the test and not after.  You seem to be forgetting that the whole purpose that the test was conducted -- and the reason that the Foundation and the subject participated in the test -- was in fact to determine whether he had that ability. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to offend you. I ment to relay the citation on the Dianetics article to Terryeo with a simple description of the test. The test did involve people from the foundation, but not at all times. If you wish to go beyond that you may take that up on my talk page. This Request for Comment/Terryeo is not the place for it. Spirit of Man 06:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't offended. I was just pointing out why your rather lengthy explanation (equally relevant or irrelevant as my response to it) of why the Fox study was "far removed from the realm of science" -- based on the unsupported assumption that Fox himself sabotaged it, based in turn solely on the fact that the results weren't what Dianetics theory would have predicted -- showed a poor grasp of the key principles of science, where the possibility that our experimental results will contradict theory is exactly why experiments are done. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The second, and again a small sample size, the people in the sample were run on Dianetics for a rather brief period of time. That study to is at least questionable and probably just plain wrong because Dianetics procedures of years ago spell out to "audit intensively" while Dianetics procedures of today, with a modern E-Meter, have a specific and particular end result which is to be achieved before an auditing session ends.  The third study (from the Dianetics Talk page) was overseen by trained Dianeticists.  Its sample size was 88 people, again not a very large sample but the largest of these three.  Its result showed an average increase in IQ of 10 points.  There might be other studies.  I would encourage you to get into it at Talk:Dianetics.  As a point of information, many people make an attestation, a statement, after a Dianetics procedure which states what they think has happened.  Those are usually very positive. Terryeo 14:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Re Talk:Ron's Journal 67. 11:37, 23 February 2006 Terryeo (reply about Xenu an Ron's Journel 67)
 * The other issue you raise is still being worked out at Talk:Dianetics. Of course I am aware that your chosen screen name exemplifies and presents your POV, Entheta.  In Scientology terminology, "entheta" is enturbulated (mixed up, confused, scrambled) thought.  I understand you present your POV with your screen name.  My position on unpublished (to the public) citations is above.  But for you I'll put it this way.  If you wished to belittle and destroy a group, wouldn't an excellent method be to procure their most confidential documents, edit them to your personal satisfaction and then present them to the public?  Isn't that exactly what the Xenu site has done with the particular document I mention?  But the issue shouldn't arise anyway, A History of Man has a number of statements of the far past and there are other statements in other Scientology books.  What need for that particular document?  Good quality, widely available, undisputed citations make much better verifications than unpublished, stolen documents held on foreign servers. Terryeo 12:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have seen your response there regarding RJ67 and I decided not to waste my time answering you because you were again accusing me of making original research after I had given you several references that also point out that Hubbard is refereing to Incident II. I know he doesn't say Xenu, for the reason that it is confidential, and he says he doesn't go into great detail because "it's very likely to make you sick too". RJ67 is also refered to in the Xenu article. You are creating a dispute about this where there is nothing to dispute. It's just silly and I don't want to waste my time on things like that.
 * If it is not worth your time to respond to me there, how is it worth your time to respond to me here? You state that Hubbard refers to "Xenu" in RJ67.  I ask you where, exactly, and you say he doesn't so state but that he implies.  I ask you "isn't that Original Research?) (WP:OR) and you grow bored with the conversation don't don't consider it worth replying to, but now reply here.  What is the logic to that? Terryeo 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I say no that is not original research on my part, as I pointed out by giving you those references. I agree with those people who say he's talking about OT3, but that doesn't make it original research. Yes I got bored witht hat discussion because you don't seem to want to listen to reason, so I decided to ignore it, but this time it concerns not just that article but all of your involvment in Wikipedia. (Entheta 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
 * RJ67 does not mention the phrase, "OT III", it does not mention the phrase "Xenu". Those incidents, according to the citations you have provided, happened millions of years ago.  Well, in a period of time of millions of years, how can you be so sure the RJ67 is pointing to those incidents that you cite?  It is original research and your conclusion are is not stated in RJ67, nor do the other citations which you and other mention, reference to RJ67.  You draw connections, but you have not links to draw connections with except both happened a long time ago.  What if I told you that there were 2000 incidents of tremendous magnitude between 100 million years ago and 5 million years ago?  Would you believe me?  Of course you would not, but the situation tells you that your conclusion is OR, it is not stated there is a link in any verification anyone has supplied.  That it is OR should be obvious, you simply don't see any of the words in RJ67 appearing in any of the other documents.  As that article stands it is being used a springboard to present controversial information.  That isn't encylopedia editing.  Just because you and 50 other editors agree it is, it still is not encylopedic editing.  It is against Wikipedia policy.  This is exactly the sort of situation that gets us all going.  I point out the most obvious, bald, straightforeward fact and 20 editors disagree.  But in at least this one, single instance, I am correct and you are wrong. Terryeo 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to look at the references I gave you? They say RJ67 is about the Wall of Fire, so how is that Original research on my part? And did you listen to RJ67? He says "Wall of fire". He says "Section three OT". He specifically says "75 million years ago". I listened to it again just now to confirm this. I rest my case. If you still think you're right and I'm wrong on this, I guess there's not much reason for me to try to convince you. Does anyone care to offer a third opinion on this? (Entheta 22:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
 * Third opinion: If the tape does not say something, then you cannot say that it does say something. You can say that these events are very similar to his later writings about Xenu and all that stuff, and you can quote other people making that link, but you cannot submit as fact your own opinion. However, I fail to see an appreciable difference between "section three OT" and "OT III", as far as I'm concerned that one is good. The legal issues being raised are horsehit; wikipedia is a global effort, not an American one. The location of either the wikipedia servers or any other servers does not make a shred of difference. Tenebrous 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I really was talking about the documentation of it. I listened to RJ67 some time ago and hadn't remembered that passage and that passage was not quoted in the article, which would be the appropriate thing to do.  If it is quoted appropriate, cited appropriately then that is a different sort of situation than has been in the article for some while. Terryeo 01:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. After I wrote my last response here I started to read the Rolling Stone article. where I found an interesting quote about this. "Indeed, as even Rinder himself points out, Hubbard presented a rough outline of the Xenu story to his followers in a 1967 taped lecture, "RJ 67," in which he noted that 75 million years ago a cataclysmic event happened in this sector of the galaxy that has caused negative effects for everyone since. This material is available to lower-level Scientologists. But the details of the story remain secret within Scientology."  So, Terryeo: if even Mike Rinder says this has to do with Xenu, how can it not be about Xenu? (Entheta 00:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC))
 * That is a pretty good sort of citation, even though it requires real player. At least the information is clearly not Original Research and any reader can explore more of it if they wish to. Terryeo
 * I haven't followed the edit wars on the Dianetics article, so I don't know about all the disputes there. I do know what my own screen name means. I know confidential documents have been taken and published and sometimes made public in courts of law. I don't know what confidential documents have been "edited to personal satisfation" or by whom. This time, I'll be the one to ask you for references to back up that claim.
 * Sure, I'm happy to tell you what I know about the situation. The documents have not been published to the public by the Church of Scientology who owns the documents.  Are we agreed on that point?  Then, after that, the documents have been somehow stolen (or something) and "published" according to Swedish Law.  Are we agreed on that?  Now, what proof do we have those "Swedish Publications" are the actual documents which the Church of Scientology holds as confidential and refuses to publish?  Well, we have one man's word, one man hostile (obviously hostile) to the Church of Scientology.  What proof do we have that he did not in some way modify the documents before he sent copies to every member of the Swedish Legislature?  Well, we have his word.  But is his word an "irrefutable source?") per WP:V ?  I am pretty sure you refuse to accept my word on a number of issues, but you take his word (a thief) on this occassion.  Do you see the parallel? Terryeo 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Irrefutable source" does not appear on WP:V. You've invented similar phrasings before, such as here. Tenebrous 00:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's true, "Irrefutable source" does not at this time appear in WP:V. But it is implied, I would say by several mentions of "refutable source" and by mentions of the necessisity of good qualities of source (whenever possible of course). Terryeo 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes of course I see the parallel, but again you're creating a dispute where there is none and you're making assumptions that Xenon Panoussis or someone would be forging documents. I am no expert on the Panoussis case, but it seems logical to me that if the CofS sued for copyright infringment, they would have to show to the court that the documents were in fact theirs, and not some modified documents. (Entheta 11:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC))
 * That a man stole documents and published them by the laws of Sweden makes them published in Sweden. Fine, good.  But the quality of that publication should we weighted against other factors.  WP:V does say that.  Who can know that the documents published by that method are exactly the documents which the Church of Scientology holds as Confidential and unpublished? I'm not arguing they are published in Sweden, nor am I saying they should not be cited at all.  But why involve Wikipedia in contested information when the use of those citations in the articles they appear in contribute almost nothing to the articles they appear in?  Space Opera, for example,  it has a number of examples, widely published for many years examples of Space Opera. The Confidential Document cited there contributes almost nothing to the article.  What need is there for Wikipedia to act as an "expose' newspaper?" Terryeo 01:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be up to them and is far beyond my scope or Wikipedia's scope but we can use encylopedic editing to present encylopedic information rather than newspaper sort of inflammatory editing which includes every possible point of difficulty. Terryeo 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Foreign servers", oooh scary. just like foreign people, huh? Foreign to whom? If a critic happens to live in Norway, would it be strange for him to host his websites on Norwegian servers? Scientology has members and critics world wide. I'm in Sweden, so I guess I'm foreign too, from an Americacentric worldview. I don't see what that has to do with the discussion or how it affects my credibility, or how "the Xenu site"'s being Norwegian affects its credibility. (Entheta 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure what you imply by "scary". Some laws in Sweden are different from some laws in the USA.  In Sweden there is one and only one "offical church" and a person's freedom of religion is not nearly as great as in the USA.  That doesn't make anyone right or anyone else wrong.  Wikipedia servers are located in Florida, in the USA.  That document exists on servers in Sweden.  It doesn't make anyone's infomation any less or any more important.  It does place some informations into an area that we should have care with.  I have tried to spell this out for you.  How does what you say matter to the issue at hand? Terryeo 23:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "it does place some informations into an area that we should have care with" what does this mean? Sweden, in fact, no longer has a state religion as of 2000. And even when it did I don't think the Church cared that much about what "informations" webmasters where distributing regarding American religious organizations. --Krsont 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * "Scary" was meant as a joke, because from reading your earlier statement, "foreign" seemed to be something bad and unreliable. Like Krsont pointed out, Sweden does not have a state church or "official religion". It's a very secular country where religious groups have much less political influence compared to what they (or at least christian groups) have in the USA.


 * Umm, I feel baited, like you want me to respond to your statement about which country has the less active religous effect in politics. But our talk is about a controversial citation.  One which is protected by copyright laws in the country which houses Wikipedia servers.  That people get too upset to make sense of the situation should tell you that the Church of Scientology has at least some germ of reason for holding them as "confidential".Terryeo 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There is something called "fair use" (in the USA) that allows entities and people (including a web-based encyclopedia) to quote from copyrighted documents for certain purposes. For example, David Touretzy currently hosts this information about OTIII right in the "good ol' USA": OT3 Dave's OT3 Scholarship page liberally quoting from OT3 "secret", "copyrighted" documents.  While the Church of Scientology spent years fighting over in Europe to hide the secret OT3 texts, they haven't yet bothered attempting to sue David Touretzky or Carniegie Mellon.  This is because CoS knows full well that his use of the "secret" "disputed" "controversial" "copyrighted" texts is fully protected by US law under the provisions of "fair use". Vivaldi 07:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You certainly seem to have valid information about "fair use", but your information at the end of your paragraph regarding the Church of Scientology's knowledge is not accurate. You seem to base it on the idea that the internet address you specificy, "http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst.." is held on servers in the usa.  But the ".cs" is a country code and not in the usa.  ICANN is the corperation responsible for assignment of that kind of address information.  Their page,  at ICANN --  you can find .cs  –  Serbia and Montenegro  which says the servers which hold that information are in the country of Serbia or Montenegro.  My point here is that the information in those documents which the Church of Scientology holds as confidential requires an amount of education.  Those documents contain words which are not in common use, which are specialized terms.  Words like "thetan" and "engram" and "reactive mind" and "overt" have certain meanings within Scientology and for that particular document to be understood, a number of such terms must be fully understood.  It requires some education to understand that particular document.  The same is true of ChrisO's often cited Class VIII "Assists" lecture.  At least two years of hard study is neeeded before a student in the Church of Scientology would come to that document in his course of study.  There are a broad range of Dianetics and Scientology articles that we are working on. There are literally millions of published words which can be cited.  What need is there for those kinds of contested citations?  They contribute very little, they are full of specialized jargon, they are legally contested and they don't actually help us write good articles. Terryeo 13:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "You seem to base it on the idea that the internet address you specificy, "http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst.." is held on servers in the usa. But the ".cs" is a country code and not in the usa. [...] the servers which hold that information are in the country of Serbia or Montenegro."  ... !!!  Wow.  That's ... so amazingly wrong, I'm not even sure where to start.  The nugget of truth, I guess, is that if there is a country code in an HTTP URL, it would appear in the section Terryeo indicates, the hostname section directly after the "//" and before the next "/".  However, country codes are top-level domains, meaning that if they appear in a hostname, it's as the last label in the host; the top-level domain in "www.cs.cmu.edu" is the ".edu", not the ".cs".  The ".cmu" immediately to the left of the ".edu" identifies the host as belonging to the Carnegie Mellon University, and since "http://www.cs.cmu.edu/" is the homepage for the Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, it is much more likely to think that the subdomain ".cs" stands for "Computer Science" than that it proves that the servers hosting all such pages are located in Serbia or Montenegro. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right on this one, and I'm mistaken, Feldspar.Terryeo 18:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Fahrenheit451
The Fair Game Policy IS and HAS BEEN used by the Office of Special Affairs and the Guardian's Office before it. I know this for a fact, because I observed it being used. You can go to Alt.religion.scientology and read cases present and past of former members being attacked and investigated who left or were expelled for disagreements with David Miscavige and his agenda.--Fahrenheit451 00:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you should go to that article with your verifications and place them in it. Terryeo 12:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Which I did with the David Miscavige article. There you go again, Terryeo, attacking an editor with false accusations.--Fahrenheit451 01:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What? You consider, "then you should place your verifications in the article" as an attack?  What? Terryeo 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Farenheit451 should just be ignored. --JimmyT 14:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attack from JimmyT.--Fahrenheit451 17:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * see my comment below regarding YOUR behavior. In a professional setting we would have two options: either ignore you or have you removed. --JimmyT 09:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I find this statement from Jimmy not just highly inCIVIL but also, frankly, quite frightening. -- Antaeus Feldspar 13:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you a chicken or are you crazy? Haven't you ever heard some say "removed from the discussion" as in the person escorted from the room so they no longer disturb the meeting. --JimmyT 14:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * "Have you removed" can mean many things. The only way I have of guessing what a particular person means by it is by the rest of that person's behavior.  If that person generally showed an ability and a preference to deal with difficult situations calmly, and quietly, then I might think they mean "escorting the person from the room".  What your behavior shows, however, is a disturbing level of open hostility which I would say even verges on paranoia (,, , ) and a belief that you are above any "silly rules" that are in place about acceptable behavior.  You've expressed a belief that other editors here "want to execute [you] with torture"; if you think such a thing why are we supposed to believe that you won't next think "Since they want to do it to me, I'm justified in doing it to them first"? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are not mentioning the bulk of your hostile comments on my editing which can be found on the dicussion page of the cited article. That is what. And there you go again, same tactics, purposely do not acknowledge your disruptive actions, and pretend innocence.--Fahrenheit451 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. You state that I have attacked you here by stating, "then you should go to to that article with your verifications and place them in it?"  How is that hostile?  You are directing hostility to me and saying you are justified.  When I don't do your work for you then you say I am being hostile and pretending innocence.  I don't understand at all.  Nothing in this section of this page has been hostile to you, yet you consistantly and constantly accuse me of being hostile to you.  What exactly phrase do you read as being hostile? Terryeo 01:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One example is your first reply in this section. It is hostile and a personal attack when you falsely accuse. The verifications for my edits have long since been added.--Fahrenheit451 07:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC) ":Then you should go to that article with your verifications and place them in it. Terryeo 12:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)"
 * At last, a coherent reply instead of an accusation. Now we are into "is" and "is not" which leads us no where.  But that article states the Church's postion, "Fair game was a policy .." and that's just about as much as my interest is.Terryeo 13:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Rereading the section, I still don't see what vilification you are reacting to, I don't believe I have made a hostile statement. Terryeo 21:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 451's behavior is an example of what they talk about in Dianetics: A=A=A=A=A... --JimmyT 14:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ad-hominem attack from JimmyT.--Fahrenheit451 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fahrenheit, you say "hostile and a personal attack when you falsely accuse" in response to Terry's "Then you should go to that article with your verifications and place them in it." Care to explain where in Terry's comment he made a hostile personal attack falsely accusing you? A=A=A=A=A refers to one of the phenomenon of the reactive mind. It is not ad-hominem. It is my observation of YOUR conduct and it's potential detrimental effect on Wikipedia. --JimmyT 09:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Another ad-hominem attack from JimmyT. I wonder what part of "ad-hominem" he does not understand?--Fahrenheit451 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment from ScienceApologist
I am surprised that while the user made mention of the fact that his conduct with respect to me was inappropriate, he has yet to offer an apology for his behavior. If this user is going to become completely intolerable to work with simply because editors with whom he disagrees ask others for help there is no way I can see him becoming a member of a Wikipedia community dedicated to consensus. This is too bad because I think that if the user had given me a chance he would have found I would have been an interesting sort of editor. I have a passing interest in new religious movements and think, for example, that plain characterizations of these groups as cults is an extreme violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy, and have said so on other occasions. Scientology is a religion that suffers from the same travails other religions did when they were founded (see Christian Science, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Society of Friends, Christianity, etc.) There are a lot of people out there who are shoot-from-the-hip anti-Scientology while giving a first-round bye to older religions. There are also members of the Church of Scientology who, like the members of any other religion, cannot stand to see their religion malligned.

The issue is that people who are members of Wikipedia are Wikipedia members first and advocates for their causes (whatever they are) second. If an editor feels that they cannot put their commitment to the community ahead of their own brand of advocacy, then they will do whatever they can to thwart the spirit and letter of the ideals of the Wikipedia community. Such people should be asked to refrain from becoming heavily involved in Wikipedia because they cannot see the forest for the trees as it were. That User:Terryeo cannot even find it in himself to apologize indicates to me that he has this problem.

--ScienceApologist 12:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Gosh and golly Mr. Science Apologist, I sure appreciate your persistant effort to evaluate my behaviour, golly, I really do. :) However, I don't agree with the basis on which your evaluation rests.  I believe your statements strongly imply that I am "placing my own brand of advocacy" ahead of my "commitment to the (Wikipedia) community".  I disagree with that and I don't understand how my initial statement above does not make entirely clear that my efforts are toward implementing Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines.  "My cause" is really very very simple and straight.  I'll say it again.  A subject needs to be introduced.  How simple can it be?  "My Cause" is Wikipedia's cause.  A subject (be it apples or oranges or plums) needs to be introduced before its controversial elements.  It needs to be introduced so that a new-to-the-subject reader can understand it.  Then, after it is introduced elements of controversy can be introduced because then the reader can see how controversy can apply.  This is not "my cause" but this is Wikipedia's cause.  It is simply good encyclopedic writing.  As an example in point, if you choose to explore it, Thetan has a history.  You could look at this and read it and come away with some idea what is meant by the term "thetan".  And then, compare that to the present time article which ChrisO and Feldspar have extensively introduced their brand of editing into.  In the present version do you come away feeling you understand the meaning of the term?  It seems to me that a reader not only comes away uncertain what the term means, but additionally, comes away being pretty sure there is not and never has nor never will be any use for such an idea, for such a term.  It isn't NPOV editing, it doesn't present the subject. (my opinion).  About an apology, you are free to read above about why I don't feel an apology is appropriate. But I already said that. Terryeo 13:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If what you really want is a straightforward introduction of material, part of straightforwardly introducing material is making it clear when there are signficant criticisms leveled against a subject. It is not NPOV to pretend that criticisms do not exist or to relegate them to the bottom of articles when they are significant. You need to be aware that consensus ultimately decides whether a criticism is significant and it is clear to me that consensus is not in favor of your view of how criticisms should be dealt with in these articles.
 * As for your rationale an apology not being appropriate, I think you have basically shown yet again that you will flaunt policy when you feel it is in your own best interest. Claiming that you are justified in attacking me simply because other people attacked you is no defense -- not in court and not in Wikipedia. Maybe that's what your religion teaches, but it isn't in line with what the Church of Wikipedia's dogma is.
 * --ScienceApologist 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your line reads, "Church of Wikipedia's dogma". umm, take 2 asperin and try again in the morning.  That is what I want.  I good, clean, easy to understand introduction.  I want Wikipedia's policies and guidelines followed, this means introducing the subject first.  That way a reader can understand what the controversy is about. Before WP:CON can apply, a subject needs be introduced.  We all follow the same guidelines and are subject to the same policiesTerryeo 20:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Your inability to spell, your inability to communicate logically, and your inability to separate your feelings from facts completely disqualify you from writing this "good, clean, easy to understand introduction" of which you speak. And that's not a personal attack, it's a verifiable statement of fact that is crucial to the integrity of these articles. If you were one of my students, I would grade your Wikipedia writing (strictly based on spelling and grammar) somewhere between C minus and D minus. If I were grading you based on communication skills and fulfilling the spirit of the intended assignment, you'd get an F. wikipediatrix 19:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is another example of the sort of disorganized, reactive chatter that happens all through the Dianetics and Scientology articles. The top of this page lays out an organization for the page.  Reader other and earlier Rfc's will show they generally are fairly well organanized, as this one once was.  Everyone has an opportunity to say all they want to.  But this back and forth "I support so and so about this" but don't think "that" is right... well, it leads to disorganization, it makes any single arguement difficult to follow, it is dispersive.  Wikipediatrix, if you state make your statements against me, head them with your screen name, then they have more weight than if you scatter them as replies to replies, which lead to more replies to replies. Terryeo 04:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)