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)
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.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia: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.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia: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 #POV editing 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.
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:
Terryeo persisted with these edits even after other editors in edit summaries ( [13], [14], [15]) and talk page discussion ( [16]) pointed him to pages ( m:When should I link externally, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, WP:MOSDAB) which spelled out that the edits he was insisting on were unsupported by policy or even directly in contradiction to it.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: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:
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia: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". [24] This is clearly prohibited at WP:3RR#Intent of the policy.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia: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:
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:
Another example:
And yet another:
And again:
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia: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:
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia: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):
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.
Terryeo continually removes the disambiguation link from the Dianetics to the D:MSHM article.
[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] - "Removed the self referencing template. An article should not self - reference."
See:
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 who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Take note of Fahrenheit's behavior as I pointed out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
-- JimmyT 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [44], 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)
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)
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)
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:
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. File:Glenstollery.gif P O W! 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment
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 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)
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.
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_(Scientology)#Thank_you_Terryeo.
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#Need_a_hand_on_Dianetics 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)
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:
ChrisO spent some time creating this Rfc. It is pointed to me. At User talk:Terryeo#Request for Comments - 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.
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") [53] 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))
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)
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)
Ad-hominem attack from JimmyT.-- Fahrenheit451 17:41, 17 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)
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)"
Ad-hominem attack from JimmyT.-- Fahrenheit451 17:42, 17 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)
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)
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)
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.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia: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.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia: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 #POV editing 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.
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:
Terryeo persisted with these edits even after other editors in edit summaries ( [13], [14], [15]) and talk page discussion ( [16]) pointed him to pages ( m:When should I link externally, Wikipedia:Disambiguation, WP:MOSDAB) which spelled out that the edits he was insisting on were unsupported by policy or even directly in contradiction to it.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia: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:
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Three revert rule, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia: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". [24] This is clearly prohibited at WP:3RR#Intent of the policy.
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia: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:
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:
Another example:
And yet another:
And again:
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia: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:
Applicable policies & guidelines: Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia: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):
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.
Terryeo continually removes the disambiguation link from the Dianetics to the D:MSHM article.
[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] - "Removed the self referencing template. An article should not self - reference."
See:
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 who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
(sign with ~~~~)
(sign with ~~~~)
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)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Take note of Fahrenheit's behavior as I pointed out here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
-- JimmyT 09:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [44], 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)
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)
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)
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:
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. File:Glenstollery.gif P O W! 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Comment
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 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)
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.
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_(Scientology)#Thank_you_Terryeo.
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#Need_a_hand_on_Dianetics 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)
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:
ChrisO spent some time creating this Rfc. It is pointed to me. At User talk:Terryeo#Request for Comments - 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.
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") [53] 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))
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)
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)
Ad-hominem attack from JimmyT.-- Fahrenheit451 17:41, 17 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)
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)"
Ad-hominem attack from JimmyT.-- Fahrenheit451 17:42, 17 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)
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)