Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige A Wikipedia editor with an interest in biographies of living persons, has started a project (seperate from the larger wikipedia Scientology project) to review the neutrality of Scientology articles. I've read their discussions so far, and have concerns about this initiative. For example, they have put up a proposal to delete Jenny's page (which is admittedly crappy), claiming that her only 'claim to faim' is her family connection to David Miscavige, and failing to notice that ABC Nightline did a half hour portrait on her back in 2008. Also, on his own talk page he is admitting he is receiving input from banned editors but failing to provide full disclosure. So my OSAOSAOSA claim in the title seems reasonable to me. I am willing to spend some time on this, but I am not a wikipedian myself. Perhaps anons with experience in this area would care to help me out? Thanks. Jenny's deletion page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jenna Miscavige Hill - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The guys talk page: User talk:Scott MacDonald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Project page: Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Wikipedia editors became a cult of it's own. Neutrality became more important even when lives are at stake. Some morons just don't care about justice, when they can leave the articles for a while when there are no flame wars. You can TRY to be neutral but only morons do not have an opinion. The non-morons all have agendas, or else why spent so much energy? It has been shown that cults members use their position to protect their own real cults, and sympathetic to other real cults. The fact is, Wikipedia can become a worthless piece of shit overnight. They can't stand any attacks if they outlived their usefulness. They can lock any page, ban any ip, with their army. But they can't protect all pages and ban all ip's all the time. Most of the proxies in the public Russian list aren't even banned by default.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige The worst ones arrive from WikipediaReview. They claim that they want to reform, but always have secret lists, back-channel communications and ends-justify-the-means groupthink.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige That editor seems to have gone through several name changes in just a couple of years on Wikipedia. That's never a good sign.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige What's the reasoning behind wanting to delete whole articles, just because from some fag's SPOV they are not important enough? When there are several news article about a person, then the person becomes automatically important enough to be included. If you don't want to read an article, don't click on it!
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige A couple of other pages that I looked for recently that have been deleted were those for Stacey Moxon and Elizabeth Eagleton Weigand.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Suggest someone emails the editors of wikipedia with a reasonable letter detailing what is neutral and what is just being an apologist is. For example, removing the Jenna Miscavige article from wikipedia isn't maintaining neutrality in any way shape or form. Your not biased against Scientology as long as you stick to the facts and as long as you have valid sources backing up the claims. If it just happens to be critical on Scientology, that might have something to do with Scientology bringing it upon themselves sense the 70s.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige If the large number of references could be worked in as inline cites, the article would be greatly improved and many of the objections to it would vanish.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Remember how in Animal Farm you could re-write history, and other Orwell? Well, it could just as well be renamed 1984pedia. Plus that fucker staring a hole thru my head..... Down with 'pedia!
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige This Scott McDonald guy just deleted most of the discussion of his own user page. In particular section in which people raise concern about the way he is handling this project. How does wikipedia work? I would imagine this is not ok. But I have no idea how to report something like this...
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Sorta makes OSAOSAODSA seem a bit more valid..as we know this board is monitored closely...and his questionable comments and name changes on his page...that could make someone wonder...if he's being paid? Buttseched? In exchange for his willingness to delete or call into question things the clams want off Wikipedia? Dunno, but the recent deletions off his page are certainly smelly.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige did you screencap it? if not how to prove changes?
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Revision history of User talk:Scott MacDonald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The last action is by Scott MacDonals and if you compare you will see he deleted the discussion questioning his neutrailty in this initiative.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige facepalm Revision history of User talk:Scott MacDonald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige that's nice, but as a wiki-idiot that page means nothing to me it's moonspeak..and likely most folks who are not familiar with the way the site works. For some (stupid) people such as myself...let's just say pics are probably more useful.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Read up on the history of the Scientology articles on Wikipedia before typing nonsense please. Before Anonymous existed critics of the cult learnt how Wikipedia works, stuck to the rules and got stuff done. Cult contributors didn't bother to do this, became pains in the butt by acting like twelve year olds, and were eventually caught editing from their desks at Scientology HQ. Saying "Wikipedia is rubbish" doesn't work. Working with the system does work. 'Not notable' is a common reason for deleting Wikipedia pages. If a person is known only within a small group and everything about them of interest can be included on other pages, then out they go. Personally I'd put Jenna Miscavige in that category, her only notability is being related to a better known individual and being in public disagreement with him. There has always been a need to cut down on the Scientology content of Wikipedia. The reason is glaringly obvious: unhelpful people on both sides hope that they can out produce the other and are constantly trying to push material they don't like into an unread corner. They can't see that this is counter productive as it brings in Wikipedeans who soon work out who is not sticking to guidelines and chastise them. Another cult hope was that they could wear down opposition by constant reediting, doing effectively the same thing over and over again. That required long term vigilance by experienced editors. It's boring work, the people who have done it over the years deserve a lot of praise. I took a look at Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, it is at present focussed on possible deletions of minor pages. That's fine with me, as with everything it just has to be watched so they don't make mistakes through lack of knowledge.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige There's an interesting book called the "Merchants of Doubt: the troubling story of how a cadre of influential scientists have clouded public understanding of scientific facts to advance a political and economic agenda." I think that this editor is doing something kind of similar with his new "project" on "neutrality" in Scientology related articles. The subject of Scientology was dealt with in an extensive review by the Wikipedia arbitration committee, this new project on neutrality seems to be an attempt to do an end run around the committee's rulings and findings and to re-open the entire can of worms. The editor in question, Scott MacDonald , claims to have no involvement in editing CoS articles. This is a false claim. While he may not edit the texts of articles, he is deeply involved in editing the entire subject on wikipedia and, I think, his goal is to nullify as many articles as he can and, even worse, to re-open the whole arbitration can of worms again. His user contributions page shows just how ardent he is about doing this. This person should be challenged about his own neutrality and it will be a big bug fuck with him, but anyone who is interested in the quality and scope of articles on Wikipedia should take a look at this, as the other posts in this tread demonstrate. Wikipedia is one of the biggest sources for information for the public on the net and it includes lots of things the cult would rather not have anyone know... nuff said.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige The general notability guidelines of wikipedia don't say that the prominence of a person, i.e. the number of people who know of that person, would play a role. What counts is that there is significant coverage of that person from independent, reliable sources. This criterion is imho met for Jenna Miscavige as the list of reference on her site show. Wikipedia:Notability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige On Wikipedia Review, his user name is Doc Glasgow. From a search of his posts, it doesn't seem like he's an OSA plant, just part of a group that discusses stuff off-Wikipedia, share groupthink and have a list of things they dislike, include most admins (other than themselves) and Scientology articles. The Wikipedia Review I'm not sure I'd call him neutral and uninvolved.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige I'd suggest only people with experience dealing with Wikipedos go after this issue. It appears the Wikipedos may be deleting anything that disagrees with the deletionist agenda and the Wikipedo in question, Scott MacDonald, deletes anything on his talk page criticizing his bizarre behavior, and even gets it deleted off the page supposedly devoted to his "neutrality" campaign. For example, this whole section was just deleted entirely without comment. Apparently, "neutrality" means delete anything that disagrees with you, without comment.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige There are also the notability guidelines specifically for people: Wikipedia:Notability (people) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons: Subjects notable only for one event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Category:Female pornographic film actors - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Wikipedia is obsolete and corrupt, don't take Wikipedia seriously. I think that Wikipedia should be allowed to degrade to the point of uselessness since that's its destiny any way.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige I have edited on Wikipedia a bit and I try very hard to be neutral. But I have pretty much given up trying to edit anything related to Scientology because the editors who prevail on Scientology pages will not let common sense play any role. For instance, you can't say a person is a Scientologist even if that person has appeared in numerous Scientology publications discussing being a Scientologist, because Scientology publications are not acceptable as references. (On the other hand, if a gossip columnist says some celebrity is a Scientologist, that has been deemed acceptable!) I've found it frustrating to see how dogged many Wikipedian editors are about deleting references to people being Scientologists. For instance, this Scott MacDonald dude deleted a reference to Elisabeth Moss being a Scientologist, stating as his reason, "source says she 'practices Scientology' it does not say she self-describes Scientology as her religion." If the standard is that the person must have "self-described," then hardly anyone would ever be listed as a Scientologist. It just doesn't work out that neatly. Often you will have an interviewer ask a person about Scientology and the person will respond with a discussion of practicing Scientology, but it is extremely rare for the person to use the words "I am a Scientologist." So what I want to know is, what is going on with these editors? Are they totally neutral and simply wanting to adhere rigidly to some standard they have created?* Or do they have an agenda, either pro or anti Scientology? * At least, I think they created it; does it really say somewhere in Wikipedia's rules that for any personal information to be listed about someone, the person must have stated that it is so?
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige His hobbyhorse is WP:BLP, and he will remove WP:RS references if he feels that they aren't "neutral" and use just about any justification for that.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige He claims to not be interested in nor to have edited Scientology related articles, but he has. He's called for many stubs to be deleted on rather flimsy objections of notability. I've seen far more article about far less notable people than those he seems so keen to see deleted. Also, he initiated an entire "project" on the subject. He may be more objective than some about the subject matter, but he's certainly taken an active interest in it and I think he's off down some crazy road. There's no shortage of worthwhile things one could devote one's time to on the vast wikipedia project.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Where those deleted at the behest of this same wikipedia editor, McDonald?
I also had posted a comment about his editing and his claims on the Project talk page and it was promptly deleted by another user named "Resident Anthropologist." I was also browbeaten with several policy directives, erroneously applied, I was charged with "soapboxing" and delivering a "polemic" against McDonald. McDonald and Resident Anthropologist are collaborators on the project. If you go to Resident Anthropologist's talk page, you'll see (assuming that, too, has not been deleted) McDonald's invitation to RA. (check the edit history and archives of RA's talk page if it's been removed. It seems to me the intention here is to keep a controversy alive and the aim is to water down some of the wikipedia articles on Scientology with a round of rule lawyering and to delete "stubs" that might be developed in time on flimsy grounds of notability. There are far more articles of much less notability all over wikipedia, why select these? In a previous post in this thread, I mentioned an excellent book called "Merchants of Doubt" and I think what's happening here is following a similar pattern as to the way tobacco companies, global warming deniers and a host of other topics are challenged with objections not meant to overrule the scientific consensus on particular subjects, but rather to throw that consensus into doubt... Also, what seems very obvious is that there are also existing article all over wikipedia on far less notable people and things than those being AfDed as a result of McDonald's and others in collaboration with him are focusing on. Why? Who Benefits from removing "stubs" It seems in bad faith to remove these articles even if they are not the most notable of persons. There is something very fishy about this entire thing. I do know what you mean and I could easily be persuaded to agree. However, as of right now, wikipedia articles do get the greatest public exposure -- for good or for ill. There are many excellent articles, the primary ones. Stubs should not be deleted on flimsy grounds of notability especially given the many articles that exist about far less notable persons and things -- like someone's "day camp" or what have you. If an editor wants to patrol articles for lack of notability, there are many better targets than these. This is an effort to re-open the can of worms, wear down editors and ultimately sanitize out anything that the cult doesn't like. So, there is a fishy fetor to this, imho.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige My 2 cents: - Wikipedia is one of best offspring of the Internet - on its serious side. - Wikipedia handles the scientology topic quite well and proved its ability to make harsh decisions if needed. - Wikipedia is made by individuals that can have agendas. Keeping them in line is OK.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Well, sure, it seems great on the surface because it suggests that Wikipedia doesn't consider Scientology publications reliable. But what I object to is its being used as a blanket rule. If a Scientologist is quoted in a Scientology publication, there is little doubt that the person said it (or at least approved being quoted as having said it). You can have celebrities like Kirstie Alley or Kelly Preston saying crazy shit and not be able to quote them in any Wikipedia articles. Or if some celebrity who never talks about Scientology in the regular media goes on and on about all his successes in Scientology publications, you can't list him as being a Scientologist. If DM is quoted in a Scientology publication, it can't be used on Wikipedia. So it is both good and bad.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige McDonald and his collaborators and engaging is classic Rule Lawyering on this. They claim policy and guideline references to intimidate newbies and then engage in further rule lawyering with others. He, McDonald, also created this "project" without first proposing it, as the guidelines on "projects" suggest. When that was objected to, one of his collaborators, said, "oh he was just being bold." It was a complete misapplication of the "be bold" guideline. The idea here is to just open the can of worms again and throw the entire set of articles on the cult into question. That is the intention, too. To keep the alleged "controversy" alive. This is similar to what Jastrow and others did with the "Marshall Institute" with regard to global warming denial argumentation. The intent is not to "win" but simply to keep doubts alive. I do think this entire "project" is in bad faith, not needed and redundant. It's an instance where a charge of non-neutrality is being advanced where none really exists. (Of course, per CoS, anything that is not in lock-step with its own propaganda about itself is "not neutral" and only things which abjectly agree with them are.)
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige OMG, just read this back and forth wikifaggot discussion.. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They are all Forever Alone's and just fucking with wiki pages. Who cares, they will volley back and forth deleting pages. That Scott Mac is a pro-scientology fag that goes around claiming "i'm not racists, I have a black friend" or whatever the scientology equivalent to that would be.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Currently asking wikipedia editors for clarification on what this is about. Will get back to here when they are done researching.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Scott MacDonald is applying a fanatically hyper-deletionist policy to Scientology articles that is not applied in any other area of Wikipedia, such as with relation to Pokemon characters and YouTube "celebrities." His agenda is fairly transparent, especially when he refers to critics he wants to remove, such as Jesse Prince, as "apostates," as in this deletion proposal. Note, the article has subsequently been deleted. Describing someone as an "apostate" is itself a violation of the BLP policy that "Scott MacDonald" (who has gone through many names) claims to be defending. If you look it up in a thesaurus, synonyms for "apostate" include "AWOL, absconder, apostate, backslider, betrayer, criminal, defector, delinquent, derelict, escapee, escaper, hookey player, lawbreaker, maroon, no-show, recreant, refugee, renegade, runaway, shirker, slacker, traitor, truant." The cult apologists on Wikipedia have also changed the definition of "apostasy" to claim it is "without pejorative connotation," a clear lie. For this lie, they cite (among others) known cult apologist David Bromley, who while he claims "apostate" is nonderogatory in the (pseudo)scientific world of sociology of religion, disregards that he and his colleagues often are paid to write affidavits denouncing ex-members of cults as "apostates" in order to discredit their testimony.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Suspicious editor is suspicious. Sounds like they got to him with a buttload of cash. It may sound tinfoily but dedicating himself to it and then denying he edits the pages sets off bells. It has all the hallmarks of an OSA covert operation.
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Strange, there should have been a lot more references on that article, possibly on Talk page to be included. (Can anyone get a link to Google's cache of the Talk page?) Possibly they were just never added, leaving the article vulnerable to this sort of deletion. One Arbcom member, Jossi, spend years carefully poisoning articles and policies dealing with cult groups in general before being quietly retired. A few of his socks have been blocked, but it wouldn't be surprising if he was still lurking as someone else. Wikipedia ruled by 'Lord of the Universe' ? The Register 'Lord of the Universe' disciple exits Wikipedia ? The Register
re: Wikipedia editor proxying for OSA is deleting Jenna Miscavige Okay, wikipedia editor got back to me.
