Comments:Church of Scientology indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia
This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.
Quick hints for new commentators:
- Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
- Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
- You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading
It sounds to me as a psychiatrist that great care has been exercised in this action by Wiipedia, with balanced action against extremists from both sides. The gaming of policy and biased edits have been apparent for some time, with extreme anti-church groups resorting to some of the same abuses used for so long by the church. I'm glad Wikipedia is taking the high road to protect the site's neutrality, as far as possible. I have had beefs with the church for decades, but responsible freedom of expression trumps all. -66.215.118.244 (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
First France and now Wikipedia edit
I love you guys. --Phil1988 (talk) 21:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Of course, it's obvious that Wikipedia will now be on the "Church's" very long enemies list...(and I'll probably be included now as well for posting this, but whatever) 99.236.126.87 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Scientology just got pwned. Epically. 89.212.104.155 (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Flawless Victory.
well done edit
thank you
pqd
THANK YOU WIKIPEDIA/NEWS/MEDIA!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.27.37.76 (talk • contribs)
Wikinews edit
Wikinews came pretty close to the same thing at one stage, but the problem never got to anything that couldn't be solved by blocking individual accounts/IPs if I remember correctly. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- I was waiting for someone to say it...but with them blocked on WP, and they also knowing we have a large article base of Scientology articles, I fear they may come over here. I just hope that won't be the case. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The difference here on Wikinews is that articles only need watching for a limited time. Wikipedia has the problem of an ever-expanding number of articles that could be warred over. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but we have had issues with Scientology actually trying to tell us, and change stuff and accuse us of misreporting. Example: Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting. I am not worried, just a little concerned. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If we ever have a problem we can ask WP to cobble together as many IPs blocked as a result of the arbitration decision as they can come up with and send us the list, allowing us to block the same collection. Obviously that would require strong consensus, but if need be it is not too hard to get rid of them. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Very true, but the Church has well...thousands of IPs and several systems to connect to the net. I am not paranoid lol or the such, I just want us to be prepared for when they eventually get bored of trying on WP. We have blocked them before...but that was a while ago, and when they were on an old system if I am correct... DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- If we ever have a problem we can ask WP to cobble together as many IPs blocked as a result of the arbitration decision as they can come up with and send us the list, allowing us to block the same collection. Obviously that would require strong consensus, but if need be it is not too hard to get rid of them. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes but we have had issues with Scientology actually trying to tell us, and change stuff and accuse us of misreporting. Example: Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting. I am not worried, just a little concerned. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- The difference here on Wikinews is that articles only need watching for a limited time. Wikipedia has the problem of an ever-expanding number of articles that could be warred over. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
As a neutral party civilly in this issue; it is appalling that anyone "contributing" to Wikipedia needed such censure! Surely it is ultimately realized how immature and ill-advised an action it is to conscion taking advantage of such a noble venture as Wikipedia in the first place. Equivalently so of being known in the annals of history as being a faction guilty of rotten precendent setting (and once done, it's too late!!!). To misquote J.R.R. Tolkien: "This is a serious expedition, not a hobbit walking party! Next time, throw yourself in and you'll be no more trouble!" I grieve this planet and our inability as a civilization to take things seriously such as the concept of sharing without greed; to act WITHOUT a vested interest. Woe upon us all.
On a lighter note, kudos and thanks to Wikipedia (that's all of ya) for acting firmly and diligently, and maybe no more situations like this need exist for us to understand why the ET's don't speak to us so much; they're waiting for evidence of intelligent life on Earth. --68.155.27.92 (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Well done, Wikipedia is no place for religious vendetta. I've had enough of The Church of Scientology, their stupid practices, their celebrity 'ambassadors,' and their ridiculous denouncements of psychiatry:| And I'm sick of hearing about them. Ajcheema (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)