Just to be clear, here's a few diffs I don't consider vandalism:
- Adds a link to event in question, and more information on term coined by
- Information on the "free personality test" that the Church of Scientology
uses. The same sources are used on the [[Oxford Capacity Analysis]] article
we have, and the sources have not been challenged. I cannot in good
conscience term this "vandalism" or "POV Pushing."
- Expands the list of accusations which have been leveled at the Scientology
Rehabilitation Project Force, but it includes a source. Without challenging
the source, I can't consider this vandalism either.
There are other edits I would consider POV pushing, but here's the thing:
that is NOT an excuse to institute an indefinite block. That's a reason to
teach the user about our policies and try to get them working as a
And yes, I know full well we've had problems on Scientology articles in the
past. Our controversial articles attract new users all the time, because
controversy attracts eyes, and there's no doubt Scientology is highly
controversial as well as being stirred up by the South Park controversy.
But as I see this case, it's a classic example of violating BITE. There was
no welcome message or anything posted to either user, and the same
hair-trigger admin was involved in both cases.
To post such a dismissive analysis? I won't question your good faith or
motivation, but I have to question the validity of your claim.
On 10/8/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
And I disagree with your assessment. Non-righteous block, fraudulent claim
of "vandalism only" account, edits had sources including sources brought
from other articles on wikipedia that have not been challenged.
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG <guy.chapman(a)spamcop.net> wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:50:40 -0500, "Parker Peters"
The "original" account was claimed to be
NoLongerScieno (blocked for
"name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter.
Possible sockpuppet? Certainly.
Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe.
Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to block for
being a sockpuppet of a username block?
I reviewed the edits of both accounts, 100% vandalism (POV-pushing).
Righteous block. Next case, please.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: