Wikipedia bans Scientology

Yesterday, in an unprecedented decision, Wikipedia's court-like body ArbCom handed down a project-wide ban of all IP addresses owned by Scientology for disruptive editing and coordinating their edits to maintain their status quo including "persistent point-of-view pushing and extensive feuding over sources on multiple articles"

This is the first time that an entire organization's IP address block has been banned from editing Wikipedia, despite individual IPs being blocked in the past from other organizations, such as the US DoJ in 2008.

Arbitrators voted 10 to 0 (with one abstention) in favour of the ban, however individual editors may request IP block exemption if they wish to contribute from the blocked IP addresses. The case also resulted in the restriction of a further 15 editors from Scientology-related articles or, in some cases, the entire encyclopaedia.

The decision, which comes as a French court starts a trial that could dissolve the French chapter of the organisation, was the result of the longest running arbitration case in Wikipedia's history.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

0-day Microsoft DirectX vulnerability discovered for XP

Next Story

Sky and Microsoft bring Live Sky TV to the Xbox 360

101 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.


Dear Admin, I thank you for this informative article. And I thank you for this I follow your vendors. It's verry good. I wish you continued success and whould you like.sohbet, Good post,I think so!abercrombie and fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos hollister abercrombie outlethollister clothing Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos Ruehl No.925, Men, women, and children's clothing. abercrombie and fitch , ,abercrombie and fitch and abercrombie and fitchfashion is bold and interesting, all thanks to the interestingand original designs of Don sohbet ?

I thought Scientology was a religion for posh Hollywood stars like TC and other inane people to follow... he tried to get Will Smith and Marky Mark onboard but they both told him to go and **** ******f which I though was rather good. As Marky Mark said "I go to a proper church, and pray to JC"... well said. Scientology is just a cult for posh people at the end of the day, like all cults brainwashed into believing something which is not their.

Oops going off the subject... Sorry um yep about time, why did they take some long, I think it's because they have some many high rollers onboard they had to go by the book before doing so and make sure all the T and I are dotted and crossed.

Wonder is they will start something like Conservpedia like the christians did when they got their religion taken off the the evolution page.

At least Scientology teaches us how fake most religions are and how easy it is to make one up. Although some people rely on it to keep them going on their day to day life which can't be helped. Whatever gets you through this world I guess eh? Then again, at least the other religions don't drain your soul of the wealth you've acquired over the years. Maybe Xenu needs money to build a mothership to create these soul carriers to escape from evil mountain of doom where Sauron resides.

Let me just point out that - I do not care how much money they have (if they are after money, dunno) - there is no way that the accumulated wealth comes anywhere close to the one of Christianity. Just open your eyes and look at real estate alone. I suppose that people that "gave" to Christian church are also "drained of their money"? Oh I see - that is different isn't it...

Meh.

Julius Caro said,
Some of you criticize the scientology's "cult" status but it's the wikipedia "moderators" that are scary.

How so? I must have missed the documentaries on wikipedia where wiki staff stalked half the film crew, threatened people on the show speaking against them and rescinded all offers of interview material once they realised how stupid they looked.

The only thing that separates Scientology from any other religion is age. If it were thousands of years old it would be just like the others: Ridiculous and old.

kerneltie said,
The only thing that separates Scientology from any other religion is age. If it were thousands of years old it would be just like the others: Ridiculous and old.

I concur with this. Scientology is the new young 'retarded' kid on the block and the older 'retarded' kids won't let it play with them.

I say this as an agnostic not an atheist.

Scientology is regarded by man as a religion?

Like other religion it preys on one thing, making you believe your a worthless piece of ****!

If your going to ban Scientology then ban all other religions at the same time.

But of course, die to political correctness we can't have that and let us not forget the amount of hate mail Wikipedia would get.

either ban the lot or let them all live on Wikipedia. It is freedom of speech - This is what attracts people to Wikipedia, knowledge and freedom of speech, the truth and most of all a place where knowledge roams free.

ban all religions or leave it as it is.

To all of you who are typing **** such as "**** Scientology" - get your heads out of your damn ******** for one minute, because, compared to Christianity Scientology is the equivalent of a fluffy badger that lick your balls.....

ok... of all the beliefs out there, the most offensive one is Scientology. scientologists force their beliefs on you, and if you don't like it, they will pressure you even more.

that aside... wikipedia may be a place that has "free speech", but its also a place that is supposed to help & benefit people. it's not supposed to be a site that harbors propaganda for a cult. if wikipedia wants to be a more reliable place to find info, this was a must. also from what has been said here, there is no credible source cited in scientology articles. I find it quite funny how you recognize that wikipedia is a place that contains truth. its only truth when there are multiple sources that can back it up.

you need to realize that even though free speech may be good and all, there needs to be some limits.

Scientology is a sledgehammer. Easy to spot, easy to avoid. The others are insidious. They infect the victim without the victim even knowing they have contracted the virus. Filthy stuff.

Someone clearly does not know what is free speech. By your definition of free speech, I could just go in to your house and rant at you. Now, we have a couple of problems:
-One, this is your house. You could freely kick me out. This is the same for Wiki
-Two, by your rules, there will never be such a thing as defamation.
Freedom of speech is really restricted to the government. It is within everyone else's right to tell people to shut the hell up without infringing on their rights.

And Tommy, read the article. They are not banned because they are a religion. They are banned because they are disruptive with their editing. If a class of 10 year olds edit as those in Scientology did, they too are going be banned. If you see Christians or any religion being disruptive, then fine, they should be banned.

They cannot get their facts straight because (like all other religions) its made up! by man no less so it is flawed.

The sad thing about Scientology is that WE KNOW some nut made it up and people still follow it and pour millions into it. go figure. more evidence for the stupidity of people

The CoS has a block of IP addresses assigned to it, as it's a relatively large organisation (but not quite as large as they claim to be ;)), and the entire block has been banned as if it were an open proxy.

Under the guidance of the most powerful alien of all, Lord Vader, they shall unblock their IP's and scan our souls, brains and computers and inject us the true knowledge of the origin of existence and plenitude. THEY shall make us repent and believe, REPENT AND BELIEVE!!!

For the truth is theirs...

I'm an extremely tolerant Atheist(I hate that label but technically). I don't hate religion at all, I simply don't believe, and usually this might bother me, but I absolutely hate Hollywood, especially Tom Cruise, so f***'em.

solardog said,
I'm an extremely tolerant Atheist(I hate that label but technically). I don't hate religion at all, I simply don't believe, and usually this might bother me, but I absolutely hate Hollywood, especially Tom Cruise, so f***'em.

The proper term for someone who hates religion is "antitheist".

Bemani Dog said,
The proper term for someone who hates religion is "antitheist".

Yeah, but I don't hate religion. There should be a word for that. I cant be the only one.

I just hate the label "atheist" as they are usually overbearing, nasty people trying to shove their "anti-religion" into the faces of everyone in a much more obnoxious way than they think religious people do. Is there a term for someone who simply doesn't believe, but has nothing against religion otherwise?

solardog said,
I just hate the label "atheist" as they are usually overbearing, nasty people trying to shove their "anti-religion" into the faces of everyone in a much more obnoxious way than they think religious people do. Is there a term for someone who simply doesn't believe, but has nothing against religion otherwise?

Yeah, it's Atheist. You could call your self 'agnostic' or 'humanist' or some BS term like that.

TRC said,
It still amazes me that this bunch of nuts follow a religion based on a science fiction novel.


From a third rate writer at that.

Anyone wonder why all the U.S. cults (that's where they are based, don't know how the ancestors were like that) are so crazy?? (snipped)

Vakerorokero said,
Anyone wonder why all the U.S. cults (that's where they are based, don't know how the ancestors were like that) are so crazy?? (snipped)

Excuse me but Tibetans are nowhere near being like scientology or mormons, or a cult. Some of the most peaceful and genuine people on this earth.

Vakerorokero said,
Anyone wonder why all the U.S. cults (that's where they are based, don't know how the ancestors were like that) are so crazy?? (snipped)

Neither Islam nor Christianity started here, and every religion starts out as a cult. Not pointing any fingers, but I don't recall the last time I saw planes flown into buildings or abortion clinics burnt to the ground in the name of scientology.

VIVIsectVI said,
but I don't recall the last time I saw planes flown into buildings or abortion clinics burnt to the ground in the name of scientology.


No, they just keep people from seeking help for mental problems, and bilk people out of their money to gain higher rank in the "religion".

VIVIsectVI said,
Neither Islam nor Christianity started here, and every religion starts out as a cult. Not pointing any fingers, but I don't recall the last time I saw planes flown into buildings or abortion clinics burnt to the ground in the name of scientology.

The difference is Scientology is quite clearly aimed at making money, and very few would argue that it was entirely fictitious.

Whilst you may have the right to believe what you wish, they should not have the right to brainwash others into believing what suits them, merely as a money making exercise.

Or the weed addicts, you can't see almost article about illegal drugs that simply show the fact that drugs are indeed dangerous.

Magallanes said,
Or the weed addicts, you can't see almost article about illegal drugs that simply show the fact that drugs are indeed dangerous.

Weed addicts? What are you talking about? Weed doesn't turn people into fiends or addicts son, learn a little.

Magallanes said,
Or the weed addicts, you can't see almost article about illegal drugs that simply show the fact that drugs are indeed dangerous.

Dangerous? Smoking cigarettes, drinking booze and eating McDonalds are more dangerous than smoking weed. Too much of anything will really mess you up, but that is not a problem with weed, that is a problem of the user. If they drank too much water they would also be very unhealthy.

I think you have an unfounded bias against it because that is what your mother or religion told you. It is likely why you wont accept the articles are accurate.

Magallanes said,
Or the weed addicts, you can't see almost article about illegal drugs that simply show the fact that drugs are indeed dangerous.

Weed addicts, lulz. You strike me as the sort of person who puts weed or ecstasy on par with heroin/crack, please say I'm wrong?

Perhaps the reason wikipedia doesn't label every drug entry with "YOU WILL DIE!" is because, in point of fact, not every single drug will instantly turn you into a gibbering skag head.

Scientology is a money making cult, all those celebs like John travolta and tom Cruise are paid big $$$$, buy this organisation.

TonyLock said,
Why have they been allowed to continue for this long? They are a cancer on this society.

why?.

Or more specifically, in comparison to what?. to you actual government or with you current religion?.

Magallanes said,
why?.

Or more specifically, in comparison to what?. to you actual government or with you current religion?.


WARNING: SCIENTOLOGIST IN THE HOUSE!

m.keeley said,
Good but would be suprised if an IP block would stop them.

they will put the stuff in your head through telepracy. Mind to mind control like spok. Who needs the damn ip when they got the zapping tom cruze. He will zap you like he did to ophra. Poor woman and her couch getting abused by scio freaks. (Hows my speling an e 1.)

Lt-DavidW said,
No, that's how you spell it in real English.

"encyclopaedia " is how you spell it in so called "real English"? And what does "real English" even mean? There are different dialects and there is some variance in spelling in different parts of the world, but it is all "real English".

soonerproud said,
"encyclopaedia " is how you spell it in so called real English? And what does "real English" even mean? There are different dialects and there is some variance in spelling in different parts of the world, but it is all "real English".

Real English being English from England ;)

(In all honesty, it's all valid, which is the great thing about English - it has no board to oversee "proper" usage)

soonerproud said,
"encyclopaedia " is how you spell it in so called real English? And what does "real English" even mean? There are different dialects and there is some variance in spelling in different parts of the world, but it is all "real English".

He means British English. Some people consider that variant to be the original English language. American is a derivative of it.

In British usage, the spellings encyclopedia and encyclopaedia are both current. Although the latter is considered more "proper", the former is becoming more common due to the encroachment of American English. In American usage, only the former is commonly used

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia

shinji257 said,
He means British English. Some people consider that variant to be the original English language. American is a derivative of it.


Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia


I knew what he meant, but I find that kind of thinking offensive to the majority of English speakers that live across the world and not just in America.

Lt-DavidW said,
No, that's how you spell it in real English.

I love these acuzations of misspells when the whole english is a misspelled lenguage. There are no logical rules in it. So no wonder the foreners have a hard time. Think about it when %90 of born english speakers cant spell. Do you think its us and not the language. Anyways I'm glad that the scios are out of wikie. Encyclo pedia is not for politics and relegions lover afairs.

soonerproud said,
I knew what he meant, but I find that kind of thinking offensive to the majority of English speakers that live across the world and not just in America.

Most other versions of English do not change the spelling of words from the real English(sorry just taking a stab). Eg New Zealand and Australia.

I bet they cost a lot to this free encyclopedia... good for them that they're out of the game now, but they still did a lot of damage from what I read in the article.

FloatingFatMan said,
Such a shame L Ron went all weird... Some of his scifi novels before he invented Dianetics and Scientology are damn good reads! :p

Its good because its real. He was an alien in a past life and scientology help him remember. hehehehe

Won't they just continue editing from home computers/through a proxy? From what I've seen of Scientology it's not the sort of organisation that will just give up and die, unfortunately.

Nihilus said,
Won't they just continue editing from home computers/through a proxy? From what I've seen of Scientology it's not the sort of organisation that will just give up and die, unfortunately.

Exactly, it's a pretty pointless exercise when you think about it. Even the most novice individuals could find a way around the ban within minutes. Scientologists might be a little odd but, as an organised group, they are far from stupid.

necrosis said,
What exactly were they doing? Injecting BS into 'evolution' posts and the like?

No, that's the Christians who do that. Scientologists try to suppress all criticism and any leaks of their secret cult info about their rituals.

I know someone who was a Scientologist briefly. It's harmless, it's about the same as going to a therapist. A therapist who believes in aliens.

artibatirae said,
Set sail for fail!

If you think making a fortune off what started out as a joke between Hubbard and some sci-fi writers is fail, then I'd love to fail like that!

It's nice to know that there are actually people on the inside concerned about this. Left to it's own motions, Wikipedia could quickly degrade into nothing but a forum to push select opinions, not the least of which being scientology or the DoJ, and hiding those behind the illusion of a 3rd party source.

It's important to know that they aren't taking action because it's a quasi-religion, or even a cult, however.

It's because they were consistently and frequently violating Wikipedia's editing rules.

I'm thankful that was why, and why I'm still confident in this form of action despite Wikipedia's "Free for anyone to edit" stance. That was always with the fine print "if you aren't breaking the editing rules", anyway.

Jugalator said,
It's important to know that they aren't taking action because it's a quasi-religion, or even a cult, however.

It's because they were consistently and frequently violating Wikipedia's editing rules.


Agreed. While I think that all religions are bad, and I think scientology is bad even compared to all the rest, I still do not believe in censorship. Heck, I could be wrong about this God thing, so I do not want to stop anyone from speaking.

That said, a person/organization should not be allowed to change other person's entries with FALSE data. If I had been warned about bad activities on any forum and still ignored it, then I would expect that I would be banned. It's that simple. Right?

Jugalator said,
It's important to know that they aren't taking action because it's a quasi-religion, or even a cult, however.

It's because they were consistently and frequently violating Wikipedia's editing rules.


I am aware of that. Still, people are finally taking a stand against it. Governments have been kow-towing to their bullying tactics for the past 20 years, and it appears to finally be coming to an end.

jameswjrose said,

Agreed. While I think that all religions are bad, and I think scientology is bad even compared to all the rest, I still do not believe in censorship. Heck, I could be wrong about this God thing, so I do not want to stop anyone from speaking.

That said, a person/organization should not be allowed to change other person's entries with FALSE data. If I had been warned about bad activities on any forum and still ignored it, then I would expect that I would be banned. It's that simple. Right?


Exactly. I have no trouble with Scientologists editing even their own article, as long as they provide third party sources. I'm the kind that defends others rights despite not agreeing with them, in that way. However, this time, it seems to have been a looong running case of them not being able to do that consistently.

Bemani Dog said,
While this may open up a can of worms, this was indeed necessary. Somebody is finally taking a genuine and definitive stand against the quasi-religion of Scientology.

It's a can of worms if one looks at the headline. But once one figures out that this religion keeps editing text to make them look good.... Thats bad. Wikipedia isn't that trustworthy, but it also isn't the opinion website. Fox already has that held up. Wonder if I looked up the KKK or Nazi's and found nothing but propaganda.

Jugalator said,

Exactly. I have no trouble with Scientologists editing even their own article, as long as they provide third party sources. I'm the kind that defends others rights despite not agreeing with them, in that way. However, this time, it seems to have been a looong running case of them not being able to do that consistently.

Yeah i agree too .... I think they have made the right decision to ban their IPs.

_____________________
Apartments for rent in Dubai