Talk:Project Chanology

Latest sock disruption

Apparently in addition to DavidYork71 (talk · contribs), we now have YesOn8 (talk · contribs) using socks to disrupt this article:

• Comparable2Allah (talk · contribs)
• Helpur (talk · contribs)
• CatUrineCuredMe (talk · contribs)
• McCainSoulBro (talk · contribs)
• QuaylePalin2012 (talk · contribs)
• SoothingDharma (talk · contribs)
• Upperclear (talk · contribs)
• ThankYouDianetics (talk · contribs)
• PornAndPrawnExtravaganza (talk · contribs)
• OngoingHow (talk · contribs)
• 1Bridge2FreeAll (talk · contribs)
• HubbardTechGuardian (talk · contribs)
• Bfair2mychurch (talk · contribs)
• Sjbraden (talk · contribs)
• HerrAdolf (talk · contribs)
• 67.222.12.152 (talk · contribs)
• 68.184.150.94 (talk · contribs)
• 81.241.176.23 (talk · contribs)
• 220.233.172.193 (talk · contribs)
• 123.2.123.220 (talk · contribs)
• 194.54.88.40 (talk · contribs)
• 114.72.237.235 (talk · contribs)

Some of the more recent socks used to revert to the same material in this article. More info here, here, here, and here. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an ongoing issue. If anybody else makes that same edit to this article, it is safe to assume that they are also either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet, and should be blocked. So if anyone is reading this and considering changing the article in that same way, then don't. You will be held accountable. Firestorm ^Talk 05:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this comment by Firestorm (talk · contribs). I am adding some more socks that have disrupted this article to the above list. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/YesOn8/Archive, users investigating YesOn8 (talk · contribs) also thought that YesOn8 was itself a sock of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added Sjbraden (talk · contribs) to above list - account was blocked by the same Checkuser that connected the YesOn8 (talk · contribs) series of socks to DavidYork71 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

partyvan.info

partyvan.info isn't the wiki! It's a mirror for last measure! Edit it out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.151.34 (talk) 10:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This is as per secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 16:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

More disruption from sockpuppets

The old is it or isn't it ongoing question perhaps needs to be considered again unfortunately following HerrAdolf (talk · contribs)'s recent edit. I suppose we need to actually agree how we determine going forward whether the protest movement still exists or not. I'm inclined to suggest it does, a quick Google search turned up this news story which clearly refers to an individual mentioned as being a member of "a group called Anonymous that protests Church of Scientology events" but I'd have to consider it in more detail.

However, when this edit is viewed in the context of this user's other edits I become more suspicious of their motives. For example here, it does seem more appropriate to describe L. Ron Hubbard as "controversial" rather than "acclaimed". Here, I think Scientology is more widely considered to be "controversial" than "innovative" and here, "controversial" would probably be a more widely accepted description of Psychiatry: An Industry of Death than "celebrated". Adambro (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

User has now been indef-blocked as an obvious sockpuppet of DavidYork71. As far as how current Chanology is, New York and Boston had protests on the 16th. Philadelphia has one scheduled this coming Saturday, the 23rd. Monthly protests still happen in most cities. That current enough? Firestorm ^Talk 15:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder if this was another case of the ongoing (excuse the pun), disruption via abusive sockpuppets but I suppose my question stands. What criteria do we use to determine whether it can be described as ongoing? If we were able to come up with something I'd feel more comfortable in dealing with anyone who pops up and declares that it isn't ongoing. I'm well aware that the protests continue, a quick Google search makes this obvious, but do we need reliable sources to confirm it is ongoing or can we just base that on forum posts, Flickr photos etc? References are required for content that is likely to be challenged. Is it acceptable to consider a reference unnecessary in light of the other sources which make it unlikely anyone except someone wishing to cause disruption or push a point of view would challenge it? Adambro (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Information is on whyweprotest.net forums, as well as websites of the local cells. However, forums are, of course, not reliable sources, so we need something better. On the Boston Anonymous wiki, they keep details of their monthly protests. The page for May 16 is here. Not sure if that's good enough, either, so if we find something better we'll use it.

POSSIBLE COI DISCLOSURE: I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki. Take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, and always verify for yourselves. Firestorm ^Talk 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response

The user that made the edit referred to above was blocked indef, it is yet another account used by DavidYork71 who has abusively used over 200 sock accounts to disrupt this project. We should not indulge or encourage such behavior by validating it. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Further: In order to WP:DFTT, the best thing to do is WP:RBI when it comes to socks of DavidYork71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cirt (talk) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear there's attempts to stifle discussion of an important issue here, as well as to persecute and silence the expression of a realistic viewpoint. Read through the article. It is about something that was formerly active, formerly notable, and therefore should be expressed in the past tense. Worldwide, the only thing notable that has been associated with it for all of 2009, was that one guy with his pubic hair and toenails thing back in early January. That itself has been denounced by spokesmen from the hategroup that formerly coordinated the protest actions. There will always be, and always have been scientology critics and protesters on a small scale. Let us not fall into the trap of accepting that their taking up the name of the collapsed movement of early 2008 this long afterward lends a sense of continuity to something which lapsed into dormancy near on a year ago. Enturbulation.org's dead and it's reputation lengthens with time into obscurity.114.72.237.235 (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)