Prioryman - Out of Control

[SB_Johnny]

He's probably too busy doing his FTW dance.

You could say that..

That's actually quite funny.

[mac]

He's probably too busy doing his FTW dance.

You could say that..

On the right side, a little bit more than halfway down, Victuallers has a section called "Recent whingers", and it includes Jayen466 and Jehochman. Seems to me that he was the one whining/whinging about his own article, which has now been deleted (out of process), and salted.

[Mancunium]

An Overview of Scientology
Michel Snoeck, 13 July 2013 link

Now, who is actually this Chris Owen? I may admit that I have had some previous encounters with him. This was back into time when I was, for a while, writing on Wikipedia. At the time it became very clear to me that he was regarded as some sort of ‘big shot’ administrator on Wikipedia. Basically the articles that he wrote or edited (at least regarding the subjects of Dianetics, Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, etc..), they were simple left as they were. Even members of this anti-Scientology community let them be. When he gave his views, people submitted. This was rather interesting I thought. My general impression however of this person is not a very positive one. My experience is that he is rather authoritative and thinks that he knows matters, even if not being an expert in the subject. Also his mind about the subjects of Dianetics and Scientology is already made up, regarding this subject though he is rather mislead. I recall that at one time he rather suddenly rewrote the whole article ‘Fair Game (Scientology)’. Various pertinent data got lost there, but ... everyone let it be. Because it was Chris Owen who did that, apparently. It is admitted that he can write, but so can Russell Miller, but ... that is not enough!

It would be suitable to have some data here about who this Chris Owen is, his background and all that. Unfortunately about all that I can find are the things he has been involved in. It does appear that he has been writing a lot. We find writings carrying his name as early as 1995. Predominantly out on the Internet these writings are relating to Scientology. He doesn't write in favour of the subject, rather clearly he writes against it. His essays and such we find presented particularly and copied to a variety of anti-Scientology oriented websites. On a renowned anti-Scientology site, in their Information Directory database, we find that Chris Owen is listed as a “British historian, studied Scientology extensively.”. This may however be a misnomer, I don't have it confirmed he would be an actual historian. It is true he has been looking into and has been writing about a whole range of Scientology matters, but primarily from an outsider approach.

We find his essays on Scientology also posted on the website of the Carnegie Mellon University. This particular university receives grants to perform various projects, which are then published on their site. But I don't actually know his exact relation to the site, or why we find these essays all listed there. It may tell something about the background of this Chris Owen, but then it does not appear that he still would be involved there. A variety of these essays and write-ups are accompanied with various email addresses. I did attempt to send him a notice about my own article, but the 3 email addresses that I found simply returned the message as undeliverable (all send 22 Sept 2012).

Chris Owen is, or at least used to be, an active anti-Scientology advocate or rather an apologist. The nature and approach of his articles on the subject make that very clear indeed. He has an idea of the subject and aims to have this confirmed. It does overshadow somewhat in what degree this would have been “independent research and documentation on Scientology”, as it is noted on one of his pages that we find on the Carnegie Mellon University website. On this website he also created a personal ‘site’ in 2002 in where, so he claims, he exposes Narconon (anti drug program from the Scientology organization, whereby no drugs are used ‘Narcotics Non’, to get a person off drugs). This ‘site’ was “© Chris Owen”. On this ‘site’ I found a 4th email address to which I send my message as well (27 Sept 2012). Thus far this remains unresponded to.

Since 2003 we find he has been editing on Wikipedia. The topics he involved himself in were of all sorts, and they included an array of Scientology related articles. I myself was active on Wikipedia for a while in 2006 and I sort of came across him. His username at the time was ChrisO and he was active as a so-called Administrator. Today his username is a different one and he does not appear to be active as an Administrator either anymore. I actually mean to say here that he changed the actual appearance of his username. If you type in the address http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ChrisO in a web browser, then you will end up with user Prioryman. With this username (in use since 31 Oct 2010) Chris Owen does not appear to edit much Scientology related pages anymore. The only thing I found were quite a few entries at the Wikipedia's ‘Bare-faced Messiah’ talk page (history). A result of him changing his appearance, as I found, appears to be that his earlier edits as ChrisO can not be tracked anymore. This may or may not be the reason why he changed his username appearance on Wikipedia. I do not get the impression overall that he wants to be contacted about these matters relating to Scientology, it seems he is done with it. A further search on the Internet did confirm that this Prioryman indeed was Chris Owen. Now, I've send him a very brief message (22 Sept 2012) via the Wikipedia internal email system, but I failed to get a response. It was my intent here to forward my article to him, and may be get a response of some sort. Another message with more details was send via Wikipedia on 28 Sept 2012. But to be blunt about it, I don't expect any response at all.The message I send to Chris Owen read:

“Hi,
I recently published: ‘Bare-Faced Messiah’ (1987): The No. 1 book of the anti-Scientology movement or A matter of sheer anti-propaganda?http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scien ... tml#miller
You are mentioned in the essay because of (1) your initiative to issue a digital version of Miller's book and (2) your writing “Ron the War Hero”.
You are free to comment on my article.
Kind regards,
Michel”

As of July 2013 there has been no response what so ever from this Chris Owen. But since I published my analysis here it does appear that this person is still active in regards to the Wikipedia article ‘Bare-faced Messiah’. Recently he has been involved in banning a person (useb]r ‘Drg55’) that attempted to implement more objective information into the article. This occurred during Jun-Jul 2013. In my opinion these edits implemented by this ‘Drg55’ were, at least the bulk of them, valid. You can see these edits here (external link), search for ‘Drg55’. Chris Owen (as ‘Prioryman’) however objected and persistently reverted them.
It appears thus that Chris Owen continues trying to control these texts on Wikipedia that he has helped to build. On the other hand however till this day he still fails to respond to my article in the matter forwarded and discussed by me.

These recent developments and further questioning towards the behavioural pattern of this Chris Owen (as ‘Prioryman’) can now also be found in the Wikipediocracy forum carrying the title “Prioryman - Out of Control”. Consult here (external link).

This guy seems like a Scientology admirer.[/quote]For sure. He is identified as WP User:Olberon here: link
Olberon has been a WP editor since 26 April 2006: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Olberon
active until 12 January 2011: link
with his most frequent edits to "Talk:Suppressive Person": link

[drg55]

.... I would imagine that the anti-CoS community, whether internet-based or not, is fairly close-knit by necessity. The degree of cooperation among them is sure to be at least as high as what we have here on Wikipediocracy, and (IMO) probably waaaaay higher. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that they make up a significant chunk of the religious-skepticism community on the internet in general, and have a significant amount of influence in what appears on general-purpose skepticism sites.

... because he (Prioryman) either won't let bygones be bygones, or because he honestly thinks everyone is out to get him, if only because the CoS really is out to get him (presumably) and there's a paranoia factor to consider there....

My point to the Arbitration Committee is that three times I asked him nicely where he was coming from, and he is in violation of WP:ARBSCI for failing to declare his conflict of interest. I think it is for the survival of Wikipedia that they prevent it being used by vested interests to run their attacks. The rules of Wikipedia are great but the application can suffer. Scientologists will stand out, their opponents are amorphous.

Let me clarify where I am coming from. I have been a Scientologist for nearly 4 decades. I did CCHR for 5 years and then seven in PR. In the nineties I was an honorary LRH PR, still am. However I am not your one eyed Scientologist, I read outside of Scientology and at one stage I left it and then returned to it. I am aware of plenty of things I would ciriticise in Scientology and some in LRH. But I don't regard these as core issues. I enjoyed reading BFM but could see the out points, these are only visible if you know the subject. I have had some sympathy for ex Scientologists and felt that they didn't always get fair treatment, but your own actions (and decisions, what we call "postulates") have a lot to do with how life turns out for you.

I said "An advantage to us, if you can call it that, has been that our critics are generally insane and go completely overboard." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bare- ... User:Drg55 Prioryman reacted to this, maybe the shoe fits. Lets look at the statement rather than reacting to it, the qualifying final phrase "..in that they go completely overboard" Now calling someone "insane" is a bit harsh, you could say "in an emotional state" -in Scientology there is discussion of states of existence from highest to lowest and while it sometimes uses the same terminology, it probably shouldn't be confused with normal uses of words outside Scientology. However I am thinking of a particular person who left Scientology and made public attacks on it and I felt she could have been handled differently by us and I had some sympathy for her, but the claims she ended up making are virtually along the lines that if the wind blew and her house creaked she would think Scientology was doing it. And Bare-Faced Messiah is full of "personal accounts" as reliable as this. What you so accurately described as the "paranoia factor".

My most recent email to the Arbitration Committee pointed out that identifying Prioryman was not like outing the name and address of some nobody anonymous internet troll, but pointing out a vested interest of an actual public attacker hiding behind Wikipedia. I don't advise Scientology Management, far from it, but what organisation would put up with having their Wikipedia entries consistently written by well organised opponents hiding behind Wikipedia. Anyhow ArbSci says they should declare their conflict of interest in the relevant talk page, but how many will?

"The remedies passed by the Committee in the case's final decision included: ... (D) to disclose on the relevant talk page any pertinent circumstances that might be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... rbitration

[Zoloft]

Sandstein lumbers over to Prioryman's talk page:

Your identitifying information

Hello. As you are probably aware, there have been recent discussions about whether (a) your previous user name and (b) your alleged real name are subject to Wikipedia's policies concerning outing and harassment. You have not participated in these discussions, as is your right. But as an administrator who has taken administrative actions in this regard, I need to determine whether and how these actions require modification in the light of these discussions. To that end, could you please briefly indicate, either here or per e-mail, whether you consider the information referred to as (a) and (b) above private, and if yes, whether you desire that this privacy be enforced by administrative means? Should I not receive an answer by you within 24 hours of your next edit, or within three days, I will assume that you are not interested in any continued administrative action in this regard. Thanks, Sandstein 4:01 pm, Today (UTC−7)

[Poetlister]

Sandstein lumbers over to Prioryman's talk page:

My, that's telling him!

[Zoloft]

Sandstein lumbers over to Prioryman's talk page:

My, that's telling him!

I did think about calling him 'Sandkenstein,' but the joke wasn't up to even my low standards.

[Silent Editor]

Prioryman's Gibraltarpedia leader blunders in:

Hi Chris
I'm getting great pleasure out of your spoof Chris, if only I could find someone to show it to!<snip>

Nearly two hours later, he finessed what he wrote.

[Vigilant]

Prioryman's Gibraltarpedia leader blunders in:

Hi Chris
I'm getting great pleasure out of your spoof Chris, if only I could find someone to show it to!<snip>

Nearly two hours later, he finessed what he wrote.

Smooth.
Why's he not blocked?

[drg55]

An email sent to Prioryman:

Hi Chris,

There has been a bit of discussion in Wikipediocracy (out of control Prioryman) whether Chris is your real name, and that there are quite a few people with that name, and if any of them are you. Lets assume it is.

I have emailed the Arbitration Committee:

'I have expressed frustration at other editors because of their partisan editing and their failure to declare themselves. The Scientology arbitration states: "
The remedies passed by the Committee in the case's final decision included: ... (D) to disclose on the relevant talk page any pertinent circumstances that might be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... rbitration'


I asked you nicely three times on talk Bare-Faced Messiah and then I got a little terse. If I were a little more experienced I would have reported you to ANI. I think it might be in you interests to make a full explanation of your conflict of interest on the BFM talk page, in particular that you released the internet edition of BFM, and your background with alt.religion.scientology including your relationship with Paulette Cooper and any other public attackers of Scientology. And I think it would help to give an idea of any attackers of Scientology, past or present, who are editing Wikipedia or administrators of Wikipedia.

I wish you all the best but we cannot move forward until you come clean on your past.

drg55

[Midsize Jake]

And I think it would help to give an idea of any attackers of Scientology, past or present, who are editing Wikipedia or administrators of Wikipedia.

"Give an idea"?

You're completely mental, dude. Especially if you expect a response from something like that!

[lilburne]

And I think it would help to give an idea of any attackers of Scientology, past or present, who are editing Wikipedia or administrators of Wikipedia.

"Give an idea"?

You're completely mental, dude. Especially if you expect a response from something like that!

Scientology is a scam to extract money from actors (who aren't as a rule the brightest in the class), and the psychologically insecure who have inherited some wealth. I'm not sure that they've had much success with normal people.

Wikipedia isn't the place to promote the nonsense, and neither is it the place to pour bile and shit on those deranged enough to have spent money on it.

There should be a article of say 5000 words which is locked down. Any subsequent attempts to introduce it elsewhere, whether for or against should be automatically deleted.

[eppur si muove]

One of my friends likes to wind up religious and pseudo-religious recruiters. Once he got accosted outside Goodge Street Station, next to which is one of the main Scientology bases in the UK. He gave the sort of answers to the psychological profile that were expected and then got invited to a follow-up in the base. He was led to a waiting area where there was a good-looking woman also waiting. he quickly worked out that she was a plant. He had got as far as asking to exchange numbers when the other scientologists rushed out and told him to leave.

Another of his games was when the Jehovah's Witnesses came round. They started quoting bits of the Old Testament at him. He said that he did not think that that was what his version said. They eventually invited him to get out his translation. He immediately went for a Hebrew-only version.

[lilburne]

One of my friends likes to wind up religious and pseudo-religious recruiters. Once he got accosted outside Goodge Street Station

I got accosted once outside Victoria station mid 80s. Think it was Moonies, but not sure, was asked whether I wanted to go to some centre for a chat, I was reluctant, asked whether I'd thought about "the meaning of life" so it was probably around the time of the film. Yeah I said "Its a sexually transmitted terminal disease". Apparently I was horrid and no longer welcome to go back to drop in centre.

[Hex]

I have been a Scientologist for nearly 4 decades.

I'm not interested in having a discussion about Scientology with anyone. But I will say that it takes some guts to straight-up say that in a forum like this, knowing the response that it might provoke. So, kudos to you.

[Mancunium]

I have been a Scientologist for nearly 4 decades.

I'm not interested in having a discussion about Scientology with anyone. But I will say that it takes some guts to straight-up say that in a forum like this, knowing the response that it might provoke. So, kudos to you.

This is very nice of you to say, Hex. I would like to think that I'm able to talk with a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Nation of Islam, Rastafarian, spiritualist, &c. person, without assuming they must be stupid. I would hope this forum is open-minded, or at least polite if approached with sincerity.

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing".
These people are highly intelligent, but their expression of religious beliefs is extreme even by the standards of India:

[dogbiscuit]

I have been a Scientologist for nearly 4 decades.

I'm not interested in having a discussion about Scientology with anyone. But I will say that it takes some guts to straight-up say that in a forum like this, knowing the response that it might provoke. So, kudos to you.

This is very nice of you to say, Hex. I would like to think that I'm able to talk with a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Nation of Islam, Rastafarian, spiritualist, &c. person, without assuming they must be stupid. I would hope this forum is open-minded, or at least polite if approached with sincerity.

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing".
These people are highly intelligent, but their expression of religious beliefs is extreme even by the standards of India:

I think that this forum would be a cross-section of humanity, and there will be people who will be abusive, there will be people who will be scornful and those who simply raise an eyebrow and move on.

I was brought up Methodist but am a confirmed atheist. As such I have an understanding of those who profess faith in something though I view it as a weakness. I have no need to deride those involved in faith movements, but while I accept that they have come to their own position, it does not mean I respect that opinion.

I guess most people are intrigued by Scientology given that its "peculiarities" are so out in the open. I'd be interested in hearing an insiders view on Scientology (knowing that like with McDonald's marketing, I am pretty immune).

[Vigilant]

Attention Chris Owen: You are the subject of an arbitrator beatdown!

Since you apparently continue to think that there was nothing wrong with your edit, I want to draw your attention to WP:BLPBAN. The next time you pull something like that, I will ban you from editing any BLP indefinitely. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

[Midsize Jake]

I would like to think that I'm able to talk with a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Nation of Islam, Rastafarian, spiritualist, &c. person, without assuming they must be stupid. I would hope this forum is open-minded, or at least polite if approached with sincerity.

Just to be clear, I'm not accusing Mr. Drg55 of being stupid, I'm accusing him of either being unrealistic to the point of delusionality, or else of deliberately using this forum as a platform for promoting Scientology's interests on Wikipedia. I'd prefer to think it's the former, but I really, really doubt that.

Either way, there's no way Chris Owen or any other non-Scientologist is going to provide Mr. Drg55 with a list of "anti-Scientologists" among Wikipedia's user base, so why make the demand, and why post it here?

[lilburne]

I was brought up Methodist but am a confirmed atheist. As such I have an understanding of those who profess faith in something though I view it as a weakness. I have no need to deride those involved in faith movements, but while I accept that they have come to their own position, it does not mean I respect that opinion.

There are some 500,000 of them, less than the number of Rastafarians, and there are over 100 articles on wikipedia. Some of which are huge tracts. All of it being fought over by interested parties. It's the same wikipedia nonsense as LaRouche. A piling on by one or other of the antagonists. Frankly if they haven't got everything covered by now in the central article they never will have. All of it is just more nose tweaking. If the site was in any way academic or even educational they'd have stopped it already.

Otherwise what msj says.

[Hex]

This is very nice of you to say, Hex. I would like to think that I'm able to talk with a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Nation of Islam, Rastafarian, spiritualist, &c. person, without assuming they must be stupid. I would hope this forum is open-minded, or at least polite if approached with sincerity.

I believe strongly in the right of people to be happy. If they are not actively harming anyone with their faith, then I wish them happiness in what they do. (There is a whole discussion to be had about the education of children, I know, but I'm not up for that one just now.)

These people are highly intelligent, but their expression of religious beliefs is extreme even by the standards of India:

That was powerful and moving to see. Thanks for sharing it.

[Hex]

HAH.

In that same thread Prioryman accuses me of being angry all the time. You know what my first thought, randomly, was? That exact scene.

*brofist*

[HRIP7]

An email sent to Prioryman:

Hi Chris,

There has been a bit of discussion in Wikipediocracy (out of control Prioryman) whether Chris is your real name, and that there are quite a few people with that name, and if any of them are you. Lets assume it is.

I have emailed the Arbitration Committee:

'I have expressed frustration at other editors because of their partisan editing and their failure to declare themselves. The Scientology arbitration states: "
The remedies passed by the Committee in the case's final decision included: ... (D) to disclose on the relevant talk page any pertinent circumstances that might be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... rbitration'


I asked you nicely three times on talk Bare-Faced Messiah and then I got a little terse. If I were a little more experienced I would have reported you to ANI. I think it might be in you interests to make a full explanation of your conflict of interest on the BFM talk page, in particular that you released the internet edition of BFM, and your background with alt.religion.scientology including your relationship with Paulette Cooper and any other public attackers of Scientology. And I think it would help to give an idea of any attackers of Scientology, past or present, who are editing Wikipedia or administrators of Wikipedia.

I wish you all the best but we cannot move forward until you come clean on your past.

drg55

Most of the a.r.s. veterans no longer edit Scientology topics – either because they were topic-banned in WP:ARBSCI (T-H-L), or because they have drifted away. The bias was far more blatant five or ten years ago, when a.r.s. was jubilant about Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology, and said coverage was usually sourced to activists' self-published essays on sites like Operation Clambake, with not a scholarly source in sight.

WP:ARBSCI (T-H-L) re-established the importance of good sourcing and made clear that self-published sites (be they pro- or anti-Scientology) were not good sources to use in the Scientology topic area (as in any other topic area). The case was followed by a significant clean-up.

For more background, you might want to touch base with Lyncs (T-C-L), himself a long-time Scientologist and ARBSCI veteran (as well as a wiki-friend of mine).

[drg55]

I have been a Scientologist for nearly 4 decades.

I'm not interested in having a discussion about Scientology with anyone. But I will say that it takes some guts to straight-up say that in a forum like this, knowing the response that it might provoke. So, kudos to you.

This is very nice of you to say, Hex. I would like to think that I'm able to talk with a Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, Nation of Islam, Rastafarian, spiritualist, &c. person, without assuming they must be stupid. I would hope this forum is open-minded, or at least polite if approached with sincerity.

I think that this forum would be a cross-section of humanity, and there will be people who will be abusive, there will be people who will be scornful and those who simply raise an eyebrow and move on.

I was brought up Methodist but am a confirmed atheist. As such I have an understanding of those who profess faith in something though I view it as a weakness. I have no need to deride those involved in faith movements, but while I accept that they have come to their own position, it does not mean I respect that opinion.

I guess most people are intrigued by Scientology given that its "peculiarities" are so out in the open. I'd be interested in hearing an insiders view on Scientology (knowing that like with McDonald's marketing, I am pretty immune).

My father was a Methodist Minister and he was good enough to come to my ordination as a Scientology Minister, as did a former Principal of a Jesuit Theological College (who had taught at Harvard and been a visiting fellow at Oxford) who was working with us in an interfaith group.

What is the external appearance and the inner experience are two different things. Scientology has had a hell of a shellacking yet we are still here, the time to stop us probably was 1953, what this indicates is that there is greater internal substance than is given credit for. A conservative member of Parliament told us that our best advertisement was our people.

Scientology is more popular that Christianity in Wikipedia, 235,000 views in the last month nearly twice the 132,000 for Christianity. (the figure would be even higher if individual pages were added to the total) You might think that we would be interested in neutral point of view when these pages are being edited by known attackers. Having said that these pages are clearly better than they once were and its inevitable that they will assist the dissemination of Scientology ideas into the culture.

What is hard to communicate is the spirit of Scientology, something which is experienced when it changes your life, opens up opportunities and allows you to be more who you want to be. Sure there are deriders, every group has these to some extent, and there are missteps along the way, but the premisses of Scientology as a statement of the human condition and possibilities of the spirit have barely been tapped.

I remember when our culture was so red neck that belief in past lives and reincarnation was derided. While that has changed for the good and we well might take credit for some of that, I see empty churches going into oblivion. A society once strongly religious now turns churches into art galleries, houses and even bars. Maybe its loyalty to my Dad but I view this as signs of a culture on the way out. I've been reading up on early Christianity again (which I studied at university also), I recommend Bart D Ehrman's books, and I could suggest some constructive changes to it, cleaning up errors in the Bible, restoring some banned texts (such as the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Thomas, the Epistle of Barnabas) and in particular scrapping Papal infallibility.

I wrote a section of Ego (Spirituality) called "ego vs God". I made a mistake of editing it while in combat with Prioryman and the Huns got onto it and deleted not only my section (which had already been tagged as "possibly original research" but what the hell it was interesting) but also the article (a bit like the Romans salting the ground at Carthage). I suggested that Freud not only created a science but a cult of ego, and while in the past the self was seen as something to be subsumed now it has become the central goal of the culture. And also (seeing before Scientology when I was young I had been trying to suppress my ego for spiritual progress, as I approach the latter part of my life I might impart some wisdom) I suggested that there needs to be a balance between ego and God rather than one or the other. Sure the sources were weak, but who cares if it is stimulating? I thought it would be axed long before it was, but over 40,000 people viewed it over 8 months. Breaking the rules is the fifth pillar of Wikipedia, like driving the wrong way down a one way street late at night, anarchy is strong drink not for the inexperienced.

Mostly rules should be followed. To live without rules requires the highest levels of personal responsibility. All rules are essentially arbitrary, they don't apply in every circumstance and the less people are ethical and able to think for themselves the more rules you need. As you might notice today society has gone mad on rules, even in sport they continue to proliferate. I've been banned and blocked by people who have a long history of not following the rules but have become specialist at using them against others. Its all a bit ingenuous on their behalf, and as I check today, Prioryman has still not put a statement of his conflict of interest in the BFM talk page.

[Midsize Jake]

Well then, I guess that answers that question.

[drg55]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... ioryman.29

"Statement by Prioryman
I'm not involved in any off-wiki activism related to the topic area, nor have I been for a very long time (in fact since well before the case)."

I would have thought that his conflict of interest was ongoing.

[Hex]

I'm starting to like this Sandstein guy a little.

Hello. In reply to your e-mail in which you suggest that action be taken at [[WP:AE]], you are free to make a request for enforcement on that page as per the instructions there. Please do not again send me offwiki requests for action. Sandstein 07:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(diff)

[Vigilant]

Say what you will about Fram. I loved this bit.

I really don't care why you or anyone else wrote any of those other articles. Promising to write articles on non notable subjects so that panels with QR codes for them can be created beforehand is a not much better scenario (and leads to comments in the AFD like "have a redirect so the QRpedia code remains useful"...). It remains clear that you as a a group work together with the government and affiliated organisations to create articles promoting non notable tourist "attractions" and try your hardest to get them on the front page, reviewing and approving each other's work without much concern for basic policies and guidelines, and abusing editors who disagree with these practices. Fram (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's some straight shooting right there.

[Vigilant]

:boggle:

I'm not particularly inclined to continue this discussion, as it's obvious that you're simply making things up rather than relying on facts. There's no point discussing matters of fact with someone who prefers to invent their own facts rather than respecting reality. Prioryman (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Translation: I've lost and will now go and pout.

[Vigilant]

At least Chris Owen is keeping busy.
User:Prioryman/Water_supply_of_Gibraltar (T-H-L)

What's next, Chris?
Electrical_system_of_Gibraltar
Air_currents_of_Gibraltar
Plumbing_of_Gibraltar

You really have no idea how you look so desperate to please your masters at the Gibraltar_tourism_office.

I knew you were a whore, I just didn't realize how dedicated you were to your profession.

[Vigilant]

And another DYK about ... can anyone guess?
Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Town_Range (T-H-L)

[Tippi Hadron]

At least Chris Owen is keeping busy.
User:Prioryman/Water_supply_of_Gibraltar (T-H-L)

What's next, Chris?
Electrical_system_of_Gibraltar
Air_currents_of_Gibraltar
Plumbing_of_Gibraltar

Soggy biscuits of Gibraltar?

[collect]

At least Chris Owen is keeping busy.
User:Prioryman/Water_supply_of_Gibraltar (T-H-L)

What's next, Chris?
Electrical_system_of_Gibraltar
Air_currents_of_Gibraltar
Plumbing_of_Gibraltar

Soggy biscuits of Gibraltar?

You left out the famed mythical "Rocs of Gibraltar"

[Malleus]

I'm starting to like this Sandstein guy a little.

Hello. In reply to your e-mail in which you suggest that action be taken at [[WP:AE]], you are free to make a request for enforcement on that page as per the instructions there. Please do not again send me offwiki requests for action. Sandstein 07:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

(diff)

Liking Sandstein is a sure sign of insanity.

[Vigilant]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:D ... _main_page

Yes, I'm ideologically opposed to footpaths in Gibraltar. They are an abomination. Do you have anything less desperate to say about my actual arguments? Fram (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I get the feeling he's not taking Chris too seriously.

[HRIP7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:D ... _main_page

Yes, I'm ideologically opposed to footpaths in Gibraltar. They are an abomination. Do you have anything less desperate to say about my actual arguments? Fram (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I get the feeling he's not taking Chris too seriously.

Beeblebrox has weighed in:

The bottom line here is, whatever the genesis of the article, there is no way that it is appropriate for Prioryman to be reviewing Gibraltar-related DYKs. Let someone who isn't closely assosciated with the Gibraltarpedia project do it next time. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 02:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

[drg55]

If you didn't see it, there has been a discussion now closed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipediocracy_and_outing (T-H-L) involving Prioryman and Sandstein saying that off wiki outing is harassment and grounds for blocking

I think it's very sensible to redact the links, and I would appeal to others not to repost them, here or elsewhere. Enough damage has been done already - let's not add to it. Prioryman (talk) 06:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

While the offsite article at issue does make for interesting reading, it roughly amounts to "User X has the real name of Y and is probably a really bad person, including a racist and a pedophile". This raises the question of what to do with the poster and the subject of the post.
As to the latter, I am not aware that we have a policy allowing or requiring us to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior. Intuitively I think that it should be grounds for sanctions because it reflects very badly on Wikipedia (I can see the tabloid headlines: "the encyclopedia written by pedophiles!"). But any attempt to implement this would clash violently with our current privacy rules as well as the adage of us being "an encyclopedia that everyone can edit". The best suggestion I can come up with at this juncture is to first develop consensus on whether we want to be able to sanction users for reprehensible offwiki behavior, and if yes, develop a rules-based, privacy-respecting process (probably by and via ArbCom) for implementing it. Then it can be applied to the instant case.

As to the poster, our policy WP:OUTING#Off-wiki harassment is to my surprise very clear: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." In addition, "in extreme cases, such as legal threats, threats of violence, or outing, protective blocks may be employed without prior warnings." On that basis, it appears to me that there is clear consensus based in policy that offwiki outing is grounds for onwiki sanctions up to and including a ban. As to what to do now, the outing policy instructs: "In serious cases or where privacy and off-wiki aspects are an issue (e.g., where private personal information is a part of the issue, or on-wiki issues spread to email and 'real world' harassment, or similar), you can contact the Arbitration Committee or the volunteer response team by email, in confidence". Accordingly, I believe that the ball is in the allegedly outed user's court; they can submit the case to the Arbitration Committee for a private hearing. The Committee is in a position to consider any possible exculpatory arguments, such as the "public service" argument. I do not believe that an onwiki discussion is helpful in cases such as this where offwiki, private information is relevant; it only tends to compound the privacy issues. In the meantime, nobody should further complicate the problem by continuing to post potentially private material or links to such material onwiki. Sandstein 06:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

For God's sake Sandstein, the editor the post is about identified his interests and himself, by name, MULTIPLE TIMES on wiki. Andreas JN466 07:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

If that is so, then we may not be facing a question of outing, but a question of whether the post otherwise constitutes harassment. In either case ArbCom is best qualified to handle this. Sandstein 07:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Prioryman and Sandstein are the last persons who should be closing this, particularly since Sandstein just admitted that the Arbcom request was flawed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:25, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman isn't even an administrator... I guess NAC flies at AN, learn something new every day... Carrite (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think considering the history with Wikipediocracy, Prioryman is WP:INVOLVED when it comes to matters concerning wikipediocracy (I'm not commenting on the merits of the case, I am merely noting a long running feud exists). NAC is actually fine at AN and ANI, but being involved isn't. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm am a little puzzled by this. We appear to have affirmative evidence that someone is a card carrying racist bigot, and probable possible paedophile. Framing the exposure of a Klan member as possible harassment is madness. Outing policy is meant to protect regular editors, not racists and paedophiles. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

[lilburne]

If you didn't see it, there has been a discussion now closed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Wikipediocracy_and_outing (T-H-L) involving Prioryman and Sandstein saying that off wiki outing is harassment and grounds for blocking

I'm am a little puzzled by this. We appear to have affirmative evidence that someone is a card carrying racist bigot, and probable possible paedophile. Framing the exposure of a Klan member as possible harassment is madness. Outing policy is meant to protect regular editors, not racists and paedophiles. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear sweet naive wolfie, as we are discovering, when each rock is lifted, many editors are indeed non-regular. They all seem to have axes to grind.

[HRIP7]

The arbitrators have been dragging their feet responding to Sandstein's clarification request about his use of discretionary sanctions in the alleged outing of Prioryman. Sandstein launched it in response to Peter cohen's ANI complaint about him.

Both the clarification request and the ANI thread have now been going for almost two weeks.

Now DGG has made a very rare appearance at WP:RFAR:

I almost never comment on these matters. But it seems the trend of some views expressed here are so contrary to what I regard as a community-based way of doing things that I must say something.

As for outing, I think NYV's discussion below is pretty definitive. Once the name has been widely revealed it is not outing. Using it against the preference of the user is in most situations discourteous. Whether it was or not discourteous in this case I am not commenting, but it is not outing and does not justify the application of penalties as if it were. Mentioning a widely known former user name against the preference of the user is not in the least outing, and can be discourteous when not germane to the discussion. It is a much lesser problem as compared to a similar use of a real name, let alone to outing.

As for the broadness of discretionary sanctions, they're a very strong and direct sanction difficult to appeal, and should be used cautiously. I can't rule out that a use in an indirect violation or in a manner not literally specified might not be sometimes required. I do have an opinion that Sandstein's action was excessive and not justified by the situation. And, as is often the case, if the purpose of DS is to immediately stop something from escalating, it was certainly counterproductive. I hope such unjustified use of power will always be noticed, so we admins will learn not to do it. Whether it is sufficiently unjustified in this case to call for action against the admin would depend on many factors, such as whether such overreaching is a one time event or habitual, and I am not now giving any opinion.

DS are not ordinary sanctions. They're the invocation of arbitrary action based on the decision of a single individual, that requires action of many individuals to undo. Such measures should be used only when unquestionably necessary. The opinion expressed that it's no harsher than ordinary blocks is unrealistic--they are so much more powerful that I personally would never feel sure enough of myself to use one. I find it highly alarming that arb com routinely resorts to them to make decisions that affect the actual resolution of a dispute, one that they often hesitate to make themselves. Arb com is, as it should be, deliberately set up in such a way as to provide for extensive prior discussion and joint consensus among the members of the committee. DS are the exact reverse of that, and to rely on any of the wide diversity of individual admins doing them right is alien to the spirit of a cooperative group of people. It produces such anomalies as the present one. Admins sometimes need to take emergency action, which is then subject to community review. I accept that with particularly difficult articles situations for more permanent immediate action may arise, but if so they should be construed as narrowly as possible and used with the greatest possible amount of consideration and judgment. Drastic action left to the discretion of any one of hundreds of individuals is dangerous, because someone among the hundreds will always be found who take an unreasonably alarmist view of a situation. DS encourages such extremism.

I think I am in all this essentially agreeing with Dennis, though I may be stating it even more strongly than he would endorse. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the arbitrators as a group will see their way clear to exonerating Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate. After all, they said no more than several arbitrators have said: that this was not and cannot be a case of outing. And if Sandstein warned and sanctioned Peter cohen and The Devil's Advocate for saying so, he should either be consistent and warn the respective arbitrators as well, or admit that his actions were inappropriate and retract the relevant WP:ARBSCI (T-H-L) log entries.

[Moonage Daydream]

If Prioryman has an interaction ban with Delicious Carbuncle how can he post a message on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page about the request for arbitration on Delicious Carbuncle? What am I missing?

[HRIP7]

If Prioryman has an interaction ban with Delicious Carbuncle how can he post a message on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page about the request for arbitration on Delicious Carbuncle? What am I missing?

Prioryman is a master at walking the edge. He would argue that he merely – helpfully – advised an editor no one else had notified that there was an arbitration case request involving him, and did so without commenting about Delicious carbuncle. Given that in the past, he always got away with interaction ban breaches, while Delicious carbuncle was knocked for six even when he didn't violate the terms of the ban, I reckon he'd get away with it now as well.

[Cla68]

The informal WP policy is that if a member of this forum points out a violation then no WP admin will do anything because they don't want it to look like they are in cahoots with us or subject to our bidding. So, the editor in question is free to toss an insult in the reporter's direction then immediately use the archive the talk page maneuver to bury it completely.

[Tarc]

If Prioryman has an interaction ban with Delicious Carbuncle how can he post a message on Kintetsubuffalo's talk page about the request for arbitration on Delicious Carbuncle? What am I missing?

Prioryman is a master at walking the edge. He would argue that he merely – helpfully – advised an editor no one else had notified that there was an arbitration case request involving him, and did so without commenting about Delicious carbuncle. Given that in the past, he always got away with interaction ban breaches, while Delicious carbuncle was knocked for six even when he didn't violate the terms of the ban, I reckon he'd get away with it now as well.

This is why I vote against interaction bans whenever I come across one at ANI. Dumb red tape that is too easy to game and too complex for the esteemed volunteer admin corps to police.

[Ming]

The informal WP policy is that if a member of this forum points out a violation then no WP admin will do anything because they don't want it to look like they are in cahoots with us or subject to our bidding. So, the editor in question is free to toss an insult in the reporter's direction then immediately use the archive the talk page maneuver to bury it completely.

Ming could get away with pointing it out but there's a limit to how much he wants people to think that he reads this stuff.

[drg55]

Here's an interesting link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bare- ... e_Internet

and here's another

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense ... ed_Messiah

Now someone talks about public interest here in releasing a book based on stolen diaries and papers where anything that might be negative is quoted and nothing good, together with stories from embittered former members - a real hatchet job. And the same person who has been the third most prolific contributor to an article on alleged confidential spiritual materials. But now he wants his "privacy" protected when a few years ago he didn't care and only changed his username after getting un-topic banned?

PS

I wrote in BFM talk "An advantage to us, if you can call it that, has been that our critics are generally insane and go completely overboard." and got topic banned.
Chris Owen described Scientology in the foreword: "an extraordinary fantasy world." (Russell Miller didn't say that, I did a search on the pdf for "fantasy world". Chris Owen said that.) Sort of proves my point about some of our critics. But also that I have been penalised for complaining about others' actions which were ignored. (The sort of thing that happens in third world countries, you are a victim of a crime and when you complain to the police they arrest you.) He still hasn't posted his conflict of interest on the talk page per WP:ARBSCI could it be they all know what he did?

I don't believe that Wikipedia is Anonymous or Wikipleaks, its an encyclopedia that is supposed to be NPOV. As I have previously mentioned we are still here despite rabid attacks at various times over the years, and compare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvation_army#History

Chris Owen also writes: "'What is true is what is true for you.' - L. Ron Hubbard The quotation is one was one of Hubbard's favourite aphorisms, highlighting his claim that subjective truth is all that matters."

This quotation is taken from Ability Magazine issue 125, February 1961. The article is titled "Personal Integrity" and can be found in our Technical Volumes.
"What is true for you is what you have observed yourself
And when you lose that you have lost everything.
What is personal integrity?
Personal integrity is knowing what you know -
What you know is what you know -
And to have the courage to know and say what you have observed.
And that is integrity
And there is no other integrity.
...
Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you
Unless you have observed it
And it is true according to your observation.
That is all."
This is the full quote and what it means is the opposite of what Chris Owen said.

I don't happen to believe that Scientology is everything, but it is a very accurate observation on aspects of life which when understood are self evident.

[Tarc]

I don't happen to believe that Scientology is everything, but it is a very accurate observation on aspects of life which when understood are self evident.

Does that understanding come before your auditing and remembrance of past lives on other planets, or after Xenu kills you with hydrogen bombs?

Prioryman may be d-bag #1 in all of this, but you're really won't gain much traction against him and his pals by proselyting Scientology bullshit here or anywhere else.

[drg55]

While still no statement of conflict of interest, I found this on Prioryman's talk page, only ten days old and already archived.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =564744975

I'm giving you a chance to explain yourself here before I raise your conduct at a community noticeboard for discussion. — [[User:Scott Martin|'''<span style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott Martin|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 22:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

−
−
:I didn't add the link, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =561416197] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =561417255], and if you look at the linked article you will see there is a reciprocal link, which I also didn't add.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =561416908] You're talking to the wrong person - try taking it up with the person who actually did add the link. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman#top|talk]]) 22:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

−
::I didn't say that you did, and if you hadn't blanked my post as "trolling" you might have seen that. What you did do was expand an inappropriate link, which indicates that you not only condoned its addition, but decided that it needed to be more verbose, instead of removing it from the article.

−
::I'm no longer as angry as I was with you last night, so can no longer summon the motivation to bring it up at AN/I, as I had planned to. However, if I catch you making a similar shockingly inappropriate and ill-considered edit to a BLP in future, I will almost certainly find that motivation. — [[User:Scott Martin|'''<span style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott Martin|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

−
:::As for you, Scott, I certainly don't think it's appropriate for you to call your fellow editors "fucking cunts". You need to tone it down. [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman#top|talk]]) 13:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

−
::::There are plenty of choice adjectives that come to mind when I see someone condoning the addition of a "funny" link to a page about someone with a life-changing medical condition. Get your act together. If you start thinking a little harder before hitting the save page button, you won't run the risk of making people angry with ill-considered, crass edits like that one. — [[User:Scott Martin|'''<span style="color:#000">Scott</span>''']] <span style="color:#900">•</span> [[User talk:Scott Martin|''<span style="color:#000">talk</span>'']] 14:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

−
:::::Quite honestly, you come across as angry all the time. You're not related to [[Bruce Banner]], are you? [[User:Prioryman|Prioryman]] ([[User talk:Prioryman#top|talk]]) 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

−
::::::Since you apparently continue to think that there was nothing wrong with your edit, I want to draw your attention to [[WP:BLPBAN]]. The next time you pull something like that, I will ban you from editing any BLP indefinitely. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|^{Let's talk about it!}]] 15:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Edited by Zoloft(site admin):This is covered in more detail here - link.