Let's talk about Unification Church editors

[Giraffe Stapler]

Some time ago, I wondered why the Wikipedia article for the Unification Church (T-H-L) (popularly known as the Moonies) was so, well, different from the article for the Church of Scientology (T-H-L). Sure, there's a long section of criticisms at the bottom, but other than a few sentences in the lede, the first half of the article is quite positive or at least neutral. The CoS article lets you know right away that this is a bad group of folks.

I assumed that this was probably because the CoS were much more widely discussed online, thanks to Anonymous and various celebrities. Then I went through the major editors of that article and discovered that the reason was more obvious. I don't want to repeat the exercise right now, but I will offer up this one more recent example.

If you look at the userpage of Saussure4661 (T-C-L), you will see that they say "Ey don't adhere to any religious group, ey respect all people's beliefs". This may not be completely accurate. They used to be known as Matthias2gen and their userpage gave much more information about them.

Over on Fiver, someone using the handle Matthias2gen identifies themselves as "Matthias S". Like the Matthias2gen on Wikipedia, they are a translator. A LinkedIn profile using the same profile picture and linking to that Fiverr account identifies Matthias S as Matthias Stephan.

Matthias Stephan has bylines on several Unification Church-owned sites.* Here's one from March 18. Here's one from March 17. Here's one from March 5. Sure, that could be a totally different Matthias Stephan than the one who edits Wikipedia's article on the Unification Church, but I'll let you decide for yourself.

*The Unification Church has many, many arms. Some are more obvious than others, but one assumes the point is to disguise the association with the Church.

[Randy from Boise]

And this, my Wikipedia friends, is why we need to accept that deducing Real Life ID is essential to identify problematic COI editing.

We can be serious about either attacking COI-driven distortion of Wikipedia content or serious about preserving anonymity at all costs in all circumstances, but we can't be both.

t

[AndyTheGrump]

And this, my Wikipedia friends, is why we need to accept that deducing Real Life ID is essential to identify problematic COI editing.

We can be serious about either attacking COI-driven distortion of Wikipedia content or serious about preserving anonymity at all costs in all circumstances, but we can't be both.

t

Indeed. Dox the corrupt. Leave the merely incompetent nobodies to fester in their imaginary 'anonymity'. Their identities don't matter anyway. They are interchangeable. The Matthias Stephan's of this world aren't.

[Kraken]

Is it not simpy because it's been a very long time since the Moonies were in the news, and now they're basically an irrelevance? I literally didn't even know they still existed. I can't be the only one.

[Randy from Boise]

Is it not simpy because it's been a very long time since the Moonies were in the news, and now they're basically an irrelevance? I literally didn't even know they still existed. I can't be the only one.

Oh, they're around... When I was running the shoe store we'd periodically have cute, young Chinese girls with limited English skills going business to business selling printed fans and other curios that were 100% clearly UC. They were no harder to spot than Mormon missionaries, whom South Park has revealed to be the emissaries of the One True Faith.

t

[tarantino]

I was just reading a story about the church on Time yesterday.

The Unification Church Infiltrated Japan’s Government. Now Its Sights Are Set on the U.S.

[rnu]

Is it not simpy because it's been a very long time since the Moonies were in the news, and now they're basically an irrelevance? I literally didn't even know they still existed. I can't be the only one.

I think that's western (information) bias that I openly admit to sharing. I wouldn't have been able to tell you that the Unification Church are the "Moonies". And I barely know anything about them. I am vaguely aware of mass weddings and that Assassination of Shinzo Abe (T-H-L) had something to do with his relationship to the UC.
npr: Japan seeks to revoke the Unification Church's legal status after Abe killing

[rnu]

Related ongoing Wikipedia discussions:
COIN: International Churches of Christ ongoing / permanent
Talk: International Churches of Christ#Primary Sources for the "Beliefs" Section ongoing / permanent

Edit: I don't know why I thought this was related. My bad.

[tarantino]

JamieBrown2011 has uploaded six photos to commons of ICOC congregations that he says are his own work. They're from Singapore, Boston, Chicago, Johannesburg, Jakarta and an undisclosed location. He does get around.

He had at least two other accounts, Webmaster1967 (T-C-L) and 00nuthinbutthetruth00 (T-C-L).

[iii]

Here I thought this was going to be a thread about User:Ed Poor (T-C-L).

[rnu]

[...]
They used to be known as Matthias2gen and their userpage gave much more information about them.

Over on Fiver, someone using the handle Matthias2gen identifies themselves as "Matthias S". Like the Matthias2gen on Wikipedia, they are a translator. A LinkedIn profile using the same profile picture and linking to that Fiverr account identifies Matthias S as Matthias Stephan.
[...]

The user page used to explicitly say:

I am building a career in Translation via gig websites such as Fiverr, where now I turn to translating Wikipedia articles in order to build up my portfolio.

The translation language (Spanish) also fits. And the user page used to say that he tried to become a "professional translator in legal matters" matching a job as " DPSI Law Interpreter, Diversity NI Ltd" on the LinkedIn profile.

[Yngvadottir]

Is it not simpy because it's been a very long time since the Moonies were in the news, and now they're basically an irrelevance? I literally didn't even know they still existed. I can't be the only one.

You're demonstrating that even for news junkies, there's a silo effect. The Assassination of Shinzo Abe (T-H-L), if nothing else, should have put them back on your radar. Many years ago, I observed that in the UK and the US, the Moonies and the Scientologists were treated quite differently: in the UK, the former was tolerated as a bunch of harmless cranks and the latter as a dangerous cult; in the US, it was the other way round. Lot of water under the bridge, especially the emergence of Falun Gong, which seems to get most of the attention of the cult-busters on-wiki. Then there's confusion with / greater concern about ISKCON.

With respect to Wikipedia, they should all be treated the same. After all, Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of either promoting any of them (or any religion) or flagging any of them (or any religion) as particularly kooky. But religion is an area where everybody has a COI and is in danger of tunnel vision (including the atheists), as some Mormon editors have recently been demonstrating.

(Hi. Avoiding the temptation to add 4 tildes.)

[rnu]

Is it not simpy because it's been a very long time since the Moonies were in the news, and now they're basically an irrelevance? I literally didn't even know they still existed. I can't be the only one.

You're demonstrating that even for news junkies, there's a silo effect. The Assassination of Shinzo Abe (T-H-L), if nothing else, should have put them back on your radar. Many years ago, I observed that in the UK and the US, the Moonies and the Scientologists were treated quite differently: in the UK, the former was tolerated as a bunch of harmless cranks and the latter as a dangerous cult; in the US, it was the other way round. Lot of water under the bridge, especially the emergence of Falun Gong, which seems to get most of the attention of the cult-busters on-wiki. Then there's confusion with / greater concern about ISKCON.

With respect to Wikipedia, they should all be treated the same. After all, Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of either promoting any of them (or any religion) or flagging any of them (or any religion) as particularly kooky. But religion is an area where everybody has a COI and is in danger of tunnel vision (including the atheists), as some Mormon editors have recently been demonstrating.

(Hi. Avoiding the temptation to add 4 tildes.)

[Yngvadottir]

And this, my Wikipedia friends, is why we need to accept that deducing Real Life ID is essential to identify problematic COI editing.

We can be serious about either attacking COI-driven distortion of Wikipedia content or serious about preserving anonymity at all costs in all circumstances, but we can't be both.

t

Indeed. Dox the corrupt. Leave the merely incompetent nobodies to fester in their imaginary 'anonymity'. Their identities don't matter anyway. They are interchangeable. The Matthias Stephan's of this world aren't.

I agree except ... (a) there's an important difference between a full doxx and revealing a first and last name (esp. with an argument grounded in still visible disclosures on-wiki) and (b) there's a continuum of corruption (I find it interesting to see how rarely that word gets used except by critics here; it's useful for the worse end of the malfeasance scale, especially when either money or betrayal of trust is involved) and not every pecadillo justifies naming and shaming. Online anonymity is an important option to have. (I have a lot of thoughts on that, but here, just the gist.)

P.S.: Thanks for the welcome ! :-)

[AndyTheGrump]

And this, my Wikipedia friends, is why we need to accept that deducing Real Life ID is essential to identify problematic COI editing.

We can be serious about either attacking COI-driven distortion of Wikipedia content or serious about preserving anonymity at all costs in all circumstances, but we can't be both.

t

Indeed. Dox the corrupt. Leave the merely incompetent nobodies to fester in their imaginary 'anonymity'. Their identities don't matter anyway. They are interchangeable. The Matthias Stephan's of this world aren't.

I agree except ... (a) there's an important difference between a full doxx and revealing a first and last name (esp. with an argument grounded in still visible disclosures on-wiki) and (b) there's a continuum of corruption (I find it interesting to see how rarely that word gets used except by critics here; it's useful for the worse end of the malfeasance scale, especially when either money or betrayal of trust is involved) and not every pecadillo justifies naming and shaming. Online anonymity is an important option to have. (I have a lot of thoughts on that, but here, just the gist.)

P.S.: Thanks for the welcome ! :-)

Yeah, you are absolutely right about 'doxxing'. I've got so used to the way the Wikipedia 'community' misuses the term that I've been doing the same. There are no obvious circumstances I can think of where revealing a full address etc on WPO would be appropriate.

As for a continuum of corruption, you are absolutely right. And with regard to the Matthias Stephan case above, if we were discussing a CoI with regard to promoting the organisation and/or doctrines of say the Methodist Church, I'd probably err on the side of caution. We aren't. The Unification Church ('Moonies') are well documented to have engaged in serious criminal activities of one sort or another over many years. They hold considerable political sway in both South Korea and Japan. They have had close links with all sorts of far-right political movements worldwide. The 'Church' isn't just a religion. It isn't just a cult that exploits and abuses its members. It is far more dangerous than that.

[Vigilant]

And this, my Wikipedia friends, is why we need to accept that deducing Real Life ID is essential to identify problematic COI editing.

We can be serious about either attacking COI-driven distortion of Wikipedia content or serious about preserving anonymity at all costs in all circumstances, but we can't be both.

t

Indeed. Dox the corrupt. Leave the merely incompetent nobodies to fester in their imaginary 'anonymity'. Their identities don't matter anyway. They are interchangeable. The Matthias Stephan's of this world aren't.

I agree except ... (a) there's an important difference between a full doxx and revealing a first and last name (esp. with an argument grounded in still visible disclosures on-wiki) and (b) there's a continuum of corruption (I find it interesting to see how rarely that word gets used except by critics here; it's useful for the worse end of the malfeasance scale, especially when either money or betrayal of trust is involved) and not every pecadillo justifies naming and shaming. Online anonymity is an important option to have. (I have a lot of thoughts on that, but here, just the gist.)

P.S.: Thanks for the welcome ! :-)

Perhaps my favorite wikipedian deigns to join us.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

[Yngvadottir]

Perhaps my favorite wikipedian deigns to join us.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Heh. Thank you (IIRC you once called me Yog Shoggoth. I just can't remember exactly how you spelt it.) Really not "deigned", more "dared". Also, like Randy, I'm procrastinating. So I will have to avoid getting sucked in to posting a lot or lengthily here. Which if you've seen me on Wikipedia, you know I'm very bad at.

[Randy from Boise]

And this, my Wikipedia friends, is why we need to accept that deducing Real Life ID is essential to identify problematic COI editing.

We can be serious about either attacking COI-driven distortion of Wikipedia content or serious about preserving anonymity at all costs in all circumstances, but we can't be both.

t

Indeed. Dox the corrupt. Leave the merely incompetent nobodies to fester in their imaginary 'anonymity'. Their identities don't matter anyway. They are interchangeable. The Matthias Stephan's of this world aren't.

I agree except ... (a) there's an important difference between a full doxx and revealing a first and last name (esp. with an argument grounded in still visible disclosures on-wiki) and (b) there's a continuum of corruption (I find it interesting to see how rarely that word gets used except by critics here; it's useful for the worse end of the malfeasance scale, especially when either money or betrayal of trust is involved) and not every pecadillo justifies naming and shaming. Online anonymity is an important option to have. (I have a lot of thoughts on that, but here, just the gist.)

P.S.: Thanks for the welcome ! :-)

Perhaps my favorite wikipedian deigns to join us.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Indeed. I saw you on the registration list a couple days ago but didn't want to be creepy by saying anything. I'm glad you're doing your thing on Wikipedia again, it's essential work.

tim

P.S. To your point: yeah, I don't think there's any doubt that there's a line beyond the line: physical address and phone number and photographs of family members would seem to be beyond the pale. Under WMF's new Universal Law of the Happy Cult though, even coming up with a name and a job description would seem to be verboten. Chasing down these scofflaws isn't my cup of tea, but those who do it are doing the lord's work, as far as I'm concerned.

[Ming]

Is it not simpy because it's been a very long time since the Moonies were in the news, and now they're basically an irrelevance? I literally didn't even know they still existed. I can't be the only one.

You're demonstrating that even for news junkies, there's a silo effect. The Assassination of Shinzo Abe (T-H-L), if nothing else, should have put them back on your radar. Many years ago, I observed that in the UK and the US, the Moonies and the Scientologists were treated quite differently: in the UK, the former was tolerated as a bunch of harmless cranks and the latter as a dangerous cult; in the US, it was the other way round. Lot of water under the bridge, especially the emergence of Falun Gong, which seems to get most of the attention of the cult-busters on-wiki. Then there's confusion with / greater concern about ISKCON.

With respect to Wikipedia, they should all be treated the same. After all, Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of either promoting any of them (or any religion) or flagging any of them (or any religion) as particularly kooky. But religion is an area where everybody has a COI and is in danger of tunnel vision (including the atheists), as some Mormon editors have recently been demonstrating.

(Hi. Avoiding the temptation to add 4 tildes.)

They're never entirely off the radar in DC due to this:

(Ironically, it used to be a Mormon church.) Ming also ran across them during the CA places cleanup, as they bought up the Aetna Springs Resort (T-H-L). THe Abe thing Ming knew about.

[Kraken]

I think the assassination caused real issues for the UK News. It was wierd, even for Japan. Takes a lot of time to unpack give the political situation in Japan is not exactly common knowledge here. I think the fact it was a former PM and a personal motive meant it was just glossed over. And I doubt there's much appetite in the state broadcaster for highlighting what a successful political assassination looks like, hence the lack of any follow up that I can recall.

I definitely don't remember the Moonies being mentioned though. Perhaps the term is avoided these days. The similarities with SC are clear though. Extorting members and buying politicians. I can certainly see someone whose relative was cleaned out by SC wanting to gun down Tom. Perhaps he just has better security?

[Vigilant]

Perhaps my favorite wikipedian deigns to join us.

O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Heh. Thank you (IIRC you once called me Yog Shoggoth. I just can't remember exactly how you spelt it.) Really not "deigned", more "dared". Also, like Randy, I'm procrastinating. So I will have to avoid getting sucked in to posting a lot or lengthily here. Which if you've seen me on Wikipedia, you know I'm very bad at.

You're a rock star.
I mean that sincerely.

[Midsize Jake]

(IIRC you once called me Yog Shoggoth. I just can't remember exactly how you spelt it.)

It's "Yog-Sothoth," and it was actually a compliment because in the Cthulhu Mythos, Yog-Sothoth is basically the all-powerful universal deity, the "All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self." Much better than being a mere Wikipedian. But of course that was back in 2015, and at the time you were defending Eric Corbett for some reason after one of Wikipedia's many attempts to block his ass.

[Yngvadottir]

(IIRC you once called me Yog Shoggoth. I just can't remember exactly how you spelt it.)

It's "Yog-Sothoth," and it was actually a compliment because in the Cthulhu Mythos, Yog-Sothoth is basically the all-powerful universal deity, the "All-in-One and One-in-All of limitless being and self." Much better than being a mere Wikipedian. But of course that was back in 2015, and at the time you were defending Eric Corbett for some reason after one of Wikipedia's many attempts to block his ass.

Thanks for the needed corrective on the mythos. (I make similar oral-based mistakes with the Greeks and the Balto-Slavs.)Ah yes. ArbCom reacted as I'd expected, albeit less harshly than Vig wanted And no, Crow, wherever you are, I don't regret it.

Vigilant, embarrassed thanks. If I'm still a star of any kind in anyone's eyes since restricting myself to 99 edits a month, that's remarkable, and I truly appreciate it. But I don't think "rock star" was ever as appropriate as "flaming weirdo".