I am Rick Alan Ross with a bio on Wikipedia. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Alan_Ross I cannot post at the talk page of my biol due to the claim that I am not Rick Alan Ross and/or have been posting against policy from an IP address rather than an established Wikipeida account. I did once have an account, but lost the password and have changed my email since then. I have opened a Wikipedia account RickAlanRoss1952 I have also emailed the appropriate contacts within Wikipedia as suggested, but have received no reply. I would like to be able to post again at the Talk page of my bio. Please helpRickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RickAlanRoss1952: Please see my earlier comment on your talk page [1] for your options. You can also post a request at Arbitration requests for clarification and amendment by clicking here. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But no response, no action and no change regarding Talk page.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once an issue is taken over by ArbCom there is nothing anyone else can or will do until their requirements are met. They are the final arbiters of matters they address. Your best bet if you are not getting any response through email is open a request at WP:ARCA. Several Arbs read that page daily and it is the proper place to address matters relating to their "rulings". Forgot to ping. Pinging @RickAlanRoss1952: and re-signing. Jbh^Talk 17:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Followed all your suggestions, but nothing is happening. What can be done?RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RickAlanRoss1952: As I have said above open a case at WP:ARCA by either going to the page or by clicking on this link. If you have tried my other suggestions and not gotten a response that is really the only option left to you. Jbh^Talk 20:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I followed instructions and filled out a form at the link you provided. I have followed all your suggestions.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@RickAlanRoss1952: It looks like Liz, an ArbCom clerk, has taken note of the request and decided that AARCA is not the place for it. She noted in the edit summary she would contact you on your talk page. She should be able to handle it from here. Jbh^Talk 20:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the request was not correctly formatted so that was one reason why it was removed. Also, I looked at the original restriction which advised RickAlanRoss1952 to contact the committee. I've alerted the committee on one of their email lists that they should be on the lookout for RAR's messages. They can take their time discussing requests like this so it might be a while before an inquirer hears back. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jbh^Talk 20:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have sent emails to the committee twice. Once today.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not verified at Wikipedia through my new user account and unblocked at the Talk page of my bio. I have again raised the issue of involuntary deprogramming there continuing our past conversation.RickAlanRoss1952 (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just wanted to remind you that I need your help on the lead. I know you are busy, but would appreciate your time to correct an error in fact and cut the lead to only the first paragraph as you previously suggested.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Alan Ross: I have told you at least three times that I was incorrect in my idea to cut the lead, why the information needs to stay, and that I would not be cutting the lead. Please drop it.

If there is an error of fact please let me know, on the article talk page, what it is along with a reliable source which documents the error and I will be happy to correct it. Jbh^Talk 13:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are errors of fact and misleading edits being made and I am noting them on the article talk page. I realize that you are concerned with rules and proper procedure, which I am learning and using. But Cwobeel is editing to filter the facts and spin the bio as negatively as possible. The pattern of his edits and the tone of his comments at the article talk page demonstrate this. A few other editors that drop in to help him also seem to be doing the same. I think the the "not guilty" verdict was a glaring example. Cwobeel is doing quite a bit of editing and much of my comments on the article talk page are a direct response to his work.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think you are starting to do yourself more harm than good on the talk page. There was a group of good editors with diverse opinions who, over time and via normal Wikipedia editing, would have come up with an NPOV bio. You seem to have chased most of them away by dominating the talk page. Usually people work out differences in wording and sources - the "acquitted" issue is a good example. You see it as some attempt to make you look bad. Rather there was a source that was in conflict with others, as can happen, and it was worked out. People will take different views and you will likely see people who feel you are whitewashing your own bio take strong positions to insert that kind of material because they feel, rightly or wrongly the bio is unbalanced. Now, it seems to me, editors are just tired of your constant demands and poor understanding of the terms you through out. If you think something is cherrypicking or soapboxing or whatever say specifically why and then let other editors work it out. Do this with one issue at a time, do not respond to everything - let the others work it out - if you are constantly posting no one else will.

Cwobeel is a very good editor. You practically demanded that he use those Chinese sources and then are upset that he summarized what they said. There is probably a better way to summarize the issue but I doubt anyone is going to work on it right now because you are arguing the issue and not giving others a real chance. If they are like me they are staying out of it because, as I warned earlier, it is becoming harder to see NPOV vs reacting to your WP:CPUSH behavior. If you look at our book notability guideline WP:NBOOK you will see "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not correlate with notability". That informs editorial opinion about how significant a book is in a bio as well. If it is important in China then we need to say why it is and how it was presented/received to get over the presumption it is all but irrelevant for being self-published in English.

You often have good points but they are lost in the noise. Your BLP will never be finished because nothing on Wikipedia will ever be finished. You can turn it into a battleground and try to make it read the way you want but ultimately you will get banned. It might be a year from now but it will happen and, long term, that would be regrettable and a loss to the project.

You need to understand that you are so close to matters that you can not be neutral. Worse, many editors will see most of what you ask to be whitewashing, whether it is or not. Wikipedia is very concerned about following our BLP policy but there is a nearly as great antipathy for WP:COI editors who are here to simply advance their POV and you will likely start to see that backlash more and more if you are unable to moderate your demands in quantity and tempo. I also suggest that you learn to compromise on smaller issues rather than pressing for "victory". My view over the months interacting with you is that you want things your way period and will push and push until you get it. That pushes editors away and sets up an environment where editors are reacting to you as much as or more than they to the issue.

You should consider going and editing some other articles here and/or reading through some talk pages of controversial BLP's so you can see that editors work very hard to make BLP's NPOV. There are often POV pushers, both positive and negative, but they sooner or later get the material ironed out. The more active editors working on a page the more NPOV it becomes so by creating an environment others do not want to deal with you are making it more not less likely negative material will stay for longer because there are less eyes and less points of view to work out tricky issues. Maybe seeing how things work on other pages will make you more confident in the process. Take a look at Ahmed Mohamed clock incident and its early talk page archives as an example of a very controversial BLP and how things were finally worked out.

One final note when "other editors drop in" and disagree with you and agree with the other editor it is what we call WP:CONSENSUS. If you have not read that do so, it is how we make all decisions on Wikipedia and is why I keep telling you to back off on the talk page. The more editors there are the better consensus is and the more likely the article will actually be NPOV. When there are only a few editors in conflict articles can become toxic as yours is well on the way to becoming.

Well, another final note, you must accept that the article is going to say things you neither like, agree with nor think are fair or even accurate. There are a lot of sources out there that have pretty negative things to say about you. I have bought several of the ones that have been discussed, including your book, to read when I have more time and to work on the article when I am more confident in being neutral. You also need to understand that all of those comments in the press you make do not really contribute to your notability, only what is written about you matters. That is why people are insisting you are notable as a "deprogrammer" (or whatever) not for being a "cult expert" (or whatever) It is very hard to see others write about your life because the world never sees us as we see ourselves. That is very hard for even private individuals to deal with and must be immeasurably worse for people with a large and controversial media footprint.

I have written much more than I intended and I am out of time to proofread it. I hope it makes some sense to you. Enjoy your weekend! Jbh^Talk 16:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jbhunley. This is being discussed at ANI, and yours is one of the names I recognize. Evidently there are AfDs at Ottoman Palestine and Ottoman Israel. Can you enlighten me on why people are saying Ottoman Palestine is under 1RR? And, do you understand the logic of making Ottoman Palestine into a DAB page? How would that solve any problems? Thanks for any opinion, EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The whole thing seems to be a storm-in-a-teacup issue to me. I got involved because of a similar complaint at ANI a day or so ago. I think the poster is getting 1RR by trying to claim the pages fall under ARBPIA but I am not sure.

It looks like the whole thing got started with a discussion over whether the page should redirect to History of Palestine#Ottoman era or Ottoman Syria with Palestine#Ottoman_period and Mutasarrifate of Jerusalem being in the history of the redirect. (I just added those two to the page) Using a DAB was suggested and, I am guessing here, when it was created it come up on the DAB Projects page and one editor brought up a technical issue I can do not understand about too many links. Drama ensued and was shut down. Then some more people from Project DAB showed up and more drama ensued based on specific MOSDAB prerequisites while one of the earlier editors noted that MOSDAB said those prerequisites could be ignored if consensus was that the page would be of use to our readers. Drama ensued.

I believe the issue could be worked out by calm discussion but it looks like there are editors on both sides of the issue who are not willing to listen to each other. Jbh^Talk 21:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for welcoming me! I feel glad to be here on Wikipedia! I'll try my best to make vast improvements to the wiki's content. John "Soap" MacTavish 05:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpt. "Soap" MacTavish: Glad to have you here at Wikipedia. If I can be of help please feel free to contact me here at my talk page or {{ping}} me by placing {{ping|Jbhunley}} on any talk page and signing the edit with ~~~~. Jbh^Talk 23:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Have a good day. John "Soap" MacTavish 09:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jbhunley, edits to the Arbitration Committee Noticeboard may only be made by the members of the Committee or its clerks. I assume you intended to make that edit to the Noticeboard's talk page, so I'll be moving that comment there shortly. Thanks. On behalf of the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Sorry, my error. Thank you. Jbh^Talk 13:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your patience with others. Something I could be better at myself. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Although it is sometimes less patience than only hitting the save button one time in three :) Jbh^Talk 20:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Almost Original Barnstar

Your explanation of things and situations is always insightful and accurate. Your part of a dialogue is always forwarding and instructive. (Maybe not for the editor for which it is intended but that may be beyond your control). Thanks for taking the time and doing more than most to educate new editors...and not-so-new editors that refuse to see through the smoke they themselves create. Buster Seven Talk 21:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jbh^Talk 22:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me a core group of anonymous editors has made it their mission to filter the facts and make my bio as negative as possible. It's interesting how this works. A small group of POV editors can dominate an article, game the system and make it read however they want, BLP rules or Wikipedia guidelines are fairly meaningless. I tried to work within the system, but my bio doesn't really reflect why I am notable as anyone in the real world can see by using Google and reading news reports and other credible sources rather than relying upon Wikipedia.

FYI--In the real world I am a well-known cult expert who frequently appears on national and international media outlets. I have lectured at more than 30 universities, had three papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals, advised law enforcement, the Israeli government and been qualified, accepted and testified in 20 court proceedings (including high-profile cases reported in the news) within 10 states. And testified in US Federal court after a Daubert hearing. Very few "experts" in my field have been so qualified. The Cult Education Institute (CEI) is the largest database about cults on the Web and has IRS tax-exempted educational nonprofit status. It is in fact an online library and an institutional member of both the New Jersey and American Library Associations. I am its executive director and founder. It was first launched in 1996. I have done more than 500 cult interventions in the United States and around the world and appeared in 13 documentaries. Five cult-like groups sued me and/or the institute in an effort to delete information from the Web. They all lost. I was assisted by large law firms with help from the Harvard University Birkman Center and Public Citizen of Washington D.C. all pro bono. I have been doing my work since 1982 and served on the paid professional paid staff of Jewish Family Service and Bureau of Jewish Education, of Phoenix, Arizona. During the 1980s my work on behalf of the Jewish community was widely recognized and reported about by the media and recognized both nationally and internationally. During the 1990s I became known as a cult deprogrammer and appeared on national talk shows like Donahue, Oprah, Geraldo, Sally Jesse Raphael and others. Soon I moved on to hard national news programs at CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC, BBC and numerous local network outlets. I have been quoted by Associated Press, Reuters, Time, Newsweek, People Magazine and print media across the US and around the world. My work has been written about in many books as one editor tried to point out. Since 2000, though I still do interventions around the world (just returned from doing two interventions in Malaysia), I am primarily notable as a cult expert and for the CEI database, and frequently called upon by the media as an analyst, as a court expert and now as a published author. My book "Cults Inside Out" has been published in Chinese and soon will be published in Italian. I will soon appear on the NBC Today Show for the 8th time and have appeared on all the network morning and evening news broadcasts including BBC Panorama. At almost any time you can see me on a cable documentary show cycling on National Geographic, Discovery, A & E, History Channel or on some documentary show or another.

See http://www.culteducation.com/cv.html

BTW--No opposing counsel in any court proceeding has ever questioned any detail in my publicly posted online CV. If they could they would to discredit me in court as an expert.

But in Wikipedia's bubble world or alternative universe I guess I am whatever a few anonymous editors decide I am. Facts are fuzzy to Wikipedians and reality within this subculture created by Jimbo Whales seems to be fairly subjective.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Hassan reads like an infomercial and violates BLP rules, but no one at Wikipedia cares. No changes have been made. I guess Steve hasn't done anything to make anyone mad enough to target his bio for retribution.

In an odd way it's a weird form of recognition for the Cult Education Institute database, Cult News Network and Cult News and my work with the media, courts and law enforcement, that people are using my bio as an attack platform. If our Web presence and my work was not effective they simply wouldn't care or bother.

Oh well, at least I tried. And I will continue to try, but maybe in a different forum that affords me a more neutral and fair playing field. Now I know how Wikipedia really works and why it is not considered a source for reliable information by any serious researcher, other than perhaps checking the article footnotes for leads, which I have done as a researcher at times.

The articles at Wikipedia about Steve Hassan, Falun Gong, the Epoch Times, Persecution of Falun Gong demonstrate the POV editing that makes Wikipedia fairly useless as a meaningful research resource. Some of the articles like Cult Awareness Network and Jason Scott Case are at odds with each other concerning specific facts included in their content. But of course at Wikipedia it's whatever the anonymous editors want to include. The Waco Siege article has a weird title, as it was a standoff not a "siege," but it's not that bad. Apparently some controversial subjects can be handled well by some editors. So things are not completely hopeless in Jimbo land.

Please excuse my "wall of text" and thanks for the pointers along the way in this rather strange weird world. In the end it seems that the wacky and nasty editors often win out within Wikipedia.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 12:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Alan Ross: Wikipedia is a hard place to get a grip on and its rules and processes are arcane and can be applied inconsistently because matters are resolved based on WP:CONSENSUS among the involved editors rather than a central authority. One of the hardest things to come to terms with is the difference between WP:NOTABLE/notable. Wikipedia is, nominally, an encyclopedia which means we do not so much write about a subject as we write about what others have written about a subject. You have done some very impressive work but a large portion of what others have written about you is not positive and most of the recent material I have seen is by you rather than about you. I know it is hard to accept but, for instance, being a go to source for commentary on cults is only notable, in the Wikipedia sense, if some third party writes about it - 50 articles where you are interviewed about a cult count for little while one article commenting on you being interviewed 50 times is significant. Because of how Wikipedia is written, by a group of volunteer non-experts, we value the independent reliable source above all else - see WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:V for more on this.

When a large, diverse group of editors, like you have at your article, tend to agree it means that the policies are being followed. While I am not familiar with all of the editors there I am with many and they are all very experienced BLP editors. Some of them are often on opposite sides of BLP issues and one is a self-styled "BLP champion". If you remember the advice for BLP subjects sent to you by OTRS, the person who wrote that has been involved. There are some who push for negative material but I have not seen any evidence of malicious intent - more it looks like the COI push back I mentioned to you. We have a huge problem with COI and paid editing here and COI editors, particularly those with a perceived financial interest, are really disliked, those who are perceived as trying to control "their" article much more so. That is not necessarily fair but we are volunteers with 5 million articles to look after, thousands a day to review and many, many more to write and our time is precious to us. My sincere belief is if you address one issue every couple of weeks and allow a couple of days for other editors to respond to each other rather than responding to each comment things would be better.

As to the Steven Hassan article. You did a good job of editing the draft. I have not had the time to go through the sources but will at some point. It is very promotional and looks like not much had been done with it in the years since it was first written. A weakness of Wikipedia is if no one draws attention to an article once it has been written and gets through New Page Patrol it will stay as it was. There are under 4000 volunteers here who make more than 100 edits per month and maybe a couple hundred, if that, of those seek out old articles to work on. There are over 5 million articles here so...

As noted above, I am pretty busy with real life right now but I do keep an eye on your article. At the top of my talk page, under the User menu, there is an Email this user link. If you are having problems and not getting a response you are welcome to send me an email. I may not agree with you but I will always give you my fair opinion on an issue or try to explain how I think a particular policy applies. If you keep only one thing in mind going forward remember this: On Wikipedia the reliable source is king. Technically nothing should be written in Wikipedia that can not be cited to a reliable source. I can not stress enough how much editing other articles will help you both in understanding Wikipedia and in building a reputation as an editor rather than a COI editor. Even something as simple as starting out by using automated tools to clean up bare urls in references or commenting at article deletion discussions. You seem to have a pretty good idea of our policies so maybe just try going to random articles until you see one that needs a bit of work, even really minor stuff. You can always contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me by placing {{ping|Jbhunley}} on any talk page and signing the edit with ~~~~. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS - You should re-write your NPOV noticeboard complaint by quoting the section of the article (the China book) you want an opinion on and say why you think it is not NPOV. A general complaint is not going to get any response. You should also always provide diffs to back up your complaint. They is an informal saying at the noticeboards 'diffs or it didn't happen'. If you do not know how to make diffs see the WP:Simple diff and link guide. In this case, if you have trouble, you can write up your complaint on your talk page, ping me, and I will edit it for you to post at NPOVN. Jbh^Talk 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PPS No problem, I write walls sometimes too (obviously! :) ). I edit conflicted with your last edit. Yes, Wikipedia is a general "gee I wonder about X" resource. It is very influential and valuable as a common touchstone of information for laymen but writing about anything one is an 'expert' on is an exercise in frustration. I stay away from editing on International Relations or the type of violent sub-state actors I am familiar with for just that reason. Maybe some day I will have the patience and discipline to write about such things but anything one does original research and analysis on in real life is bound to be frustrating. In that case it is best to pretend you are writing a literature review rather than presenting your own knowledge. I know of very few people who enjoy writing literature reviews but not doing the follow-on analysis. Cheers! Jbh^Talk 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know why I am notable. The undue weight at the article given to the Scott case is fairly ridiculous. I am notable as a cult expert, deprogrammer and probably most widely for the Cult Education Institute and my Web presence. Remember Jossi Fresco? He used to have fun editing my bio along with a few Scientologists and other cult members before they were banned. I'm sure there are still a few editors lurking and popping in that are somehow associated with cults listed at the CEI database. I am willing to work within the guidelines to get the bio to a place where it is less ridiculous and more serious. I am a reasonable man. But some of the editors appear to be at best petty and at worst vindictive. It's easy when you don't post under your own name. At times Wikipedia can seem kind of creepy and cult-like in its collective mindset. But then some editor will make a common sense observation that is like a little ray of hope. I am not interested in becoming an acolyte of Jimbo Whales. I am focused on not having lies, distortions and grossly misleading things said about me on Wikipedia. It's not about business, it's about telling the truth.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Alan Ross: That is the disconnect. You know why you are notable but all Wikipedia can do is regurgitate what other people have said about you in reliable sources. Here is the gist of it from WP:NPOV "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." ^{WP:UNDUE (emp. mine)} The bulk of RS material written about you seems to be from Waco and the Scott case so that is what the bulk of the article discusses. To shift that weight you need to provide reliable sources that talk about you in relation to other things. There is really no other way to go about it. Again, read WP:TRUTH. Jbh^Talk 18:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No there is no disconnect on this end. The bulk of articles and interviews over the years have been about various cults and me commenting as an expert. That's the reason I am interviewed. I am considered an authority on cults and am interviewed and lecture on that subject. I have provided reliable sources on this at the talk page. The Scott case is forgotten and 25 years old. The Scott case is primarily remembered because of Scientology not deprogramming or me. This is one reason the BLP is so ridiculous. I am asked about Waco. The BBC called me yesterday to talk about the Waco Davidians. I am considered an authoritative source regarding the Waco Davidians. The minority opinion of scholars at my bio (some tied to cults) regarding Waco is not mainstream and again ridiculous. I do thank Wikipedia editors for unintentionally exposing the "scholar" Anson Shupe who lied in his book (probably funded by Scientology) that there was a "hung jury" at my trial regarding Jason Scott. Shupe was a highly paid "expert witness" working for Scientology at the civil trial and he absolutely knew about the outcome of the criminal trial. Now I know that he deliberately lied in his book. So much for the supposed academic integrity of Shupe. Lewis and some of the others noted have the same problem. They are not reliable sources and have worked with cults.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Rick Alan Ross: As counter-intuitive as it is, Wikipedia does not really care about people interviewing you or you giving comments or analysis on cults. It cares about other people writing about you. Until you internalize this basic fact about how articles are written here your expectations will be out of sync with the reality of this place. This is a problem that has been discussed for years in relation to our notability criteria for academics. No matter how expert they are in their field if no one is writing about them in RS they do not get an article.

There has also been a lot of discussion about how to handle RS that are wrong - I have seen times when it has been handled by citing the incorrect source as a "minority opinion" - and no consensus has ever formed to simply discount them because often "wrong" can not be proven. That is why there was a lot of discussion about "acquitted". Wikipedia makes the assumption that RS are correct. This is a feature which allows non-experts to write an encyclopedia and drives subject matter experts nuts. Jbh^Talk 19:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided reliable sources to demonstrate why I am notable. If you and other editors choose to ignore those sources and Wikipedia allows that there is little I can do about it. All I can do is act in good faith according to the stated Wikipedia rules even if others don't. Again, I am not notable today for the Jason Scott case. I was briefly notable for that case 25 years ago. There have been many articles written about me and interviews about my work since the Scott case and academic sources to support this factual conclusion. I continue to be notable as a cult expert generally and about the Waco Davidians, but as the Davidians ended decades ago that topic doesn't come up much in ongoing reports about my work, media interviews, news reports, etc. when I am asked to comment. It may be mentioned, but is not the focus of interest. What has been proven at the talk page of my bio is that academics often skew or simply lie and are not always reliable. The few academics that were critical of my work at Waco were of no consequence. The majority of academics regarded the Davidians as a doomsday cult and Koresh as a psychopath. That is the vast majority opinion of historians and is the historical record. All Nancy Ammerman did that was notable is directly contradict the Justice report and the FBI regarding their statement that I was not consulted. Her characterizations of my advice were ridiculous, false and her minority opinion represents a fringe theory.Rick Alan Ross (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me expand the lede of this BLP? Thank you. --George Ho (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Sure. I will take a look at it in the next day or so. Jbh^Talk 19:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your view of the specialization of one specific editor in scientology-related articles? I note a lot of deletions of material which is uncomplimentary to that group, and inclusion of material uncomplimentary to some who appear to have opposed that group, alas. Including a "very strict interpretation" of BLP for the cases where deletions are made in favour of that group <g>. Like removing sources previously vetted at RS/N. Collect (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have alerted that editor to WP:NEWBLPBAN it might be worthwhile to notify them of the Scientology DS as well. I am very concerned that they are here to push a POV and some of the material they recently added to their user page was revdeled, per my request, as attack material. The only, barely, mitigating factor for their recent edits is I looked up "Deprogramming" in my Encyclopedia of Religion 2ed, a very mainstream source, and the way it describes Ross and the Scott case is more in line with the way we had it before RRs requests than now.

[T]he single legal case that finally brought an end to the CAN was Scott v. Ross (1995), a civil suit brought by Jason Scott, a United Pentecostal adult whose mother hired an “exit counselor” named Rick Ross to deprogram her three sons from a church of which she disapproved. After Scott’s two brothers were successfully deprogrammed, Scott was violently abducted, physically abused, and forcibly detained at a remote Washington State location for almost a week.

The jury was clear in its decision to award damages to Scott ($875,000 in compensatory damages, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000; against CAN; $2,500,000 against Rick Ross; and $25,000 each against Ross’s two accomplices). The CAN’s primary activity in this and other operations was to provide the public and the media with false or inflammatory opinion in the guise of “information” about unconventional religions. The jury’s decision, under the definitions provided in Washington law, was that CAN was an organized hate campaign. In a curt note to the defendants, who appealed the verdict, U.S. district court judge John C. Coughenour concluded:

Finally, the court notes each of the defendants’ seeming incapability of appreciating the maliciousness of their conduct towards Mr. Scott. Rather, throughout the entire course of this litigation, they have attempted to portray themselves as victims of Mr. Scott’s counsel’s alleged agenda. Thus, the large award given by the jury against both CAN and Mr. Ross seems reasonably necessary to enforce the jury’s determination on the oppressiveness of the defendants’ actions and deter similar conduct in the future (Scott v. Ross, 1995).

From: Jones, Lindsay (2005). Encyclopedia of Religion 2ed volume 4. McMillan Reference USA. p. 2292.

He might have a point that the article is tending to a positive-POV but the way he is going about it - and the Scientology POV pushing - is not a proper or constructive way to go about it. If it keeps up may be worth pursuing sanctions over. (I only bring the above quoted material up because, as an encyclopedia published by McMillan Reference, I think it might be a reasonable touchstone for NPOV, not to propose changes in text, and yes, I agree completely that the recent additions are way over the line) Jbh^Talk 14:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One might also note the issue Cult_Awareness_Network#60_Minutes_special_report indicating that material presented at the trial might not have been "kosher" - that one of the key witnesses recanted testimony afterward. In short, the CoS may have been a prime mover in an improper adjudication. In point of fact, the 60 Minutes item from 1997 might well be of value on the RAR BLP. And RAR is a pita - but really I suspect his attitude would be likely for anyone who sees their own BLP being used for specific POV pushing. Note also the temporary addition of "deprogramming" to the pseudoscience list <g> by the same editor. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link. Dealing with Scientology related material is very difficult since they put out a lot of misinformation. Jbh^Talk 15:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[2] is my post regarding an editor who has made many apparently pro-Scientology edits in just the past two weeks. Just to let you know. Collect (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Collect: Thank you. Jbh^Talk 00:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fear my credulity has been tested at this point, and found wanting. :) Collect (talk) 00:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... I saw your comment on Bish's TP. I agree that there is likely a desire to push POV and in particular negative material into BLP's. It is not a competence issue. It is, in my opinion, a PR campaign for whatever motive. Jbh^Talk 00:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some weird reason <g>, I prefer "UT page" instead of "TP" -- must be a cultural thing ... Collect (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! :) Jbh^Talk 01:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm figuring things out I'm not entirely sure how to reply to a talk page yet so I've felt posting on your talk page will get my reply to you for sure.

I state that my employer has no relation with my Wikipedia account and under all situations and conditions I take no compensation or financial gains from my edits what so ever. My edits are completely mine and I don't benefit from doing so in any possible way.

Thank you, Joseph Sakr

Thank you for the quick response. Please see my full reply at ANI [3]. PS - Please remember to sign your talk page posts with ~~~~ which will insert your user name and a time stamp. Jbh^Talk 16:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you.

;-) ;-) ;-)

LjL (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! Thanks :) Jbh^Talk 17:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Double irony: turns out in the same thread I signed with only three tildes so in fact I didn't sign... either. LjL (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! One of those days huh? :) Jbh^Talk 18:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]