Jump to content

Talk:Arnie Lerma

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AI (talk | contribs) at 01:00, 17 September 2005 (→Information control pattern recognition). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To Add

  • copyright raid after posting Fishman Affidavit; Wired Magazine article
  • time in Church of Scientology; leaving after being told to back off relationship with Suzette Hubbard, LRH's daughter
  • other bio details with good refs

User:Antaeus Feldspar, sign your posts. --AI 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • summary para with ext/Wiki links about other critics raided around the time of Arnie Lerma, FactNet, etc.
  • incorporate sentence about motion from Lerma regarding RTC motion for summary judgement prior to Judge Brinkema's Nov 29, 1995 Memorandum Opinion (with ext link to doc)(may go with para of other critics raided around Lerma raid)
  • expand summary of RTC vs Lerma, et al to include url links to all court docs
  • add 1995 raid picture on page

User:Maureen D

POV check

This article is in favor of Arnie Lerma. There is more criticism of Arnie than what is presented here. --AI 19:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen D obviously has a POV which favors Arnie Lerma, she quoted the OPINION of Brinkema but did not include the judge's ruling. I will document this POV for use in any arbitration regarding this contributor. --AI 21:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding Vandalism

Adding one link to a scientology website does not denote a total reorganization of an entire page. To disrupt the integrity of pages others contribute and painting them with POV issues is a pale excuse. To redirect a "Recommended Reading" url link to the Wiki page on William Sargant alone - one that you have already altered, is inane - your POV noted. The reorganization of External Links - to separate the news titles from the urls (with the creation of a new "References" category - shows an obvious intent to confuse readers and researchers. POV is a shoddy excuse for Vandalism.

User:Maureen D 05:41, 29 July 2005


NPOV does not include reorganizing this entire page, and most notably to the date integrity, specifically to include this paragraph of undated information:

"Lerma was on the Board of Policy of Liberty Lobby, an anti-semitic organization founded by Willis Carto. Carto turned over part of his archives to Lerma to continue his "legacy.""

Alot of work had to be done in order to disorganize the date format that had previously been established. Why would anyone have to reorganize the entire article if the addition of material were credible enough to fall under the timeline or categories already established? The reorganization of the context of dates was necessary and intentional in order to insure the addition of this information, knowing it lacked the proper support, and which also served to move other "more notable" information about Arnie Lerma from the top of the page. The paragraph, with credible and supportive dates and ext links could have simply been added to the article under the already established date intergrity had the supportive information been known. The burden of proof to its authenticity had to be in question in order to alter the intergrity of dates as they had already been established. This is not editing, this is vandalism. The total reorganization of dates, in addition to the above comments from July 29. lack not only a NPOV, but have the effect of using a NPOV in order to vandalize.

as it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnaldo_Lerma&oldid=19799473

AI revised history: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arnaldo_Lerma&oldid=19868653

Reported to vandalism in progress. User:Maureen D 23:38, 29 July 2005


Reverted txt to last edit ((8:23, 28 July 2005 206.114.20.121) which include the 7 ext url links removed by "AI" (and recategorized as References) that were directly supportive to the dates and facts of the written text:

  • Scientology Fiction. The Church's War Against Its Critics----and Truth, by Richard Leiby, Washington Post, Christmas day edition, 1994
  • Church in Cyberspace; Its Sacred Writ Is on the Net. Its Lawyers Are on the Case, by Marc Fisher, Washington Post, August 19, 1995
  • Church of Scientology protects secrets on the Internet, CNN, Washington, August 26, 1995[2]
  • Scientology's Expensive Wisdom Now Comes Free, by Mike Allen, The New York Times, August 20, 1995
  • Dangerous Science: The Church of Scientology's Holy War against Critics, by Eric J. Ascalon, The American Jurist, vol. 9 no. 2, November 1995[3]
  • alt.scientology.war, by Wendy Grossman, Wired Magazine, December, 1995[4]
  • Scientology's Funny Photos By Lloyd Grove, The Washington Post, Reliable Source column, January 4, 2000

No discussion of the removal of these links by AI originally or after last revert. One ext link was left in by AI, (Aff of Arnie Lerma) that was mistakingly not filed in date chronological order and will be fixed now that the article has been reverted. Maureen D

This article does not belong to User:Maureen D. Maureen's claim of vandalism documented[1] and reverted. --AI 23:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalism: AI has reverted article again, this time changing name "Arnaldo Pagliarini Lerma, known as Arnie Lerma" to "Arnaldo (Arnie) Pagliarini Lerma." No comment on necessity for change, eg did you contact Mr. Lerma to ask what his preference was in order to make this change?

Playing with dates again- moving personal information and birthdate around

and then adding the same undated, opinion:

'Lerma was on the Board of Policy of Liberty Lobby, an anti-semitic organization founded by Willis Carto. Carto turned over part of his archives to Lerma to continue his "legacy."'

Is the subtle shifting of dates supposed to deter readers still, to not notice the addition of this undated, unsubstantiated information?

To the degree that there was less reorganization to the entire article this time still shows the same necessity and intent to use a dispute to the NPOV yet, with having to shift a date, and again add in undated, unsupported information.

Reverted; Reported again to Vandalism in Progress Maureen D


  • AI stop the Vandalism.

AI has removed media links supportive to written text, and added unsubstantiated, undated material, linked to scientology websites. Moving things around, recategorizing the page, does not cover the obvious need to add this spurious, undated material. It is not believed that NPOV allows fabrication as source for bias. A hundred websites could be listed as a reference, but without the history or support to substantiate the factual dates of the bias text presented, then the information is as good as fabrication. Shifting and editing other facts to degrade the date integrity, has been the underlying factor of this vandalism.

This text has been added several times without a link to its source: "David G. Post, co-director of the Cyberspace Law Institute at Georgetown University, said..."

The only source found for this quote is from scientology's website, "Freedom Magazine website" http://www.freedommag.org/english/vol28I2/page30.htm that does not contain a date or link to it's being rendered as a professional opinion anywhere else, nor as it may be pertinent to the results RTC vs Lerma. The same "Freedom Magazine" website also claims that Arnie Lerma stole the copyrighted materials that were posted to the internet. Have yet to see a link to conclusive court documentation that proves this "opinion," as well as other allegations made on that website. The balance of credible information on the website is past bias in a rational form.

Same with scientology RFW website that makes allegations without dated proof or evidence of the spurious claims. Maureen D reported to Vandalism in Progress

Clean-up, wikification and contribution IS NOT vandalism. --AI 21:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism; reverting 3 times with repetitive, undated information; disorganization of page, specifically to date integrity; repeated removal of url links, this time with new edit explanation: "WP is not a link farm." Has removed several media article url links, directly relating to, and including this one, a part of the RTC vs Lerma law suit:

Church in Cyberspace; Its Sacred Writ Is on the Net. Its Lawyers Are on the Case, by Marc Fisher, Washington Post, August 19, 1995

This person seems to be on a mission to write in misleading, undated, unsupported information. Maureen D

  • Vandalism; a 4th revert without explanation; Won't discuss the information being reverted, instead claims hes doing "Wikification." It is doubted at this point AI knows much about the information he keeps reverting to, nor has any interest in discussing or substantiating the information.

reported to Vandalism in Progress Maureen D

Wikified

I have extensively cleaned up and "wikified" the article which included reformatting, spelling correction, grammer correction, introduction of data which may be seen as controversial and can be disputed with discussions here on the talk page. Very little or nothing of Marueen's contributions were deleted except Arnie's "link farm," which Wikipedia is not. If there are disputes, then please dispute things properly instead of simply reverting the entire page. --AI 18:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is the connotation to adding the category of "Agenda" to the discussion page, without a comment? Wikified what? Your own reverts of undated information, vandalism? I've never seen an encyclopedia that references events without dates. Repeating, - the underlying nature of this vandalism has been the use of technical editing to remove references, and the degradation of date integrity that supported the dated information that has been cited, (with the spontaneous addition of undated information.) There has been no reply or discussion of the undated information that has been edited in, and reverted numerous times. The discussion of dated information has been noted numerous times on this talk page, without response by AI. (Wikification and "link farm" suggestions have been introduced later, yet that does not address the undated information comments.) "If there are disputes.." is not a logical reason for not bringing information without dates or supportive information. You cannot shift that responsibility, if you have read or understood the discussion on this page so far. The burden of proof to the information is not others, but yours. Maureen D
      • Inapplicable. The rule was formulated with the expectation that Wikipedia editors would all be intelligent and honorable enough to comprehend that it was not the only rule. Of course, that hope has since been punctured. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A policy/guideline are not rendered obsolete by other policies and guidelines. --AI 23:16, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which makes your citing of "Be Bold" as if it made all other policies and guidelines obsolete deeply inadequate, not to mention hypocritical. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:52, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take your comment personally as a personal attack. :) --AI 00:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you do. Just as you take my moving a to-do list, which I did not create, from the article text to the talk page, as an opportunity to whine that I did not sign my post, as if it was hard to figure out as the first edit to the page or it was somehow meaningful that I moved it to the talk page rather than someone else doing so. Just as you take Maureen's quite justified complaints that you are shifting the burden of proof onto others -- a matter far more serious than not signing a talk page post -- as an opportunity to trot "Be Bold!" as if it answered, or as if you'd ever say that to someone being bold with results that didn't favor your hobbyhorse. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust Denial

There is no proof, that this text is from Arnie Lerma: it is not on Lermanet itself but on the CISAR site which is hosted by Lermanet since 2004 or 2005. Joe Cisar is a Journalist who translated lots of German Scientology articles into English and did some investigations about Scientology as well. As the whole Spotlight-Scientology-Carto stuff is on the Cisar page, it is more likely, that the author of these reports (including the description of the Carto visit) is Joe Cisar and not Arnie Lerma - there is no name given about the author. In view of this, there is not enough evidence to write anything about Lermas opinion on the Holocaust: what can be stated is that he hosts a site which contains this material as part of the documentation of an investigation. --Irmgard 17:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Antaeus reverted my changes without discussion or explanation:

  1. 07:53, 7 August 2005 [2]
  2. 13:59, 7 August 2005 [3]

My contributions were clearly explained in edit summaries and properly attributed. --AI 00:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting his change, if any content is disputed, then we can discuss the particular content instead of simply reverting other user's contributions. --AI 00:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFW Page

Removed the ext link to the RFW website, (Religious Freedom Watch - Anti-religious Extremist: Arnie Lerma) as it applies to no referenced text in the article. The problem with the link being added originally is that the information that was being referenced in added text was undated, therefore unwarranted for addition.

One of the other problems with referencing the RFW website link is that the text often referenced does not match the text on the page. The edits in this article compared to the text on the RFW website were misleading. (Besides undated information.) eg., after AI added the RFW weblink, the first paragraph in the Arnie Lerma Wiki article was changed to say, "Lerma organizes and participates in demonstrations against the Church of Scientology." However, one of the first things that RFW link quotes is, "Arnie Lerma at a hate march.." The addition of text from the page verbatim would certainly be extreme in its own sense, and that brings the question of having to even soften the information to put it on Wikipedia. A supportive reference would back up what the article text says, not say something else when you looked to the link for more information. The language on the RFW page is extreme on the other hand, and if it cannot be quoted directly, or if the source of the page is not actually named on the page itself, it has no merit. The softening of the added language from the RFW page vs what is actually quoted in the text of the article may almost seem intentional, as if knowing that a certain level of extremism on the weblink already existed.

It has been assumed that RFW is a Scientology page, but without any quotation that is directly related, along with its being the only source of information that quotes this information - it would not appear to be a substantial, credible reference to be used for an encyclopedia. 25 August 2005 User:Maureen D

Experienced Scientology critics are convinced that it is a Scientology page - there are numerous factors contributing to this view: similarity of language, lists only people seen as "enemies" by Scientology, site is registered by "Scientology Parishioners Committee". I've seen at different times some Scientologists mentioned who run it. Even if it is not finally proved, the site qualifies definitely as Partisan website, probably as extremist partisan website. Here two examples of comments by persons who have been described there: http://www.xenu.net/news/20010726-ars.txt http://www.lermanet.com/cos/cartoihr.html.
Wikipedia is clear on this subject: Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Partisan websites - so it could be used as (first hand) source in Fair Game (Scientology) ot Scientology controversy, but else only if corroborated by independent sources. --Irmgard 20:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RTC vs. Lerma: Judge Brinkema

* "RTC filed a summary judgement motion in December based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works. ... At today's hearing, Judge Brinkman granted RTC's motion and denied a summary judgement motion filed by Lerma who claimed that his actions were "fair use" and should be allowed." - Church of Scientology press release [4]
* ..."CoS press release on the Jan. 19 ruling in favor of RTC and against Arnaldo Lerma." - EFF Website [5]


--AI 03:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • The EFF had this comment [6] about the Scientology press release, of which text you have added to the article. Based on their opinion of this text, I am reverting back:

cos_lerma_011996.announce"

CoS press release on the Jan. 19 ruling in favor of RTC and against Arnaldo Lerma. This press release diverges from previous ones, having more factual information and less spin, though it does state "This is a significant decision not only for the Church of Scientology but all other intellectual property owners..." This is not true - the case was jurisprudentially routine, and established little or nothing in the way of new precedent. The aspects of the larger case that are interesting from a precedent and legal significance point of view - whether Digital Gateway Systems and the Washington Post could also be held liable - have already been resolved, and not in CoS's favor. The press release also of course neglects to mention the judge's chastisement of CoS for the improper raid on Lerma, and other significant aspects of the decision.

The text you're adding highlights a copyright issue that does not merit the impunity, or precedent, then or now as the EFF's opinion above logically and professionally states - verbatim. The bulk of RTC vs Lerma is on the World Wide Web for others to read. This POV you express, based on a Scientology press release (and amongst many opinions stated in the court documents) suggests the copyright issue as being senior to the overall outcome - which it was not. It was decided that the harassment was senior. Maureen D 3 September, 2005

Nowhere do I suggest that the copyright issue is the senior issue or not the senior issue. The EFF's opinions only represents the POVs of certain demographics in society. Their opinion has no legal authority over official judicial rulings. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by the EFF Website confirms the obviously provable fact that the judge ruled in favor of RTC regarding Lerma's alleged copyright violations, regardless of any other issues. And Lerma's copyright violation(s) are simply an issue, regardless of any seniority of the issue. Lerma's alleged claims of harrassment do not nullify the CoS claims of alleged copyright violation. Seniority does not disqualify the significant-minority view.(see WP:NPOV) Censorship of the copyright issues ruled upon at the January 19, 1996 hearing is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also AI, please click on the url [7] (as listed above,) and see that the name of the judge in numerous offical court documents listed under the RTC vs Lerma et al case you've cited in the heading - is incorrect. The name of the judge is Leonie M. Brinkema. I'll leave your error so that you will possibly take that as a hint to actually read and familiarize yourself with this case in it's entirety before you make spurious corrections and edits. Just as you could have read the EFF's opinion of the text you've added to the article. The EFF's POV clearly could have saved the addition of this material in the first place, had you read it. 06:56, 3 September 2005 Maureen D
You should have corrected the name, the purpose of Wikipedia articles is not to leave hints supporting claims that another contributor's edits and corrections are spurious. The mistake over a judge's name does not justify censorship. Censorship of the January 19, 1996 ruling of Lerma's copyright violation(s) is a violation of WP:NPOV. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My POV regarding Lerma's copyright violation is not based on personal opinions or my personal activist views on copyrights. On January 19, 1996, the judge granted RTC's summary judgement motion based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works. At the same time, the judge denied a summary judgement motion filed by Lerma who claimed that his actions were "fair use" and should be allowed. Censorship of the POV I am presenting is a violation of WP:NPOV. All POV's must be presented fairly: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing all majority- and significant-minority views fairly and without bias." WP:NPOV Maureen is entitled to her POV and I welcome all POV's, but will not accept her censorship of the POV I am presenting which is based on facts. --AI 21:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


    • You did not cite your sources in the article - only here, with one press release from Scientology. The listing of your December hearing above: "RTC filed a summary judgement motion in December based on evidence of wholesale and verbatim infringements by Lerma of 33 separate works.. is much past explanation rendered in official court documents if you have read either of the two hearings you refer to. Or the ones before or after the dates. There are linked court docs in the article that discuss these issues as well. (and is it 33 separate works or 31? or 5 infringements?) If you cite the same press release on the article, it will not be acceptable because it doesn't include any official opinion of both of the hearings you have cited. The facts are in the court documents. Scientology makes untruthful statements in respect to the explanation of the fair use, as the denial of one motion is not an overall reason to conclude that the hearing caused a precedent setting event. That is not a POV that is a distortion of the facts. When there are not other professional renderings of such a conclusion, that is not an opinion. In retrospect, the facts have been distorted.

The idea of censorship and NPOV are your words, not mine. I do not accept your summarization that I am censoring a fair use issue because you misspelled the judges name. 6 September, 2005

Reverted back 6 September, 2005 Maureen D

I cited my sources here in the talk page and the source is apparent on the article with the way I worded it. --AI 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • AI has placed comment on my talk page which I have addressed and am placing that link here.[8] He is not addressing my last comments on this talk page, and has also neglected to add the full text of my comments in that discussion. AI has instead chosen to accuse of censorship and violation of NPOV. As a matter of fact, the details or other proof are not being brought or discussed. AI is reverting back text without addressing my comments.

I suggest only authentic sources be cited, eg actual court documents, so that the community can see and determine that the details properly render a NPOV. I note the habitual use of ambiguous and distorted documents in this article, that are unofficial and not NPOV, but seem to be used more as a way to draw reaction, bait and harass. This is not a healthy way to debate. AI has shown no interest in summarizing or bringing any other details of both of the court documents cited in this Scientology press release. If AI is unable to bring and summarize court documents that reflect or allow others to have input for a NPOV, I think the citation of sources be rejected until the proper support is brought and can be read by the community. Like this Scientology press release, and with other sources AI has used here, the facts were not authenticated to prove the summary of his text to the article, but he instead argued NPOV. AI stopped discussing and instead started to talk about Wiki policy. This does not replace his responsibility to bringing in of other sources to authenticate or allow others to check the NPOV. Nor should this consume other editors time to have to prove the facts for AI. This is an intentional, repetitive occurence in this article, where AI responds in terms of NPOV instead of proving his summarization from the sources he brings or by attempting to bring other sources. This Scientology press release is not an authentic representation of a proper source.

Reverting back the article Maureen D 05:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I cited my sources here in the talk page and the source is apparent on the article with the way I worded it. Long rants won't drown my statements. --AI 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"On January 19, 1996 this Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on its copyright infringement claim. That ruling was made orally, in open Court, the Court advising the parties that it would explain its reasons in a written opinion and thereafter give the parties an opportunity to address remedies." ... "4. the Court intends to award the statutory minimum of $5OO for each infringement, for a total statutory award of $2,500 in favor of RTC and against Defendant Lerma, unless the RTC convinces the Court to do otherwise." ORDER, RTC v. Lerma, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Civil Action No 95-1107-A signed by Leonie M. Brinkema, United States District Judge, October 4, 1996. --AI 04:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

+ That's a good point. When I first read the article I could not figure out whether-or-not RTC won their case. Of course I remember the case so I knew the outcome, but I think that most readers would have been left scratching their heads. The case and its aftermath were very important to the internet community. --Vreejack 04:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, the above mixture (in bold) of two court documents does not equal AI's original citation of sources. The text regarding the award of $2,500 for copyright violation is not in the Scientology press release. Nor did he put a link to cite the source of the document from which it's quoted. This document was already linked in the article.[9] After this opinion was issued, the RTC went to another judge On Oct 8, (in the absence of Judge Brinkema) and motioned to have it sealed because it included a statement about Xenu and advanced level teachings. [10] [11] On Oct 15 Judge Brinkema vacated sealing the order stating, "Because the Court does not find that the three sentences at issue reveal any trade secrets and because the Court does not intend to rewrite its opinions merely because portions do not satisfy one side, RTC’s Motion is DENIED" Maureen D 22:13, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information control pattern recognition

"Plaintiffs (Church of Scientology) have abused the federal court system by using it, inter alia, to destroy their opponents, rather than to resolve an actual dispute over trademark law or any other legal matter," Kolts wrote. "This constitutes 'extraordinary, malicious, wanton, and oppressive conduct.'" He later stated, "It is abundantly clear that plaintiffs (the Church of Scientology) sought to harass the individual defendants and destroy the church defendants through massive over-litigation and other highly questionable litigation tactics. The Special Master (Kolts) has never seen a more glaring example of bad faith litigation than this."

Special Magistrate James Kolts, Santa Barbara Independent, 23 January,1993 [12] Maureen D 02:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maureen, this article is about Arnie Lerma, not the Church of Scientology or James Kolts. The quote you are citing does not change the fact that Arnie was convicted of copyright violation. --AI 03:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Convictions" exist only in criminal cases. Arnie wasn't prosecuted. Tilman 08:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Tilman[reply]
Tilman, you are not correct. Do I have to prove it to you, or can you admit you are wrong? --AI 01:00, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arnie_Lerma&oldid=23372418"