I was going though FAC when i saw L. Ron Hubbard listed. I saw Laser brain's concern about a new editor third edit was a complete rewrite and expansion of the article see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=412295803 this. I tried to go though two checkusers and while they both suspect it's a clear sock, checkuser evidence is unconclusive. The editor in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contr...ions/Helatrobus This editor has to be some kind of sock, but who?

[Modnote: Moved to the Annex. Tracking down random socks is not really one of the Review's primary purposes. If it turns out to be an abuse of power or otherwise interesting, I'll move it back.]

Could be any number of people, but I have to say, this is very unusual, isn't it?

I mean, the L. Ron Hubbard (T-H-L-K-D) article is highly contentious by its very nature, but one day a new account shows up and with no prior discussion completely replaces the article with a new version, in a single edit, which after several days remains substantially unchanged.

If nothing else, this proves once again that the Single-Edit Theory holds true even for articles that are heavily watched. (Also note the posting time, roughly 2 AM US Eastern Time, and 6 AM in the UK. In other words, timed perfectly.)

Immediately after posting the new version, Mr. Helatrobus posted this on the talk page:

And after nearly three days, no comments.

I will say that the new version is an improvement over the old one in terms of structure and quality-of-writing, but that's likely to be overlooked, given the fact that the new article is more anti-Hubbard and anti-CoS.

As for this thread, maybe we could move it back if the situation turns ugly. It could also use a new title, to reflect what's really going on (Something like "Hubbard article replaced by n00b account" or something of that nature). But right now I'd have to say this is actually a kind of win for Wikipedia, sort of - as much as it pains me to say it.

Yeah, it's actually a better article.

PS. Guess where Helatrobus got his name.

Just because someone creates an article about a book that won't be available for months, doesn't mean they have an agenda. Where's your good faith?

I'm going to guess it's Vanished user 03. His Sci-Fi Scientology article quotes a Hubbard lecture titled "The Helatrobus Implants". Also Helatrobus edited the Military career of L. Ron Hubbard and Vanished user 3 wrote the expose Ron the "War Hero".

Oh great, ChrisO is back. Someone call Don Murphy.

Or, let's not and tell everyone that we did.

Seriously though, this "Military career of L. Ron Hubbard" article serves as an exemplar of why "NPOV" and "WP:NOTPAPER" are such hypocritical bullshit. That's not to say that Hubbard didn't lie about his war service; there is fairly convincing evidence he did exactly that (yes, I've read Atack's book, too). Moreover, as a child of a WWII combat veteran, I am familiar with the concept that the guys that really saw action had little to say about it later, while the guys that bragged about their war experiences saw action from a great distance or not at all. That Hubbard saw fit to discourse at such length about his war record alone stands as evidence against him. My dad, on the other hand, was awarded four battle stars for his naval service, but said precious little about how he got them.

However, it still should be obvious that there is no need for such an article in a general use encyclopedia. Three or four short to middle length paragraphs in the main bio should have been quite sufficient. While I may personally agree with much of the article's content, that doesn't make it any less an anti-Scientology advocacy piece. I don't need one gang of hypocritical liars telling me why I should disregard and shun some other gang of hypocritical liars. Okay Wikipedia, so L. Ron Hubbard was a lying, grifting, drug-addled dickhead. I get it already.

Sheesh!

I post this here because I never seen something like this happen in over 6 years in the project, that wasn't a "sock", even one of the checkusers who has been in the project for the same time was amazed by this. Editor didn't edit though a open proxy or nothing suspitious. The rewrite is much better than the original though.

Exactly! ARBSCI got rid of the pro-Scientology crowd for the most part, but it didn't call off the anti-Scientology crowd who are equally as bad. Worse actually, since they add really inconsequential people to WP just so that they can label them as Scientologists (and occasionally make articles about restaurants in New Jersey).

Still, the ChrisO explanation makes plenty of sense, under the circumstances. And it didn't have to be ChrisO himself posting it, of course - for something like this he could easily have found a confederate to post something he'd written, possibly even several confederates.

Not that I'm suggesting malicious intent or anything like that - after all, I continue to maintain that until that unfortunate going-off-the-rails incident of a few months ago, he was one of WP's better administrators.