Talk:Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Initial Discussion 2 Original research 3 weasel words 4 Attribution 5 Personal Experiences 6 Landau7's Credibility 7 Drumpler's Credibility 8 Landau7's Credibility Pt. 2 9 Is Revelation from God Original Research? 10 Okay Now . . . Moving Along 11 Article Citations 12 Historical Review and Request to Unlock 13 Second Draft Proposal 14 Proposed 4th Draft 15 Agreed and Suggestion 16 Ironic -- Landau7's Original Research?: Positive Christopher C. Warren Link Confirmed 17 Self-Published Sources 18 Drumpler's Paranoia 19 Reliability of Apostates 20 Drumpler's hypergraphia revisited

[edit] Initial Discussion

There's another article on this group at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Covenant_Church_of_God_%28Sweden%29

I placed it on the front page for disambiguation purposes. Perhaps the information from the two articles can be combined. -Neo

• I concur. I changed the tag to a proposed merge. Maybe I'll get to it. There is a fair amount of inappropriate material in this (personal interviews aren't reliable sources). - Aagtbdfoua 00:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The title needs the capitalization of lev-tsiyon to Lev-Tsiyon

The two articles have been merged

• • • Aagtbdfoua uses language similar to the group leader, Christopher C. Warren. RIPE.NET, a Whois query service, demonstrates his IP is coming directly out of Sweden, the headquarters of this group: http://www.ripe.net/fcgi-bin/whois?form_type=simple&full_query_string=&searchtext=81.224.220.232 Plus, his provider, TeliaNet, has been demonstrated to be the one he uses in the past:http://www.nccg.info/deception.html Part of the reason he disbelieves that "apostate testimonies" are reliable is viewable from a document at his own group here: http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup/apostates.msnw. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for pushing off propaganda. I have reverted his edits primarily for the reason that this entry now reads like material from his own group site. If one wants to pick out any material from his changes for exclusion in the final edit, this is fine. However, the leader himself should not have the final right to decide what is and what isn't said about his own group. Drumpler 15:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Information can only be analyzed and extracted on the basis of verifiable source material. Aagtbdfoua is correct. Personal interviews are not reliable sources. The second revision removes the earlier disambiguation and better fulfils Wikipedia's criteria for factuality and neutrality. The neutrality of the first entry is highly questionable.

• • • You seem to forget, though, that Aagtbdfoua is the sect's leader himself and has been known to edit information critical to this site. I am working on a third edit which combines the two and tries to remove any biases from this user and the original. I will let you see the third entry shortly and will remove the interviews. Drumpler 18:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . Provided editors conform to Wikipedia NPOV rules the identity of the contributor is immaterial.

• • • Very well, Landau7. I have made a third re-edit and have included the interviews. Why? Interviews (even anonymous ones) are valid enough to be used by mainstream news sources, so they are certainly good enough for Wikipedia. Likewise, I have the suspicion that you are not whom you purport to be. For example, compare my contribs page to your contribs page. Your account was made only today and you edited only this page today. How do I know? Your log files states that you only made your account today and interesting when one checks your contributions page that only this one article was worked on. This leaves me with the suspicion that you are either Warren himself or working for the group and have made another username to mask your IP. Plus, I have seen your user name before. I have done my best to maintain a NPOV while including critical facts. If I have to resort to a revert war, I will, just because I do not think the group's leader should have the final say in what is said about his group. I have retained any information in his edit which is neutral and verifiable. I'm not so much ticked at what the leader added as I am what he excluded or twisted to make his group's image look good. You don't sign your name and yet, I know from checking the edit history of this talk page alone who you are. So why aren't you signing your entries? Drumpler 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view : "One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." The leader tends to be leaning toward only one side, his side, and has removed much critical information from the original. I think my re-edit is fine in this regard and considers both sides, those both critical to the group and supportive. Drumpler 20:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Glad the group leader made the neutrality dispute (as is show from the article history). I was planning on doing it myself, but didn't know how to. Drumpler 22:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Not that I think the current edit is lacking neutrality, just that I think the group's leader edits and re-edits are the things that are not neutral. Drumpler 22:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Noted that user Landau7 tried to take advantage of the old Mishpachah_lev-tsiyon link and make it a separate article. It has been my understanding, from the evidence, that this user is the group leader himself. I re-directed that page to this one. Drumpler 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Noted that user Uaasun put factual errors in about my own medical history. The comment in question, under controversy, "he had prior knowledge of his own brain shunt which he apparently chose to ignore" is not true. As far as I knew, my shunt was working until it broke again, an event beyond my control. He also stated that I chose to ignore the group leader's advice. For purposes of neutrality, my original statement said it was a "claim", a "claim" backed from source material. It should also be noted that Uaasun's nick is identical to a group member who goes by the name of U33sun and is a participant on the MLT Reception Group at http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup. I will edit his remark about my shunt to something neutral, but believe this statement was intended to vilify me. As a personal note, I think its sad when a religious group thinks it somehow has the claim to being a medical expert and this entry only goes to prove what I believe the group is saying about me behind closed doors. Drumpler 14:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I want to make it known that, if forced, I will get a statement from my neurosurgeon which debunks much of the bunkum Uaasun feels inclined to post. It would look very foolish for this group if they continue to post medical misinformation. Drumpler 14:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Your ID, Aagtbdfoua's ID, or who you think I am or why I am here is of no interest to me, and I doubt any other editor here is interested. I could care less about date and time stamps either: all entries are automatically logged anyway. Our interest in Wikipedia is the recording of objective, factual information that follows the NPOV guidelines.

I have since taken a look at your websites at http://www.nccg.info/ and http://blog.nccg.info/ which lead me to seriously doubt that you are a neutral and unbiased commentator. They explain why you are obsessed with identifying editors and pointing fingers. I note from your website that you have a penchant for impersonating people. Wikipedia is frankly not interested in vendettas and subterfuges that promote personal agendas.

Specifically (sample):

• • With some modifications and additions, the second edit remains the most objective statement and should be the main template. Who the author is is irrevelant provided the information is factual and neutral

• • Some of the links are dead and should be removed: polygamy web site authored by Christopher C. Warren formerly visible at [1] & account of sect's history written by Christopher C. Warren, formerly visible at [2]

• • Unverifiable interviews, especially with anonymous persons, is not proper data. The following should be removed:
• interview with Arvika Kommun official, April 28, 2006
• interview with Derek Rumpler, former involved individual, October 5, 2006
• interview with former female member who wishes to remain anonymous, October 2006
• interview with family member of former female member who wishes to remain anonymous, March 2006

• • Clear biases should be redressed: e.g.

a) The link *Apostates and New Religious Movements was removed in the third edit and another added *Cult Information from the Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups and Cult Movements. As the neutrality of the author of the third edit is in serious doubt, both links should be included at the very least, or neither. It is reasonable to include a link to an article written by a neutral sociologist of high reputation who views the testimonies of religious apostates as highly suspect and unreliable if this can be scientifically verified, especially if a link is included to an anti-cult group as well.

b) Repeat links to the detractor's websites should be removed

c) Propaganda inserts by detractors (witness a dead Wiki link to Derek Rumpler) - is this a bid for fame? - should be removed, such as:

"In October 2006, core member Derek Rumpler announced his departure from the group after claiming the sect's leader and another core member (Sharon Harvey) gave him a false prophecy in the form of faulty medical advice. His testimony for leaving can be seen on the sect detractors' website and to this day, MLT has not officially acknowledged its involvement in this prophecy and has since denied any allegations and has been percieved to be attacking this former member in the leader's sermons. This former member likewise maintains a blog about his experiences and involvement with the group combined with any discoveries he continues to have about it."

• • Landau7, the point is, your account was created yesterday. This is the sole article you have been working on (plus any other variation thereof). Contextually, your language usage and lack of signing your name makes me suspect of you in general so I could generally care less what you say or feel about me. Unless you work for Wikipedia, my general recommendation is that you stop speaking as if you possess some authority (you might want to start signing your entries, too). However, regardless of who you are, I still must work within the system.

• • • First, dead links will be redressed with an archived copy on an independent server (probably http://www.archive.org) since they are, indeed, source material.

• • • Second, verifiable interviews will be retained. As for the unverifiable ones . . . I'll probably provide a means where they can be verified. Again, if they're good enough for a newspaper, I feel they're good enough for Wikipedia. These are real flesh-and-blood people.

• • • Third, although the group leader originally ripped down the link to Rick Ross, a fact which can be independently verified by tracing his IP on the history page, regarding the article "Apostates and New Religious Movements", I will retain both mine and his link. At the time of removing it, I thought there was clear bias on his part for including it and removing my link in the first place, but will allow both points of view to remain in order to be fair.

• • • Fourth, I think the detractor's links should remain because I likewise scattered links not only to the group's main site, but also its own groups. If not, I can at least write a footnote. I think the bigger issue that should be worked on is sourcing most the material.

• • • Fifth, dead link to my name will be removed.

• • • Finally, what I write or don't write on my site is my business. Likewise, whether or not I've spied in the past is irrelevant, since the group's leader has done the same. I do my best to make my site objective, but since I do believe, given the evidence, that NCCG is a cult, this bias will clearly show (just as the group's leader thinks I'm an agnostic/atheist and publically attacks me in sermons -- his bias). I must work within Wikipedia's neutrality rules just because its an encyclopedia. Out of everyone who has contributed, I think my statements have been the least biased. Note this change from uaasun (change noted between the *'s):

• • • • In October 2006, core member Derek Rumpler announced his departure from the group after claiming the sect's leader and another core member (Sharon Harvey) gave him a false prophecy in the form of what he interpreted to be medical advice-- *he had prior knowledge of his own brain shunt which he apparently chose to ignore*.

• • • And my re-edit:

• • • • On 21 February 2007, a member of one of the sect's online groups groups made an accusation here on Wikipedia (archived copy) that Rumpler knew beforehand that he had problems with his brain shunt but chose to ignore them and that he misinterpreted Warren and Harvey's prophecy, an allegation Rumpler denies. Rumpler claims this member was not there when the initial prophecy was given and believes that the wording would seem to suggest that this is MLT's public policy regarding Rumpler behind closed doors.

• • • Not only did I link back to this member's original edit, but took that one little piece of text and expanded upon it so that both sides were (I believe) equally addressed. My first initial reaction would have been to delete it so that no one could read it. I believe I chose the fair and honest route. Likewise, if one looks at the category history, they will not only find that I put the group under the categories of such names as "cults" and "new religous movements", but also "critics of critics of religion", which could be seen to be in my disfavour! I think I have been more than fair! I've even used the majority of Warren's original edit as my backdrop because I felt that much of it was verifiable.

• • • One might question my motive in even editing this article. I believe that if the group's leader has the right to edit, as is demonstrated in the article's history with his IP displayed so prominently, so do I. What might need to end up happening is that an independent third party, who knows none of the people involved, might need to go in and clean up the article, while considering all sides, and then lock down the article. If a position cannot be reached, I think this is the most reasonable thing to do.

• • • As a final note: Cut the crap. You were caught with your hands in the proverbial cookie jar. The evidence seems to suggest that you are not whom you say you are and I'm sure imitating a Wikipedia official is serious business. Sign your entries. The only reason I have addressed whom I believe you (and others) to be is because I think it reflects pure bias on your part. I think the editors of this article have every reason to know! At least I admit I'm a former member of MLT. :-P

• • • Okay, I'm done. I decided I'm having a Neon Genesis Evangelion marathon today, since there's nothing else to do, and I have a guild meeting on Ultima Online at 8 PM EST tonight. I only mention this so you know that this, personally, does not have one degree of a psychological hold over me. I will make the promised edits later. Drumpler 19:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • In regards to the shunt. It is common knowledge for anyone with a shunt that they should immediately seek professional help when experiencing numbness and tingling. All people with shunts ought to know that shunts are potential problems. In regards to you asking the "sect leader" if you had a "spiritual" problem-- is it not true that you indeed made a spiritual decision out of all this? That would indeed verify the "prophecy" that there was a spiritual component. This you cannot deny with out self-stultifying. Uaasun 07:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • I did seek professional help for the numbness. I didn't (nor did Warren) know my shunt was malfunctioning at the time. This is irrelevant to my initial claim that Warren said what he said. Uaasun, I'm very willing to forward the e-mail where Warren himself claimed that "Rayna" was experiencing the same "spiritual illness". I still have it. You can check the IP address yourself to see the source of the e-mail. This is reverting to nothing but an ad hominem war. Drumpler 11:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Okay, aside from the part about my shunt which is demonstrably false (the illness was sudden, not over a prolonged period of time -- I honestly hope this isn't what Warren feeds people), I actually approved of much of Uaasun's alterations. There were a few things I reworded and a few things that were ommitted that I put back in, but for the most part, think that he fixed some of the "clunky" English. I also removed the word "alleged" regarding the prophecy and changed it back to "claim" simply because this prophecy can be demonstrated to have happened, at least as far as the e-mail goes and I am willing to forward it directly to Uaasun if he desires. Drumpler 12:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • One more thing. In response to this remark: "In regards to you asking the 'sect leader' if you had a 'spiritual' problem-- is it not true that you indeed made a spiritual decision out of all this? That would indeed verify the 'prophecy' that there was a spiritual component. This you cannot deny with out self-stultifying."

• • • • Actually, it wouldn't because I was faithful at the time. Did I have doubts? Yes. Reservations? Yes. I've always had those. But I was honestly trying to do what 'Yahweh' deemed right. When I went back to Ohio, I was fighting tooth-and-nail to go back to Pennsylvania until I found out what I had was related to my shunt. This was not known before and if this is what NCCG is pushing off (I haven't seen otherwise, but I kind've think it is, since its a point that continues to be pushed), it is wrong. I left while spending a month in hospital confinement trying to figure out what to do. I had difficulty sleeping for the longest time for fear of going to Hell if I made the wrong decision (the same thing that happened when I left Mormonism, suggesting a psychological component). Then, I finally made my decision. After analyzing the facts, there was no way I could remain a member of NCCG. The shunt was the catalyst. I then started mentally analyzing other prophecies from the group's leader in my head and concluded they were inaccurate. This is not something I entirely expect you to understand, Uaasun. I am not mad at you, but I will tell you upfront that it is wrong.

• • • • I've actually been trying to e-mail you since yesterday morning in order to clarify a few things. If you desire, you can e-mail me at my private e-mail (I think you know what it is). If you wanted, you could even call me (provided you don't hand my new number to the rest of the group). I honestly want to make sure that the facts are straight on here. There's much that you edited and removed from my initial edits which I have allowed to be excluded simply because I can't present the evidence right now. I'm not God. But I like to think I try to be honest.

• • • • I don't know if my choice was exactly spiritual either. Maybe, maybe not (even if it was, it doesn't discount my arguments either -- just because something is a "spiritual issue", does that make it not "good"? Maybe it was and God used it to get me out? Just other ways to think about it). I tend to not think in such black-and-white categories, except for the categories of "verifiable" and "non-verifiable". Even if I couldn't prove my claim, I know what happened. Who wouldn't argue the truth, even if no one believes in them? A few have and the only reason I've been vocal about it in the first place is more or less to warn people in case they've seen the same thing -- then the claim starts becoming verifiable. I have many Yahoo and MSN chat conversations which I still need to provide screen captures of (I have since dropped copying-and-pasting as my primary means of proving information and relied on this method since it is the most accurate). There's the occassional copy-and-paste, but then that's only done so that people who see it might be on the look out for additional behaviour like that if it ever indeed does occur.

• • • • I'd also be interested in knowing your initial reaction to the articles on Harvey's plagiarism and the "Satanist" hoax. Doesn't it at least disturb you that Warren went around changing the links on his groups? The ironic thing is that one of the original writers saw this (in relation to a prophecy) and I am still waiting for their response (they agreed to help me expose this lie when they saw it for themselves, but have been busy lately). This new information was months after the original "Satanist" exposé was written. What you couldn't see when the IP data was analyzed, I think the plagiarised visions reveal it. There are likewise speech and typographical similarities between Kati and Harvey that are taken into account when analyzing her. I know of at least two logs in particular (although in all honesty, I think one got deleted -- don't know yet) which if I find, I can show you where Harvey and Kati respond almost word for word when I described to them a similar incident. The evidence seems very clear to me.

• • • • There. You have my response. I am actually very willing to work with you in making this blog accurate. But I think it will only be done if you look at this e-mail plus any other source material I or Concern may have. You can independently trace the IP yourself. I also apologize ahead of time to the editors who are sifting through this information and couldn't care one lick either way about MLT or what we discuss here. I just think it needed to be out. Drumpler 12:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Actually, I take that back. There are two e-mails I'd like to send you. The second is the one mentioned on my blog with a revelation from Harvey. I still have it and you can check the headers on this one for yourself. Drumpler 13:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Actually, I agreed that your accusations of plagiarism were completely valid (and unavoidably so). To me that behavior was unacceptable, so I put everything on the line to confront the responsible parties. Whether or not the finalized apology has been published or not I don't know. What I do know is that the problem has been dealt with on a personal level to my satisfaction. Uaasun 14:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for this reasonable response. I noticed I accidently deleted some of your additions, so I'm going back over them and including them. I still do not know why you insist writing what you do about my shunt. Where did you obtain this piece of information? Drumpler 14:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• From the computer.Uaasun 04:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research

I was wondering if anyone else thought that the fact that much of the article is written by a former member (Derek Rumpler) constitutes original research? In particular, he even writes much of his own experience, and links a few times to his own anti site. Writing about his own experience is definitely original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Dan0 00 23:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The first edit looks to me to have been wholly written by Drumpler, or an early edit of it, with a very clear bias. At any rate, almost all of the material from it has been cut and pasted into the third (and current) edit by him. A neutrality dispute flag was posted soon after the third edit was put online by Drumpler, and for good reason. The second edit is to my mind proper research culled from MLT websites and groups, all of which is properly linked and is verifiable. So I agree with Dan0 00 and propose that the second edit be restored, locked, and used as the primary template for future editing. Landau7 08:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious. Drumpler, when you initially set up your wiki entry on nccg/mlt, was your intent to make a factual, unbiased entry about the group, or was your intent to "annihilate it out of existance?" (it, referring to nccg/mlt)Uaasun 13:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs. All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection, a soapbox, a vanity publisher, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a web directory". [3] Landau7 17:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it has been asked, here is my response (I have strived for accuracy, so believe the last part to be irrelevant to me -- you can read my clarification on "Lev-Tsiyon" for more details).

This article was originally written by a person who did not wish to disclose their IP. So they asked me to post it up. I did so at my own volition. I believe vocabulary and word usage would indicate I didn't write it. Regardless . . .

At the time it was written, a bot was placed up that made it impossible to post directly to New Covenant Church of God (Sweden). So this page was made to provide counter-arguments, although I made a note to the original person to make sure that the article was as neutral as possible. We did not have access to much of the voluminous information the sect leader himself had (his user IP 81.224.220.232 points directly back to the group's compound when one does a query whois and a trace route) and so our information regarding its history was particularly scant. The original writer went by what they knew and I posted it up, in good faith, knowing that this is what I knew.

Eventually, the bot was removed and New Covenant Church of God (Sweden) was able to link to this article, in order to consolidate the two. I had noticed that the article had changed and that the group's leader [again user IP 81.224.220.232] had removed much of the critical information. Outraged, I naturally reverted it, but when I took a day to cool off, decided that much of it could be factually based and decided to work within the framework. I went in and put in critical details I believe the leader had left out intentionally in order to support a one-sided argument. To me, his re-edit read much like one of the many religious tracts put out by this group and so I put back in those details I thought were verifiable and added additional details. My philosophy was if the group's leader was able to say anything, I am, too, in order to keep it from being slanted in the other direction. People may state that what I did was propaganda, but I could likewise argue the same for the group's leader (and any others I suspect to be working for this group -- I'm sure a Wikipedia admin can easily check their IPs).

There is much I handed to them because this encyclopedia is intended to be a "group effort". Some things I wrote I later realized sounded biased and so I didn't attempt to readd them. I have attempted to work with one of the members of this group himself in order to keep it from being biased (as one can see from the talk page). There is much misinformation I believe is being placed about me on the article, but, instead of removing it, as I think one might be inclined to, I reworded it as a "claim". In fact, I state much of my own materials as "claim". My desire is for complete neutrality.

I initially pointed out who I believed the posters were, along with my own identity, in order to make it clear there's a clear bias. This entire article has seemed to be nothing more than a posting war between myself (a former member) and the group's leader and at least one other member. So I think only one of two conclusions can be reached:

1) Everyone who is or was involved with the group must agree to back off in order for an independent VERIFIABLE writer who knows NOTHING about the people involved to go in and re-edit it, considering all sides.

2) We must somehow come to a consensus where all sides are equally and fairly addressed. Loading the language doesn't seem to help either. For example, there's a bit about "Lev-Tsiyon" that is posted in there which would seem to water down NCCG's actual position. I initially posted that members of his group are called "Lev-Tsiyon" also, just like "Christians" are named after "Christ" but realized there was a potential for bias there so I reworded it to state that members of his church share the leader's name but that they don't worship him. I then used a biblical precedent in order to support the position they claim to hold. I then linked to an article detailing this research in the references page and the links page, which links to a copy of the group's old website hosted on an independent archive service in no way connected to me or this group in particular.

Now regarding the claim that I'm trying to use Wikipedia to destroy this group. My personal opinions aside, my idea was to work within the framework of Wikipedia. I have included critical materials to provide balance. There is also much other critical material on the Internet about this group that one might want to include next to my own (my own information was only included because I have a high ranking on the Google search engines and the leader seems to address me the most in his writings). I have done my best to report the facts. If its a sin to write about myself, or just general bad practice, than the group leader and its members need to desist and cease.

A former member may have bias. Agreed. But a believer and especially the leader himself does too. I believe I have done my best to edit out this bias and think my attempts at doing so are honourable. Why should the leader of a religious sect have all the control about what is said about him on the Internet?

This is my position. You can disagree. Personal reasons aside, I believe my participation on this article can be demonstrated to show my intent for a lack of bias on mine (and other's) parts. Drumpler 18:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add I can agree with the current edit posted initially by uaasun and only slightly edited by me. If this is reasonable for all parties involved (since it is only slightly edited after the contribution by the group member in question), I'd suggest this be the final edit. Drumpler 18:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

There is not yet consensus on the current edit which is far from satisfactory. Legitimate questions on the violation of Wikipedia rules raised by Aagtbdfoua, Dan0 00, myself and others have not yet been addressed. Landau7 18:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] weasel words

Call me dense, but I quickly read over the article, and I did not spot the "weasel words" (and or phrases) Could the person who flagged the article as having "weasel words" be so kind as to point out the "weasel words" in question? Uaasun 14:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia definition and standards can be found at [4]. There were certainly many weasel words in the first edit and quite a few remain in the third and current one.

Example: Some of Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon's critics and former members claim that the sect is a destructive cult

Wikipedia: Generalization using weasel words Generalization by means of grammatical quantifiers (few, many, people, etc.), as well as the passive voice ("it has been decided") are also part of weasel wording. Generalization in this way helps speakers or writers disappear in the crowd and thus disown responsibility for what they have said.

• People say…" (Who are the people who say it?)

Who say these things?

Example: They claim that it uses a brainwashing model based on MPD (Dissociative Identity Disorder) SRA (Satanic Ritual Abuse), "Theophostic ministry", and an allegedly hypnosis-based altered state of consciousness called "The Garden". They claim that Christopher C. Warren is a false prophet whose primary aim is to gather and retain wives for himself.

Who says? What brainwashing model? Where is there an authoritative reference to this 'model'? Is it a valid model?

If the person who slapped the weasel words flag on the article is also the author of these statements, then I think he has shot his own proverbial foot, which once again calls into question claims of neutral reporting. Landau7 22:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As if your credibility isn't already called into question, Landau7. Remember, um, how you started working exclusively on this article, just, um, after I exposed the fact that a, um, certain IP started coming from this group's compound?

The "they" is the NCCG-Concern/NCCG.INFO site. That site is the group's biggest critic. And you can say I'm advertising for myself, but I'm not. I do not author NCCG.INFO. I donated the space and I am more or less hands-off when it comes to that site. An anonymous party authors it. The only thing I author is the blog.

Points noted and will be corrected. Drumpler 03:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

And to note, as I check your contribs page, you still have only worked on this article. I think the evidence is highly in the favour that you work for this group. This would explain why you want the article to be reverted to the second edit. People can read my comments at the very top where I use the evidence to support that you are the group's leader itself. I'll allow a reasonable person to sort it out for themselves.

If you're looking for a favourable outlook on your church, Wikipedia isn't the place to do it. People have the freedom to edit, for better or worse. I still contest my edits were the most neutral. I strive for neutrality. Why don't you go through and start backing the claims that the original author made? Oh, BTW, what really is Lev-Tsiyon? Those under the "spiritual position" of him? What does that mean? Is it or is it not true that this is the psuedonym of the group's leader with people sharing that name as an extension, just like "Christians" share the name of "Christ"? The major difference is they don't worship Lev-Tsiyon, right (as they do Christ)? Isn't he the group's leader, like Moses was? I wrote this and it was edited out. I had a perfectly reasonable reason for doing it to -- I used an archive of the group's old article on this, on an independent archive service! This was but one of the "weasel words" I was referring to -- what does spiritual position mean?

I think those who read the dissenter site and blog carefully will know that these critical details are just as well backed. But I guess its different when the group and only the group alone doesn't cite its own material but claims you can find it on its site? Well, I'm making the same claim! And until you cite every little tidbit of information in this article on your own end, I don't think you have the same right to place the same burden on me.

The only reason I haven't gone in and cite the information was because of this edit war. If people can reach a REASONABLE consensus, one that considers BOTH sides of the issue, then the article might be stable enough to cite its sources. The way things are, it'll only screw with the citation as things are edited and re-edited and deleted. The article has to be stable.

Likewise, removing the names of the newspaper articles was very sneaky in the second edit. Why was this done? Most people aren't going to read these articles anyway, so this was VERY critical information. Oh, and why did the author link to the dissenter's site's now defunct Geocities page? The original article had the correct link.

The second edit was nothing more than propaganda. And if Landau7 is who I think he is, I can understand why he would resort to it. I know who Uaasun is -- I knew him when I was personally associated with this group and reconfirmed his identity both here on the talk page and private e-mail correspondence. Before this edit war began, the only other person editing this page was the group's leader, as I noted toward the top of this page. Landau7 (and later, Uaasun) only popped into the picture immediately after I exposed this. Drumpler 03:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have been looking at some of MLT's materials, current and past, to check up some of Drumpler's statements. Many of them are speculation that do not tally with the facts. For example:

• This seems evident, especially as one checks the shop's page, since the female model identified in many of the pictures is presiding matriarch Jannicke Larsen, a wife of Christopher C. Warren

The only presiding matriarch of MLT has been the late Aslaug Mjolsvik. According to articles this position was never filled following her death. Further, Jannicke Larsen is recorded as the third matriarch, not the first. Finally, according to MLT's news page, the leadership structure was dissolved at new year with the group now being led by a council of elders [5], so there are currently no matriarchs. This is sloppy research and reinforces suspicions many of us have here that his 'neutrality' is seriously in doubt. And yet he continues editing this blog as though he is an authority.

Drumpler also claims to have been a 'core' member of NCCG. The evidence suggests that he was a peripheral one and that his claims to importance in the MLT hierarchy are grossly exaggerated, presumably to raise his profile as an apostate with a grievance. (I notice that he has again removed the external link to the reliability of the testimoy of religious apostates page but retained the link to a cult watchdog).

According to a private statistical report issued to MLT members at the end of last year, which has been made available to interested parties, Drumpler was not even a full member of MLT. It states that he was denied full membership after his first year's probation for failing to meet the moral requirements of the group. Further, he was excommunicated for sexual immorality and only rebaptized when in Sweden. He was therefore only a probationary member of about three months when he left the group at the end of 2006. With over 3,000 members at the time of which 2 were patriarchs and 2 matriarchs, one a bishop, ~50 pastors, ~100 elders, ~200 deacons, ~1,000 full members, and 2,000 baptized members, this puts Drumpler very much at the bottom of the pile, and anything but a "core" member. His position as U.S. Representative was without executive powers as he was not ordained let alone a full member. This means that Drumpler played a very minor role in MLT affairs.

Drumpler may not be aware that there is an internet information site on him available to members and serious researchers consisting of original materials. Landau7 09:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

More errors by Drumpler showing sloppy research:

• From 1 February to 10 February 2007, core member Sharon Harvey was caught plagiarizing the dreams, visions and articles of others and passing them off as her own, as Rumpler claims on his blog.

Sharon Harvey is apparently not even a baptized member, let alone a 'core' member of MLT, but currently a member of a Baptist Church in MS. As a point of interest, it would seem that MLT includes as moderators of its online MSN and Yahoo groups members from other churches who have absolutely no commitment to MLT as an organization but who are sympathetic to many of its aims. One (now defunct) group had as two assistant moderators a member of the Plymouth Brethren and a Messianic Jew. Landau7 14:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There are some links to an archive of the old NCCG site [6] put in by Drumpler. According to MLT, this is not the official website of MLT [7]. Current doctrine and practice is to be found at the current MLT websites [8] [9]. Any citations to the old website should therefore be in the context of former beliefs which may, or may not, be confirmed in the new one. Further, one link states:

• "polygamy web site authored by Christopher C. Warren archived at [5]"

I cannot find a single reference on this website or in any NCCG group which states that Warren is the author of this site which is written anonymously under an assumed name. If it is Drumpler's opinion that is has been authored by the group leader, then it should be stated as an opinion.

There are other errors and suppositions in Drumpler's insertions:

• "the female model identified in many of the pictures is presiding matriarch Jannicke Larsen, a wife of Christopher C. Warren"

As commented earlier, Larsen is not, or has ever been, the third matriarch. I have further made searches on NCCG's and MLT's sites and can find nowhere where Warren's wife is named. Unless there is a marriage certificate or some other official statement saying so, this then becomes mere opinion or speculation. This whole statement should either be removed or rewritten to read, "the female model identified in many of the pictures is the former third matriarch, Jannicke Larsen".

I will look into several other discrepancies when I get the time. Landau7 17:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some more discrepancies:

• "It is comprised of Christopher C. Warren, a small number of women who are his wives, and their children."

"A small number of women" could mean anything at all. Where is the evidence for this? In an official statement written on June 6th, 2006, the group leader writes of those living in their headquarters:

• "Currently there are three single-parent families and one single adult who form the core of the community, who manage the office, take care of the old people (until recently three, now only one owing to illness and death), manage conferences and training, look after the grounds, and homeschool their children." [10]

Which of these two statements is verifiable?

• "They likewise claim that Christopher C. Warren is a false prophet whose primary aim is to gather and retain wives for himself."

Where is the evidence for this? How does one establish that this is a "primary aim", let alone a goal at all? This is stretching incredulity to the limits.

Also, why have only negative newspaper articles been reported? I was able to find one reference to a positive Swedish newspaper write-up on the group:

• 2. I have met many journalists in my life, from the honest and fair to the gutter press, both here in Sweden and abroad. It was my happy experience in 2004 to welcome a freelance journalist from Värmlands Folkblad (VF) into my home to meet everyone who lived here. He had a photographic session, interviewed us most courteously, adults and children alike, from one of our oldest residents in his 80's to the youngest, and wrote a very fair and balanced article as a neutral observer in the good tradition of honourable journalism. He was shown everything he wanted to see and asked us whatever questions he wanted. Because he was interested in truth and fairness, he sent an advance copy of the article he intended to publish, allowed us to correct any misperceptions or false conclusions he may have come to, and published a sound article even when he did not necessarily agree with us on everything. I have, as a result, always had a high regard for VF. [11]

If this is to be a neutral, balanced article, it should contain references to other newspaper articles. Why did the person writing up the negative articles not include the positive ones? Do we know what procedures/standards were used by the newspaper writing a negative report? Landau7 15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attribution

I notice that there are still many unattributable references in the article:

• e.g. A reminder of Wikipedia policy is in order here [12]:

• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments.

• Although everything in Wikipedia must be attributable, in practice not all material is attributed. Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

• Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's two core content policies. The other is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. For examples and explanations

• [edit] Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources
• Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions. Any unsourced material may be removed, and in biographies of living persons, unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately.

The following items have been around for some time now remain unattribitable and should be removed:

• interview with Arvika Kommun official, April 28, 2006 [citation needed]
• interview with Derek Rumpler, former involved individual, October 5, 2006[citation needed]
• interview with former female member who wishes to remain anonymous, October 2006 [citation needed]
• interview with family member of former female member who wishes to remain anonymous, March 2006 [citation needed]

Landau7 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Experiences

I should appreciate some guidance on the following sections which do not impress me as being encyclopedic material but more personal experiences and opinions, which are not allowed. I have highlighted some of the text which give me grounds for doubt. I would have thought that a single link to the detractor's website would be sufficient here where all this material is discussed.

• In October 2006, core member Derek Rumpler announced his departure from the group after claiming the sect's leader and another core member, Sharon Harvey, gave him what he interpreted to be a false prophecy in the form of faulty medical advice which he claims almost cost him his life. His testimony for leaving can be seen on the sect detractors' website and to this day, MLT has not officially acknowledged the prophecy spoken of by Rumpler. Rumpler has percieved a few of the leader's sermons and writings to be a personal attack against him and maintains a blog about his experiences and involvement with the group combined with any discoveries he continues to have about it.

• From 1 February to 10 February 2007, core member Sharon Harvey was caught plagiarizing the dreams, visions and articles of others and passing them off as her own, as Rumpler claims on his blog. Here is a sermon given by Warren which Rumpler perceived to be the official response regarding these claims and Harvey's initial, then full apology, which the former, Rumpler claimed to refute with additional screen captures. After these responses, Rumpler has continued to contend that both the sect's leader and the member in question are liars and continues to expose them on his blog.

• On 21 February 2007, a member of one of the sect's online groups groups made an accusation here on Wikipedia (archived copy) that Rumpler knew beforehand that he had the potential for problems with his brain shunt but chose to ignore the typical warning signs ([1]) and that he misinterpreted Warren and Harvey's alleged prophecy (both allegations which Rumpler denies). Rumpler claims this member was not in the online chat conversation when the initial prophecy was given and believes that the wording would seem to suggest that this is MLT's public policy regarding Rumpler behind virtual doors.

For instance, should materials be included here giving a personality profile of the detractor Drumpler to balance the items above? The MLT Critics Archive is quite large but so far none of it has been cited here. Should material like this be included for balance or just be included in references? [Testimony of Derek Rumpler's mother]

Landau7 16:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a link up to my mother's "testimony" (if that's what you can call a private e-mail sent two years ago). However, when I browsed the site for the link, I couldn't find a direct link. Did I miss it? Or did you just post the link up here in order to defend your group? If it was the latter, where can I find it directly linked on the site? How do I know you're not going to make a link as soon as I bring this up? How can I trust your own "credibility" if indeed you did make this page in order to make me look bad?

If at all possible, I would like to request that a Wikipedia admin check into Landau7's IP address. I'd be highly interested in who this poster is. Drumpler 23:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landau7's Credibility

I know my credibility has been addressed here and it is for this reason I would like to raise an issue of Landau7's own credibility. I made the dispute earlier in this thread that I believe Landau7 to be the group's leader himself. I noticed his recent addition to this page and decided to check hiscontribs page again. It would appear little is different -- he's only interested in NCCG / MLT articles. He not only put an e-mail up on the Internet that my mother did not authorize (her being a private citizen and all) but just earlier today, he was caught editing this article on baptism for the dead. The singular edit I can see he made was changing the "New Covenant Church of God" link to an updated link. This raises some questions, but primarily, who is Landau7? Why did he fake being a Wikipedia official earlier? Why is he so determined to remove my own stuff (I've already decided to keep information from the group that is neutral and verifiable)? Why did he include a private e-mail from my mother which, as far as I can tell, as of this date, is not linked anywhere visibly on the NCCG site? And why is he editing out critical information on NCCG / MLT from articles?

If you want to see the changes I bring up, you can access the archives on the baptism for the dead link both here and here (under "groups opposed to baptism for the dead" -- although their group did at one time believe it, as one will find if they peel back the glue-ins in the Olive Branch). The first one was his current edit. The second was the one before it made by Bochica. Highlight the "New Covenant Church of God" link and you'll see in the first link that Landau7 changed the URL that is present in the earlier second link. It would seem Landau7 is fighting awfully hard to control what is said about this group, wouldn't it? Or in this latter case, make sure that the links are active so people can go to the active parts of his own site?

And then you must remember that the initial neutrality dispute was posted by the group's compound's IP address just after I initially exposed this.

I'll let people sort this out. I at least am honest about my identity. If a neutral, VERIFIABLE third party can come in and edit this article, I have no qualms, but does Landau7? Drumpler 23:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, regarding my mother's "testimony" . . . nevermind. If one removes the HTML file name and presses enter (http://www.nccg.org/archive/), it goes to a private archive page. No wonder he obtained access to it. He, the group's leader, knows precisely where it was at. Drumpler 01:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious, as I look above at some of the posts provided, about this so-called "private statistical" report. How come you have ready access to it? If I said I was an interested party, would I get a copy? ;) Drumpler 02:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I didn't remove the link to the apostates article. Someone else did. Check the archives more carefully next time. Drumpler 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and regarding the bit that Harvey isn't a core member . . . you and I know both know that is pure crap. I don't know if she was formally baptised or not, but I do know that Warren (you?) relies on her for a large portion of his "prophetic information". Most the group's articles on Satanic Ritual Abuse were written with this individual in mind. I believe I've exposed who you are pretty well, Landau7, and will allow others to research the facts I've posted on here to independently find out for themselves. As for "most" on here, the only other person I know of is that Dan fellow, and he's been alerted as to your identity (I'll wait for him to independently draw his own conclusions from the evidence I've provided).

So here's the question: Are you the group's leader or not? Are you hiding behind yet another psuedonym? Must I dig out and find the evidence that Stanislaw Krolewiec and Christopher C. Warren share the same e-mail address? I will if I must.

Now's your chance to be honest. If not, I will expose it further. Drumpler 02:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I think former investigator Marten Doctor does a pretty good job at exposing the whole Stan/Warren connection here. Funny, as one who was a former member of the poly group, Stan and Warren both shared the same e-mail address and username. I'm not the only one who noted this. I remember a certain former member in New Jersey who noticed it also, two years ago, before I even left. Drumpler 03:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Also, you've got those intimate with the family who know this to be true also. Hm. Drumpler 03:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

And by that "last piece of information" bit, I mean to imply that if she's important enough to be having revelations for the group, including being one of the seven mothers (remember, I was the son?), then by all means, she's important enough to be considered a member. Drumpler 03:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please, post the archive. I'd love to see it. Drumpler 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, how do you know where Harvey attends church? Was that an interview? Am I inclined to trust it? Drumpler 03:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and what about Harvey pretending to be the very "Satanists" that "persecute" NCCG? I thought that was pretty well documented, don't you? Maybe I overemphasised the other issues and should've instead emphasised this? Drumpler 03:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand Drumpler's paranoia and psychosis, and his anxiety to access the MLT archive and I can also understand why MLT isn't giving him access and is only sharing its information with its members and serious researchers given Drumpler's behavior. I can also understand why he sent out a panic IM to his friends today to try and find someone with the technological expertise to try and hack into MLT's website to get that information:

• drumpler: MASS MESSAGE: Anyone online with extensive IP knowledge?
• drumpler: CORRECTION: Tech knowledge, not IP, but more specifically, Internet tech.

Again, who he thinks I am is irrelevent - this is not a CIA dossier or a court enquiry but a serious research center for an online encyclopedia. All of us here except Drumpler seem to have that view in mind.

For his information, I corrected a dead link in the Baptism for the dead article, pending a direct link which could be restored in the future as the new MLT website is still under development. I figured that was better than deleting the link altogether.

Those of us who have seen the archive now know Drumpler's dishonesty which is why we don't take him seriously as a neutral researcher anymore, however much he writes (and he writes a lot - I believe the condition is known as hypergraphia and is related to his mental condition). Someone with nothing better to do that devote his waking hours to the destruction of a small handful of people whom he has caricatured beyond recognition has got serious mental problems. He still doesn't get it that Wikipedia does not allow original research or personal opinions.

For his information, I have not been adding to Drumpler's article/edit here, just voicing my concerns, asking questions, and making observations. And if I subsequently do, I will be citing proper references from factual resources.

Drumpler's insistence that a certain Sharon Harvey has been imitating a woman called Katie is comical for those of us who have inspected the MLT archive and actually talked to both online. I suggest he goes and gets an IT degree and learns how it is possible to fake IPs and hack into routing systems. And the sooner he wakes up, takes his pet project elsewhere, and lets the serious researchers here get on with their work, the better, because his hype is getting very boring. Landau7 09:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Panic IM? Don't flatter yourself. You have no way of proving the intentions behind the mass IM I did send nor that I was attempting to "hack" (I would NEVER do any thing of that nature -- I try to be honest). I noticed when I did sent it that you happened to be on my list and so this only goes to confirm your identity to me (at the very least). Talked to Kati online? That proves crap. IP archives don't lie, Warren. Especially Apache web archives. And if you did talk to "Kati", as you say, I can just as easily pretend to be ten people and even make up a few fake IPs for good measure if I myself wanted to (its called proxying). Ironic, though, that "Kati" was sitting behind the computer in the living room? Your compound's IP came up in that research and while you may fool others, you definently can not fool me on that one.

"Serious research" will come into the question when the cult leader stops editing this article. When he does, I will. Let's deal with the facts instead of your own paranoia and psychosis, shall we? After all, I'm not writing posts about thousands of Satanists involved in active spiritual warfare against myself, now am I?

Oh and you're to remove a certain five year old kid's name from the site. This is all. Drumpler 09:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and it doesn't matter what I say or what evidence I bring up or anything . . . this group is going to discard it and call me a "liar". I mean, the Kati thing aside, Harvey was caught plagiarizing visions, was she not? Hm. Okay. By default, I don't trust her. And by default, I don't trust you, because you then proceeded to cover it up. This is all on my blog. This is the research I need. Check the "Critical Info" folder.

Yanno cultists are good at manipulating the information. That's why they run groups for a reason. ;) Drumpler 09:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and to prove that I faked that IP information, you're going to have to prove I have access to Kati's e-mail box. The web logs show her e-mail box. I sent the image file to her e-mail box. The compound's IP came up. Let's put two-and-two together here, shall we?

A woman sitting at a work station is caught checking a "Satanist's" e-mail box. A few months later, she is also caught plagiarizing dreams and visions and then makes a PUBLIC apology for it. Hm, tad suspicious, isn't it? And so you know, it was someone with IT knowledge who exposed that crap and then showed it to me. Their name shall remain anonymous.

You know, maybe I was wrong to expect the truth out of you. I'll take you "serious" when you actually admit to the lies you've been spreading, including all the families you've destroyed. I can't understand for the life of me how you build people's trust up only to be using them in the end. No wonder your church has flopped so many times.

But neutral I must be. How is it easy to be neutral when the group's leader himself is the one trying to character assassinate me on this page and changing every little thing that is said about him and his group? The only "serious" (hint the underlying sarcasm) researchers I've noted are yourself, U33sun, and myself, with one or two comments from Dan and one comment from the other name I suspect to be connected with this group (actually, I think Dan is probably the only one that comes close to "serious" -- and by serious, I mean "neutral"). All of these people, with the exception of Dan, either have former or current involvement with this group. Likewise, I question someone who sources information from a "secret archive". Isn't your claim here not much different from the accusation you sent my way rebuking me for keeping the interviews in? You're relying on secret source material, but I'm not allowed to?

I don't see how my past sexual immorality or my so-called hypergraphia is relevant to whether or not NCCG / MLT's claims are true, but fine. I mean, this group has a tendency to divert the issues and instead attack people. This is why I left in the first place -- I knew my voice would not be heard. It is hopeless to try to change NCCG / MLT from the inside out. And until you back off, I cannot, in all honesty, allow only the group itself edit this page. We all need a neutral editor. Again, someone verifiable, who knows NONE of us, and can consider all sides of the issue. Drumpler 10:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drumpler's Credibility

Drumpler seems to think he is some kind of authority or kingpin over people here by telling them what to do:

• "I cannot, in all honesty, allow ..."
• "Oh and you're to remove a certain five year old kid's name from the site..."

I did not come here to argue with him but to post accurate and verifiable information on MLT following Wikipedia's rules. He can pontificate all he likes, accuse all he likes, whine and wimper all he likes, act out his puerile catharis .... his mother knows him better than anyone else, and make himself out to be someone important with the right to command, a victim, or whatever. But the fact of the matter is that he was obviously a minor player in MLT who has grossly exaggerated his importance and just wants a new stomping ground. Now he wants a nanny from the busy moderators here. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. And if he had bothered reading Wikipedia's rules, this encyclopedia doesn't exist to establish truth:

• I don't see how my past sexual immorality or my so-called hypergraphia is relevant to whether or not NCCG / MLT's claims are true"

Wikipedia is not for establishing whether MLT or Drumpler is "true" but for reporting factual information from verifiable sources that excludes original research and personal opinions. There are pleny of playgrounds for "playing truth" on the internet but this isn't one of them. His information is inaccurate and biased, the evidence doesn't support much of anything he says. His claims to be honest are a joke - perhaps he should get a dose of his own medicine and start reading what others who really know him and how he has behaved are saying about him - e.g. False Accusations Against Bud Rice. Perhaps someone should enter this and other links along side the material Drumpler has put up on the article on his own claims under 'Controversy'. That would be balanced and neutral. However, neither of them should be there because this isn't what Wikipedia is for - and he still doesn't get it because that's not what he wants from this encyclopedia. I repeat, he is becoming a crass bore. Landau7 15:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Landau7's Credibility Pt. 2

I'm going to have to look back at that link later. I have yet, Landau7, seen you make any direct citations in the article itself. Bud? An honest man? Let's have someone forage through your stuff when you're sick. Just like you did when Gunnar was on his death bed? Hm, well. I think my criticisms on NCCG are just fine. They are documented. But, oh well, you being the cult leader and all, I guess you're the "king pin"?

Oh and please, continue to post links. This makes fine material.

And yes, you're to remove that same five year old's name from that site, for the same reason I don't mention your children's own names. I don't think his name is relevant to the claims you're trying to make against me.

Maybe I should start urging people to post up their testimonies? You know, there are people who feel the same toward you. ;)

Oh and um, my mother never formally testified against me. That link is two years outdated, when I had serious issues involving your cult, and she approached you with the view of helping me. You know, she's not happy with the fact you posted that up on the 'Net without her permission. But I think its ironic, really, since it shows the mindset I was in when I was in the cult. And if you want to point out all my little sins and indiscretions, this is fine . . . at least I admit them. Have you?

You know, I'm done with this petty debate. I think what I'm going to do is start looking over Landau7's comments for I feel they are anything BUT neutral and when I get the time, start citing everything. It doesn't matter where I find the information, the point is, if its well-documented, I can use it. I think several links back to the nccg.info site is just fine, if its documented. I extend the same right for Landau7 to link back to nccg.org if he feels the need (but it can be verified, right? well, so can my stuff). Drumpler 18:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler's response just makes my point. Two items from the MLT archive compared to a gigantic website and blog attacking and defaming MLT on an almost daily basis with the goal of ruining reputations and destroying career prospects is enough to light Drumpler's fuse and provoke a torrent of charged words. My whole point in any case has not been to debate but to underline what should, and should not, be appearing in Wikipedia, and to demonstrate what Drumpler's aims here are. Anyone with any gray matter can now see what that is.

As for permissions, Drumpler has posted similar private materials in his website without seeking permission (e.g. private Harvey email) which is presumably why MLT did not hesitate to reciprocate by posting an email from his mother. All the first moves have been made by Drumpler, it would seem.

As far as Drumpler's behaviors are concerned and his attempt to blame them on the spiritual groups he has been a part of, his own mother attributes this to a time before he joined MLT, so the behavior was not newly acquired and can't be blamed on any of the religious groups he was a part of. Wicca and his family would appear to be equally the causes:

• "When he wasn't religious Derek used to hit me and his father. Once when he was a Wicken [sic] I even slapped him because he said he didn't believe in God, ask him." [13]

The MLT archives demonstrate to a high degree of probability that Drumpler and his wife were psychologically disturbed and dysfuntional long before their involvement with MLT. These are their own statements. When the larger picture is viewed, it is relatively easy for even the most simple-minded to understand that MLT is being used as a scapegoat and Wikipedia as a soap-box. It is for this reason that Drumpler has removed the link to the unreliability of the testimony of religious apostates [14], which is especially pertinent to those with serious psychological issues, and sought instead to promote the 'cult' image by including a link to an organization led by a man with a criminal record and who is a certified psychopath [15] [16]. Who, then, is being neutral and balanced here? What does Drumpler linking himself to such hate-criminals tell us? [17]

Again, I could care less. I am sick of his self-projections and dominance of this tag. Perhaps, after all, someone should create a Drumpler article so that those who want to can discuss him there. I certainly don't want to be bothered to waste my time and I doubt anyone else here does either. Landau7 11:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so Wicca is a cause of my psychological disturbment, eh? I'm sorry, I said I would ignore this, but I'll let any Wiccan editors dissect that statement for themselves. ;) I also have no problem with the articles you choose to include about me on the 'Net. Drumpler 12:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And I doubt most people could care that you're linking to Scientology sponsored sites to make your point. This is not the first time you've attacked, Ross, Warren and it certainly doesn't seem to be your last. Personally, I don't care for Ross. That's on my blog. But I do think the man has a tremendous archive of information that is useful when researching New Religious Movements.

Once more, I didn't remove the link. If you want your link up, go right ahead. I could care less. Drumpler 12:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I made the new heading "Wicca A Cause of Psychological Disturbment, Says Landau" in order to draw attention to his own bias. Just thought it amazing that a man who is claiming to be "neutral" would make that statement on this page. He needs to clarify himself if he meant otherwise. Drumpler 12:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point the readers to this archive that demonstrates, conclusively, that Warren and Landau are one and the same. I know, I know, I said I was going to leave this alone, but now his logic is coming through and I think it undeniable to all involved that the group's leader is now involved. Note the similar logic he uses when attacking Rick Ross? Hm, he nitpicks everything I write . . . why doesn't he just practice what he preaches? Those who thoroughly read this thread will see that Landau has no other objective in mind but to restore the second edit which the compound's IP wrote. If the leader steps back and I step back, this article will be able to become neutral. However, he won't (I know he won't). I more or less don't care any more. There'll be an "official" statement written on my end and then this little quibble will cease. Then those who are interested in the facts are free to check both sides of the issue and (maybe) someone can step in and edit the article themselves with a more neutral mindset. Drumpler 13:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Also note how he's sourcing the same articles he initially did on his private group as "Community Moderator". Compare the source notes in his last post to the archive on his rants about Rick Ross that I posted above. Drumpler 13:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

More evidence:

• Exerpt from: groups.msn.com/nccgcybercommunity, "NCCG Critics" message board, "NCCG Response to a Swedish Newspaper" thread dated 6/6/2006

• 9. To begin with, though he denies it, Mr.Concern belongs to an financially opportunistic 'profession', without any kind of credentials, which has been thoroughly discredited in the United States. His agenda, far from being altruistic, is anti-Christian and especially anti-minority religious groups. And whilst many of the groups who are investigated by such 'cult watchers' are truly cults in the broadest definition of the term, many are not, and are merely 'investigated' for financial gain or other agendas. Mr. Concern maintains a discussion board on NCCG at the 'Rick Ross Institute', a man regarded as the foremost 'cult deprogrammer' in the world but who is a well known criminal. He has been found guilty in the United States of embezzlement, fraud, kidnapping, and the violation of human rights, and by his own testimony, remains unrepentant of these misdemeanours. Victims of his kidnappings and 'deprogrammings' have been given awards of millions of US dollars, and one 'deprogramming' organisation was sued for criminal activity and went bankrupt. You should be aware that this is the kind of 'company' that Mr. Concern keeps. 1 2

The first link, which is nothing more than a complete copy-and-paste of my associate's site (link #2), is from an involved member of the group, Axroot, and rests on NCCG.ORG's own server. This is but one attack Warren has made about Ross. It was originally quoted in a document Warren himself wrote called "NCCG Response to a Swedish Newspaper" but cannot seem to locate it currently online. This should be one proof that positively establishes Landau7's identity and makes him just as biased as he accuses me of being. Drumpler 13:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

. . . and for the record, no, Concern does not belong to a "financially oportunistic 'profession'" as Warren claims. This was his own clear bias shining forth, just as it did on this talk page. Drumpler 13:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that he doesn't know Concern, doesn't know his identity, and made that statement while missing this critical statement. Would that constitute original research? Drumpler 13:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Revelation from God Original Research?

I'm sorry, no, wait, I forgot, the man receives revelations from "God". He doesn't need original research then! Look at what "God" told him about me:

• "There is a field. The crop is tall like long grass. It is all brown because it is harvest season. We have seen this field before. The field is the world (Mt.13:38), the place of testing, the place of growing or stagnating and dying. The world is the place of tribulation, but those who belong to Yah'shua may be of good cheer, because Yah'shua has overcome the world (Jn.16:33, KJV). But those who have not overcome - who refuse to overcome - have little cause for rejoicing. For the world is also a place of great fear.

• "There are many people in the field, and all are running. It is a scary place indeed, for both the righteous and the wicked. But the righteous have promise, the wicked do not. We have seen this field before. Some months ago we saw the wife of the young man and in it her legs were symbolically cut off by a giant scythe that sought to cut down all - the enemy of our souls, Satan. His wife fell. She was briefly vocal in the young man's crusade even though they have both hated each other. It was prophesied in his and her presence that she would turn against this ministry when she returned home and it happened exactly as Yahweh said it would.

• "All are running in this field which has come to harvest time. The wheat and the tares lie together and now they will be distinguished and separated. Some who appeared to be Yah'shua's turned out to have had another master altogether. There are many surprises as the veils are ripped down. Everyone is running to the edge of the field and even though no sycthe is visible this time, the memory of it is still vivid from before. The desire is to leave the world and let the malakim (angels) do the reaping. The people come to the edge of the field and emerge on land covered in grass. The young man is there, ahead, leading the way, while others follow, both friends and enemies. There is a slight incline, like a shallow hill, up which all are moving. All come to a narrow path - the young man is still there - he stands on the path, taunts and accuses those who follow, says they are liars and breathes threats. No one responds to him. He goes off the path, which veers to the right, because to the left there is a cliff which gives a view of the land for hundreds of miles round. This he surveys like a conqueror. He starts leaping up and down and waving his hands jubilantly - he believes he has won. He taunts and mocks again but as he does so, the ground suddenly opens up beneath his feet and swallows him whole until he is seen no more and everything is silent. The people following are stunned. They pause only briefly and then continue along the Way to the right.

• "Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy" (Prov.6:14-15, KJV).

• "What is about to be fulfilled comes in the wake of an earlier vision some weeks ago in which the young man is seen throwing pebbles at the ministry and those of us who serve in it. Each pebble bounces back and repositions itself above his head. The more pebbles he throws, the greater the assembly of pebbles that form above him until there is a vast threatening rock, hanging like the sword of Damocles over him, that at length falls on his head and crushes him. This is what happens when he is swallowed up into the ground." 1

I think it is clear that Landau (Warren) only seems to be interested in supporting his so-called "divine agenda". He doesn't need to keep the rules -- he makes them up as he goes and then attributes them to "Yahweh". Unfortunately, none of his prophecies have ever come to light in regards to me. He can scream and say they have, but I know better. :P

This bias clearly reflects in the article which he wrote that he wants restored. I mean, its "God", right? Let's not question the Almighty.

Maybe this Talk page is the fulfillment of this "prophecy"? Drumpler 14:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My point in bringing this up is that Landau7 has made many snap decisions and character assassinations due to these claimed "visions" alone. Drumpler 14:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler has gone and converted this whole page into another personal blog with his own headers &c.! Who does he think he is modifying other people's sections here?? What's his game? He's turned this discussion into a pulpit, quoting the Bible, yet doesn't believe in the Bible. Now I'm told he has put a statement alongside his Yahoo Messenger ID that reads:

• "The fact that I used to be a Wiccan proves I have a psychological disturbance, says cult leader"

Hasn't this guy anything better to do? What does this dude want? To become a headline in some newspaper? To be famous? I didn't even say what he said. All I said was that his psychological dysfunction was present both while he was a Wiccan and before (to quote his mother) he became religious, i.e. he was mentally unsound case before he became a Wiccan. I did not blame Wicca on his mental state. From what I have seen in the MLT archives he had psychological problems before he became a Wiccan, Mormon, or member of NCCG, and was having psychiatric treatment. In fact I said the opposite of what he said. What other people say about him is proven correct - he twists everything to fit into his own fantasy.

Wikipedia isn't interested whether God exists, or whether people have revelations or not. This isn't a religious rag. What's an MLT sermon got to do with anything here? Who's the one quoting it? Not, as far as I can see, anyone from MLT. Drumpler is. What Wikpedia cares about - what the rest of us care about - is accurately reported, verifiable historical information that gives an overview of MLT beliefs, practices and history: it doesn't want an account of MLT with Drumpler advertisements interspersed. Drumpler was obviously not the star he thinks he was, either now or then. None of us here gives a darn about his private vendetta with MLT. If he wants to have a playground punch-up, let him go and play somewhere else.

Thus guy still doesn't get it. He needs to grow up and move on. Landau7 20:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Warren. Grow up and move on. No one cares about the rantings of a cult leader either. Drumpler 20:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact you know what my Yahoo away message says is evidence to who you are also. :D Can't hide it. I love doing little things like that to run you on these little rants because it only exposes you in the end. I think people deserve to know because your participation effects the neutrality of this article just as much as mine does. Drumpler 20:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Er and um, are you qualified to diagnose me with psychological problems? No, wait, I forgot, that's what deliverance ministers and false prophets do, right? Drumpler 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I had psychiatric treatment you say? Correction: I went to see a psychologist for a short time. That's it.

You know, if you want to keep quoting these "MLT Archives", put them up. :) Drumpler 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, this is what you actually said in the section I made above this one. I think it makes a world of difference from what you are trying to say you said before:

• As far as Drumpler's behaviors are concerned and his attempt to blame them on the spiritual groups he has been a part of, his own mother attributes this to a time before he joined MLT, so the behavior was not newly acquired and can't be blamed on any of the religious groups he was a part of. Wicca and his family would appear to be equally the causes.

To quote something you said a long time ago when you made an ass of an entirely uninvolved person:

• However, bluewater2 should have been more careful when he posted nccg_concern in the first person. And given how nit-picky these fellow atheists, agnostics, or whatever they are, are (nccg_conceren seems to have dedicated his life to picking through every single statement I have ever made as though I were some sort of infallible super-human), they must expect to picked apart and misunderstood in the same way. They are so consumed in their rage against Christians that they follow a double-standard, missing the winks and hints at humour and seeing in them some terrible conspiracy to defame them. However, I did not come seeking for them - they came seeking for me. 1

Let's turn the statement around for a change, shall we? "Expect to be picked apart and misunderstood in the same way". Drumpler 20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Okay Now . . . Moving Along

I think its time to move on and ignore the statements of me, a former group member, and Landau7 (none other than Christopher C. Warren, the prophet of this group). I only went through all this trouble so that people could see who exactly is the other party editing the entry here. :) If my former involvement effects neutrality, so be it. Someone else should feel free to edit this article. But as far as I'm concerned, Landau7 and anyone connected to him in any way, shape or form should keep their hands off. Drumpler 21:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As I look back at the article, I can understand now how the section about me can be viewed as biased. Since I believe the information is critical there, nonetheless, instead of writing it myself, I think a verifiable, neutral third party should write it instead. I don't think the issue is so much who said it as the issue is whether or not it can be verified. I believe it can. Will someone please hammer this out to a suitable edit? Drumpler 22:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Decided to move along. As far as I care, the cult leader can screw with this article up and down if he wants to. People now know his identity and maybe a more neutral editor can come in and edit it. I'll at least admit to my lack of neutrality by being a formerly involved member and all, although my desire was (still is) to initially be neutral (just as Landau is unneutral by being the group's leader).

It doesn't matter. If people want to know me, they always have Google. That conclusion is inevitable.

Someone has to grow up and be mature. I decided I'll be the one to do it.

I'll be working on other Wikipedia articles which I have less of an attachment to.

(And no, this is not a cop out. This is a statement that I have better things to do with my life than have petty arguments with Warren on a talk page.)

Drumpler 23:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Put the protection request up so that this article might be protected from people like me (a former member), the group's members and from the group's leader (Landau) and his IP (posted above). Drumpler 11:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed my own controversial banner for reasons of neutrality (if one wants to see it, its in the history). The vandalism dispute arises from something else. Drumpler 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Citations

Inspite of anyone's claims, this article is not really properly credited anywhere. Nothing exists (outside of the group) to support the organization or the membership numbers that Landau claims. The group is not registered with the State, so far as I know. The compound's material (that which cannot be verified independently) should probably be removed and that which can be verified retained with proper citation. Drumpler 23:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

However, the problem with this is that Landau seems to have a habit of creating documents in order to support his contention. So I think anything of this nature outside of nccg.org should be considered, with possible links to the site only for issues of theology, etc. Drumpler 23:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Review and Request to Unlock

The first draft or "First Edit" article was created, or substantially added to and modified in a small stub created by someone else, by either Drumpler or someone disposed to his view of MLT. It was unapologetically biased and anything but neutral.

The second draft or "Second Edit" was created anonymously by an unregistered user that included MLT factual information wholly absent from the first draft.

The third draft of "Third Edit" was an amalgam of the first two by Drumpler which many of us believe continued to reflect a strong bias. No subsequent editing was made by myself or any MLT member, except some minor corrections and additions by Uaasun. I have restricted myself to commenting in the History section. Therefore no "edit war" has taken place in the Article at all. If you check the History you will see that it is Drumpler who has made nearly all the changes to his own second draft, polarizing the article even more. This means that Drumpler has dominated two of the three drafts. A fourth needs to be allowed to redress that imbalance.

I therefore find no grounds for the Article being locked and suggest that Wikipedia has been misinformed by whoever had requested that it be done so. Opportunity needs to be given to others who may desire to make a redraft before Wikipedia constructs its ownm final version. There is a considerably more historical information available - e.g. newspaper articles favourable to MLT (so far it is only one hostile newspaper), more information on MLT theology and its history, etc.. There is a need to remove duplicated material and references and to better organize headings and the order of material. With the History page so enormous now, useful information such as this will only be drowned out and possibly missed in a sea of extraneous material.

I am therefore requesting that the article be unlocked so that these items can be incorporated.

Furthermore, a vandalism tag has has been added to the top of the History section. Who has vadalised what? I have certainly mot modified anything in the History section written by others, as the logs will demonstrate, and as shown above, I have not touched the main Article at all for a very long time. All the major modifications have been made by Drumpler. So who exactly is vandalising what? Drumpler has had the opportunity to change whatever he has wanted to in recent weeks without any interference from me. So who is crying 'wolf' and why? Landau7. 11:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this dispute. The anonymous IP was the group's own compound. Regardless of who made the edits, I think a cool down period is needed and thus the article should remain locked. I still believe (in good judgement) that Landau7 is this "anonymous IP" which made the second draft. Landau7 was also the one caught contextually imitating a Wikipedia official, as noted above. Likewise, nothing is really "proven" about NCCG's history or claims, especially since most of these "facts" tend to come from the compound (without citation, mind you -- even the things he posts as "citation" from his own group aren't properly citated). I'm to believe NCCG has thousands of members? Has an independent audit group came out? Or is the group itself claiming this? Are they registered with the State? Or any other entity which can verify this for themselves?

If NCCG web sites or pamphlets are cited in order to back any claims of membership numbers, organization, etc. I would have reason to doubt. I have a few of these and most of them are written directly by the group's own leader (all of them are published by him, including some I wrote when I was with the group). I think these can only be trusted in respects to the group's doctrinal beliefs and theology (I've been criticised for sloppy research, but the group changes its beliefs quite often and its not always possible to know what they currently believe -- such as, its leadership structure changed to a group of elders -- who are these elders? Names? Contact information?).

Regardless of whether or not the information is "factual" is a non-issue. The issue is always verifiablity (as he's posted here often). I believe much of what I posted in my edit was "factual" but now I am striving for verifiability (note, Landau made a big deal out of this when I made the same claim -- the fact I am an eye-witness to these "facts" is a non-issue, however). I am willing to downplay my own role in NCCG's criticisms and my former position so long as some of the article makes reference to critical material (unfortunately [for him, I guess], NCCG.INFO is the major one that does this -- there's also Tektonics, however, which criticises the group from a biblical perspective -- NCCG.INFO largely focuses on the group from a behavioural perspective). Likewise, Landau7 keeps mentioning other newspapers but has not made direct citations. When the anonymous IP (again, Landau's place) made the edits, they removed the names of the newspaper articles and removed the Rick Ross link while placing in their own link (the apostates article) showing evidence of their own bias. I only removed their article maybe once or twice that I know of -- the last removal was not by me, since I agreed that the article was acceptable. The person who removed it removed it with a bunch of other "irrelevant" links, along with my own blog, and I didn't as much as complain when the latter was removed.

I think if Landau7 wants to continue to maintain this IP is anonymous, he should be open to having his own IP checked. There's always the possibility someone could be posting for him in proxy, but I think I've demonstrated above that the two are one and the same. He even knew what my Yahoo away message is (a fact that has since been changed, since I blocked the entire group on my Yahoo list, unless he has spying accounts -- something NCCG has done for the last two-three years of my life) and then tries to downplay it by saying that "he has since browsed", "since learned", etc., a technique which he uses in an attempt to provide him some distance.

While I admit I've not been exactly a saint on this page, I do think it is important to know his identity. I likewise think this article needs to be locked down for the time period in order to cool everyone down.

One does not need to have this article unlocked in order to make suggestions. There's always offline editing and then suggested edits can be presented to admins (might want to put them in a text file and host them on their domains).

Also, as far as I can tell, all the source documentation he is releasing about me on this page proves to me that he either has a direct connection with the leader himself or is the leader himself. If one goes to http://www.nccg.org/archive/, they will note (at least at the time of this writing) that one needs a password in order to access this archive. And yet, Landau7 is able to reveal this documentation freely as he did with my mother's "testimony" and the Bud Rice testimony. This is not a complaint about the documents themselves, really, since I accepted the inevitability I would be criticised when I started my own site, as much as it is proof, I believe, to his own bias. How is it he has such ready access to this top secret material and the right to release it so readily?

I think another possibility is to permanetly lockdown this article (just like the Scientology article which has had similar problems) and make suggestions to admins who can then proceed to update the page as things are verified. This would, I believe, keep the article more neutral. I think this would make everyone (including myself) think hard about what they post in order to test whether or not it can be verified.

What I am saying is this -- I am a former member. While my bias clearly shines through, I do not think this makes any verifiable information "unreliable" to the least degree (unlike the apostates article suggests), but at the least, it does mean that there may need to be another party in order to mediate what I write. Likewise, Landau7 is the group's leader, as far as I can tell and noted on several parts of this talk page (which is ironic, really, because it makes me wonder if we should post up a link to an article about how a religious leader's testimony can be unreliable since they tend to protect their flock [or their wallet, depending upon their motiviation]. Or how religious testimonies in general are unreliable since their main motive would typically be to protect their faith -- but I disgress).

I agree with the lock down for the reasons stated above. I think unless the lockdown remains in effect, we're going to have a repeat of the Scientology page. Once more, Landau says things can be verified, but he has not citated anything on the article himself and seems to have only knocked only my additions (I later realized that the 3 or so paragraphs I wrote about myself might've been too frivilous -- maybe one, with a link to the site itself, would have sufficed).

I think what also might be worth checking into is Landau7's IP itself. If he is demonstrated to be this "anonymous" IP, then I think he should be banned for reasons of fraud. I've admitted to my identity. I think that takes a heck of a lot of honesty on my own part.

My ultimate goal is to make this article neutral. I think it will only remain neutral if the article is locked down, perhaps permantely, with admins acting as "go-betweens" as to what goes up and what doesn't. Drumpler 13:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I would also like to add that this so-called consensus seems to be done by people connected with NCCG, one of which I have verified independently in e-mail (uaasun -- who was quick to jump to this page when the edits were taking place -- I guess because he was told do so by the group's own leader? -- and made unfounded claims about my own brain shunt, which I allowed to remain and still remains in the article because I have no objection to being criticised). The only other person was Dan and I talked to him using his talk page. If one reads my own talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Drumpler), Dan agreed that the group's own leader is a biased source of information (just like I am a biased source of information myself, although I am trying not to be -- hence the suggestion for an article lockdown). And even though Landau7 is correct in saying that he hasn't edited the page in a while, he (or assuming its not him, the compound's IP) blanked much of the information in the first edit which more or less was a stub. I mentioned why this page was originally made earlier -- a bot made it impossible to edit the original New Covenant Church of God (Sweden) link and so the original version of this page, Mishpachah lev-tsiyon, was made. Later, this was linked to Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon so that it would redirect to it but when I made my own re-edits, Landau7 was caught making an attempt (as mentioned earlier on this talk page) to disconnect Mishpachah lev-tsiyon from Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon and replacing the first with the second draft showing clear bias. If anyone types the phrase in to the Wikipedia search engine, they would have immediately went to the first of the two, making clear his motivation for doing so -- he only wanted to support his own claims. I think this likewise positively establishes his identity or at least establishes that he has vested claims in this group (as observed from his contribs page). Drumpler 13:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to mention, for the sake of honesty, that I did put a heading where it didn't belong but when I calmed down, removed it. The only heading I retained was the "Initial Discussion" heading and I did this for easy navigation so that it'd be on the TOC. If one wants to remove this, feel free to, but my intent in doing that was, again, for easy navigation. Drumpler 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Second Draft Proposal

I think I am willing to propose a revert to the second draft so long as the following conditions are met:

• Regarding the criticisms section, feel free to delete the four or so paragraphs about NCCG.INFO and me so long as this paragraph is included (if you disagree with the language, we need to flesh it out on the talk page -- obviously replace the ( ) with the appropriate HTML code in order for the links to automatically reference in the final edit):

There are two web sites that are critical about the group. One is maintained by both an anonymous person who goes by the handle "NCCG Concern" and former member Derek Rumpler who left the group after disagreeing with a prophecy he felt was false.(ref)NCCG.INFO http://www.nccg.info (/ref) The other is the Christian apologetics ministry Tekton Apologetics Ministries(ref)Tekton Apologetics Ministry http://www.tektonics.org/ (/ref)(ref)The Jello Church: On the "New Covenant Church of God http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nccg01.html (/ref)(ref)Lady Fingers Or, Gender Crazy, Man http://www.tektonics.org/qt/shespirit.html (/ref) An anonymous person with the psuedonym "Axroot" has produced a web site claiming to debunk the former page which is hosted on both Geocities and MLT's own server.(ref)"NCCG_Concern" Exposed http://www.nccg.org/nccg_concerned/ (/ref)

• • I believe nothing more or less should be said than this. If people are interested in arguments and counterarguments, they can visit the above links.

• On the links section, only a few links should be included. These would include the nccg.org site itself, nccg.info, Tektonics, the "NCCG_Concern" Exposed site. I agree that the apostates article is irrelvant, with the "exposed" site as an equal counterbalance to NCCG.INFO. However, if someone wishes to reinclude this, then the Rick Ross link needs to be maintained -- otherwise, I agree to forfeit it.

• On the critical media coverage section, the article name translations and dates need to be retained. One can also include any positive media coverage if they can properly source it. In this section, I sought to make sure it was in chronological order, so this should be maintained.

• The neutrality dispute needs to remain until everything is properly sourced. Much of the edit, including the edit done by the "anonymous IP", is unsourced. I feel that claims of membership numbers shouldn't be sourced (or possibly removed) unless an independent auditing service comes in. But . . . numbers are minor compared to everything else and I am stating my opinion regarding this last point.

This is my proposal. I, of course, would like to see if its agreeable and have one last time to think before I agree for it to go up. But once the conditions are met, I will be more willing for the second draft to be restored with these edits in mind. If I agree with the final proposal, I will likewise agree with unlocking the article, editing the relevant portions and then "semi-protecting" it (i.e. accounts less than four days old can't edit it). Then anyone else who desires can look at anything posted before this on the talk page and discern for themselves what they want do. I will come back from time to time to ensure that Landau7's end of the bargain is kept, if he agrees. If he keeps his end, I will keep my end and will either limit or cease working on this page altogether. This is good enough for me. Drumpler 22:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed 4th Draft

The proposal made by Drumpler is regard to the Controversy and Media sections is a reasonable one. The 2nd Draft, however, is not complete. I therefore propose a 4th Draft that incorporates Drumpler's suggestions anmd additional data not present in the 2nd. This follows below. (Some more work needs to be done on cross-referencing, otherwise it is mostly complete textually-speaking).

(fourth draft removed since it is now incorporated within the article itself) Drumpler 01:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed and Suggestion

I agree to unlock the article now, however, want to make the following suggestion.

It would seem Landau7 has decided to manually type in the references. Actually, the system I used, (ref)Article Name Article URL(/ref) will automatically place in the number. Replace the ( )'s with the appropriate HTML, the same symbols used when linking, such as (a href="website")website name(/a). The reason I couldn't type them was because they'd automatically number and I didn't want to screw up the talk page.

The reason why I feel my system is better is because if you type it in manually, someone else can always come in and try to add more references or delete your references and it can screw up the number system. This way, Wikipedia's programming does it for you.

Otherwise, it is fine. Drumpler 22:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Here's an example of what I'm trying to say:

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia on the Internet.^[1]

Note the HTML tags used and feel free to source likewise. This really is the best way. On the article itself, it will show the references at the bottom according to their number placement using this simple system (as to why it isn't doing it on the talk page, I have no clue). Drumpler 23:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This was what I had in mind (it cannot, as Drumpler states, be done on the Discussion page, which is why I did not attempt it). I should like some comments from the others here as well. The understanding, as I am interpreting it, is that the sections in Controversy and Media basically written by Drumpler remain as they are and also the basic format of the 4th Draft. Naturally, there must be room for adding references and other materials as they become available provided the basic structure, content and approach remains as it is in the 4th Draft, i.e. minor edits (For example, there is at least one other newspaper article from the Independent Church period published in Moss - an interview with two missionaries. There are also other reports on NCCG online which need to be tracked down, and doubtless other materials will become available on the MLT website when it is fully constructed. I have been contacted by two of the others here who say they are satisfied with the 4th Draft - I am sure they will have something to say here themselves. When the article is unlocked, I will place the 4th draft up. I suggest it be left for proofing for a few days and then a new semi-locked status be assigned to it permitting minor editing, etc.. And for Drumpler's information (before we put a closure on this), I have no clue who Aagtbdfoua is. Landau7 09:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This 4th draft above is superior to all antecedent drafts in neutrality and context. Therefore, after distantly examining all erstwhile representations, I suggest the latest draft as it is dealt even-handedly. 155.94.62.221 11:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I copy and pasted Landau7's article after it went unprotected. Would recommend deleting it off the talk page unless there's a reason it should be up here. I have not referenced it the correct way yet. Drumpler 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed {{editprotected}} sine this is now unprotected. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-10 23:57Z

Thanks. Drumpler 08:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed the "Criticisms of Critics of Religion" category since it is now defunct. Changed nothing else. Drumpler 18:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article should be retained here. It can be removed. Some minor edits made, mostly typos, with paragraphing and titles added. When I have the time I will do some work on correcting the reference format. The Criticism of Religion category should also probably be removed as the parallel category has now gone. Landau7 19:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I found a Criticisms category and have inserted that in place of the defunct category for the time being until a parallel "criticism of critics of religion" can be found. The nearest would be "Criticism of atheism". I have also added a Church of God (Armstrong) category because of the similarities between MLT and UCG. Landau7 08:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Only if one presupposes the critics are atheist (I'm not).

I forgot to post the following HTML which will be useful if one uses the (ref)(/ref) tags. This needs to be inserted in some form at the bottom and placed under a proper referencing category (such as "References"):

(div style=font-size:90%)(references /)(/div)

This is why my test wasn't working earlier.

Drumpler 14:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ironic -- Landau7's Original Research?: Positive Christopher C. Warren Link Confirmed

I found it highly ironic that Landau7 finally made his identity clearer on his personal page (i.e. Christopher Warren went to Oxford [i.e. this is also mentioned in the article], he also lives in Europe, lives/lived/visited Sweden and speaks the language, etc.). I will let others sort that out for themselves (I promised not to make any significant edits on this article and I stand by that) but after all the disputes he made above, plus outright lying and pretending to be someone he wasn't (by disconnecting himself and referring to himself in the third person, even using the word "dude" to make himself sound younger), I would think that much of what he has "contributed" would be original research. Look at these vague references in the article itself, contributed by none other than Landau7 (significant portions bolded by me [ignore bold, I misunderstood this section but strike through in order to avoid accusations of hiding -- Drumpler 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)]):

8. "The New Covenant Christian Witness, official journal of NCCG, 81 volumes, August 1992 - June 2004, located throughout the official MLT website at [23], published in Oslo, Norway, and Arvika Municipality, Sweden

9. 'The Collected Sermons of Christopher C. Warren, official publication of NCCG sermons, 16 volumes, July 2000 - September 2004 , located in the official MLT website at [24], Arvika Municipality, Sweden

10. The New Covenant Messenger -- the News Letter of the New Covenant Church of God, February 1996 - September 2000, published in Oslo, Norway, and Arvika Municipality, Sweden

11. B'rit Chadashah Evangelical Association Newsletter -- 7 issues, April 1996 - December 1996, published in Moss, Norway

12. Hundreds of pamphlets and booklets published by MLT and its forerunners since 1986 under the name of its publishing house, New Covenant Press

Seriously. If I were to contribute to an article about cheetahs, would I be able to get away with a reference on here if I referenced it "National Geographic Channel TV special on its Saturday night line-up"? No. The episode number and program would be needed. And yet, Warren makes a fuss about all my "original research" and provides some of his own? Which volumes? Which issues? Or is he (as he did above with the pages he has about me) making up articles left and right in order to back his claims?

NCCG's publishing house is no more than Warren's home -- request a pamphlet from them, do a little research and see for yourself (actually, my associate and I can positively confirm this to curious investigators -- I have a few of these pamphlets in my personal possession also). I am actually quite happy that the article at least now includes counterpoints, but to blame me for doing original research and then lying about your identity? Sheesh.

Wikipedia is not for establishing whether MLT or Drumpler is "true" but for reporting factual information from verifiable sources that excludes original research and personal opinions. There are pleny of playgrounds for "playing truth" on the internet but this isn't one of them. His information is inaccurate and biased, the evidence doesn't support much of anything he says. -- Landau7 (emphasis mine)

I turn that right back around to him. Are we going to believe the group's own leader? Especially after he was caught lying? Of course, if he were lying, he would want to paint me as 'inaccurate' in his and the public's mind (I already admitted that I might be a source of bias, why doesn't he count himself?). I don't care if people do not believe in me -- I am no longer contributing anything of significance to this article. If things are verifiable in this article, go right ahead -- cite them properly. But I don't think the group's own publications nearly qualify, especially when they're coming from the very man who is pretending to be an outsider (read the context of his posts -- he likewise seemed to pose as a Wikipedia admin contextually earlier on in this thread -- and also stated his own IP address was an anonymous poster when it was obviously him -- e-mail me at nccg.concern@hotmail.com and if your identity can be verified [i.e. we find out you're not in the group], we may provide you the evidence -- you also have the "Satanist Fraud" page on http://www.nccg.info/deception.html and the Critical Information folder on http://blog.nccg.info which goes into more detail regarding this).

I hope his followers do stumble upon this page. They will find that Warren is a man who has committed a great deal of fraud from this evidence alone. Of course, this isn't the first time he's been caught doing this, but I will leave that for my own site. I just wanted to point future editors to this. The only "changes" will make to this article will be "original research" tags and whatnot. Might also suggest it for peer review. However, I'm rather curious, since Warren has lied multiple times on this page, if that is terms for getting his IP blocked from editing Wikipedia?

I'm interested in seeing what he says beyond this. He can say really all he wants, post up as many web pages about me that he wants also, but if he continues to lie beyond this, it will only make himself look bad in the end, especially since one of my associates is computer savvy (IP knowledge) and has taught me much of what I know regarding IPs, trace routes, and whatnot, and the group has been caught in this area several times.

I wanted to clarify, for the record, that now that I've looked at the evidence, I'm not sure who Aagtbdfoua is (I assumed he was Warren because of the similarities in comments made combined with the heavy editing by the compound's IP itself), but if he is not connected with NCCG in any way, I formally apologize. However, I am fairly certain of Landau7's identity and think maybe my "misunderstanding" (if that is what it was) may have been the neccessary spark to bring out the leader's own bias.

Here is an archived copy of the profile in question I am referring to since it may be changed after I have typed up this piece of information.

Not interested in further dialogue with Landau. Took the better part of several months recovering from this group, the last thing I need is a heated debate with the group's leader. Drumpler 06:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh and don't forget his "Quote of the Day", which is a characteristic he employs on his group at http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup. I'm sure if one goes and compares the two, they'll probably find other indicators. Its sad that someone feels they have the need to lie in order to justify themselves. Drumpler 07:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Drumpler, the reason people sign in with nicknames is because anonymity or at least semi-anonymity is understood as a protocol for wikipedia. Interesting that you have changed your mind about your certainty about the identity of Aagtbdfoua and also that you have changed your previous contentment with the latest version. A good example of how you accuse first and change your tone later is here where you imply Sharon Harvey was implicit in the murder of Joy Risker http://blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/1/2700051.html , but then a few blogs later you admit that she was long gone two years prior to the murder http://blog.nccg.info/blog/_archives/2007/2/25/2762553.html . A heated debate with the person you think (get that, you think) is the "group's leader"-- are you kidding me? Look at the pages here, you do most of the talking. Perhaps you could have a heated debate with yourself. Lil'dummy 03:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Making accounts for the intent of deception is against Wikipedia protocol. Its called sockpuppeting (another similar term is meatpuppeting, where one recruits others in order to back them . . . uaasun would seem to fall in that category). In fact, it can get your IP banned.

I really do hope this account points back to the compound in Sweden, because it is tremendous evidence that this group lies and hides behind many psuedonyms (a characteristic of psychopathy, actually). Other possibilities for IPs could be USA (Mississippi), Britain, Greece and South Africa, as the current members of the core group come from these nations. It could also be uaasun, seeing as he made a similar video game related jibe to me in private e-mail as noted below. It is possible that the leader himself could likewise ask his "loyal followers" to post remarks on his behalf in an attempt to hide his IP in which case behaviour and language syntax would need to be observed.

I would like to point out that this account was made just a few days ago (16 March 2007) as is made clear from Lil'dummy's logs page and that their first contribution was today, to this very talk page, according to their contributions page. In fact, as of the time of this writing, no other articles were contributed to, a characteristic similar to User:Landau7's case mentioned in the first section above.

I'm going to finish my report to Wikipedia but before I sign off, I want to give a tremendous thank you to whoever provided this additional piece of evidence of abuse on NCCG's part.

I'd also like to add that I never said that Harvey killed Risker but that I remebered others stating that she had an "instigatory role" (a point that has since been backed in private IM correspondence with an anonymous contact involved in the poly community) and noted that her and her ex-husband (a man she was in a polygamous relationship with) shared similar characteristics. This was published for the sake of those in the core group who know of the Harvey-Barclay connection and a reputable source (MSNBC.com) detailing Barclay's behaviour was added. I linked to that source because it was similar to Harvey's own behaviour. This was never done on this site, but my own blog. Drumpler 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, one can pretend to be "Satanists" on the Internet and be an instigator without being around physically. :P There was a great deal of this when I was involved with NCCG / MLT. Drumpler 05:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Published Sources

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources

• A self-published source is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight. Personal websites and messages either on USENET or on Internet bulletin boards are considered self-published. With self-published sources, no one stands between the author and publication; the material may not be subject to any form of fact-checking, legal scrutiny, or peer review. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published and then claim to be an expert in a certain field; visiting a stranger's personal website is often the online equivalent of reading an unattributed flyer on a lamp post. For that reason, self-published material is largely not acceptable.

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves

Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:

• it is relevant to their notability;
• it is not contentious;
• it is not unduly self-serving [ Drumpler's note: as sources from NCCG and its leader would be -- i.e. claims about membership numbers, leadership structures, etc];
• it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources [ Drumpler's note: this article is primarily based off of NCCG sources, especially from the leader himself].

Again, I am fine with the article as is because it provides critical sources of information, just throwing out information to other editors about sources of potential bias. I believe this article is intended to serve the group's own bias and its use of sources (and its primary author) reflect that.

And with that, I withdraw. Drumpler 08:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[ Drumpler, just to let you know, your current word count on the discussion page alone is approximately 13,682. If you reach 20,000 do you get an extra life? Lil'dummy 04:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I get access to the super secretive bonus round. I mean, really, how many ad hominems can this group come up with because I just tend to like video games? ;)

I'm going to ignore these comments and finish my report. Drumpler 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is an article that Lil'dummy might be interested in: Red Herring. Drumpler 04:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am really not interested in Drumpler's acrobatics or amateur detective work, neither do I intend to cover old ground again. Once again he is turning this into his own personal blog and self-advertisement campaign. Once again he is slandering people.

We had an agreement with the 4th draft and now he has broken that agreement by slapping two more tags on the article questioning its integrity (that kind of behavior is called a lot of things in the English language). Does he intend to initiate a new edit war or does he expect everyone to just roll over while he floods this discussion with his verbiose ramblings, making incessant demands as though he owned the organization? Who cares about his "reports"? As I said in the beginning - and I will repeat it one last time - who I am is irrelevent. I am not here to enter into his infantile personality wars, neither do I intend to. We're not characters in some fantasy video game to shoot down for him to score points. I am sticking by the original agreement and expect him to do the same. That's all I have to say on the matter. I am getting on with my life and I suggest he gets on with his - if he knows how. Landau7 08:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The agreement was broken when Landau lied about his identity and then apparently goofed up and proved it to the rest of Wikipedia (hence the reason I felt justified in putting the tags up -- I haven't touched the text of the article per my agreement). I only make the points I do so that the neutral, unbiased editors can step in and discern the information for themselves.

But I'd like the readers to compare this quote contributed to Landau7:

We're not characters in some fantasy video game to shoot down for him to score points. I am sticking by the original agreement and expect him to do the same.

To this quote made in a sermon by Warren (relevant portion bolded):

This young man testifies in his article that what turned him off Yahweh and the Bible was the fact that we were living it, at least as he 'saw' through his own interpretative lenses (in truth he has little clue was is in our actual hearts). What about other Christians and Jews who are living it? (Remember they're living it through various interpretative lenses too), Are they to be "annihilated out of existence" like the 'enemy' characters in the computer games he has always been so addicted to and through which he has vented all his childhood frustrations and anger - frustrations and anger now being carried over into the adult world where he is still trying to find his place - a large, terrifying and confusing world? These questions he needs to ask himself when he chooses to vaccate his cyber world and enter into the real world of flesh-and-blood people with hearts and feelings apart from his own. He needs to one day come to grips with real people and abandon the cold, lifeless digital images he has of them (source: http://groups.msn.com/mltreceptiongroup/weeklysermons.msnw?action=get_message&mview=0&ID_Message=403&LastModified=4675610738196049574)

Once more, I want to thank NCCG / MLT for providing Wikipedia and their followers more conclusive evidence about their deception. It is very important who Warren is because he tends to portray himself on this talk page as some disconnected observer when in fact he is VERY connected -- this is ORIGINAL RESEARCH, the same thing he has accused me of left and right on this talk page.

I shall finish my report and be off with it. :) Until then, I want to refer Warren and Co. to the article on sock puppetry and meatpuppetry.

You have shot your own foot this time. Drumpler 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to reiterate, the tags aside, I am not going to touch this article. I'm a biased source by my former association to NCCG alone. Drumpler 12:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Current discussion approximate word score: Drumpler 14,631. Everyone else: 6,444.Lil'dummy 23:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Above, on February 21 2007 at 19:11 Drumpler advertises his videogame exploits, then denies it has any holds on him, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the wikipedia entry on Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon: "Okay, I'm done. I decided I'm having a Neon Genesis Evangelion marathon today, since there's nothing else to do, and I have a guild meeting on Ultima Online at 8 PM EST tonight. I only mention this so you know that this, personally, does not have one degree of a psychological hold over me. I will make the promised edits later." How is that not a personal blog? And yet he claims all sorts of collusion going on about others noticing his tendencies... LOL! Lil'dummy 23:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I likewise see that "Lil'dummy" went in and added a link into his/her remark a day later. Changed "Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon" to Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon. Who is advertising? ;) Here's the diff. Drumpler 04:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Lil'dummy's behaviour is much like a so-called "Satanist" named Kati (also the "critical information" folder at http://blog.nccg.info). The attempt, I believe, is a psychological assault in order to wear me down, as this "Satanist" (and "others") did for the last 2-3 years of my life (in the end, it was discovered that they were either the product of NCCG or one of its core members and were a tool used to build "cult loyalty" through so-called "Satanist attacks"). His/her comments should be viewed with this in mind. Drumpler 05:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Also noted that Lildummy uses Landau7's characteristic "..." for his/her ellipses (he's been the only other person that is done so . . . I do ". . ."). This is a small thing, but might reveal a stylistic similiarity. Would suggest looking into it. Drumpler 07:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let the readers decide: who is trying to wear who down? Current approximate word scores: Drumpler14,775; everyone else 6,604. Lil'dummy 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, while we're being an immature ass . . . *slips link . . . here*. ;) Yanno people, this is the kind of people you are dealing with and this is the only reason I slip in the link I do. I would never expect them to tell the truth.

*counts* Drumpler14,608; everyone else 6,604. But you're not counting the words you just posted. Pft. Don't make me do it for you. :P I've got better things to do . . . unlike you, who likes to . . . count words or something . . . and not contribute constructively.

*nods and recommends CheckID for both Landau7 and Lil'Dummy* Drumpler 13:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

From Self-published sources used as primary sources about themselves

Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as a primary source of information about the author or the material itself, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

• relevant to the self-publisher's notability;

not contentious;

• not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing;

about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject;

• The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

Landau7 09:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drumpler's Paranoia

This seeing the NCCG leader under every nic by analyzing every dipthong spoken by people in this discussion is becoming very boring, not to mention psychotic. I thought he had "better things to do"? I can confirm that I am nobody but myself in this group and have not posed as anyone else either, as the Great Architect of Wikipedia is my witness. I know he is in love with my IP and chases IPs like his own tail, but my IP is my own Intellectual Property. And no, I am not "Lil'Dummy", never have been and never will be, even if occasionally he, she, it or they may use the same English language as I do, and even use the same alphabet. (For all I know, Lil'Dummy could be Drumpler himself looking for someone to clash plastic swords with so that he can increase his word Wikipedia tally - better check Drumpler's IP too). Neither am I 'Kati', Kati Moss's brother, Kati Rump or the reincarnation of Katherine Hepburn. Neither am I Blake Edwards trying to recruit Drumpler to play in his next "Son of Pink Panther" movie. However, if he'd like to do something original, and find stardom, he might contemplate putting his 14,604 words to song and starting a Wiki Karaoke Club. Maybe Drumpler could add to the Funny farm entry in Wikipedia and donate some of his lyrics (provided it's not original research, of course, and he can verify his sources). Lighten up, get a root beer, move on, and live life. Landau7 15:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And since we're on the topic of paranoia, someone has since pointed out to me that Drumpler is now accusing the MLT group of trying to murder him [18] - I have saved a screenshot of this in case he tries to rewrite it. But according to his info website, he is asking the public to believe that the group has devised a fake deliverance ministry and invented false satanists in order to lure him into the cult because he is such a valuable catch. Indeed, according to Drumpler, they have pulled out every stop in order to win him to the cult. If that is what they were trying to do, risking everything to ensnare Boy Wonder, then, when everything was going so well for them and he was an active supporter and loyal to the group .. then why would they suddenly want to try and "murder" him with a "false prophecy"?? (I am not even sure how that would be done). Or was that the group's plan all along? Now my Webster's dictionary tells me that a "murder" is a "premeditated killing". Therefore Drumpler is asking his readers to believe that the "cult" planned his death all along. Or is this just a case of exaggeration and hyperbole to sensationalize his story, and to get attention and publicity? This would not be the first time. Drumpler's blog and website are full of contradictory accusations. At first, he accuses the group of being evil geniuses who have great computer know-how and have gone to great trouble and expense setting up a fake satanist called Kati and numerous other ones too ... all for Drumpler. Later he mocks the group for their ignorance and lack of computer knowledge because they have not understood his monitoring techniques. You can't have it both ways. You can't have someone who is both an IT genius and totally ignorant. You can't paint people in mutliple, mutually contradicting lights, and use all of them to support yourself against them. That is why the references on apostates of new religious groups is important because we're seeing the classical symptoms of an unreliable witness [19] & [20]. I just wonder what's coming next ... Landau7 09:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One wonders if Drumpler has been "victimized" also by another "cult": [21] [22] There seems to be an awful lot of similarities between Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon and Wikipedia. I haven't heard from Drumpler for a couple of days-- perhaps Rick Ross was able to rescue him from Wikipedia too? Hey Landau7, we better curb how many words we use here, otherwise we might end up catching up to Drumpler-- by June. Hopefully this is the end of the matter.Lil'dummy 13:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting links. It just goes to show that a cult is whatever you want it to be and as a word is little more than an expletive. You can more or less define it how you want to. There should be a link to your links in the Wikipedia cults article too. I think it's ironic that the anti-cultists display the same - or worse - traits of the "cultists" they try to villify - see Axroot's comparisons of Rick Ross and the deprogrammers to cults [23] and also Deviancy amplification spiral. Perhaps there's something after all to Ross' claim that there are one-man cults. Ach, I hope this is the end of the matter too. Landau7 16:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There was an unofficial translation that of the first "hostile" article published by NCCG / MLT some time back (until NWT told them to take it down). This article was originally written in Swedish by Gustav Sjoholm. I have all three articles in PDF format and if I can obtain permission from the newspaper, I might release them so that people can see if the translation is accurate (they might be able to also order an archived copy from the newspaper itself). However, note this small bit of text and compare it to Landau's statements. I have left this unofficial translation as is (unfortunately, I don't know Swedish and can't vouch for the accuracy of this translation myself):

Christopher warren point out that one deprogrammer in the organisation Rick Ross Institute, which Mary Alice Chrnaloga supports, has been judged for insurance, kidnapping and breach of human rights.

Based on that, Christopher Warren is not interested in their opinions and says that they themselves are dangerous and destructive and use sectbehaviour to brainwash their victims to believe the deprogrammers conviction, which often is atheistic.

He also considers the questions which NWT sent (after we didn't get the telephone interview we first were promised) imply that we are rude, unprofessional and that we have no interest for what the congregation is really like, plus, because of the way the questions are asked, are not really interested in the truth. Drumpler 19:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is becoming pathetic - I see Drumpler is now accusing me of sock puppetry[24]. That guy is paranoid and needs a psychiatrist. For the last time, I am exclusively me - I have no other Wikipedia user names. I am not Lil'dummy or anyone else in this discussion. Landau7 17:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If Landau7 is who I think he is (Christopher C. Warren), then I find his reference to the Deviancy amplification spiral ironic in light of this. That document details, in rather minute detail, mind you, how thousands of "Satanists" supposedly bombarded his home with spiritual attacks and how his family and children underwent some sort of mass delusion and claimed to see these "Satanists" in vision. I have portions of these posts still in my Hotmail e-mail box from where I belonged to the now defunct NCCG Cyber Community so that I or my associate may not be accused of having altered it.

The irony is, inspite of what I mentioned above with the fake "Satanists" that were invented either by NCCG and/or one of its members (or whatever you call her), Warren does not know of much of the documented evidence that exists to support that these events never occurred (and it will be released -- just you wait -- there are no plans of "hiding information" in a "secret archive" for the "devoted" or the "honest"). In fact, this incident is just one example of the "brainwashing model" mentioned in the first edit of this article.

I do get emotionally charge on my blog at times, but I do think the evidence does stack in my favour. I have demonstrated countless times this group being involved in fraud (I'm actually rather thankful that Landau gave my blog a free plug earlier and linked to an article that shows one of the group's false prophecies). If someone I trust wanted to go in, rewrite the evidence I do have and throw out the rest, they can feel free.

Whether or not I struggle with mental illness is irrelevant to my claims. I am currently getting the help I need (it usually takes years to recover from a cultic group). One does not discount the testimony of a murder witness because the witness happens to loathe the murderer or desires revenge . . . they objectively consider what can be verified and make a decision -- it's called cross examination. I have encouraged this on several entries of my blog because I sometimes may get biased without thinking about it (as Warren does [pick a sermon, any sermon], and, assuming Landau is a separate person [an idea I think is as remote as Asia bordering South America], he does as well, considering how this "neutral observer" spends considerable time editing this one article and attacking me (does he do it for sport? I only raised the initial dispute because I caught the group's compound editing the article, mistook a nick which sounded similar as being connected to the "anonymous IP" and then Landau7 jumps in the next day, with a newly created account, to take advantage of my blunder. Hmmm.). I have prompted people several times to correct me when I'm wrong. My blog is largely is a one man project and I often do not have the liberty of a proof checker (but again, I'm disgressing -- the man is no different than he accuses me of being -- I at least admit my weaknesses where they arise).

I would like to bring it to his attention that I am currently not participating on this page but wanted to point that out to him. The proper page to participate on is this one. I'd advise you not to make an ass of yourself since it is moderated and if you truly are as innocent as you say you are, and indeed aren't Christopher C. Warren, then that's the place to go. But if you are and you lie about it, then I guess you can kiss your account good bye.

For the record, I know you're not Lil'Dummy. But I think I know who Lil'Dummy is. And I think he's a meat puppet (someone you recruited, again, assuming you're Warren, probably on your private group) which, for all intents and purposes, is counted as a sock puppet according to Wikipedia standards and protocol.

This is all. Drumpler 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If Drumpler would like to see my picture - and since this is his latest hobby - he can visit here [[25]] Landau7 15:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm also suppose to let you know of the discussion at WP:ANI. Drumpler 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability of Apostates

I read the Wikipedia article on apostates and found this section interesting. Landau7 has built quite a few straw men on this page and states that apostate testimonies are unreliable due to one professor at Oxford. What about those that say they are just as reliable as those in the group? Outside of the group? Their role in the counter-cult movement? Why is this one Oxford professor the subject of his arguments? The issue (I believe) is that Landau7 is biased. Consider the evidence for yourself (he also has linked heavily to NCCG sites and articles in the article text itself). If I am wrong, I am wrong. I only mention this because he continually states that I am unreliable as if it is a fact, something that would make sense if he were the group's own leader. If his article needs to go up, than so do these. Drumpler 06:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And since they really don't pertain to the section at hand (the articles are best suited for the apostate article anyway), this would make all of them (including Landau's) foolish to include. Drumpler 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Likewise, the article in question is a major staple on NCCG's websites and groups.12 Drumpler 06:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drumpler's hypergraphia revisited

First, something needs to be said about neutrality. The whole notion that any contributor is neutral or even can be totally neutral is a myth of highest proportions [26]. Whenever anyone makes a contribution or an edit, he/she has an interest and in that sense an attachment to the said topic. The degrees of that kind of attachment vary, but in all honesty, they are there nonetheless—otherwise the person would not waste her or his time making an entry. If one wants to spit hairs over it, it could be admitted that every contributor has some degree of conflict of interest. So even though Drumpler agrees that the 4th edit was acceptable, he carries on and on and on disputing the neutrality of any contributor who is not Drumpler (with the exception of the administrators—thus far) even though the content of the 4th edit sounds by and large neutral and agreed upon by all parties.

Secondly, much if not all, of the latest accusations by Drumpler are not verifiable one way or the other. So his machine-gun rhetoric functions as a red herring by detracting from the main topic. The main topic is not for one contributor, Drumpler, to make a value judgment for all on whether Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon is a good or bad religious group, nor is it for him to spend endless space speculating ad nauseam on the validity of contributors, but rather, the main topic is to accurately define what exactly is Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon. No doubt Drumpler will counter with a long diatribe explaining how his perceptions and said investigations should be what governs the defining of the group— or something similar.

As for the accusation of ad homonym attacks: merely labeling something as “ad homonym” does not make it so. This discussion has been extended far beyond average single-handedly by Drumpler's hypergraphia, so he, whether conscious of it or not, has made it an issue-- my and others bringing that to the attention of the reader has been made necessary by Drumpler’s action/condition. To say that it is not an issue would be like saying Strom Thurman’s former propensity to filibuster was not an issue during the historic legislative debates.

Here are the facts:

1. Sometime early this year, The New Covenant Church of God/ Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon entry was hijacked by someone who is openly adversarial toward Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon. This person is Drumpler.

2. the controversy section revolved around Drumpler’s said experiences, said perceptions, and spin [27].

3. the discussion section, while varied in topic, was always brought back by Drumpler to his said experiences, said perceptions, said investigations and spin [28].

4. Drumpler’s responses in the discussion section outnumber all other combined contributers 2:1.

5. Drumpler agreed to the final draft, but then reneged on his agreement due to perceived alleged inequities and perceived injustices.

6. Drumpler has a history of hastily accusing, then backing off, or at least changing his tone as seen in his above entries.

7. The latest accusations of sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting of which any supposed evidences are untestable one way or another, are his latest gasps to keep the discussion going. Instead of filibustering, he continues to provoke and answer in double in order to intimidate anyone who would dare to differ with his viewpoints.

Hypothesis: Drumpler cannot stop—he has an insatiable “need” to always have the last word in double proportion. If anyone says anything, he will answer with two words for everyone else's word, often several times in a row without any responses to what he previously said.

Method: To test this, this statement will soon end and wait for Drumplers response in double as has been observed all throughout the discussion.

Margins of errors: Drumpler will see that he has been perseverating [29], and will make a conscious effort to cease verifying what his rhetoric before this already has verified. If he does restrain himself momentarily, it is likely he eventually will come back and resume his routine. The other possibility is that he will have been successfully exit counseled from the “cult” of wikipedia [30] [31].

( Oh, before I forget, here’s some meatpuppets [32])

The experiment is now beginning: psst, Drumpler, you’re “it.” Lil'dummy 11:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag, Schaef Dawg, you're it. Drumpler 21:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)