I think the key is really how severe the problem was – because it's true that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encylopedia, and one of the ways that they ensure that is by stopping people from putting false information on it (for which I'm sure students writing term papers all over the world are very grateful). I agree with Sheamus that it shouldn't matter for censorship if we agree with what's being blocked, but I'd like to think that's not what's happening here. I would be more skeptical if it weren't for the fact that they've also been on the lookout for anti-scieontology edits. But I really don't know enough about the arbitration to say whether the problem was severe enough to warrant the mass banning.

I think the key is really how severe the problem was – because it’s true that Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral encylopedia, and one of the ways that they ensure that is by stopping people from putting false information on it (for which I’m sure students writing term papers all over the world are very grateful). I agree with Sheamus that it shouldn’t matter for censorship if we agree with what’s being blocked, but I’d like to think that’s not what’s happening here. I would be more skeptical if it weren’t for the fact that they’ve also been on the lookout for anti-scieontology edits. But I really don’t know enough about the arbitration to say whether the problem was severe enough to warrant the mass banning.

I agree that censorship is censorship but what you don't understand is that this isn't censorship. Wikipedia doesn't allow anyone to put in any article anything they want (despite what most believe); in theory they do because it is a Wiki but they are also an encyclopedia. The edits go through a certain process to account for they verifiability. An editor that constantly and blatantly (without referencing verifiable secondary sources) pushes a certain point of view is banned and his edits are not welcome.

Censorhsip means that Scientologists can't make a blog, can't write an article in their own magazine, etc. Ironically, if you look at Wikipedias entry for Censorship you might learn that:

"Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor.

Also the Wikimedia Foundation didnt "ban" anything, the Spanish, Turkish, Chinese and other Wikipedias didn't ban Scientology IP addresses. A behavior was spotted where a number of IP addresses belonging to a certain group were all coordinating a blatant edit attack to push a point of view.

I don't care if all IP addresses in Turkmenistan start pushing a point of view and you have to ban a whole country, Encyclopedias need to be neutral.

Censoring is what China does, Wikipedia followed policy.

Now, you might find interesting that Scientology is censored in Greece. You can debate about that if you want.

Also the Wikimedia Foundation didnt “ban” anything, the Spanish, Turkish, Chinese and other Wikipedias didn’t ban Scientology IP addresses. A behavior was spotted where a number of IP addresses belonging to a certain group were all coordinating a blatant edit attack to push a point of view.
I don’t care if all IP addresses in Turkmenistan start pushing a point of view and you have to ban a whole country, Encyclopedias need to be neutral.

Censoring is what China does, Wikipedia followed policy.

Now, you might find interesting that Scientology is censored in Greece. You can debate about that if you want.

Censorship is censorship, whether we agree with what is being blocked, or not

I totally agree on this one as well. Why should someone need 5 accounts though? That is the problem on the net. It's like Investment Bankers blowing up their numbers to get the money and get out, you can hire Minions to look like real clients/subscribers whatever..

And, because companies run NAT in the offices it is hard to determine if the 5 accounts from that IP address are all the same person or 5 people from the 60,000 at MS…

Censorship is censorship, whether we agree with what is being blocked, or not

I totally agree on this one as well. Why should someone need 5 accounts though? That is the problem on the net. It’s like Investment Bankers blowing up their numbers to get the money and get out, you can hire Minions to look like real clients/subscribers whatever..

And, because companies run NAT in the offices it is hard to determine if the 5 accounts from that IP address are all the same person or 5 people from the 60,000 at MS…