No, this is not religious intolerance or persecution so don't even start.

I've seen this on two other sites and I don't think I've seen anyone suggest that it is.

I'm pre-empting the reaction that often crops up on Plime to such stories. Don't know what the attitudes of the ones you've seen it on are. Clearly.

It was reddit and slashdot.

Sounds like basic censorship to me. Go Wikipedia.

" The site sees itself as an encyclopedia with a "neutral point of view"

..unless you're in a religion that they don't like.

Wiki- information not proliferation.

Did you even bother to read the article? Or for that matter the description I entered?

They are not being banned because of unpopular opinions. They are being banned because they a long history of a substantial number of false edits to make them look better.

They were banned as editors for the same reason many individuals have been banned.

No conspiracy here. No civil rights violations. No censorship. Just an attempt to increase the validity of the articles on their site.

It is amazing how prophetic Pocksucket is.

Why do you suppose he felt he needed to 'disclaimer' it? It's OBVIOUS.

When you claim you want to have neutrality, then tell one side they're not allowed to bring their viewpoint, you don't have neutrality.

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that the Vatican doesn't defend itself and give it's own viewpoint? Do you honestly believe that the westboro baptists don't put their own spin on thigns?

Wikipedia doesn't do opinions and viewpoints, it does knowledge. Everyone can enter knowledge to Wikipedia, not just professors (That's the neutral part) as long as it is backed with the correct sources. Wikipedia is NOT a forum.

This article hasn't said anything about the sources cited by scientologists. I could understand banning someone who wrote "scientology id the pefrect religon, and there's total prroof from everthing [citation needed]", but what about all the Scientologists who actually cite sources in their posts?

I gues there aren't any.