User talk:Sciologos

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Sciologos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Talk:Xenu. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone[edit]

Your tone is getting a bit harsh at Talk:Xenu, [1]. Please comment on content, not contributors. If you cannot back up your claims with independent reliable secondary sources, and instead repeatedly propose to violate site policies such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, then the discussion at Talk:Xenu is unlikely to be productive and is instead disruptive in nature. Please read over the applicable remedies at WP:COFS and WP:ARBSCI regarding behavior within this topic area. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

Please see WP:AE, specifically, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sciologos. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that failure to respond to this accusation may result in adverse inferences being drawn from your silence. Stifle (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration sanction[edit]

Whereas:
- WP:ARBSCI remedy 5.1 vests in uninvolved administrators the power to topic-ban users who is focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda, and
- You have edited only Talk:Xenu and an SPI case, and have the agenda of having "scientific support for the OT III story" written up on Wikipedia,
Now, therefore,
- You are topic-banned from Xenu and related pages for three months
- Violation of this topic ban will result in a block of up to one month for a first infraction (up to one year thereafter) and the topic-ban being reset, as well as the possibility of further sanctions.
This sanction may be appealed to me, to WP:AE, or to WP:A/R. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Sciologos_2. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

You have been blocked from editing, for a period of 1 week, for violating the topic ban imposed above, per the AE request at the bottom of this page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Sandstein 17:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sciologos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I'm new to all of this Wikipedia rules and it took me a while to understand somebody had blocked me. Apparantly somebody had proposed to block (enforcement?) me and I was supposed to answer but didn't? I hadn't even seen any kind of proposal to block me. I wasn't logged in for a couple of days, that's all. Jeez, quit those conspiracy theories please. Then all of a sudden I'm blocked and I hardly understand why. There's a lot of information and a lot of pages to go through and I haven't really managed to figure out why. Sorry. Well I'm doing my best. Could somebody please explain? I'm trying to build up intellectual arguments here and actually trying to understand how Wikipedia works. Trying to understand the cornerstones, I have not insulted anybody. I thought this was a place for Freedom of speech? Also, somebody took away my comment on my socket investigation. Why and who did that? I would like that investigated please. I added the beneath.

Decline reason:

You were advised on the 12th of May that you were breaching the AE issue. You edited on the 13th, and therefore would have noted that you had a talkpage message. Your block was not enacted until the 16th - you have a minimum of 3 days from when you first were notified. You logged in and edited, therefore you knew you had messages. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(Edit-conflict decline) You were topic-banned from editing articles related to the subject Xenu. You were informed of this here on your talk page; it is visible above.. You were informed that you would be blocked if you made edits related to that topic. You made an edit related to that topic. Therefore, you were blocked. Since this relates to an Arbitration Enforcement matter, no mere administrator is permitted to unblock you; the page on arbitration enforcement includes instructions on how to appeal a block related to the enforcement of an arbitration decision, but you'd need to show that either (a) you weren't informed of your topic ban, or (b) you didn't violate the topic ban, which will make an appeal difficult. Since the terms of your topic ban allowed for a block of up to one month, I think that the blocking administrator must have taken into account that you are a new user when she blocked you for only one week. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sciologos (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I can perfectly honestly say that I discussed Xenu at the talk page but did not look for any "new" messages. Every time I log in there seems to be "a new message" and I presume it has something to do with the Xenu talk page so I stopped caring for them. I did NOT look for a message. You have to understand I don't spend every day at Wikipedia, am new to this and never check any messages. There would be no reason at all for me to decline or avoid anything, certainly not an intention to ban. That would be something I would straighten out immediately. There seems to be two kinds of bans at the moment if I understand it correctly? I'm a little bit confused by that. How do I continue the discussion on Xenu or where can I do it with somebody serious from Wiki? Smitty1337 seemed to be a person who tried to build up arguments instead of just intending to ban like some other people who don't seems to appreciate an intellectual discussion. There seems to be a new cornerstone or rule every time I propose something so I'm learning all the time. I'm actually from an intellectual standpoint trying to understand all of this.

Decline reason:

As this is an Arbitration Enforcement related block, you need to make a very strong case to be unblocked, as any admin who did unblock you would likely find themselves in the hot seat immediately afterward. It is fairly clear from the conversation below that your main intention here is to add content that cannot be verified properly to the Xenu article, and your belittling of the collective intelligence of any who disagree with that goal makes your conflict of interest in this matter fairly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sorry about my accusations. I see now that my comment had been moved from the bottom to somewhere in the middle in my socket puppet investigation. By the way, I find the socket puppy investigation incredible amuzing to read. I now understand how an innocent man must feel being accused of crimes he did not commit. But I understand your concern and I welcome the investigation. I can assure you however that I have not been this user "Justa" you're talking about. Again, me editing the Xenu page is entirely new for me.Sciologos (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez... this environment is not very appealing when it comes to sort out things: Blocks, threats, not being able to respond freely. Too much obstacles everywhere. Therefore I cannot continue here but would like somebody from Wikipedia, e.g. Smitty1337, to go to some FREE forum and OPENLY discuss these rules without restrictions so that I understand them.Sciologos (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without reading back, I'm going to be general for you. Some articles are regular victims of non neutral additions and have Wikipedia-wide restrictions for editing. When any editor breaks those restrictions, they are communicated with to let them know. Often, an incident is registered at the admins noticeboard for incidents. They are given the chance to comment / apologize / move forward - however, if their actions were particularly poor, and they failed to respond to any attempts at communication, they may be temporarily blocked in an escalating manner (such as a week the first time, a month the next, etc).

You do not appear to be WP:BAN in any manner. You (and everyone) has an editing restriction on at least one article, and you are blocked for a mere week because of it.

The "you have new messages" is clear and orange on purpose, and it's clearly directed to you. I hope this helps - there's a lot of reading you can do before the end of the week. I'm sure that you have much to add to this project. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. Actually, instead of me coming up with examples all the time and learning new rules and cornerstones I think the easiest way would be to ask the other way around:

Question: Is it possible and if possible: How could a neutral article about Xenu, geological findings regarding it, auditing stories from Scientologists and Freezoners, E-meter movements, geological facts against Xenu etc be accomplished in terms of reliable sources, no original research and all the other rules? Feel free to elaborate and be specific if you feel for it.Sciologos (talk) 10:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested in any other subjects? As far as I know, there aren't any independent sources verifying the claims you've made, so I don't think you're going to get far in that direction, but if you're interested in making the encyclopedia better, there are lots of other things you can do. List of Irish cheeses has lots of articles that haven't been written yet. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:12, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I guess the best way would be to have such an article be based on several third-party scientific investigations accomplished by independent universities or similair having done some serious studies regarding the subject? (Irish cheese smells funny by the way, I prefer the coffee.)Sciologos (talk) 12:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bwilkins: I think when he said new messages he meant further comments on the article talk page, and not his user talk page. That's what I gathered, at least. And of course, not everybody uses their watchlist; and not everybody remembers to check back on pending discussions. But that aside, I don't see any reason to unblock here. Hopefully Sciologos will adopt a more healthy style of editing when the block expires. AGK 15:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your offer to base an article on third-party scientific investigations is puzzling to me; I sincerely doubt that there are any peer-reviewed scientific papers, produced outside the Church of Scientology, which say that Xenu exists or existed. Such a paper would certainly have been major news all over the world; I'm certain that I would have read or heard about it. If you're offering to take a scientific paper about the existence of certain minerals, and then use it to write an article about how that discovery verifies the existence of Xenu, then that would be original research, and not what the encyclopedia can use- we only report what the sources report; we don't draw our own conclusions. And, in any case, you are restricted from this topic, so you'll have to just have faith that, if such sources become available, someone else will certainly add the information to the relevant article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'm getting the feeling the world at large is not ready to confront and investigate these matters further yet. If Xenu and the auditing procedures are true and work (I'm not saying they are but it could be until the matter has been further investigated thoroughly) it seems to be on a too high gradient level for most people to even think about. Judging by the huge resistence on Wikipedia alone, by just trying to have a very simple conversation and learn all the rules and bringing up some hard fact evidence I make the conclusion this has to evolve in a more proper fashion. Well, you got some geological evidence to ponder together with auditing stories in the thousands, some of them from the most famous artists on earth (artists are usually more open to new things). Happy summer!Sciologos (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A final note:

Sockpuppet investigation:

85.160.13.191 83.189.78.161 90.128.5.227 213.29.115.8

I guess the IP staring with 85 are mine? How come you think IP starting with 90 has anything to do with me? And what about 213?? That's quite a different number from 85. The only Wiki editing I've ever done have been very minor, probably 3-6 years ago and was very small, like a couple of sentences here and there in some articles from what I can remember. I don't think I have had another user account. It might be possible I had an old one from several years ago I used shortly, but if that's the case (I can honestly not remember) I could not remember it. I came up with (ScioLogos) since I wanted to add some suggestions. What is a proxy? I'm using my broadband as a paying customer, that's all. I don't have any "hiding" IPs if that's what you're referring to. I've never edited the Xenu article prior to my recent edits. I can tell you you're making very loose assumptions here.

I also suggest you investigate the user Cirt and his suitability as an editor as he apparently does not support freedom of speech and shows lack of understanding with newcomers on Wikipedia (at least me), but instead tries to shut everything down quickly when arguments become interesting. What is he afraid of? Not very scientific and neutral. I had to learn a lot of rules before faintly understand how Wiki works.

Also, may I rephrase my original intention since I had no idea how Wikipedia works (in all perfect honesty): To add NEUTRAL articles about Xenu, geological evidence, auditing stories etc wihout breaking any cornerstones, rules or similair. I appreciate neutrality since I appreciate truth. Thanx. Sciologos (talk) 10:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first amendment forbids the United States government from making laws to restrict freedom of speech. Wikipedia is not a government entity, but a privately owned web site; the concept of 'freedom of speech' does not apply to Wikipedia.
If there is a peer-reviewed scientific study that says that Xenu exists, cite it here, and we can discuss whether it should be added to an article- the proven existence of Xenu would be a fact, and so would belong in the article, but I don't believe such a study exists. The proven existence of certain minerals only proves the existence of those minerals; if it was in doubt, we could write about those minerals in the articles about them, but unless the peer-reviewed scientific study says that they prove the existence of Xenu, we aren't allowed to draw our own conclusions.
'Auditing stories' are not a fact, and so they do not have any place in an encyclopedia article.
Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? If you don't understand the answers in written English, I don't have any other way to communicate with you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I never said auditing stories were facts, they were quotes, just like e.g. Hubbard and OJ Simpson are allowed to be quoted directly (and not be regarded as facts) in encyclopedia articles on Wikipedia. Well, I've made my points and they are here for everybody to ponder.Sciologos (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Moved your statement on the sockpuppet investigation to that page...since I believe you can't comment there while under ban.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder[edit]

Per remedy 8 of this arbitration case, please be reminded that you should edit Scientology-related topics only from this account (Sciologos), which excludes editing while logged out. In the event that you edited the topic area while logged out by accident, you should immediately log in and remedy the mistake. Failure to do so may result in an expanded topic ban from the entire Scientology topic area, as the remedy provided. Tim Song (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]