User talk:Shrampes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Involvement at ArbCom[edit]

Hello. Based on your brief editing history and apparent familiarity with Wikipedia's policies and procedures, along with your editing focus on Dianetics, you appear to be a returning user under a new name. I don't personally have a problem with that, but you should be aware how it will appear to administrators reviewing the current ArbCom incident report. If you are a returning user, I strongly suggest you disclose the previous account you edited under to avoid accusations of sockpuppetry. --GoodDamon 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock of Highfructosecornsyrup[edit]

Information.svg You have been accused of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Highfructosecornsyrup. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I have never had any other Wikipedia account. But I did edit in an article called High-fructose corn syrup. Is that how you got the idea? Shrampes (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

An open invitation[edit]

Hey there. I noticed recently that you had an interest in Scientology-related topics. A few days ago I devoted some time to some massive restructuring of Scientology beliefs and practices. Any quality seconadry-sourced contributions you could make there would be appreciated. Thanks. Spidern 04:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I am in the middle of a research project and do not have a lot of time for Wikipedia edits but thank you for the invitation. Shrampes (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I did. Shrampes (talk) 02:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology[edit]

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology[edit]

Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.

On your statement you talk about accidentally bumping into the Scientology dispute when Spidern reverts you. Could you specify when was that (if possible with a diff). Were you aware of the Scientology dispute in question? Were you involved with the dispute before your encounter with Spidern in any other way?

To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?

-- Cat chi? 18:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Scientology arbitration[edit]

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Cirt.

For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following editors are subjected to bans/topic-bans/restrictions as listed below :

#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.

Any editor who is subject to remedies in this proceeding, or who wishes to edit from an open proxy, is restricted to a single current or future account to edit Scientology-related topics and may not contribute to the topic as anonymous IP editors. Editors topic banned by remedies in this proceeding are prohibited (i) from editing articles related to Scientology or Scientologists, broadly defined, as well as the respective article talk pages and (ii) from participating in any Wikipedia process relating to those articles. Editors topic banned above may apply to have the topic ban lifted after demonstrating their commitment to the goals of Wikipedia and their ability to work constructively with other editors. Applications will be considered no earlier than six months after the close of this case, and additional reviews will be done no more frequently than every six months thereafter.

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, ban any editor from editing within the Scientology topic. Prior to topic banning the editor, the administrator will leave a message on the editor's talk page, linking to this paragraph, warning the editor that a topic ban is contemplated and outlining the behaviours for which it is contemplated. If the editor fails to heed the warning, the editor may be topic banned, initially, for three months, then with additional topic bans increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Any editor who, in the judgment of an uninvolved administrator, is (i) focused primarily on Scientology or Scientologists and (ii) clearly engaged in promoting an identifiable agenda may be topic-banned for up to one year.

All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted, are to be blocked as if they were open proxies. Any current or future editor who, after this decision is announced, makes substantial edits to any Scientology-related articles or discussions on any page is directed to edit on these from only a single user account, which shall be the user's sole or main account, unless the user has previously sought and obtained permission from the Arbitration Committee to operate a legitimate second account. They shall edit in accordance to Wikipedia policies and refrain from advocacy, to disclose on the relevant talk pages any circumstances (but not including personal identifying information) that constitute or may reasonably be perceived as constituting a conflict of interest with respect to that page, and not through a proxy configuration.

- For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)