User talk:The Legendary Shadow!
Please don't let the actions of a few users discourage you from contributing here. Your efforts are appreciated, and necessary if Wikipedia is going to represent a greater reality than the wishes of just a few users. The Jade Knight (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, but I have been following that particular article since the start of the trouble, and the source of the truble is one user in particular; it is obvious from the history of the article that he is behind it, hand yet no action has been taken.
Terms of your unblock
Apparently, user talk:Richard Rolles was deleted. I'll re-state the terms of my unblock: "Per our discussion via e-mail, I have decided to unblock you. You will remain unblocked, permitted that you refrain from editing Scientology-related articles, unless in cases of strictly defined vandalism." Yes, I know the userspace and Wikipedia namespaces are not articles, so let me make myself even clearer. Do not edit Scientology-related articles, unless in cases of strictly defined vandalism, participate in Scientology-related discussions, post rants about Scientology editors in your userspace, or any other activities involving Scientology in any userspace. If you fail to meet this condition, I will have no choice but to reblock you indefinitely. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, Nishkid, and I have not touched any Scientology articles since. I wanted to comment on the RfA, as I have seen first hand examples of the kind of problem they want to sort out. And rather than do it in th RfA, I thought it perhaps better to do it on my userspace. I have removed my 'rant' as you would call it from my userspace now. BTW, could you clarify 'except in cases of strictly defined vandalism' for me? I take that to mean, if I saw someone for example removing properly sourced material, then I woiuld be OK to put it back in?The Legendary Shadow! (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- If someone removed properly sourced material without an explanation whatsoever, it would be best to ask them personally why they made that edit, and if necessary, revert their edit. If they provide an explanation, you should not undo their edit, as long as it possesses some merits (e.g. "i removed it because it's a bunch of nonsense" is a bad explanation). Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 20:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not further contribute to this arbitration, as it is in violation of your topic ban. While the arbitrators will probably not view one or two postings, made in good faith, as too egregious, any displays of inappropriate behaviour will have serious repercussions. Please heed this advice as it is a pity to throw away the efforts you have undeniably made over the last few months. Roger Davies talk 12:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
This is to notify you that you have been added as a involved party to the Scientology arbitration case; this is either because you have been mentioned in the /Evidence, the /Workshop or their talk pages, or because you are closely connected with it.
- Notifying you is really just a formality. If you have any comments, please make them to me by email and do not participate in the case. Roger Davies talk 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
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 :
- Banned : John254 (talk · contribs) (Community Ban), Justallofthem (talk · contribs)
- Topic-banned : CSI LA (talk · contribs), Grrrilla (talk · contribs), Makoshack (talk · contribs), Proximodiz (talk · contribs), Su-Jada (talk · contribs), TaborG (talk · contribs), Jack Russell Terrier (talk · contribs), Jpierreg (talk · contribs), Maureen D (talk · contribs), OngoingHow (talk · contribs), Seelltey (talk · contribs), Tturrisi (talk · contribs), Voxpopulis (talk · contribs), AndroidCat (talk · contribs), Antaeus Feldspar (talk · contribs), Anynobody (talk · contribs), Derflipper (talk · contribs), Fahrenheit451 (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs), Orsini (talk · contribs), Shrampes (talk · contribs), Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), Tilman (talk · contribs), The Legendary Shadow! (talk · contribs), Touretzky (talk · contribs)
- To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*, Rick Alan Ross (talk · contribs)
- Other restrictions :
- Jossi (talk · contribs) gave up his status as an administrator in the face of controversy concerning his administrator actions during an arbitration case, he may not be automatically re-granted adminship. However, he is free to seek readminship, should he choose to do so, at any time by a request for adminship at Requests for adminship.
- ChrisO (talk · contribs) is to abide to a binding voluntary restriction that within the Scientology topic (i) he limits his edits to directly improving articles to meet GA and FA criteria, using reliable sources; (ii) he makes no edits of whatever nature to biographies of living people; and (iii) he refrains from sysop action of whatever nature.
- Jayen466 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.
- #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 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)