| Revision as of 15:26, 22 August 2019 editHandThatFeeds (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers12,406 edits →Relationship: Previous historyTag: 2017 wikitext editor← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:17, 22 August 2019 edit undoIamsnag12 (talk | contribs)86 editsm →Relationship: Clarifying length of time and double standardsNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| Please let's discuss the actual facts posted. ] (]) 00:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC) | Please let's discuss the actual facts posted. ] (]) 00:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC) | ||
| :It is relevant, because Scientology members previously astroturfed this site to try and remove any criticism. As such, users who join and immediately focus on that topic tend to be scrutinized out of caution. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC) | :It is relevant, because Scientology members previously astroturfed this site to try and remove any criticism. As such, users who join and immediately focus on that topic tend to be scrutinized out of caution. — <b>]:<sup>]</sup></b> 15:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC) | ||
| So let me understand your statement: if someone posts a criticism of Scientology then there is no scrutiny or suspicion of them, but if they post positive things about Scientology and/or correct incorrect data about it are scrutinized? That seems like a blatant double standard to me. | |||
| Secondly, I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed. | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 22 August 2019
Scientology discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Scientology. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33 NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- What is the reason for reversion? Interest in a subject and providing multiple citations throughout edits is not grounds for a warning. It appears that the justification is because older sources are being challenged and allegations of "unreliable" sources are thrown about without evidence aside from allegations. Did anybody bother to actually read the sources cited?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsnag12 (talk • contribs) 11:10, August 20, 2019 (UTC)
- For the record, the above is not a warning. It is required to notify users when they are editing in a topic area that is under sanctions, especially if there is a dispute. It's just a notice to make you aware that the rules are more strict with regards to this topic.
- Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages by placing four tilde (~) signs at the end. — The Hand That Feeds You: 17:42, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
If that is the case, then why are all of my edits relating to Scientology being reversed? Nothing of what I have posted has been shown to be unreliable, in fact a number of these sources aren't even from CESNUR. Iamsnag12 (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- You'll want to discuss that on the pages in question. — The Hand That Feeds You: 21:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Relationship
What is your relationship with Scientology? Are you a Scientologist? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, so the biases come out and yet I am told that I am not warned. I am at all not surprised. Anyway, no I am not a member of the Church of Scientology, but even if I were one, how is that at all relevant? Please let's discuss the actual facts posted. Iamsnag12 (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is relevant, because Scientology members previously astroturfed this site to try and remove any criticism. As such, users who join and immediately focus on that topic tend to be scrutinized out of caution. — The Hand That Feeds You: 15:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
So let me understand your statement: if someone posts a criticism of Scientology then there is no scrutiny or suspicion of them, but if they post positive things about Scientology and/or correct incorrect data about it are scrutinized? That seems like a blatant double standard to me.
Secondly, I've not recently joined I've been on since 2011. Also, I've posted elsewhere and had other usernames too which tried to merge under this one, not sure if those work but I can point to those edits if needed.