Misplaced Pages

User talk:Misou: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:12, 1 May 2007 editMisou (talk | contribs)1,668 edits →wb← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:16, 24 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(377 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Archive box|<center>], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]</center>}}

Sorry, got no time yet to put something in here. But feel free to leave questions or comments. Sorry, got no time yet to put something in here. But feel free to leave questions or comments.


Line 10: Line 12:


Please feel free to discuss all kinds of things here, as long as the Talk page of an article is not the better choice. ] Please feel free to discuss all kinds of things here, as long as the Talk page of an article is not the better choice. ]
whats up just wanted to see waht was going on!! Whats your email ? reply to jiggulad@yahoo.com <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What's up? ] (]) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


==Dianetics: The Original Thesis==
== Notice ==
]

A ''']''' template has been added to the article ], suggesting that it be deleted according to the ] process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's ], and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "]" and ]). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the <code>{{tl|dated prod}}</code> notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on ]. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the ], the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the ] or it can be sent to ], where it may be deleted if ] to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add <code>{{tl|db-author}}</code> to the top of ]. <!-- Template:PRODWarning --> ] (]) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
<div style="padding:5px; border:1px solid #c0c090; background-color:#FEC;" class="user-block"> ] You have been ] from editing for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:1 week|a period of '''1 week'''|a short time}} in accordance with ] for {{{{{subst|}}}#if:perpetual violations of ]|'''perpetual violations of ]'''|repeated ]}}. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text <nowiki>{{</nowiki>unblock|''your reason here''<nowiki>}}</nowiki> below. {{{{{subst|}}}#if:{{{sig|}}}|] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)}}</div><!-- Template:uw-block1 -->
Please take this week to look at your talk page contributions and see where your attitude could use improvement. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock reviewed|1=Hi! Isn't this week over by now? Misou 04:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)|decline=If you are still blocked, it's not over yet. If the block persists, follw the instructions in {{tl|Autoblock}}. — ] 05:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)}}

:That's what I call a greased line! Ok, will see what needs to be done to become a better citizen. ] 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::You should probably appeal. One week for a first block is arbitrarily long. 24-48 hours would have sufficed. --] 20:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:::Considering the fact that the user has been warned several times, and engaged in discussion/debate with the warning editors (which shows a ''very'' clear understand of the warning; no "oh, I didn't notice it, whoops" defense), I feel that the week-long block is sufficient. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
::::Well he can take what action he feels is appropriate; I just think that if you wanted a stern message then 48 hours would do that. --] 21:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:I disagree with some of the language used in Misou's edits and comments... and I also think that this is not a clear-cut case of one user not being WP:CIVIL. I believe some of Misou's responses could stand some cleanup and others a complete re-write '''and''' from what I have read, it seems that he is being goaded into some of these responses by comments and edits from a few other contributors in articles which are highly disputed and contentious.
:It appears that Misou feels that his views are being attacked or smeared and the other contributors, knowing that, are doing little to ''acknowledge'' his position, and instead seem to be ''poking a stick at the nest''. -Peace in God. ] 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

;Block is appropriate for inappropriate behaviour
*The block period is most appropriate for these types of violations, for which there have been prior ''multiple'' warnings. Here is the information at ], with comments from outside editors ] that feel this was appropriate. ] 05:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC).


<b>Block is inappropriate and reflects taking "side" to anti-editors</b>
(considering Misou a "pro-editor") Those editors clearly not in favor of the main subject - Scientology/L. Ron Hubbard - spend a considerable amount of effort to bully the few neutral editors on the . Misou (if he/she is a Scientologist at all) might be temperamental but <b>be bold</b> and ] still apply. Overdoing it should be penalized with a 24hr block or 48hrs maximum, if repeated (which it is not). ] 02:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:My block of Misou has absolutely no relation to any project that Misou is involved in; honestly, I couldn't care less what he spends his time doing on Misplaced Pages, just as long as he abides by ]. Please take care to ]. IAR has no bearing on violating Misplaced Pages's guidelines on civility. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 04:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== Continue here? ==
Do you want to continue the discussion from ] here while you are blocked? I understand the discussion is important to you, which explains for me your occasional hostility. In case you don't want to be left out completely I thought this might be a good compromise. ] 05:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
:Hi there. I am turning hostile on display of cynicism and arrogance. Maybe I should get rid of that habit. What do you want to talk about? DD-214? You know my viewpoint. It is a forgery, you got some OR there in that Prouty affidavit (Palm etc) but that is all there is. There might be RS on the medal claim (21 or 27) but that does not mean the fake DD-214 form was distributed. Ah, just to be a bit mean I could also claim that it is actually not clear which of the two DD-214 forms is the real one or whether both are fake... Unless new data comes in this looks like a hopeless case to me. ] 05:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of just in case something pops up (RFCs can change quickly and unexpectedly). This way you aren't cutoff from any new topics of discussion. (I think we more or less understand each other's view of the DD-214, assuming you saw my last post to you on the page itself of course.)


==AfD nomination of Dianetics: The Original Thesis==
::Thanks. I keep an eye on what is happening - relentless injection of POVs right now. Spent some time getting my docs in order as long as I get to it. Might be worth it. Did you read the radio log of the submarine attack incident?
]I have nominated ], an article you created, for ]. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. <small>Do you want to ] of receiving this notice?</small><!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
:::Which one? The Navy used different radios for different tasks. For example the ship to ship communications were handled on a different frequency than ship to air. I'd be happy to look at what you have. ] 08:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


== Incident notice ==
I should also explain that I'm not just editing Hubbard and a few Scientology articles, I enjoy editing many controversial topics. The reason that is important goes toward the amount of time I'm able to commit to here, and to warn that it probably won't be as much as I'd like. That said, I think some discussion is better than none.


A discussion in which you are mentioned is currently under way ]. This is a courtesy notice. --]] 09:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your occasional hostility, I don't mean to come off as patronizing. I apologize if this next analogy seems offensive I don't mean it to be: Hubbard is to a Scientologist what Jesus is to a Christian. Therefore I'd expect the same thing from Christians were I trying to disprove claims Jesus made about himself. In this case, the important figure -(IF from now on, unless you have a more neutral term)- was in the Navy during World War 2. These are two subjects I have studied for two decades. I just want to set the record straight because there are errors on both sides, but Hubbard makes it tough and I'll explain quickly: The PC-815 could be called a corvette as a generalization:
:Hum? Did find nothing there. Am I late or something? ] (]) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
*A ] was at that time was smaller than a ] which was smaller than a ] but larger than a ] and specialized in ].
::Yep, late. It's at ] now. --]] 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
* Hubbard said he commanded a squadron of British corvettes, which you know how I feel history says about that claim.
:::Gosh, this sh*t again... Thanks. ] (]) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
==]==
FYI, you've made three reverts within the last 2 hours or so ( ). Another revert in the next 24 hours will place you in violation of the ]. Best, - ]&nbsp;] 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:Thanks. No need to, the link is now gone (was said to be a false positive but it's not needed anyway). ] (]) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


== ] ==
::The WWII times of Hubbard are not significant for Scientologists. He has been a soldier at war times, ok. Many were, now what. The controversy about was made by others, mainly characters like Armstrong, whose plan was to inject fake documents into Hubbard's bio (did ever read the transcript of some hidden camera shots where he actually said that?). He or his friends succeeded somehow - unbelievable amounts of trash around tracing back to "nobody". In 15 years I could find at least some documentation. We can scrutinize this thing and keep the dumb commenters out.
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, ]<sup>'']''</sup> 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I'll believe that if you say so (CoS assessment of significance), but WW II information is important to those who study it. The assertion puzzles me a bit, if it's insignificant then why are a few Scientologists taking such issue with it? ] 08:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:About what. There's not even a subject yet. ] (]) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


==]==
You won't find me actually editing articles having to do with ] itself (I do comment on talk pages though and try to solve problems/disputes). That is because I can't in good conscience pick apart the doctrine without doing the same to any religion whose doctrine doesn't make sense to me. I hope this clarifies that I'm not out to prove Scientology wrong, as much as I'm trying to correct errors (like the other side saying Hubbard battled a magnetic deposit). ] 07:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located ]. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, ]. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, ].


On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
::Sounds good. Doctrine is a belief thing and defies analysis by default. It's a human rights matter to let people believe what they want as long as it does not harm other's human rights. From that angle, well, there is some catch up work to do in Misplaced Pages. ] 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


== CSI ] ==
''It's a human rights matter to let people believe what they want as long as it does not harm other's human rights...'' That's exactly how I feel. ] 04:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an ]. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
:: :) Cool! I couldn't put a Wikibreak sign on my user page (this user is blocked and so on), but as a note, I'll be on the road for the next days and back Sunday or Monday. Talk to you then. ] 04:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


On ] you talk about an overwhelming need for an arbcom case. What do you feel the past arbcom case was not able to address?
==== ? Re comments on... ====
...] talk page. Are you saying that by oversight request you want to find out if ] was one of the editors on the other side of the Hubbard debate causing trouble on purpose? If so you've filed the wrong request, you want ].


You state that there will be no peace ever as long as the discrimination continues. Can you specify what you mean by that?
If you really think something is going on, lets both submit a request because I'd just like to know if anyone we know pulled that crap. ] 08:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
:Well, Smee was damn close to this vandal from his first to his last minute. Might have sat next to her telling from time coincidences and the comparably harmless way she treated him. Anyway, since VolcanoXeni is blocked now I don't care much anymore. ] 04:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


--<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Still, having unanswered questions can be irritating, so to assuage your concern I will answer your suspicion. (Please understand though I consider her a friend I would never sanction any kind of behavior like that.):
*] is on the welcome committee. These diffs from before, '''during''', and after the incident in question explain why you saw her giving ] a welcome message:
''''''
Someone who is really concerned may see her effort on the committee as the set up of an alibi, this also is not true because
] spends a lot of her time creating articles (If you want I can get the diffs, or just check out the past ] entries in the last few months). Lastly if you look at her contributions, she was posting at the same time as the editor in question.
The above is all as an impartial editor, the following is from my experience: ] would strongly condemn any action like that, it would go against everything else she does as an editor. I understand though why it might seem as though there are dirty tricks being played, I think we all feel that way every so often when editing isn't going the way we'd like. It's easy to blame a cabal, rather than believe there are individuals who are saying we're wrong. ] 05:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


== ] ==
:I am back. Thanks for the information on Smee. As I said, the story is over. But I see you got a new one rolling now. Hard to believe, that one on COFS. ] 04:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


I wasn't 100% sure on ] myself, which is why I went to ] and waited for the results before saying anything about it. ] 04:09, 30 April 2007 (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 :
:Well, I don't know about that but sure we'll have some boring times ahead without him/her. Bad news is I had to leave the scanner at home. No new scans yet and a new round of dust is on the docs, sigh. Someday... ] 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


*] : {{user|John254}} (Community Ban), {{user|Justallofthem}}
I don't understand it myself, why knowingly break the rules for a short block?
*Topic-banned : {{user|CSI LA}}, {{user|Grrrilla}}, {{user|Makoshack}}, {{user|Proximodiz}}, {{user|Su-Jada}}, {{user|TaborG}}, {{user|Jack Russell Terrier}}, {{user|Jpierreg}}, {{user|Maureen D}}, {{user|OngoingHow}}, {{user|Seelltey}}, {{user|Tturrisi}}, {{user|Voxpopulis}}, {{user|AndroidCat}}, {{user|Antaeus Feldspar}}, {{user|Anynobody}}, {{user|Derflipper}}, {{user|Fahrenheit451}}, {{user|Misou}}, {{user|Orsini}}, {{user|Shrampes}}, {{user|Shutterbug}}, {{user|Steve Dufour}}, {{user|Tilman}}, {{user|The Legendary Shadow!}}, {{user|Touretzky}}
*To contact the Committee : ]*, ]*, ]*, ]*, ]*, ]*, {{User|Rick Alan Ross}}
*Other restrictions :
**{{User|Jossi}} 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.
**{{User|ChrisO}} 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.
**{{User|Jayen466}} is topic-banned from articles about Rick Ross, broadly defined.


:<small>#Editors marked in * have since contacted the Committee.</small>
As to your documents, do you live in the U.S.? If so find a local ] or other print shop and take em there to be scanned. It's pretty cheap if they still let you use your own media. (Buying a CDR or something like that from them could be a rip off though) ] 05:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
:Yeah, I think I know a shop like that, might even be open at night. Good idea. ] 05:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


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.
No problem :) If you live anywhere near a college or university I'd bet money they'd be open late on a Sunday (especially this time of year). ] 05:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


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 Misplaced Pages 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.
==wb==
:-} ] 04:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


:Tku! ] 04:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC) - ''For the Arbitration Committee'', ] 01:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
::Who be dancin? ] 17:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
:::We be dancin! ] 17:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:16, 24 March 2022

Archiving icon
Archives
April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007, August 2007, October 2007, September 2007, November 2007, Index

Sorry, got no time yet to put something in here. But feel free to leave questions or comments.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Jan2025. Sections without timestamps are not archived. All archived sections are listed at the section index.

Hi there!

Please feel free to discuss all kinds of things here, as long as the Talk page of an article is not the better choice. Misou whats up just wanted to see waht was going on!! Whats your email ? reply to jiggulad@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.88.45 (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What's up? Misou (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dianetics: The Original Thesis

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Dianetics: The Original Thesis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Dianetics: The Original Thesis. Cirt (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dianetics: The Original Thesis

I have nominated Dianetics: The Original Thesis, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dianetics: The Original Thesis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Cirt (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Incident notice

A discussion in which you are mentioned is currently under way here. This is a courtesy notice. --GoodDamon 09:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Hum? Did find nothing there. Am I late or something? Misou (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, late. It's at WP:AE now. --GoodDamon 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, this sh*t again... Thanks. Misou (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard

FYI, you've made three reverts within the last 2 hours or so ( ). Another revert in the next 24 hours will place you in violation of the three revert rule. Best, - auburnpilot talk 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to, the link is now gone (was said to be a false positive but it's not needed anyway). Misou (talk) 02:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology

I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova 18:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

About what. There's not even a subject yet. Misou (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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, Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.

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

CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology

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 an overwhelming need for an arbcom case. What do you feel the past arbcom case was not able to address?

You state that there will be no peace ever as long as the discrimination continues. Can you specify what you mean by that?

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

-- Cat 18:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)