User talk:Proximodiz

Hello, Proximodiz! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Rehabilitation Project Force. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! Proximodiz (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be my primary reading material should I want to become a regular Wikipedia editor? Proximodiz (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the top, I have dropped the default welcome message, with a lot of reading material for you, especially Wikipedia:Conflict of interest since you say that you are from the Church of Scientology. If you have any queries, come and chat to me about them.

Also, I am administrator on Wikisource, where we currently have a very one-sided collection (see s:Category:Scientology) and I would like to encourage you to come over and help us balance it out.

If the CoS would like to release any published documents into the public domain, I can help with the paperwork on our side of things.

Cheers, John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the information and links! WP:COI and other guidelines will be followed and I want to contribute with proper sources and information. It should be possible to contribute with proper material on Wikisource as well. We'll be in touch. Proximodiz (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Looks like you got in touch with the right one from the start. Welcome! Shutterbug (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now what you are saying, thanks. Proximodiz (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

headquarters

In this diff, you have changed the headquarters from Gold Base to Church of Scientology International. I have asked some questions about that at Talk:Church_of_Scientology#headquarters. I wont be getting involved in the editing of these articles, but I hope to raise lots of curious questions while I learn more about this topic, and also ensure that our articles are being expanded appropriately. Cheers, --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on the talk page of Church of Scientology. Proximodiz (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

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)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

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.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, KnightLago (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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 :

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)[reply]

Ridiculous. I have not edited on Wikipedia (one edit, I believe, and a valid one). It is no surprise to me now that these articles are the way they are. Proximodiz (talk) 06:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you make this claim? I count seventeen edits prior to July 11th, without counting edits to your and other users' talk-pages. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to count revert edits to correct vandalism as "edits". I guess you could do so. My point is that nothing of my extremely short editing "career" violated any rules or if so, it was not pointed out to me. This leaves a bad taste of filtering users based on their alleged point of view. I was very open from the start and I am very willing to enter in a dialog. This however requires to be able to edit something else than just my talk page. Proximodiz (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for what?

This seems to be become an interesting issue. Proximodiz (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2009 (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).

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

Request reason:

My IP. I guess my IP address has made it in some kind of block list and I would appreciate if my account could be unblocked, per the above Arbitration Committee statement[1]

Decline reason:

No indication this account is blocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:40, 4 August 2009 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Repeat: My IP. I guess my IP address has made it in some kind of block list and I would appreciate if my account could be unblocked, per the above Arbitration Committee statement[2]". I can not edit. That's a fact. I can not edit any page but this one. I press "edit" and I get the message that I am blocked because [3] which says I can apply for unblock. So I hereby apply to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
Try to edit the Sandbox.
If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 23:06, 4 August 2009 (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.

Here we go: {{unblock-ip|1=65.255.206.18|2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Church_of_Scientology_IP_addresses_blocked|3=Thatcher}}

You understand that you will not be allowed to edit any Scientology-related articles, even if you're allowed to edit from (in this case) axiom28.scientology.net? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read it in the Arbitration Committee statements. I am not quite following the logic of it but I have not spent a lot of time familiarizing with Wikipedia policy either. Proximodiz (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC) But I do come by typos in Wikipedia articles and I can't do anything about them. Obnoxious. Proximodiz (talk) 05:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.

Request handled by: -- Luk ^talk 11:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

This IP Block Exemption is made with the condition that you must follow the CoS Request for arbitration terms at all times. -- Luk ^talk 11:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Proximodiz (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for a week for violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

This edit [4], in which you filed a WP:ANI report on a Scientology-related article, placed you in violation of the Arbitration committee case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology which you were a named party in.

Specifically, you violated remedy 3A(ii):

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Scope of Scientology topic ban

3A) 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, including as examples but not limited to, articles for deletion, reliable sources noticeboard, administrators' noticeboard and so forth.

Passed 11 to 0 at 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You were specifically listed as an editor to whom the topic ban applied: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Multiple editors with a single voice topic-banned and restricted

The arbcom case authorizes blocks for up to a month for any violation of the topic ban: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Enforcement. In this case, I believe that a one week block to reinforce the message that the topic ban is serious, to you and the related editors, is adequate. Please be advised that other administrators would routinely simply apply the maximum allowed month and be done with it.

Please don't do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.