Drugring

Hello, Drugring, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 07:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard - a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology

As I'm sure you are aware, the arbitration committee have made ruling relating to Scientology articles. 5.1 says "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. Any editor topic banned under this sanction may be re-blocked at the expiry of a topic ban if they recommence editing in the topic having made few or no significant edits outside of it during the period of the topic ban." Having looked at your edits, I would ask that you cease editing Scientology related articles. Adambro (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at your edit history, and see your recent heavy involvement in editing scientology related articles]. This is relevant because it clearly disqualifies a rule you are drawing attention to having any present application. Clearly. Otherwise I would have asked for clarification of other things there asserted. But not necessary. Matter dealt with.Drugring (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are not welcome here as you will be well aware. Goodbye. Adambro (talk) 08:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Block abuse. Blocker was not 'uninvolved admin' but involved in edit of the same articles as other party on a content disputed it had not at all taken to talk. Block action enforced its preferences/viewpoint on said difference and stands as abusive and transgression of WP:COI

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

the cited policy requires the opinion and warning to be expressed by an 'uninvolved admin'. Being the other party to a content disputed is being involved. If you're going to have written policies, apply them as they read. If you're just going to go on whims, arbitariness and 'because-I-can'-ness then don't even bother to write them. Unblock directed.Drugring (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your edits are in breach of ArbCom decision. Reversion of these edits by Adambro is not equivalent to being involved in the discussion. Block upheld --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Sock of banned User:DavidYork71

This account is likely a sock of banned User:DavidYork71, per the checkuser confirmed findings from 9 May 2010. Compare with Special:Contributions/Superfalse. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)