User talk:Voxpopulis

All articles related to Scientology are on Probation. Please see the general sanctions, here. This is at once an urging for you to discuss all changes to any article related to Scientology on its talk page, as well as a warning that if you revert any changes to any Scientology article, you may be blocked. Scientology in Germany has been nominated for a Good article. This is an opportune time to discuss what needs to be addressed in the article, instead of placing synthesis tags. Do not revert Mattisse's changes, and be very careful how flippantly you address other editors in your edit summaries, per this edit. Mattisse is reviewing the article for GA, and you should work with the nominator and the reviewer to address what you think needs to be fixed.

In short: discuss changes first in an article on Probation. Be better than civil. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I regret to say that your recent comments on the Talk:Scientology in Germany page may very well fall short of the standards imposed on Scientology articles. I would very strongly urge you to conduct yourself more civilly in the future. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not make edits to the article, Scientology in Germany, without discussing your edits on the talk page first and gaining consensus. Otherwise, you edits may be reverted. Thanks. —Mattisse (Talk) 02:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All articles related to Scientology are on Probation. Please see the general sanctions, here. This is at once an urging for you to discuss all changes to any article related to Scientology on its talk page, as well as a warning that if you revert any changes to any Scientology article, you may be blocked. Scientology in Germany has been nominated for a Good article. This is an opportune time to discuss what needs to be addressed in the article, instead of placing synthesis tags. Do not revert Mattisse's changes, and be very careful how flippantly you address other editors in your edit summaries, per this edit. Mattisse is reviewing the article for GA, and you should work with the nominator and the reviewer to address what you think needs to be fixed.

In short: discuss changes first in an article on Probation. Be better than civil. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is uncivil to give you opinion on another editor's ability to comprehend material, or on any other aspect of an editor's individual traits as a means of dismissing their input. Commment only on the substance of what they say. Because you do not use names does not relieve you of the responsibility to be civil. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and it's not WP:GF of you to discuss me the way you have with another editor. Voxpopulis (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 01:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]