User talk:Drugring

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)

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)