User talk:Proximodiz

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. 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. 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. Cirt (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right! Proximodiz (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What would be my primary reading material should I want to become a regular Wikipedia editor? Proximodiz (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * At the top, I have dropped the default welcome message, with a lot of reading material for you, especially 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)
 * 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)

Welcome
Looks like you got in touch with the right one from the start. Welcome! Shutterbug (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand now what you are saying, thanks. Proximodiz (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Scientology arbitration
Per the request of arbitrator, this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at 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)

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)

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 : (Community Ban),
 * Topic-banned :, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 * To contact the Committee : Arnielerma*, Karin Spaink*, StephenAKent*, Timbowles*, Tory Christman*, Hkhenson*,
 * Other restrictions :
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

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

Here we go:


 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * Thanks! Proximodiz (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Specifically, you violated remedy 3A(ii):
 * Requests for arbitration/Scientology
 * 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: Requests for arbitration/Scientology

The arbcom case authorizes blocks for up to a month for any violation of the topic ban: Requests for arbitration/Scientology. 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)

in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. 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 below.