| Revision as of 04:20, 11 December 2008 editDaniel (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators75,694 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:14, 15 December 2008 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == CSI ] == | |||
| Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an ]. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role. | |||
| On ] you state that you think the case was filed prematurely. Several other editors seemingly feel that the arbcom case was inevitable. | |||
| You also mentioned that some of the older editors (pro-scientology ones in your words) are back. Wouldn't that qualify as sockpuppetry? | |||
| Also what is your involvement with the dispute? | |||
| --<small> ]</small> <sup>]</sup> 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:14, 15 December 2008
Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Scientology
I've opened a request for arbitration and listed you as a named party. You may wish to make a statement. Best wishes, Durova 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology
Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you state that you think the case was filed prematurely. Several other editors seemingly feel that the arbcom case was inevitable.
You also mentioned that some of the older editors (pro-scientology ones in your words) are back. Wouldn't that qualify as sockpuppetry?
Also what is your involvement with the dispute?
-- Cat 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)