This is an old revision of this page, as edited by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 15 December 2008 (→CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:26, 15 December 2008 by とある白い猫 (talk | contribs) (→CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
-- Cat 18:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)