User talk:CSI LA

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CSI LA, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

I see from your contributions that you have an interest in Scientology. You might want to consider joining WikiProject Scientology, a project to coordinate and improve the development of Scientology-related articles. It also has a useful public watchlist, which lists all of Wikipedia's Scientology-related articles and allows you to monitor recent changes to them. -- ChrisO 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally did, thank you! CSI LA 02:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. Thank you. SheffieldSteel 02:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the talk page for the last hours and followed the ridiculous back and forth. All sources are in there now and the appropriate size has been kept. In terms of consensus - per talk page - I could even delete the whole section. CSI LA 03:01, 14 April 2007 (

Your opinion.

You may want to post your opinion on the Admin page WP:ANI#Misou_inappropriate_violations Lsi john 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CSI LA 03:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're most certainly welcome. Lsi john 03:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sock block

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for confirmed block evasion using sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS). If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ··coelacan 21:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CSI LA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Well, I am simply not the same person as COFS. What ever you did must have therefore been faulty or misled.

Decline reason:

It was confirmed by checkuser. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 21:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CSI LA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is obviously not correct. What's the appeal procedure?

Decline reason:

Please e-mail the checkuser responsible. There is not much those without Checkuser priveleges can do.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ok, I did that. The appeal procedure is pending and I won't by any means give up. CSI LA 23:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CSI LA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

there is a debate on the rightfulness of this block ongoing with the responsible checkuser on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/COFS and I request to be unblocked for that page

Decline reason:

No indication that the above admins and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS were wrong in classifying you as a sock. If you have no other socks, you do not need to edit that discussion. Talk page protected for unblock abuse. — Sandstein 05:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Open debate

Well, one thing's for sure no matter who you are -- you persist in demanding treatment more favorable than that you are willing to give to others. At Talk:L. Ron Hubbard you complained about what you called "false quotes" -- quotes that a previous editor had attributed to a specified edition of a particular Hubbard-authored text, which you failed to locate in an edition of that text, not necessarily the same edition, and which you therefore used as the basis for an accusation of bad faith. "Obviously - to follow the purpose of slandering Hubbard - the quote had to be falsified to fit the bill."[1]

Now, not everyone would think of the possibility that perhaps between your edition and the edition that was specified in the article, the text was different and no one had lied and no one had falsified anything. You were given the benefit of the doubt and you were given my own personal direct guarantee that in my edition of the book, the quotes in question do appear in the form that you had called "falsified".[2] But what did you do when you had received my word on that matter (in a politeness that you had certainly not earned by your rush to accuse?) You continued to refer to the quotes in question as "a fake and slander attack on Hubbard" and insisted "the real quotes are not containing such statements"[3] and when pressed on it you turned it into a scurrilous personal attack: "What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes."[4] You had already received my personal word that the quotes were not altered; you disregarded that word and called me a liar. You had the ISBNs of the two editions that contained the quotes; you could have tracked down the books and verified for yourself. But you instead decided to accuse me of using "altered quotes".

And now the evidence shows "CSI LA" to be nothing more than the sockpuppet of COFS, and "CSI LA" is protesting 'it doesn't matter what the evidence says, you should believe I'm not a sockpuppet because I say I'm not!' You're asking for a pretty sizable benefit of the doubt; why on earth do you think you deserve that benefit of the doubt, when you were perfectly all right with calling someone a liar based on your own failure to check the evidence? Even in the unlikely scenario where you are not COFS you are still no more than reaping the rewards of your own behavior. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that I can't talk to you right now. Patience, please. CSI LA 02:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your e-mail

Hallo Sandstein,

I just found your page protection of my user page here:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CSI_LA&redirect=no

I could thank you for that - protecting me from further attacks - but it is also extremely annoying at the same time. I have been unrightfully blocked and so have about 1,000 people using the same proxy than I do, as the block was not only on my user name but also on the proxy I am using (with no reason stated). Your additional "protection" now completely kicks me out of the system and I think that violates Freedom of Speech and Fair Justice (which is inacceptable for a non-profit organization like the Wikipedia foundation). I have not violated the rules but get harmed, invalidated and attacked.

Please re-consider.

Thank you. <redacted> (CSI LA) Email: <redacted>

PS: Wir können wir uns auch in deutsch unterhalten.

You may well have been blocked in error, I've not ruled this out. However, the person you need to convince is the checkuser operator, Jpgordon (talk · contribs), not me. Ultimately, if you fail to convince the checkuser operator, you may appeal to the arbitration committee by e-mail (see procedure). Note, please, that Wikipedia is a private organisation, which means that the principle of free speech and legal rules of procedural fairness do not apply to it (it would be unworkable otherwise). I'll disregard any further communication per e-mail. Sandstein 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

block reduced

I have reduced your block, as you have not yet shown a sustained pattern of abuse. Since you are known to be editing alongside other editors, you must not use these accounts for vote-stacking, circumventing 3RR (or other gaming), or over-representing consensus (read WP:SOCK for the details). For your convenience here are links to your block log, and the expiration of your current block. ··coelacan 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email

From: CSI LA

To: Coelacan

Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 22:09:18 GMT

Subject: Wikipedia e-mail

Hi, I saw you blocked me. I am not that familiar with Wikipedia policy but one thing I know for sure: I am NOT COFS. COFS is female, I am male, to start with. I have never edited under a different Wikipedia name. I am a staff of the Church of Scientology, COFS is not. What else you need to know? Ah, Churches of Scientology are using a filter to log onto the Internet (ws.churchofscientology.org). You just blocked a shared IP for about 1,000 people. I don't know how COFS accesses the internet but I got to know her a two days ago she said she would go in through a SSL or VPN line or something as she is at a wireless notebook. So, how can we solve this? Sincerely, CSI LA

Hi CSI LA. Sorry I guess I don't check my email often enough. I'm posting your email here so that other users can understand your side of the story regarding the Church of Scientology proxy. As noted, your block is already reduced and will expire, so this is just for future reference. ··coelacan 06:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still around?

Please note this one here. You are mentioned. COFS 22:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

Psychiatric abuse is slated for deletion. Please read the article and vote on whether to keep it if you are so inclined.S. M. Sullivan 19:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incident notice

A discussion in which you are mentioned is currently under way here. This is a courtesy notice. --GoodDamon 09:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology arbitration

Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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) 13:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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 : 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 01:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]