User talk:Misou/Archive/Archive-Nov2007

Unblocking and modification of the probation

Both Maksoshack and Misou have asked to be unblocked, as apparently there was an earlier acceptance of a claim that they were different people, although editing from a shared IP address. The problem with editing from a shared IP address (see checkuser) is that it is impossible for us to tell if multiple accounts with similar interests are really separate people or not. When one account edits disruptively, another account could be a different person who behaves more reasonably, or it could be a calculated good cop/bad cop strategy by one person, or two people coordinating their efforts, both of which are not allowed. Likewise, if one editor is blocked or banned, it is impossible to tell whether the other accounts are being used to circumvent the block or ban, either by one person using multiple accounts (sock puppets), or through multiple people coordinating their edits (sometimes called meat-puppetry). The alternative to blocking all but one account is to apply the same remedies, blocks and bans to all the accounts, which is consistent with the ruling at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS#Multiple_editors_with_a_single_voice. If one account edits disruptively and is banned or blocked, the same ban or block will apply to all the accounts. It appears that CSI LA (talk · contribs) and Grrrilla (talk · contribs) are inactive for the time being, so this notice applies to Shutterbug (talk · contribs), Misou (talk · contribs) and Makoshack (talk · contribs). All for one and one for all. If one of you is blocked or banned for any reason, that block or ban will be applied to all of you. For the time being, Shutterbug is banned from editing Scientology-related articles for 30 days from October 2, so that topic ban applies to Makoshack and Misou as well. You may make suggestions on the talk pages, and are encouraged to pursue the dispute resolution process (such as request for comment and request for third opinion) rather than getting into arguments. I will withdraw the 30-day extension of the topic ban, since you were not previously notified that bans applied to one apply to all. I hope this works out, and you should also be on notice that if there are repeated violations someone will eventually decide to stop accepting the shared account explanation. Good luck. Thatcher131 13:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! --Justanother 17:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there and thank you for looking! I am not even an employee of the Church but just use their net sometimes. There are loads of IPs I have, every time I log on from a hotel or airport it should be different. Anyway, the checkuser was taking a time span of a week or so as "the truth" and that was just nonsense. Thanks that you saw through this. But pls don't set up another arbitrary. I disagree with a topic ban for me just because Shutterbug got one. It's like all Admins must give their real names because Essjay was a fraud. There is no logic here. I am who I am and not some Makoshack and sure not Shutterbug. Dunno why this is so hard to understand. Misou 21:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you're having so much difficulty with this. It sucks that you're being punished for someone else's screwups. I actually have a quick question just out of basic curiosity. What is the purpose of accessing Wikipedia from the above mentioned church owned network as opposed to you're own personal internet connection? Maybe you might want to put a notice up on your user page stating you occasionally access from that network. That might clear up some of the confusion. Also maybe you could just discontinue accessing from the church owned network, that would probably help you keep out of this kind of garbage at all. I'm not sure if that's even an option for you though as I stated above I'm confused by the whole church owned network thing. I'm just curious, let me know if my questions bother you and I'll leave you alone :-) Thanks! Elhector 23:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not use this access always, no need to. On putting a note up, looka here, didn't help Mako. But then, why should I care about all of this anyway. Misou 23:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elhector has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

You seemed a little disheartened by all of this so I figured I'd try to cheer you up. Not all of us non-scientologists are bad ;-) Hopefully things can get a lot more civil around here. Cheers! Elhector 23:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of Scientologist stay in Scientology resorts and use the Scientology wireless networks in these places (FLAG, Freewings, ect) in a recreational basis. I disagree with blocking an editor just because he has used one of these networks in some time or another. Is clear that Misou is a independed editor with no relationship to COSF, he has a long history and has done a lot of edits in many areas from different IPs. Bravehartbear 02:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. All internet connections at Flag and the Freewinds are secured and open only to authorized staff. --Fahrenheit451 19:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, maybe two years ago, but not now. Secure, yes, open only to authorized staff, no. Gotta keep yourself updated, man. Misou 23:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the issue title and date that authorizes that?--Fahrenheit451 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You live in a strange world, man, really. There ain't no "issue" about "breathing" either. Or do you know one? Misou 15:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, I asked you what the issue title and date was. You uncivilly commented on me rather than answer the question.--Fahrenheit451 19:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Misou has a clue about the internal administrative practices of the diferent Scientology resorts. All what he can tell you is that as a customer he has used the wireless networks in these resorts. E-mail and internet is a basic need for most customers that needs to be provided. Is just basic common sense. These are 4 to 5 stars resorts, and people spent a good amount of $$ to stay there. Are you going to seriously tell me that you don't believe that a wireless network is not provided? Bravehartbear 23:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know who Misou is. Any speculation here about whether a cofs-related organization has wireless available to public is irrelevant and a waste of time. We need documentable information. By the way, I don't know where you get that 4 or 5 star resort stuff. That is quite irrelevant.--Fahrenheit451 01:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, it was you getting on the role with this useless discussion. Glad that you end it now. And yes, I am mainly using wireless, so what. Misou 21:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, please abide by WP:CIVIL. You never answered my question which was:What is the issue title and date that authorizes that?--Fahrenheit451 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only uncivility I see here is from you. The CofS runs hotels all over the place for there members and they offer free wireless connections to the people staying in there facilities. Best Western does the same thing. It's no different. Why does it matter so much to you? If someone works for Starbucks and is accessing Wikipedia from a free wireless connection at a Starbucks store do they have a conflict of interest? Would you be continually pressing them for non-existent information? This isn't going anywhere and bears no importance on anything. Why don't we get back to actually trying to edit Wikipedia and making it the best it can be instead of chasing conspiracys and harrassing editors. Your starting to sound like a Wiki version of Joseph McCarthy here and I think this is starting to border on religious profiling on Wikipedia, which is a no no. Elhector 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elhector, my question was directed to Misou, not you. I do not appreciate your interference, nor do I care for your false accusations of harassment and "chasing conspiracies". Now that you bring up profiling, I question if there is some profiling by certain pro-cofs editors against those who they perceive as anti-cofs. Yes, as you state, it is a no-no.--Fahrenheit451 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply to you here, but if you would like to continue this conversation we should do so on my or your talk page so as to not clog up Misou's talk page. You are chasing a conspiracy. Misou stated that he/she (sorry, not sure on Misou's sex) often accesses wikipedia from a wireless network conection at scientology facilities where he or she is staying. Wireless internet connections are provided by pretty much every orginization that maintains facilites where members stay for extended periods of time. The CofS is no different. I guess I just don't see why you feel the need to continually harrass Misou about "order numbers" and dates. If I stay at a best western I get to use free complimentary wireless internet at the hotel. If Misou stays at a scientology facility or resort he/she gets to use free complimentary wireless internet at the facility or resort. It's no different. Granted the CofS wireless internet is probably heavily filtered, but that's pretty much the only difference. You have to expect that when people see how you're acting here it comes off as uncivil and borderline harrassment. I suggest we cut this crap out and get back to editing. This kind of thing is precisely what is ruining wikipedia Elhector 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elhector, this thread probably would have died a couple days ago, but your uncivil kibitzing has drawn it out. I posted some information on your discussion page and if you don't understand that, I am wasting my time in explanation with you. I am glad that you think you know was is "ruining Wikipedia", but by your longwinded, unnecessary kibitzing, you seem to be contributing to its demise then a bit yourself. --Fahrenheit451 20:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F451, I have replied to you on my talk page. Misou, I apologize for the mess I've created here and I will no longer post anymore on your talk page concerning this issue. Elhector 21:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There ain't no 'issue' about 'breathing' either." Just in case you missed that. No issue I know of. Just reality. Misou 07:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you or have you ever accessed wikipedia from a CofS wireless connection? Sorry, couldn't help it :-) Cheers Elhector 18:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

image updates

If you only want to update an image its best if you just overwrite the original one (follow the link "upload a new version") otherwise we will soon have dozens of Scientology maps. On this way you don't need to edit every article where its included.-- Stan_talk 00:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, learned something :)) Misou 07:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom ban has been reinstated

Good afternoon. I'm advising you that due to continued edit warring at Free Zone (Scientology), you are being banned from editing any Scientology-related articles for another 30 days. This ban will expire on December 13, 2007, at 0:00 UTC. Note that if you violate this ban by editing these articles, you will be blocked. Thanks, --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is not such ArbCom ban. Misou 00:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is the fact that of ArbCom placing all Scientology related articles on probation, with the option of blocking and even banning editors who make disruptive edits, as per here. John Carter 01:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is always true, probation or not. But what "disruptive edits" are there? I am talking along with GDamon right now. Misou 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, you are still permitted to edit the article's talk page, so I suggest that you do that and help to resolve the dispute that way. -- ChrisO 01:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want an answer, not covered restrictions. So what are you talking about? Misou 01:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on here? Misou has hardly any edits in that page. I would get involved but I don't care about such a page. Bravehartbear 09:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user (formerly COFS) was topic-banned, and ArbCom noted that all sanctions that user also apply to this user. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, any further violations of this topic ban will result in a block for the remainder of the ban period. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 11:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ST47, I lived in Germany for some years in the 90s, working on a documentation but also researching the holocaust and how it came about. I went to talk to people on camera, freely. The mindset of quite some people I met there still is "all Jews are the same", and a "bad jew" or - usually - a jew with bad reputation is "evidence" that "all Jews are bad" and they should be ostracized, no matter what personality, character the specific individual has, no matter if they actually did something to criticize him or her. I found similar think with "all poles are thieves" and "turks are criminal" in other countries. It's prejudice, it's fanatic and ugly, and most of the time covered by some "good bureaucratic reasons". It's not a German thing, it's how much someone cares and actually looks at the circumstances. What you are doing right now - and I know you will yell "rude" and whatnot, but LOOK at it - is just the same, right here in public, for everyone to see, with Scientologists. It's not as big, it's not as deadly, it still can be fixed, but the intention counts. It's not your fault it came that way but I'm not impressed. Look at MY actions and judge me for that. Misou 17:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misou, I looked at this matter. The ArbCom has never "noted that all sanctions that user also apply to this user". Please see here. Makoshack 00:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, man. I'll keep an eye on this too. Can't be, really not. Misou 04:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest someone bring this up at WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, tks for the link, I had not found this. Misou (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Management Systems Mediation

User:Fahrenheit451 has requested mediation regarding the following:

Sterling Management Systems Dispute

and your participation has been requested by the parties. I will be the mediator of this dispute.

--Leonmon 06:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm really in a hurry, next 2-3 days. But I will come. Misou (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Ethics

I got this one. Don't worry I will out create him.Bravehartbear (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I got a bunch of new things happening all at once. Misou (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]