GoodCop

Note: Do not use this page to post libel in the convincing format of polite suggestions that deceptively appear to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties). Such behavior violates the wikipedia civility policy and will be reported.

---

Admin nom

Hi, I see that you are attempting to nominate User:Ombudsman for adminship. To do this, first go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ombudsman and paste this code into the page:

{{subst:RfA|User=USERNAME|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}}

Then simply type your nomination as shown above, and add it to WP:RfA. Hope this helps!

Mike | Trick or Treat 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. GoodCop 03:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. Any more questions you may have, feel free to drop me a message. - Mike | Trick or Treat 03:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

And thank you, GoodCop, for the RfA nomination and the nice comments therein. Have set about trying to draft some answers to the standard questions for submission this evening, but may not have much ready 'til morning... Ombudsman 04:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks again for the nomination and your participation at the recent RfA, which did not succeed. For those of you who expressed their support, your kind words and your trust are sincerely appreciated. For those who were opposed --especially those who offered their constructive criticism-- please accept this message as assurance that equally sincere efforts, aimed at enhancing the quality and accuracy of representations within the Wikipedia, will continue. Striving for improved collaboration and consensus will also continue, with all of your insights in mind, while applying NPOV ideals as fairly and reasonably as possible. Ombudsman 04:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question

Please respond to my question at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Question from Joke137. –Joke 02:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

done. GoodCop 03:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. Thanks!

— Saxifrage

POV is not vandalism

Hi GC, Just because you disagree with someone does not make their edits vandalism. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ben, do not libellously accuse your opponents of calling acts of disagreement vandalism, and certainly not with the psychopathic method of putting one's accusations in the convincing format of a polite suggestion on your target's talk page, such that it deceptively appears to address the target of the libel (when in fact it addresses third parties, because the truth is known to both communicating parties). The fact that you have used such an underhanded tactic is a strong piece of evidence of your abuses. The note at the top of this page warns people not to commit that exact offense, so I see that you are also acting out of spite for that warning. I have warned that you would be reported, and so you will be, along with your other abuses against me. I welcome any disagreement, but deletion of dry superficial facts that are very relevant to an article is vandalism no matter what you call it, and you know it. Disagreement regards the conclusions drawn from the dry superficial facts. GoodCop 13:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

POV is not vandalism Part 2

GoodCop - I'm writing to request you apologize for personally attacking me, accusing me of editing with bias and vandalism in Bosnian_pyramids. --Ronz 16:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Using the same tactic as Ben, eh? -again largely out of spite for the note at the top of this page. It's getting old. And yes, you will be reported. And no, I will not remove that note from the top of this talk page because you violate it out of spite. The fact that you are so reactive to it shows me how important it is. Your POV-bias and POV vandalism (which you should apologize for) is quite plain to see in your edits to the article and the talk page, so making your convincing talk page libel is ultimately harmful to you, because it can be clearly seen for what it is. GoodCop 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand. You have made personal attacks against me in your edits. I'm asking nicely for an apology. Why the further attacks and threats against me? --Ronz 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please consider reading WP:NPA before continuing this discussion. Thanks. --Ronz 18:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Clever acting, Ronz. Seriously though, libellously accusing me of making personal attacks and threatening you, in the convincing format of making a suggestion on my talk page, just because you don't like the fact that I exposed your POV-pushing, is a serious offense, but you already know that. I advise that you take your revenge libel elsewhere, but I'd prefer that you cease such revenge behavior entirely. If you do it against me, then you surely do it to others, both on the internet and IRL. Dominance-motivated revenge is not good for society. GoodCop 05:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary of this diff, which reads in part "Ronz, your POV bias is clear by your edits to the talk page. Do not POV-vandalize this page again." If you are at all familiar with Wikipedia:Vandalism, particularly the section about What Vandalism is Not, you would know that there is no such thing as "POV vandalism" in policy. Quite the contrary, it explicitly says that point-of-view disputes are not and never are vandalism. Thus, your calling Ronz' edits vandalism is in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. This is very well understood throughout the project. I understand that you may be unfamiliar with our policies and may have misspoken, but now you have the chance to change. Just keep in mind that the point of our no personal attacks and civility policies is to prevent a hostile editing environment—this is the spirit of our user-conduct policies. If you find yourself saying hostile things to others or behaving in a hostile way, you can take that as a sure sign that you are either breaching or very nearly breaching the letter of the policy, and very likely have already breached the spirit of it. If you keep your comments to others respectful and remember to always assume good faith of others, you'll be fine. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR in Bosnian_pyramids

You are in violation of WP:3RR for Bosnian_pyramids. Please address as you see fit. --Ronz 18:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just caught you in another blatant lie, Ronz. I looked at the history of the page, and I only reverted twice. GoodCop 05:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you reverted three times. Only twice on Noveber 8, true, but 3RR policy doesn't care about calendar days, only 24-hour spans of time. Within 24 hours you made these edits: first, second, third. However, perhaps your objection isn't based on a misunderstanding of the day/24-hour distinction, and is instead based on a incomplete reading of the 3RR policy. Though that third edit is not identical, part of it is a reversion that matches your previous two reversions, and the second paragraph of WP:3RR clearly extends the policy to cover "more than three reversions, in whole or in part". Ronz is not lying and is correct that the policy, as written, was violated by the edits I have linked to in this comment. This is how the policy is applied across the whole project. Now that you understand the salient parts of the policy, hopefully this won't be an issue in the future. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to correct myself. Though my explanation of the policy is accurate, my facts aren't. What I neglected was that the text you added in the edit above labelled "first" didn't exist before, so it doesn't count as a revert. So, you're right, you only reverted twice. Per the policy assume good faith, I have to assume that Ronz was mistaken for the same or similar reasons I was, not that he was deliberately lying. However, Ronz violated 3RR in that exchange by reverting to the version before the one labelled "first" above three times. I apologise for my error, and you may want to civilly inform Ronz of his 3RR misstep. — Saxifrage ✎ 08:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

This post to WP:ANI: [1] violates personal attack policy and includes legal threats. What, precisely, were you trying to achieve here? You are edit warring, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and being generally disruptive. What is your aim? I have blocked you to forestall further abuse while you consider what you are trying to achieve and decide on a way of approaching it that fits within our policies. Dispute resolution or the Association of Members' Advocates might be a good starting point, but carrying on as you are is simply not an option. Guy 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Funny. You think that you can intimidate me into not reporting gross abuses (including your own) by blocking me and libelling me, under the implied threat of additional blocks and libel. You must understand something: You are only one rogue admin, who seems to believe that you have much more power than you actually do. Unless wikipedia is run by people as dominance-motivated as yourself (which I surely think and hope that it is not), then reports of your abuses will be devastating to you, likely leading to your de-sysopping. Thus, your power to intimidate is nill. GoodCop 05:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you have a legitimate complaint, you need to go through the dispute resolution process. Continuing to make accusations and post rants as you have been will simply result in another block for disruption. --InShaneee 07:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I had enough of your shit, your block has been extended to indefinite. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Zscout, and I thought that JzG had made the most flagrant abuse of admin tools possible. You know that by doing this, you are pretty much guaranteeing that you will be de-sysopped, if not permanently blocked from wikipedia, when the other admins (other than those few that are in your dominance-seeking wikiclique) find out what you did. GoodCop 03:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered the possibility that you're actually wrong, and that you've been blocked for repeatedly and spectacularly violating Wikipedia:No personal attacks? With a mere 250 edits, perhaps it's expected that you're unfamiliar with policy, but your insistence that any attempt to educate you is libel doesn't make it easy to teach you how Wikipedia works. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Unblock template

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).

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

---

Request reason:

The admin Zscout370 has made an extreme violation of wikipedia blocking policy by placing an indefinite block on my username, saying "I had enough of your shit", because I had made socially-responsible reports (on WP:ANI) of dominance-motivated policy violations and abuses of admin tools, which threaten his own ability to assert his dominance. For diffs of the full reports, look on my talk page below this unblock request. I have contributed to wikipedia from February 2006 to November 2006 with this username, and have made over 250 edits. I have never violated any of wikipedia's policies, though a few people have falsely accused me of doing so, because they have perceived that I have challenged their dominance. I therefore request that an admin lift his block and place an indefinite block on Zscout370, so as to prevent him from making any more of such extreme abuses of admin tools in the future. By the way, I also noticed that the admin Samuel Blanning, who deleted my RfAr entry under flimsy grounds, is a member of the group 'rouge admins', which also includes the offenders JzG and InShaneee, that I mentioned in the RfAr (in fact, JzG actually WROTE the rouge admin article). Furthermore, about ONE FIFTH of the entire list of 48 'rouge admins' consists of known wikipedia policy violators, suggesting that all of said offenders are part of the same dominance-seeking wikiclique. I have read the rouge admins' stated purpose, and I support it, but it's erratic and highly incoherent wording suggests that it is a guise for some other purpose, particularly the complete suppression of all beliefs and ideals other than one's own -truly rogue admins.

Decline reason:

If you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia:Rouge admin is satire. Your request for unblocking would be a lot more credible if it weren't based on a paranoia of a conspiracy against you and you showed more willingness to follow the Wikipedia:Resolving disputes process rather than engaging in incivility and disruption --  Netsnipe  ►  04:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

---

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.

Thanks Netsnipe, for providing even more libellous accusations of incivility and disruption, as well as paranoia, committed by a known 'rouge admin'. I rest my case. GoodCop 04:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you have no sense of humour, I'll explain further. From Wikipedia:Rouge admin: "This is an essay by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)." And if you click Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW) link you'll see that it's an old joke from April Fools' Day 2005. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I am already familiar with the satirical element of the 'rouge admins' (a misspelling of 'rogue' that implies that the admins use cosmetics well) and the name 'SCREW'. Only the names are satirical; I know that the purpose statement is not, but is only written with satirical wording. Actually, 'Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia' is not far off of the truth, nor is it incorrect to describe the policy-violating 'rouge admins' as 'rogue admins'. What better way to protect an abusive wikiclique than to disguise the whole thing as a joke. GoodCop 05:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I wrote above, have you even considered the possibility that you've been blocked for gross violation of policy? Calling people psychopaths is never permissible here, even if you're right. Even if everyone is as guilty as you assert, you yourself are not exempt from policy in trying to fight the perceived wrongs. There is no room at Wikipedia for vigilantes. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For more information and evidence, see [2] [3] [4].

RfA Thanks

		Mike's RfA Thanks
		GoodCop: Thanks very much for your support at my RfA. Unfortunately, it was clear that no consensus was going to be reached, and I have withdrawn the request at a final tally of 31/17/4. Regardless, I really appreciate your confidence in me. Despite the failure, rest assured that I will continue to edit Wikipedia as before. If all goes well, I think that I will re-apply in January or February. - Mike | Talk 04:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)