User talk:LawAndOrder

Welcome!

Hello, LawAndOrder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --JorgeBeach 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FCYTravis[edit]

The RFC you filed against FCYTravis, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FCYTravis is wrongfully written and malformed and it's probaly won't meet the minimum requirements after 48 hours from creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed or deleted soon. Sorry --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The user RFC that I created couldn't have been more rightfully written and well-formed. I would understand you telling that obvious falsehood to third parties, but why tell it to me personally? LawAndOrder 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom candidate userbox[edit]

Greetings. I've made a new userbox for arbcom candidates to show on their userpages so that visiters will know they're running.

{{User arbcom nom}}

If you'd like to place it on your userpage, feel free. Regards, – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 02:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou. I have added it. LawAndOrder

Arbcom Vote[edit]

Listen, you seem like a nice enough fellow, but those who oppose you, the bulk of them, are right, you have far too litle experience to sit on the ArbCom. Make a year of solid edits, don't be a jagoff like me, show a good understanding for Wiki's rules, be fair, and I will gladly support your 2007 candidacy.

Later. DTC 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the answers to my questions, I have read many wikipedia articles, policy pages, conflicts, and page histories. It's experience; just not the recorded kind. LawAndOrder 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom voting[edit]

I'm sorry. I've done all the voting I'm going to do. I've only voted for those editors that have name recognition for me. Maybe next year. Grace Note 01:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WMC is IMHO a jerk. And very soon, and admin! But unfortunately I don't have enough edits to help your Arbcom vote either. Pgio 07:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You were warned. Go cool down while we await results of checkuser. NSL E _(T+C) 10:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you warned me not to oppose your gross policy violations. I have warned you not to make them. LawAndOrder 22:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration committee elections[edit]

Hi, you are currently standing in the Arbitration Committee elections.

If you aren't already aware, you are only attracting a vote of under 20% support to 80% oppose. This is mostly due to perceptions of a lack of experience.

Statistically, your vote is unlikely to rise above a 70-80% supermajority threshold required for election.

Therefore, it would be helpful if you would withdraw your candidacy from the election. This way there will be less candidates for others to read through before deciding their votes. The best place to announce such a decision would be on your candidate statement on the vote page, or on WP:AN/I, IF you choose to withdraw.

Better luck for the future. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under normal circumstances, that would be a fair request that I would grant. Unfortunately though, my candidate page has been repeatedly vandalized by a rogue admin that grossly violates the policies CIV, NPA, and POINT. I have also been blocked by 2 rogue admins (1 of them the same one) for 24 and 31 hour periods. Due to these unique complications, I will not be withdrawing. LawAndOrder 21:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert: January 16[edit]

[1] and [2]: The administrator Ambi, by the libellous request of Netoholic (who falsely portrayed my relevant messages as spam), has abused her administrative powers with blatant disruption by blocking me for 24 hours, due to me having exposed the fallacy of malicious deceptive personal attacks that she supports, and for agreeing with others that her POV ally William M Connolley is biased and uncivil. Furthermore, she libellously (and somewhat humorously) projected her own action of blatant disruption onto me as the pretense for the block. Looking through my edits will clearly show that there is no disruptive behavior of any kind, much less blatant disruption. Also, [3][4]: With the same motive as Ambi (NSLE is also a POV ally of William M Connolley), the administrator NSLE has vandalized my arbcom candidate statement page and libelously falsely portrayed me as violating the CIV and NPA policies. Some other bad faith users have also been angered by my intention to expose and punish many malicious deceptive behaviors that are listed in the candidate statement, and these users have violated the CIV, NPA, and POINT policies by falsely portraying me in their vote comments (the most obvious one by the admin Nightstallion). On the plus side though, all of such users have now exposed their malicious deceptive intentions, conveniently all on the same page... Later, NSLE committed even more extreme violations by blocking me and restoring his vandalism to the candidate page after it was reverted. Furthermore, he libellously (and somewhat humorously) projected his own action of violating CIV, NPA, and POINT onto me as the pretense for the block. My edit history clearly shows that I have made no such violations. He also libellously discreditted me to a seemingly less-biased admin (Freestylefrappe, who I now know to be more biased than most, unfortunately) [5] so as to discourage said admin from interfereing with his power-abusive block. He also requested that a CheckUser be performed on me, under the libellous pretense that I 'appear to be a malicious sockpuppet'. He is well aware of the fact that the CheckUser will not turn up anything incriminating, but the request for it creates the libellous false impression that one is warranted. He also vandalized the page Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by deleting my legitimate entries, because they exposed the actions of himself and his policy-violating allies [6][7].

If you have a complaint about our admin actions, file an RFC. NSL E _(T+C) 07:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about?[edit]

Why are you telling people I blocked Pgio? I never blocked Pgio. What are you talking about? freestylefrappe 00:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, this, from the block log:

14:08, 14 January 2006 Freestylefrappe blocked "User:Pgio" with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks towards WMC on a known
vandal's talk page, i suspect a sockpuppet of Law&Order)

Pgio 01:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just mentioning that to suspect and to air suspicions is not illegal, although it runs close on WP:NPA. NSL E _(T+C) 01:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petition on Bullying in Wikipedia[edit]

Hi LawAndOrder. I have compiled a petition to send to Mr. Wales with respect to my views on bullying on Wikipedia, which I think is a very grave problem on Wikipedia that Mr. Wales needs to address: User:Benapgar/Bullying. Please sign it if you agree, and if you can think of other people who might agree please let them know about it too. --Ben 01:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]