User talk:Economiccrimesunit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You weren't welcomed yet?? Well, here you go! :)-BlueAmethyst .:*:. 00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Economiccrimesunit, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -BlueAmethyst .:*:. 00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Reporting Vandals

Go to WP:AIV. There you can report vandals to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Marlith T/C 19:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers & Kudos Marlith. Economic Crimes Unit 19:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] username issue...

It appears that your username may be a violation of our user-nameing policies. Your username may fall under Wikipedia:USERNAME#Inappropriate_usernames - specifically "Misleading usernames". Your name may confuse users that you have special a authority on wikipedia. I would like to encourage you to change your name. You can find more about name-changes here: Wikipedia:Changing_username ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC) " Actually it is not misleading, as I am a state's attorney whom specifically investigates and posecutes cases of economic crimes and fraud.... quite appropriate I think. Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

However, you don't have any special authority here at wikipedia. Users may be confused that you are here under some official capacity and it will have a chilling effect. We also do not permit legal threats on Wikipedia - a rule that I fear you might violate again. While your name may be an apt reference to your job, I feel it is not appropriate for use on wikipedia. Please request a name change. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I have made NO legal threats on wikipedia... where do you get off saying that? OR Insinuating that I might? You are rediculus, and your comments are not based in reality. This is public doman, and hopefully anyone and everyone that can contribute and inprove the content will do so. That is the very basis of wikipedia, and WHY it exists.
Further, the user you referrenced above specifically stated in writing on the Money_Merge_ Account Discussion Page his explicit intent to repeatedly vandalize the topic by blanking it. There was no discussion or attempt to improve the content. The user then took the very actions he threatened to do, repeatedly, daily for over a week before being blocked by an administrator. here Blocking was the proper response to a user who's only objective appeared to be vandalism... specifically as that was stated by him in his words.
Where do you get off claiming my user name will have a chilling effect, when it is you whom deleted and removed content from the public domain? Distruction of information and removal of content is a MUCH Greater concern. Wikipedia is about freedom of and access to information, your administerial bias is far more chilling that someone's user name.
I had persumed your action was out of a lack of understanding of the content, or simply a lack of diligence in reading the topics history, but perhaps the real issue is about someone's personal power trip and inability to admit mistakes?
If someone doesn't agree with evolution, perhaps you should blank that because they are a biologist and perhaps thay may have a chilling effect on creationists... Perhaps you should delete referrences to the Holocaust, because they were written by someone of Jewish decent, and that could have a chilling effect on the muslum community... That is simply rediculus, isn't it.
As I see it, there is no logic to your comments except avoidance of admitting you have erred. Deleting Content does have a very real chilling effect! Do some self reflection about your own actions, before you make assumptions and cast dispersions on others. Economic Crimes Unit (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Wikipedia is not in the "public domain."
Secondly, you issued a "cease and desist" order - an implied threat of legal recourse unless a particular action is taken.
I didn't block you at the time because I felt we would all be better off if I explained my concerns to you and let you correct them on your own. Yes, I realize he was blocked, and rightfully so. His actions we unacceptable too. I'm going to post a message about your user name on the administrator's noticeboard and let someone else decide if the name should be brought to RFC. Fair enough? That will take the decision completely out of my hands. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I've posted the request here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#username_issue_-_second_opinion_requested - I've tried to make the request as neutral as possible. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm affraid I must concur with my colleagues, and request that you immediately place a request to change your username to one that follows the username policy. Instructions are provided on that page. In addition to be appearing as having authority over Wikipedia (which you do not), the username is also the name of an office, which would also break the "no role account" policy. — Coren (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur, when you issue an "official warning" and an order to "cease and desist" you are implying more authority than you actually possess. We have warning templates for vandalism explicitly for placing warnings on people's user pages.Balloonman (talk) 02:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am limited in my understanding of wikipedia... but I still cannot grasp how I am somehow at fault for working to revert and prevent vandalism?... I would think as administrators that you should thank individuals who contribute. Are you paid to be administrators, or otherwise compensated yourselves?... it seems to me that you should have the same motivations of providing access to information, and should appreciate more than most the contributions of others.

"CEASE" and "DESIST" are 2 words from the english language that have clear meanings, "Stop" and "Do not continue" they are not legal threats, and there was no claim of authority or threat of legal action.

Though you are correct in critiquing my approach, I did not ask politely, I was not neutral, and didn't say pretty please with sugar on top. Perhaps that's simply the real world comming through too directly for some people living in fatasy computer land. If that explicitly violates written wikipedia guidelines for talk pages than mea culpa, and thanks for pointing it out to me... where exactly can I read about it? Will someone please provide me a link showing where the tone of messages is regulated and cause for retribution when an 'admisitrator' disagrees?

Also, take some free advice, You should be careful using words such as "legal" and "threat" in realtion to specific actions... as you clearly do not fully understand the "legal" implication of you doing so improperly in a public forum. I take no personal offense, because i realize it is because of your ignorance and a legitimate concern, however... you may not be so lucky with others.

Is that cause to warn you that as an administrator on wikipedia your actions, acusations, and improper usage of legal terminology is having a "chilling effect"?

Similarly if you want to nit pick... "public domain" has a specific legal definition, however the amount of content on wikipedia that actually falls into that category is indeterminate, for many reasons. While the author may have a right to copyright protection, there are many authors on wikipedia whom do not intend to enforce that right, and may instead intend to recind it entirely. It is dificult to determine intent, or ultimately if that even matters now or in the future, however some amount of the content on wikipedia is "public domain"... and I believe that is likely the intent of the majority of the annonomous authors and contributors on wikipedia to make their contributions and 'work' "public domain". It was, is, and will be my intent to provide all of my 'work' published on wikipedia as "public domain", which it my be de facto regardless. But I digress...

Again... it seems to me that protection of your feifdom is of greater concern to you than providing free and open information. And you continue to address my user name, instead of the issue of your deletion of content, because you personally feel the name is what?

Please, be specific and reference the text, as I believe there is nothign wrong with my user name. I am not commenting on quantum physics, or literature, but on finance... specifically financial scams / crimes... something about which I am an expert.

[edit] Username blocked

As stated earlier, this username needs to be changed. Given your stated unwillingness to change it, I'm affraid I will now block the account until you state unequivocally that you will request a change and only for that purpose. — Coren (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia, because it misleadingly indicates a position authority, or appears to be a role account.
This is often not a reflection on the user, and you are encouraged to choose a new account name which does meet our guidelines and are invited to contribute to Wikipedia under an appropriate username. If you feel this block was made in error, you may quickly and easily appeal it - see below.

Our username policy provides guidance on selecting your username. In brief, usernames should not be offensive, disruptive, promotional, related to a 'real-world' group or organization, confusing, or misleading.

If you have already made edits and wish to keep your existing contributions under a new name you may request a change in username which is quick and easy. To do so, please follow these directions:

  1. Add {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. This is possible because even when you are blocked, you can still edit your own talk page.
  2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a request.
  3. Please note, you may only request a name that is not already in use. The account is created upon acceptance – do not try to create the new account before making the request for a name change since we can far easier allocate your new name to you, if it is not yet used. Usernames that have already been taken are listed here. For more information, please visit Wikipedia:Changing username.
Last, the automated software systems that prevent vandalism may have been activated, which can cause new account creation to be blocked also. If you have not acted in a deliberately inappropriate manner, please let us know if this happens, and we will deactivate the block as soon as possible. You may also appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.


I refuse to change my user name... you have made no reasonable explanation of why it is required to be changed, except for uncivil defamatory acqusitations.

It simply amazes me... I had higher hopes for wikipedians, but I should not have suspended disbelief, and learned a long time ago not to overestimate people. Perhaps you ALL should read the welcome page for new users (a reminder this is not your personal fiefdom).


"Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers. It is a special type of website, called a wiki, that makes collaboration easy. Many people are constantly improving Wikipedia, making thousands of changes an hour, all of which are recorded on article histories and recent changes. Inappropriate changes are usually removed quickly, and repeat offenders can be blocked from editing. If you add new material to Wikipedia, please provide references. Facts that are unreferenced are routinely removed from the encyclopedia.

How can I help? Don't be afraid to edit — anyone can edit almost any page, and we encourage you to be bold! Find something that can be improved, whether content, grammar or formatting, and make it better.

You can't break Wikipedia. Anything can be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best information source on the Internet!"


You have done the EXACT Oposite, and proven you are not competent administrators. Your authority should be rescinded!

Do not edit other editors' comments has you have mine; this is inappropriate. As for your username, I see no less than three links to the relevant policy above, which I am repeating here for your convenience: WP:USERNAME. This account will remain indefinitely blocked until you request a username change (as detailed above), although you have so few contributions with this username it might be simpler and easier to simply start afresh with a new account. As always, you can contest this block (the proper methods are also outlined in the box above) and wait for another administrator to review the situation. — Coren (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Coren, where do you get off editing my user page and deleting information I posted? The history is quite clear.

It is your FALSE comments and lies that are inappropriate. Have you no integrity? You are worse than a hypocrate!... you should be ashamed of yourself.

"As stated earlier, this username needs to be changed. (That was not stated earlier, it was only suggested, and I disagree with the suggestion) Given your stated unwillingness to change it, I'm affraid (are you really afraid, or is that a passive aggressive administrator speak for exact joyful retribution) I will now block the account until you state unequivocally that you will request a change and only for that purpose. — Coren (talk) 23:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)"

Your administrator authority should be rescinded!

Tell me Coren, if you can delete information from my user page, then what information may I delete from your user page?
Pardon i meant "talk" page

[edit] unblock request

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "See [2]; user has agreed to use only standard vandal warning templates from now on and requests unblocking. Mangojuicetalk 05:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "This account was blocked under the username policy, and therefore a username unblock request should be used. Declining per [1] — nat.utoronto 12:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.