User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me

messages (+)

Welcome to Can't sleep, clown will eat me's talk page on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit   LOL J00 are funneh guy, HUH!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!>?!?!?!?!? ~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) Metal bands need protection After viewing the long articles that the rock bands Tool, Black Sabbath, AC/DC and Guns N' Roses I feel that all of them need to be semi-protected, so that only established users can edit them. YaBoiKrakerz Signshare Are you a Ja Rule fan like me, if so, you need to check out Max B's music, he sounds just like Ja. Advice? I am writing because I have seen some of your edits in the past on articles I've edited and your admin actions as well, so I thought you might be able to give me some advice on how to proceed on something. I won't try to argue the merits of my case, or even mention which article it concerns. I am just looking for advice on what steps to take. I have had a longstanding dispute with a community on a historical article. This is an article whose editors are largely made up of the ethnic origin that the page covers. (This is clear from their user pages and edit histories, it's not just intuition.) This results, in my opinion, in a general leaning toward portraying the subject other than with a neutral point of view. One piece of information is frequently pushed which is quite misleading and is positioned in a very prominent place, leading casual viewers to get a misleading perception of the subject. (I don't want to get more specific.) The page has been locked on several occasions for edit warring (of which I readily admit I am guilty.) I more recently tried to get the mediation cabal to look at it, in the hopes that they would and their opinion might create a status quo, but the cabal said no, as they feel it's unlikely that their opinion would be binding. I asked a fairly well known and highly placed editor what to do, and in his opinion I should just let it go, as there are mutiple users out to push this particular point of view in this article, and on the other side there is me. He said that it doesn't matter if the consensus is groupthink or in fact represents a "closed system," if you will, rather than a consensus arrived at by people with diverse views. I don't want to drag him into this, so I thought I'd ask another experienced admin. Is this in fact true? I see this as being a "2 + 2 = 5" situation -- something about which consensus should not really matter, as wrong is wrong. Do you agree? And if so, where do I take it from here? Any advice appreciated. Thanks in advance. Larry Dunn (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 6 month block Hi. Could you please explain why you felt that this IP address should be blocked for 6 months? On the face of it there seems to only be a handful of edits from the address over the past couple of years and only a few of them are disruptive, but I am sure there is probably more to it than I can see from the contributions. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Same question with this IP. You blocked them at the same time, were they related? TigerShark (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC) See section "Recent blocks" above. This is a long standing problem with CSCWEM. - auburnpilot talk 13:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Thanks. I would still like to hear his reasoning, as there could possibly be facts that we don't know, suspected sockpuppetry for example. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC) Please see this post to ANI. You input would be appreciated. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Unprotect Raymond Chang Hi there It's been protected for almost a year. Perhaps it's time to unprotect? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for June 2, 2008. The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery Volume 4, Issue 23 2 June 2008 About the Signpost Board elections open WikiWorld: "Facial Hair"  Wikipedia in the News Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes  Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News  The Report on Lengthy Litigation Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC) Regarding your blocks Obviously, we are all volunteers and any service to Wikipedia is appreciated. However, use of the administrative tools requires a willingness to explain your actions, particularly controversial ones. I have randomly flipped through your blocks and found several very questionable ones since your last edit on March 31. I would ask, as have others above, that you be willing to discuss your administrative actions. Wikipedia:BP#Reasons_and_notification states, "Administrators should also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page unless they have a good reason not to. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the fact." Accordingly, if you continue to issue blocks without notifying the user on their talk page or explaining your actions here to users who ask, I will block your account. --B (talk) 02:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Also FYI you have been brought up in an AN/I discussion about this. I suggest you respond to it to avoid any future drama. VegaDark (talk) 07:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Has anyone considered the possibility that perhaps he went to sleep, the clown ate him, and it is in fact the clown that is now doing the blocking? xenocidic (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC) I think we wait now, just dont make any more unreasonable blocks, or consensus seems to be to open an ArcCom case to maybe get you desysopped, just a friendly warning...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 21:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Request at WP:RfAR for your "without prejudice" desysopping It is with considerable regret that I would advise you that I have filed a Request per the above matter. I assure you that it was done with utmost concern for both yourself and the encyclopedia/community only, and I hope that you will return to contest the request/removal and to discuss your recent actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC) (edit to remove sig so section will not archive) Do you have any response to the request? I'd like to hear your side before getting involved. BTW, as can me seen on my talk page, I'm dealing with a health crisis, so I might be out of touch for a few days! Bearian (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC) Arbitrator comment Hi, I'd have emailed this note, but as others have commented, email is disabled. Obviously this is in furtherance of the concerns others have brought to RFAR. I've taken a look, and note three things - a highly productive history of a good editor and admin on Wikipedia, lack of contact/email, and also (last 2 weeks) lack of blocks issued. My impression is you're on some kind of break, and haven't used that tool a while, in which case, enjoy and have fun! Can you just make sure that if/as/when you do return to block a problem editor, you'll be able to respond well to any block discussion and unblock requests by others, and maybe also drop a note here in reply to confirm that's all taken care of, or just let people know what the status quo is, and if all's okay. It matters :-) The other thing is, email per se isn't the important thing, so much as communication. Right now no blocking is going on, so it's not at issue. It's the combination of no activity except blocking, and no email/no posts to any user/no communication, and around 100 blocks, that's a concern. In some of those 100 blocks, surely there was a wish to communicate by some user or admin. If possible, please ensure the communication concerns of other editors (if any) would be addressed quickly, or at any rate, for sure before using admin tools such as blocking again. If you're taking a break, and switched email off to not be disturbed, and won't be using them a while, feel free to let others know, it's fine :) The only thing is please, only use blocking if there'll be good communication and responsiveness. The tools aren't being touched by stewards (even without communication) simply because there's been no blocking activity for some 2 weeks - all's fine. But the two go together, the tools need communication and responses. When you get a chance, please let other users know it's fixed and will be okay, before resuming use of these tools. If you don't then the bit will likely be temporarily removed purely until communication's resolved, and - it should be added - without at that point being "under a cloud" at all. But the tools need good care and part of that has got to be responsiveness if they're going to be used. Apologies for this, and if you need to, or need any help at all whatsoever, please do email me (or arbcom-l) without hesitation, and we'll sort it out more fully that way. If all is in fact okay and it's all good, or you're taking a break and just doing a bit of anti-vandalism housekeeping on the side - hope its a good one, and that this note is not a problem :) But please only engage in blocking, if you'll be contactable and responsive for any discussions that might arise. Best, and enjoy the break :) FT2 (Talk | email) 03:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)