User talk:InLoveNoi

Welcome![edit]

Hello, InLoveNoi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! TransporterMan (TALK) 14:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, InLoveNoi. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Morgellons discussion - appropriateness of InLoveNoi.
Message added 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 15:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

Concerning your attempts to mediate at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard in spite of your clear lack of knowledge of how the process works, I feel I should warn you that I am considering raising the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - which could possibly result in you being blocked from editing. Your continued attempts to do something you are clearly not equipped to do is likely to be seen as disruptive, and regardless of your evident good intentions, we owe it to other participants in the discussion to see that it is properly conducted. Once more, I suggest that you instead join the discussion as a participant, and leave the mediation to an experienced volunteer. You evidently have knowledge of the subject, and it would be a shame for you to be prevented from participating entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't abused multiple account. Ryanspir, Greenbd and InloveNoi are indeed my accounts. Upctdf is not my account. No any disruption was intended, I have taken the DRN case because any editor can become a volunteer.

Decline reason:

The history of your primary account makes it clear why you created a sock to pose as an neutral mediator in a dispute involving WP:MEDRS. Kuru (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Regarding deleting comments, that was a one time occurrence in Ryanspir account several month ago. I was thinking I can delete them. After being explained it has never repeated.

Ryanspir account wasn't used by me for a relatively long time now. I was considering a clean start, but didn't actually add 'retired' tag.

"Avoiding scrunity" "..may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions." In all of these accounts there was minimum activity and very low number of contributions. So the reason of avoiding detection of patterns in contribution cannot be applied here IMHO. There was less than one contribution per month for all accounts, and each account was used in absolutely different area. InLoveNoi (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Can you temporary unblock InLoveNoi account so that I could participate in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ryanspir per Defending yourself against claims. Thank you.

And, I just read today about retired tag and fresh start, I wasn't aware about those things. I also was unaware that avoiding scrutiny is considered sock-puppet. I generally ceased to use Ryanspir account about two month ago. InLoveNoi (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No; a temporary unblock is not possible, but you are free to post your defence here. You need to address your need to have multiple accounts, and although your block is for sockpuppetry a comment about your disruption at dispute resolution would be a positive move. Please note that clean start does not apply while you are blocked; to attempt it is block evasion.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Yes, I know now about clean start. I was mentioning that I did a clean start two months ago by stopping to use Ryanspir account. I just didn't write 'retired" tag because I didn't know about it. So I doubt that Ryanspir could be counted as a master account because I have ceased to use it and didn't use for the two months while I was using the other accounts.

The issue of deleting comments was an isolated incident long time ago, I think about 4 months ago. (And was never repeated).

The issue of spam: the article that I have posted is not a spam. It's also the opinion of another admin who initially deleted it as unambiguous advertisement, but later on agreed that it simply lacks reliable sources and significance, and he views that as the area of the issue, and not the initial impression that it is a spam.

I don't see my participation as a volunteer in DRN as a disruption. In fact, I'm the one who have opened the ANI. I know I have no experience at handling of DRN and I did a mistake by starting the case without waiting for the opening comments from all of the participating editors, but I was clearly under impression that no prior experience is required and I do have knowledge about the policies WP:V, guidelines WP:MEDRS and WP:RS.

I was also under impression that DRN is an informal resolution and I don't have to handle it exactly the same way as other volunteers do. I wanted to try it my way. I wanted to engage in informal conversation and after that to correlate the results with the available sources that are complaint with WP:MEDRS.

I was under impression that Wikipedia doesn't prohibit having multiple accounts and I wasn't aware of the "evading scrutiny" thing. I believed that editing is done on AGF and my idea was to have different accounts for different fields of activity that wouldn't intersect. The 'user compare report' proves that.

The proposition that I posed as neutral volunteer is without basis and evidence. My history at Ryanspir's indicates honest behavior and I was never engaged in anything that deceives. One thing is to argue or discuss with the editors about what should be in the article, and another thing is to deceive. I would certainly not engage in anything in order to deceive and then to post a thread on ANI.

I don't know user Rodneye9110 and have never interacted with him prior to this DRN. I have actually advised him that we cannot accept his personal account in the DRN, but he is welcome to submit any reliable sources he might have.

I'm asking for unblock and to allow me to proceed with the DRN as a neural volunteer. Due to the circumstances, I would propose to ask TransporterMan to assist me in the DRN.

If there was any action that I didn't do correctly, I'm willing to correct such behavior and improve.

My history at Ryanspir indicates, that in span of about 6 months I was engaged in one incident of edit warring and one incident (the above mentioned) of deleting comments. After being warned I have never repeated. InLoveNoi (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I feel somewhat guilty regarding Evading scrunity, as opening several accounts could be viewed as such, but I didn't know that such a thing as "evading scrunity" exists.

I feel somewhat less guilty, but still guilty about not putting 'retire' tag. But again, I simply didn't know about that. There wasn't any deceive or malice in any of my actions.

And even my opponents will probably admit, that I've never engaged in deceit in the history of Ryanspir account, and even while disagreeing with other editors, my edits were always based on AGF. InLoveNoi (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion regarding you being allowed to mediate at DRN. It isn't going to happen. And given your evident failure to comprehend why, I very much doubt you will ever be permitted to edit Wikipedia again: see Wikipedia:Competence is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you for doubting my intellectual ability. Competence is not something inborn, but something one might gain with time. I don't think, that you, my dear opponent and fellow editor, may predict what will happen in the future, as life is full of mysteries. InLoveNoi (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not sure that I have committed Evading scrutiny. However, if I did commit it, it was because I was completely unaware of this policy.

Decline reason:

As you knew about WP:CLEANSTART, you were therefore aware that a cleanstart account may not return to editing the same articles as the original account. As such, I cannot accept the claim that you did not know. Couple that with the personal attacks above, I think you're best option is the standard offer. This means you must completely go away from editing Wikipedia for at least 6 months. No anonymous editing, and no edits through accounts. It is recommended that you prove yourself on another project, as unblock is not automatic. When you return to this account, you will need to convince admins to unblock as per WP:GAB and WP:AAB. See you in 2014, and not a minute earlier (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I have just seen talk page of Rodneye9110. It seems that he had posted an unblock request, but didn't format it right.

Generally that's a bit of a mess. That user has got nothing to do with me, I'm not suffering from any Morgellons (thanks God). I think CheckUser should elucidate that we are located at different countries. InLoveNoi (talk) 08:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I have clearly stated THAT I DIDN'T KNOW about WP:CLEANSTART. I factually did CLEANSTART without knowing about such a policy, and this is the reason I didn't put 'retired' tag. And even without knowing it, I didn't return to edit the same articles. Ryanspir and other accounts I have used didn't have even ONE EDIT on the same article. It is shown in the STI. I didn't personally attack ANYONE in the comments above. I'm appealing for fairness. You cannot block someone indefinitely for something he didn't know and along the way to add a completely innocent user (Rodneye) to the story, merely because he spelled 'anti-biotic'. Also, in Ryanspir I was participating in editing of Colloidal Silver and not mainstream antibiotics. Rodneye referred to Doxycicline. Those issues are absolutely not related and blocking innocent users just because someone don't like them, without them actually doing anything is reprehensible. And, again, I'm not suffering from any Morgellons (thanks God). I think CheckUser should elucidate that we are located at different countries.

Decline reason:

It's pretty clear from all the discussion here that this editor is a lost cause. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

InLoveNoi (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd draw the attention of any admin considering an unblock to a 'final warning' that Dennis Brown issued InLoveNoi at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive803#Disruptive editing and intervention regarding InLoveNoi's disruptive attempt at 'dispute resolution' at WP:DRN. Dennis Brown made it entirely clear that this disruptive behavior would result in a block if continued, and yet InLoveNoi has continued, even after being blocked, to maintain that he/she should be allowed to 'mediate' the discussion (see above and/or in the history of this talk page). I would argue that this tendentious behaviour also needs to be taken into consideration, and that any unblock would have to be preceded at minimum by a clear agreement from InLoveNoi not to intervene at DRN or elsewhere in such a manner in future. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'final warning' and the issue of DRN are not listed at all as the reasons for blocking. However, regarding DRN issue I'm issuing a clear statement, that I won't participate in ANY DRN and my first action after being unblocked is to raise the DRN issue with the arbitration committee. If the arbitration committee will see my DRN actions as disruptive and not see it as done in accordance with Wiki policy, I won't attempt to mediate any DRN anymore. It's my sincere belief that I intended to mediate in good faith and got blocked because of the DRN. EVEN THOUGH I'M THE ONE WHO POSTED ABOUT IT ON WP:ANI. InLoveNoi (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TALKPAGE I'm going to remove anything that I deem fit to be removed from my talk page. No more comments will be accepted at this time, unless from the Admin dealing with the unblock. Thank you. InLoveNoi (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If you are unblocked (not that there is much chance of that), and go running to arbcom, you'll be blocked per WP:NOTHERE and/or WP:COMPETENCE anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll preserve this last comment of yours though. Any further comments will be considered as a harassment. I think my 'running to arbcom' has a good chance to succeed. Transporterman had selected himself as the volunteer, took over while being preselected by Zad who made the DRN and instead of mediating issued a decision, as if he is a judge in the Arbcom and the DRN is not an informal venue, but some kind of Arbcom venue and he is the self-appointed judge. But YET AGAIN, this issue is absolutely not related to my unblock request that was made solely for the reason of 'EVADING SCRUTINY'. The DRN was cited there only as the reason for the block being indefinite, not as a cause and so I wonder why the Unblock admins so far concentrated on that issue mostly entirely. I have admitted that it might be that I have committed 'EVADING SCRUNITY', though I'm not sure. And, if I have committed it, I'm sorry and I don't intend to repeat it. The last admin who denied my request didn't read my comments correctly and assumed I knew about WP:FRESHSTART policy. I'll repeat again, I didn't know about that policy till I got blocked. I read it after I got blocked and realized that what I have done is in fact freshstart. It was overlooked by the admins in STI who decided that ryanspir is the master account, whereby it wasn't used alongside other accounts and was retired, and thus cannot be viewed as master account anymore. So If I'm ought to be blocked for something else, let it be, here and now I'm dealing with this specific issue and I stated my reasons for unblock request regarding "EVADING SCRUTINY". Thank you again (and for the last time). InLoveNoi (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you should succeed in achieving an unblock, which in spite of the possible misunderstanding about cleanstart is by no means guaranteed, are you prepared to give an undertaking not to attempt to participate in dispute resolution? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 10:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But the unblock has to be done now. And while I seek no apologies regarding the issue of freshstart, because that was misunderstanding, I do expect apologies to myself and to Rodneye, who seems to be suffering from the morgellons disease, for his inclusion as my sock-puppet. He is an absolutely innocent user and seems to be a newbie who was blocked without ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL and DESPITE THE EVIDENCE OF THE CONTRARY. InLoveNoi (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to impose conditions then I withdraw immediately from consideration of this unblock respect. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - the editor is requesting a favour from the community/admins ... one does not get to set their conditions for release. There is only one person who should be issuing any apologies, and that's this editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a normal for a person who committed a mistake to issue an apology. 'I do expect apology' - it is certainly not a condition. How comes it's viewed as a condition!? It seems my talkpage has got magic properties. Every admin who reads here, sees not what is written :). InLoveNoi (talk) 18:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This is going to be the last unblock request on my talk page. If the next reviewing ADMIN WILL NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF EVADING SCRUTINY as per for what I was blocked and IF THE REVIEWING ADMIN WILL NOT attend to this request with impartiality, I'll not just lodge an Appeal to Arbcom, but will also petition the Arbcom to remove ADMIN status and block ALL Admins for the reason of abuse of authority, ganging up, issuing wrong block by subverting due process, failure of all reviewing admins to merit my unblock request as per what I was blocked, for the failure to "by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached." WP:AAB. NONE of the reviewing ADMINs has so far based their decision on EVADING SCRUTINY and it's a grave INTENTIONAL non-compliance with WP:AAB that has been already REPEATEDLY committed. To sum it up with the previous BLOCK by Basilusk that was against DETERMINATION OF CheckUser and was successfully appealed, it's clear that I'm being witchhunted. I suggest to the next reviewing admin to carefully read and consider my explanation that was posted on this talkpage and review all available evidence ONLY AS PER THE CAUSE OF THE BLOCK. It's important to mention AGAIN, that I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT THE EVADING SCRUTINY, so even if the reviewing Admin will see that I indeed somehow did it, please comment on it so I WON'T repeat it. All other issues must be addressed in the respective venues. Please do not offer any DEALS. My history in Ryanspir demonstrates that I was involved two times in two small incidents, one of edit warring and one of deleting comments. The reviewing editor MUST consider, than NEITHER OF THESE HAD BEEN REPEATED even once. And thus I demonstrate FULL COMPLIANCE and utter willingness in correction of my mistakes. I'm here to edit Wikipedia in a constructive, fair and transparent way. It doesn't mean that I have to side with other editors if I disagree with their opinions. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I HAVE TO BE BLOCKED for not agreeing with them. Even my harshest critics will readily admit that in the history of Ryanspir account there was NONE of any deceptive or malice actions. To be issued "abusing multiple accounts" is AN INSULT to my integrity.

Decline reason:

I just found that you created yet another account. —DoRD (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Is my brother didn't allowed to create an account? Could you please refer my to the relevant policy?

Regarding everything else, no more unblock requests here. 183.182.127.147 (talk) 20:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]