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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe I was unfairly targeted because of the hard line stance I took against vandalism. The block in question is over my username, which went to an RFC/U after I went off duty. The whole matter was closed in a number of hours without allowing me proper response. I would like an admin to consider the counter arguments I have posted below that I am unable to bring up on the page

Decline reason:

The username, even with UNOFFICIAL, is a direct violation of the policy. You have to assume there may be one user will see police as official, even with the bold UNOFFICIAL. It is also disruptive. Please, choose a normal username.— Mercury 01:14, 16 October 2007 (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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

With all due respect I hardly think any reasonable user would miss the UNOFFICIAL and somehow think that because I have police in my name I am some sort of official. If we play by this logic then some people may think the SWAT in SWATJester is an official title, or that there is actually a user who can't sleep because clowns will eat him. We need to draw the line between sensible and ridiculous, and anyone who thinks that a good faith editor would miss the UNOFFICIAL in my name, the disclaimer on my user page and the disclaimer I am willing to put in my signature and edit summaries (which I brought to the attention of some users who chose to ignore it) is dreaming and needs to take a wikibreak. Furthermore, no one has pointed out why my name is disruptive, if you care to read the discussion immediately below you will see I am still in the dark about this

Decline reason:

You appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Please stop wasting our time. If you'd like to contribute constructively, get a different name. — -- John Reaves 04:14, 16 October 2007 (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.

The discussion of the matter took place here

• Ryan_Postlethwaite assumes my name implies an official role even though I have clearly got UNOFFICIAL in large letters and a disclaimer on my user page. He misrepresents me in saying that he attempted to discuss it with me but I was uninterested, but if you scroll down he brought the issue up once and then ignored my response in which I made a suggestion to put an additional disclaimer in my signature

• Melsaran states this would look bad in a content dispute, however he must recognise that the police do not get involved in disputes between faithful editors and that we only target true vandals. Given that, if I did ever get involved in a content dispute I would wholly support an indefinite block of this account for failing to do my duty, which is to catch vandals

• DanBealeCocks can't actually find a reason why my name breaches policy, so he starts talking about things irrelevant to the discussion

• NikoSilver claims this glamorises vandalism, I hardly see how taking a hard line stance against vandals glamorises their actions

• TheIslander draws a long bow unsupported by policy (do names like the Islander suggest there are Islanders on wikipedia?) and then goes on to make irrelevant discussion

• Ryan Postlethwaite continues to go offtopic, unfairly influencing the discussion with talk about matters unrelated to the username. He then admits there is nothing in wikipedia policy which prohibits my name, but in the footsteps of Dennis Denuto from The Castle, "it's the vibe of the whole thing"

• NikoSilver draws on two policy points which are flimsy in their relation at best: 2) Misleading names (when I clearly have UNOFFICIAL and a disclaimer, and was willing to put a disclaimer in signature and edit summary) and 3) Disruptive names (seeming to imply that my name glamorised vandalism, anyone who actually bothers reading beyond the third word realises that it does the opposite)

• Eagle 101 blocks immediately after being presented with the above flawed argument without allowing for any input from the broader community or my person

• Melsaran decides that it is acceptable to make up policy, and then shuns other users for questioning it on the basis they are "wikilawyering"

• hmwith fails to point out how my name is against policy

• Philippe makes a ridiculous (I'm sorry but that's the nicest word to describe it) assumption that I believe I have some official role before going off topic (talking about matters beyond the username change) and then stating it is clearly disruptive without giving any reason

Aside from a large number of the discussion contributors choosing to ignore existing policy and deciding to make new policy up on the spot, the two points from Wikipedia:Username policy were:

2.2) Misleading usernames: Usernames that imply the user is an administrator or official figure on Wikipedia, or of the Wikimedia Foundation. Terms that imply official status include, but are not limited to: "bureaucrat", "steward", "developer", "CheckUser", "oversight" and "trustee". - my response is that I have ensured my name does none of this, I don't know how much clearer you can make a denial of official status then by placing a giant UNOFFICIAL in the middle of one's user name. I have also posted an official disclosure on my main user page and was willing to place an additional disclaimer in my signature and edit summaries (although the users I told this too chose to ignore it and state that I was unwilling to participate in discussion)

2.3) Disruptive usernames: Usernames that allude to hacking, trolling, vandalism, legal threats, or computer viruses. - my name only "alludes" to vandalism to the point where I come out an demonstrate a hard line stance against those trying to undermine the integrity of wikipedia. I think it is quite clear from my reversions, edit summaries and edit warnings that I do not support vandalism in any way, and believe that this policy was more geared towards name such as "Vandalsarecool" or "Ilovetrolls" and hence does not apply in this situation

I believe it was wholly unfair closing the discussion after such a short period of time (one user said 90 minutes) and without giving me any chance to respond. I am just here to do the dirty work, to deal with the vandals who want to disrupt wikipedia for the amusement of their friends, and it is a pity that the brass seem to want to hand them a project on a silver platter and then make up and twist policy in order to out those of us who try to make a difference.

the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 00:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely wrong about a point that as WikiPedia is encyclopedic it should contain real information, and what I mean is that University of Damascus has 16 faculties (not 15!) and they are bit different, and there are 3 institutions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.25.54.110 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your contributions. I'm a bit concerned about your comments to other users: could you please moderate your language a bit, and stop writing everything in ALL CAPS, which comes across as the textual equivalent of shouting? -- Karada 10:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Karada! My last changes in University of Damascus article was twice reverted by Mr. Police, and me too, I consider capitalized speech is pretty rude and absolute revert of all edits, without just removing links (as he could do), is irresponsible, and therefor has negative influence on users and on system at all. Now under other circumstances it would be really to revise "TheUNNOFFICIALvandalpolice" as moderator, but I have strange feeling that he is something young, and needs time to grow up and to make moderation with responsibility, loyalty and friendliness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahinaz (talk • contribs) 10:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I told you to stop adding links and you insisted on doing so saying that it was to maintain accuracy. Thankfully the situation is now resolved, it is good to see you aren't a real vandal. Also, please see my main user page before making assumptions the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a vandal, and not going to be. I saw your page, telling "I WILL KICK DOWN YOUR DOOR AND CLEAN UP YOUR CRIMES!!", pretty rude even to vandals, in my opinion. As an equal community member as all others, I suggest you to show more respects to users - all kinds of users. After all, Wikipedia is a place to receive knowledge about "this or that", it should give people ability to think, should grow responsibility inside them and stimulate them to share their academical (or not quite) knowledges about something they know, have information on and references, not "ban all greens, reds and yellows to prevail power of orange ones". You see my point? --Shahinaz 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about you glance over my contribs to see the scum we have to put up with. I think being rude to vandals and reading them the riot act is showing more respect then they deserve. It's great to hear you're becoming a full time contributor, and I apologise for my initial overreaction, but we need to maintain a hard line stance against those who seek to destroy us the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed that we need to maintain "a hard line stance" against them, but same time we should preserve human face, don't you think? I mean, correcting people's mistakes can be polite. Besides, by right correction, you could change some of them. It's like politics: for example, powers of widely known country (I suppose you know who I am talking about) are irresponsibly claiming about their "hard line in fight with terrorism", but instead decreasing of terrorism, they are creating completely opposite flow by growing thousands of new. (As result of their houses and life destroyed - what else left for them to do, if not to fight the aggressor and join those who is paying them money to do it?) --Shahinaz 10:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These scum are not fighting for their lives or freedom for their land or anything, they're just coming solely to cause disruption. The only way to stop them from continually returning is to demonstrate the hard stance we take against their edits. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that is incorrect point of view. Let me try to prove it. When vandal is coming to WikiPedia, ruining an article and after some minutes sees caption like "BANG BANG, YOU'RE OUT", most likely it will bring him to idea that he should do it again, should attach more people to this target or develop some sort of software to attack WikiPedia, which means that it will create a large risk of mass articles corruption. But if you politely insist that his/her edits just do not fits due to some reasons, in my opinion, he will try to rehabilitate himself, in ordered to get publish her. That may be an attempt to correct his edition's language or something that is unwelcome here (such as directory of links), or atleast you could bring him to a discussion. Even if he shall not get anything wrong he did, he's definately going to be busy proving his point of view in this discussion, rather than destroying everything "at will". Please, correct me if I am wrong, but as humans we should discuss a problem as much as possible prior to conclude it is unchangeable and the only way to deal with it is to eliminate. --Shahinaz 11:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 10:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please turn off the Caps-Lock and soft your tone in edit summary. Before you help Wikipedia by reverting vandalism, please read through WP:VANDAL and importantly please read WP:INSULT. — Indon (reply) — 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're wrong. By acting aggressively towards vandals, it will increase vandalism instead of decreasing them. And please turn off your caps-lock. — Indon (reply) — 10:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist to act like this, then you might be the one who'll get problem here. I'm just warning you. Your contribution is helpful, of course, but the way you're doing is not. — Indon (reply) — 10:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I only want to help you. BTW, what's happening with your keyboard? Your caps-lock is broken or something? — Indon (reply) — 10:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My caps lock only comes on when I'm dealing with scum vandals the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please turn off your CAPS-LOCK. It is considered shouting and unneeded. It is a good deed to warn vandals but your tone comes as condescending and sometimes a little insulting. (see your comments on User talk:220.235.205.129 for an example). Please tone it down. Alexf^{(Talk/Contribs)} 10:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are not genuine editors, they are scum vandals and deserve to be dealt with in as harsh a manner as possible the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst your anti-vandalism work is welcome, your edit comments are not helping the general atmosphere of Wikipedia -- indeed, they may become counterproductive by giving vandals the attention they crave, and provoke them to create more damage (see WP:DENY for more on this). Please could you cool down your edit comments: something like "rv vandalism" or just "rvv" will suffice in most cases. -- Karada 10:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vandals don't read those essays, they only seek to undermine the integrity of wikipedia. It is only fair to give them the treatment they deserve, and read them the riot act the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username may still infringe on our policy, would you please consider changing it? Ryan Postlethwaite 10:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly state that I am the unofficial vandal police, and I've also got a large disclaimer on my user page. If you want I can put another disclaimer in my signature. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your baiting of users with incivil edit summaries is not on, if you continue, I will block you. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not "baiting" other users as you seem to put it, I am taking a hard line stance against scum vandals who want to undermine the integrity of this encyclopedia. I am presenting a harsh face so that they understand that their actions are not welcome and that they can take their crimes elsewhere. It's a hard job, but someone has to do it, that said it helps if the top brass works with us rather than appealing to the PC crowd about how we're "baiting" others the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 10:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to follow the steps of this model vandal fighter. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider turning off CAPS. And please participate here if you want. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it may be best to take the caps lock off, that gives an angry tone right away. Secondally, when reverting vandalism, use edit summaries such as "revert vandalism" and when warning a user, use one such as "warning". When you do warn a user, we already have warnings, uw-test1 to uw-test4 depending on how serious it is, to add one, type "{{subst:uw-test1}} ~~~~" and that will give an adequate warning to the user in a polite tone so we don't make the situation worse. Hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just calm down buddy, have a read of Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your username has been reported to WP:UAA at the moment as it may still violate policy as mentioned above. Feel free to leave a comment there. It might get taken over to WP:RFCN as well. Remember not to shoot the messenger :) SGGH ^speak! 11:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, and please stop refering to vandals as "scum", other wikipedia users are starting to find it rather unpleasant. Cheers SGGH ^speak! 11:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for informing me about the name discussion, I will take it up on the page. With respect to calling vandals scum, is this not what they are? They come along to damage wikipedia for the amusement of their friends and then leave without correcting their mistakes. If other wikipedians have another suggestion for what adjective we should use to describe vandals I'd love to hear it. the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 11:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, most vandals fall into one of two categories, newbies who do not know any better, and true vandals or trolls. Your actions might have turned away potential users. Or worst, some vandals that you've reverted came again to revert yours. See for instances, this and this. As a sum up, your method is far more than an effective way to handle with vandals. — Indon (reply) — 11:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi (TUvp?). Quick bit of advice - if you're rude to the vandals, you are provoking them into continuing to vandalise. If you are nice and polite, less so. Give it a try for a few days and find how much less grief you get. We have a great adjective to describe vandals - it is "vandals". No need for any name-calling. Neil ☎ 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Wikipedia has a policy on what usernames editors can use. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with that policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it here. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- Ryan Postlethwaite 12:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account, could you please pick a new username? —— Eagle101^{Need help?} 14:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If you do pick a new username I would strongly suggest changing your behavior to be less combative, and immediately cease any future threats like I will kick down your door" and "i make citizens arrests". They're inappropriate here. We can easily clean up vandalism, but the negative chilling effects of your threats we cannot clean. Threats such as the above will result in immediate blocking. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try checking my contributions for examples. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I appreciate you are trying to stop vandalism, but I'd like to give you a few pointers:

1: Please stop saying "bang bang" and other comments. People think you are joking, as it reads like a farce.

2: Do not act so serious. Again, people take it as a farce.

3: Please use proper warnings.

4: Please do not use police terms such as "duty", "beat", and "arrest." This is an encyclopedia.

5: Please do not revert good faith edits that are not vandalism. Please make sure it is.

Thank you, and happy editing. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to try some of your suggestions, but the upper brass who want to cuddle the vandal scum rather than take a hard stance against their disruptive actions have twisted policy to steal my badge (see the discussion at the top of this page, they claim I assert I have an official role when my name clearly says "unofficial" and then claim my name is disruptive without providing any reason why). Until I am reinstated I shall have to stay on desk duty while vandals continue to damage the articles on my beat the UNOFFICIAL vandal police^{Bang Bang} 03:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've now had two chances to use the unblock template, and both were declined. Your continual abuse of the unblock template is harassment and abusive. I've therefore protected your page. Wikipedia is not a place for role playing. It's for building an encyclopedia. You seem to have lost sight of that. Your continual disparaging of the "top brass" (of which there are none on Wikipedia), is unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Play time is over. Go take your little game elsewhere. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 04:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I think this user does deserve some explanation for that block which was extremely swift and harsh, and not a discussion at all. So I've unprotected the page. I've also opened an WP:ANI discussion. To this user: you have to realize that a lot of people found your vandal patrolling to be over-the-top. We love that you want to help, but the way you're trying to help is kind of abrasive. Also, some of the "BANG BANG" comments were addressed at edits that weren't really vandalism. I agree that you should have had a chance to discuss your username before this happened: it says so in WP:U since this is definitely not a blatant violation. Mangojuice^talk 14:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no WP:BITE issue. The Unblock template clearly says that you do not abuse it multiple times. What else do you call what he is doing? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'm reinstating the protection that was incorrectly removed by Mangojuice. The protection has nothing to do with his username violation, it's related to his abuse of the unblock template, which is a clearly identifiable problem. If the user further wishes to protest his block, he can email Unblock-L or contact an arbitrator; however he's lost his privilege of editing his talk page.

TheUNOFFICIALvandalpolice, if you still wish to contest your block, you may email the Unblock mailing list at unblock-en-l (at) lists (dot) wikimedia (dot) org. If that does not satisfy you, your final resort will to be requesting an ArbCom case through email, see WP:RFAR for details on how to do that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangojuice--"I think this user does deserve some explanation for that block which was extremely swift and harsh", are you serious? Just take a look at all the edits explaining this on this page, the ANI thread you started, etc. Rlevse 17:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the user had no chance to discuss with anyone about the username issue. So I'm going to leave a full explanation, and hopefully that will suffice. Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UVP: In my opinion, and in the opinion of several other users, your username is not inherently problematic, but even that is a minority view. Even though your username says "unofficial," that you are proclaiming yourself to be police is problematic enough to many people that they feel your username is inappropriate. However, when combined with your overly-aggressive tactics against vandalism and the other issues people have raised with you, it can be reasonably concluded that your username is part of a problem. Your behavior was heading for a block anyway, but when a username becomes part of the issue, such blocks often become indefinite blocks, to disable you from using a problematic username. This doesn't mean we don't want you to edit; it just means we don't want you to use this username to do so.

If you don't want to edit from now on, I wouldn't be surprised. If you do, you can do so anonymously, or you can just create yourself a new account under an appropriate username. However, if you want to change your username, in order to keep your old contributions under a new name, you can be unblocked temporarily to file a username change request at WP:CHU: if you want to do this, email me. I want to apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia community for having been so inconsiderate about this issue when you have been trying to help. For what it's worth, there are those of us who realize that Wikipedia's way of dealing with usernames is a bit insane and are trying to rectify things. Mangojuice^talk 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]