Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:58, 17 July 2009

Welcome!

Hello, Theserialcomma, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to the serialcomma

Thank you very much for easing my entry into WP land and also for blunting some of the pressure that I received. I know that it was mostly my fault but I really had no clue how to do this stuff in the beginning. I have been reading your edits on several different articles and have been learning a lot from them.. A lot of WP work seems to be just knowing the right way to handle information. I suspect that's its a combination of knowledge and art though..aharon42 (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

you are totally right, WP is more about following protocols than logic, reason, 'facts,' or 'truth.' anyway, i am glad you decided to stick around. let me know if you have any questions. Theserialcomma (talk) 10:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I just got a mentor and I also made a pledge to myself to do non controversial edits for the next year or so to help me build up my basic skills. I also am making an attempt to collaborate with as many different editors as possible. I am going to try to expand the article on Craig Davidson (McJeff recommeded that one), I will do Wikiknome stuff and anything else I will add first to the discussion section. Are there any really non-controversial articles that I could work on with you? I am very open to any topic so please feel free to suggest anything. With respectaharon42 (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Your ANI is very detailed and thorough and I don't mind you citing my examples with him at all. I definitely didn't appreciate the fact that he tried to carry the debate from the Tucker Max talkpage to my talkpage in order to manipulate the discussion by not answering in the proper location for all editors to see, proceeded to down another editor (you) on my talkpage, and then talked down to me when I told him for about the third or fourth time to keep the discussion where it belongs. It really seems that he can read something and get a completely different interpretation from what it actually says, just like he misinterpreted and/or misrepresented what an admin said about me putting his comments back where they belonged on the Tucker Max talkpage in addition to making edits that he claims are concensus which turn out to be contradictory to what the outside editors actually recommended. I have sat back and observed him tell you and other editors how biased and "tendentious" you are (not civil in my opinion) and I just don't understand it. Just an FYI, I think what he's exhibiting is called "projection." It's also very interesting that his only allies in his "struggles" appear to be those sockpuppets. All of this over just trying to get the article accurate and neutral with proper sourcing in accordance with wiki rules. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring my mistake! -- Crowsnest (talk) 11:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lee Hasdell

It says on the source he is! why is the source not reliable ? explain ? if it is indeed unreliable then why only change "he became the first to engage in NHB" etc ? u cant accuse a source for being unreliable and then only change 10% of it on the article. ClaudioProductions (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

hello. i've answered you in the article's talk page Theserialcomma (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More Hasdell

Hey! Seeing you approved of the lead as it was on the talk page, would it possibly be a better choice to revert to it, instead of removing parts of Claudio's rewrite? I don't want it to seem like I'm telling you what to do when I don't want to revert myself because of 3RR, but maybe it's something to consider? Cheers, --aktsu  00:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If SFUK is unreliable then most of if not all uk mma pages need to be sorted out because most get there information from SFUK! ClaudioProductions (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice claim, but we're not talking about other UK MMA sites here, were talking about sfuk.tripod.com which have no proof of it being reliable. Sorry for intruding 'comma. --aktsu  01:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Theserialcomma: What is it with you and SFUK ? how is it not a reliable source and who are you to say it isn't ? ClaudioProductions (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

it's because it's hosted at tripod.com. tripod is a free webhost. i would think that a legitimate source should at least have a real webhosting provider. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

who are you to tell me what to do ? entil you come up with a valid reason to why SFUK tripod is not reliable then i am just going to change it back. So you better come up with a reason quick! ClaudioProductions (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

you don't HAVE to listen to me, but considering the issue was brought up at the reliable sources board already, you should stop edit warring to include it. and also because you are (according to you) the article subject's son, then you especially should back off and stop edit warring to include unreliable sources. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Assistance

Hey, hope you're doing well and thanks for the help on the Hasdell-article :) Seems like we got it pretty much sorted. If you feel like it, I just got involved in another similar case over at Darren M. Jackson (unverifiable fight record, everything apparently from magazines/personal knowledge etc). I've got a long discussion with some guy on my talkpage about it, and he seems adamant about retorting the things I removed - though the twist this time is that he says he's not going to bother digging it up the sources for it again. Hopefully you can give me a hand as it's likely to escalate if he continues to insist on inserting unverifiable content. Regards, --aktsu  11:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I'll step away from the article for today as it seems as Diamonddannyboy insist on edit warring over my removal of unsourced content and original research. Hopefully you can take a look at it as well, though it's not as bad as I first though. Main problem seems to be that the refs weren't placed properly so one had no way of knowing if claim were sourced or not. The Henry Jackson-thing is apparantly OR, and I've not seen any source for Darren's multiple black belts. --aktsu  15:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

i'll check it out. he has no reason to edit war over unsourced claims Theserialcomma (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I felt I had to reinsert some of the (IMO) unproblematic sourced material you removed (like him training with some people). I posted on WP:BLPN and Skomorokh (talk · contribs) who replied didn't seem to have a problem with the Fighter magazine sources so neither should we IMO (as long as they're used on unquestinable claims). --aktsu  21:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I also have a post on WP:RSN asking about that DVD-site and the "Gypsies" thing. --aktsu  21:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You may want to comment. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

At danger of stating the obvious; did you see the two previous AFDs (links are on the talk page)? I think the fact that he's featured in two articles in Fighters magazine would generate a lot of keeps. While I personally agree that in the grand scheme of MMA he's not notable at all, there's still enough coverage of him to justify an article imo. If we can cut down on the purely promotional stuff in the article I think I'll turn out OK. What I'm most sceptical about is his fight record which seems pretty bogus. I've pretty much disproved he fought at both Cage Warriors events, so how come he's listed as fighting? :| --aktsu  13:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

diamonddannyboy

if you wish to talk to me do so, on my talk page, --Diamonddannyboy (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"prove it"

If you had bothered to look for references for what you deleted on the Basque Chilean page, you would been able to find a good many within five minutes.

But then again, why bother making the effort?--MacRusgail (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

there were like 50 names with no source. that is a violation of WP:BLP. and per WP:PROVEIT, the burden is on the editor who restores the material to prove that there is a source, not the editor who removes the unsourced material. if you want to bother looking for references, however, then you can feel free to add the names back once they are sourced. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You can quote as many bureaucratic rules as you like, what you did was in fact neither constructive nor helpful, and did not facilitate the restoration of some of the material when references were found. I found several in five minutes! You didn't even bother looking. "WP PROVEIT"? Well, you're obviously too lazy to try! Don't take the lazy option, take the helpful one.

--MacRusgail (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Norman Finkelstein

You might be interested in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Apparent_campaign_to_accuse_Google_of_censoring_Norman_Finkelstein_search_results. --ZimZalaBim 00:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

No conspiracy

Thanks for the background. I could tell by your tone that you were editing from a formalist perspective. In the I/P area there is an ongoing clash between hyperformalist approaches, and content editing, little of the academically grounded content can get far on any page, often because of formalist objections. But this is such a huge place full of microstories that to go from a general rule, or complaint, to a specific edit, has its dangers, and that is what I intended to point out. Thanks for your comment, in any case. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

I should have just blocked him the first time but Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Outside_view_on_User:Diamonddannyboy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Darren M Jackson

It's not really wiki friendy just to removed a sourced ref, you say dubious, if you thought it needed more citation, you should of simple added a fact tag rather than remove, in previous refed work regarding Henry jackson , editors used the birth deaths records to show the family conection between Henry Jackson and Darren Jackson, the orignal article was more about Romani fighters, now it's more about MMMA ? for some reason. Again if possible if you could add cite tags in future rather than just remove WP:GOODFAITH. I will being doing some searching on the birth and death records thank you--Diamonddannyboy (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

No. WP:Goodfaith does not trump WP:BLP. and birth and death records are primary resources, not secondary, so they will not be acceptable for the purposes that you intend. birth/death records can only be used to show birth and death dates, not tenuous, original researchy family connections. Theserialcomma (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Category:Chileans of Basque descent

Why are you removing this category from articles? ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

because they are massive WP:BLP violations: unsourced ethnic categories. If any of the people i've removed have sources for being of basque descent, please feel free to add the source, and add the category back. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I support the sourcing of articles, but this is the completely wrong way to do it. The BLP policy is about protecting people from real-world harm and WMF from legal problems. But what you are doing is citing BLP to mass-remove stuff that's neither contentious nor negative with an automated script. For example, the Larraín family is a famous Chilean dynasty of Basque origin, and with a Basque name, that immigrated to Chile from Spain in the 17th century. It would be like removing Category:Irish-Americans (which is also unsourced) from Caroline Kennedy. There are better ways to go about this for simple facts not in dispute than to remove them wholesale. Dominic·t 07:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way you can add back the category to the articles? What you did was so massive that I thought this was done in consensus with other people, yet I was unable to find the discussion page for it. User:Kurt_Shaped_Box went on a similar rampage. ☆ CieloEstrellado 08:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I got your message on my talk page. The reason that I started removing these was due to the fact that they were added by a sockpuppet of (as of last night) indef-blocked User:OmegaXmutantX - someone who has been known to 'get it wrong' on numerous occasions, refuses to talk to people about his edits and someone that I've been having to clean up after for a while now. I simply went through his contribs and removed from the articles any ethnicity cats that he'd introduced which had no corresponding mention in the main body of the article (I wasn't actually being so strict as to insist on everything being referenced at this point). If you take a look at Misplaced Pages:Categorization/Gender,_race_and_sexuality, the guideline (yep, I know - not actual policy) states that 'Inclusion should be justifiable by external references' and 'Categories should not be based on race unless the race has a specific relation to the topic.'. If we're going to categorize people thus, there should at *the very least* be a mention of this in the article body. Echoing what Theserialcomma said, feel free to add anything back that's blatantly correct, though if you could improve the article by finding a reliable source to back up the claim that the subject is Basque-Chilean (or whatever), then please do so. It should not be too difficult to find a reliable source for a citation if the ethnic background of the person in question is notable to their, erm, notability. I have absolutely no wish to generate any drama or heat over this issue. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I find it a bit offensive that you say things like "It should not be too difficult to find a reliable source" when we're talking about the wholesale depopulation of entire categories, not just a couple of articles. That's not simple. Essentially, you demanding that other people waste their time citing dozens of uncontested claims or they else will be removed blindly. As far as I can see, that guideline, which seems sensible, is about what types of categories should exist, and has nothing to do with their sourcing or recommending mass removal of them. It's fine if you are reverting a banned user, but a lot of your other edits were simply blind removals. I understand if you don't know much about Chilean history, but the Allende family and Larraín family are well-established Basque-Chilean political dynasties and it's like saying, as I mentioned before, that Ted Kennedy is Irish. These aren't the kinds of things we need to go around treating like it's some form of abuse and removing on sight. Dominic·t 10:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I didn't intend that to come across as offensive. I wasn't trying to be snippy over this - my comment was just a suggestion, nothing more (though it is better that this info is sourced eventually, IMO) and certainly not a 'don't restore this unless you can source it' command. I don't generally go around mass-removing ethnicity categories (TBH, there are many, many far more pressing issues with BLP articles on WP) and my involvement here was simply a case of reviewing the edits of a user who's been causing problems over the past few months. I don't know exactly what criteria Theserialcomma was using but I was just working from here. I don't claim familiarity with the majority of the subjects of these articles and it's entirely probable that I may have mistakenly removed something that turned out to be correct. If so, I do apologise for creating extra work for you. I'd be happy to revert any of my edits that were erroneous. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

i am under the impression that the burden of proof is on the person who restores a claim, not the one who removes it, per WP:PROVEIT. Especially in regards to BLP, and especially in regards to a banned sockpuppet mass-adding unsourced ethnic categories to people without sourcing. I am trying to strictly interpret BLP here based on the assumption that this sockpuppet, who comes back every few days/weeks under a different name, is not adding these ethnic categories with wikipedia's core policies' best interests in mind. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You are free to revert banned users, but that's a red herring. I am not a sockpuppet, and you've gone far beyond reverting to depopulating the entire category wholesale. Please stop citing BLP when it clearly is not the issue at hand; indeed, many of the biographies in question are of dead people. When we are talking about material that is not contentious and in some cases even self-evident, I don't know how you can simply mass-remove it and say the burden is on others to prove it. You might as well go remove half of the wiki under that rule. Dominic·t 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

the banned sock added so many unsourced ethnic categories that it would literally take hours to go through them all to figure out which to remove. per blp, i thought it was better to be conservative, and do no harm. i could see potential situations where a famous person is one ethnicity, but claiming he's another could be disparaging. why take a chance? if they are legitimately of basque descent, someone will add it back with a source. isn't that the most fundamental of wikipedia rules? that sourcing must be adequate? if i removed anything that had adequate sourcing, then i do apologize. but that was not my intention. as i've said repeatedly, if anything i've done is wrong, feel free to revert it. but it doesnt seem like anyone was going to spend hours and hours combing through teh banned sock's multiple accounts and hundreds/thousands of edits to carefully undo every one. i was just saving time, and being conservative. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

"heads up"

It seems you asking Nukes4Tots to stop marking things he doesn't like as vandalism has caused him to mark your message as vandalism.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reported his behavior to ANI. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

update: he's been blocked for 1 month for his actions. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a month for baiting

I am sorry, your innocent explanation for the repeated messages left on Nukes4Tots' talk page is insufficiently credible. Taunting or harrassing users in a manner which is technically within Misplaced Pages civility guidelines but is intended to create hostile responses is not acceptable. This type of baiting behavior has been extensively discussed recently and been determined by a wide community consensus to be inappropriate.

You have gone through quite a number of cycles of this behavior with Nukes4Tots and others - making "innocent complaints" on their talk pages, of editors who have asked you to leave them alone, and then run for ANI when they responded in a less than civil manner.

The first couple of times, this could be attributed to innocent requests for help. However, by this time, you should know that Nukes4Tots and others did not want to talk to you and considered you to be harrassing them. Under such circumstances, you should have long ago stopped going to their talk pages and initiating provocative discussions such as that one. Uninvolved administrators exist for a reason - we can engage with people without causing additional drama. When there is a long, multi-month stream of hostile contact between editors, you are not uninvolved, and your further participation with that other editor is almost by definition provocative.

Leaving the first message was bad enough. Putting another one there after he deleted the first was rubbing salt into the wound.

I am not going to defend his response, which was to escalate into rude behavior and cross the line again. However, you are at fault in this as well. You baited him. That was not acceptable. You are responsible for that.

I strongly recommend that you stop involving yourself in warnings or user talk discussions with editors who do not get along with you. This behavior has led to you being involved in an inordinate number of ANI complaints over the last few months. You have initiated more complaints over that period of time than any non-administrator I am aware of. I do not believe that this is coincidental, nor do I believe this is entirely the fault of those you have been tussling with. At some point, it takes two to tango.

I believe that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind. But your manner of engagement with editors has caused a serious disruption. This is not acceptable behavior. I hope that you return from this block and continue editing actively, but I also hope that you find ways to deal with people that do not involve creating hostile incidents. If you believe in the future that there is a problem, ask an uninvolved administrator to review and respond. If you engage in ways that continue to provoke people, that's your fault and responsibility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

i need a block review. i've never been blocked for anything before, nor warned for this incident, nor was there any community consensus or input on this block. plus, i was not baiting him -- he was being abusive, and the community consensus agreed, which is why he was blocked. and the user whom i was supposedly 'baiting' User: Nukes4Tots has a long history of abuse, sockpuppetry, racism, and he was simply wrong for typing 'rvv' on non-vandalism. i warned him twice, and he wrote 'rvv' in his edit summaries in response, so i reported it to ANI. warning someone twice before reporting them to ANI is good faith. georgewilliamherbert is far from uninvolved. he has a history of coming to nukes4tots' defense when nukes4tots is indefensible. i dont know what their connection is, or if they speak off-wiki, but because they are both wp:guns members, somehow they are acquainted. For example, georgewilliamherbert once incorrectly warned me in january for "3rr" and "personal attacks" ] against nukes4tots (the user i was 'baiting') when neither took place. i asked him for evidence of the 3rr or personal attacks, assuming he made a mistake and would apologize to me, but he ignored my requests (see ] and my talkback request sent here a day later looking for an explanation ], he still never responded. strange, huh? furthermore, georgewilliamherbert also tried baiting another user User: Some guy a few days ago, also because GWH claims the guy was 'baiting nukes4tots'. wow, is the whole world out to bait nukes4tots into being racist and uncivil and sockpuppeteering? is it our fault for reporting his abuse to ANI? see the ANI thread about User: Some guy GWH's passive aggressive attempts to get him blocked for 'messing' with nukes4tots. Nukes4Tots, by the way, is a user was just blocked for 1 week unrelated to me, and who is blocked for 1 month now, both for long-term abuse: ]. He's been blocked like 10 times amongst all his sock accounts. And I've never been blocked once in all time on wikipedia, yet I get a 1 month block without any diffs for evidence, and no community support, and from an admin who has a history of defending nukes4tots. frankly, the reviewing admin should grant this request because gwh claims there is community support for my block, but this is untrue. there was no discussion. a 1 month block for a tenuous claim of baiting without diffs or evidence is certainly not typical, especially for a long-term editor with 0 blocks. my block should be reversed immediately. i refuse to spend the time seeking diffs to prove i'm innocent where there is no evidence that i'm guilty. gwh is acting abusively and i know the community would not support this rogue behavior. if you deny this request, please start an ANI thread and see if there really is support for this 1 month block.

Decline reason:

This request is procedurally declined because it is too long and confusing and attacks the blocking admin, see WP:GAB. Your block is currently being discussed at WP:ANI#Theserialcomma baiting block review; please wait until that discussion resolves.  Sandstein  07:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

{unblock|for some reason, this unblock request is not posting correctly}

Minor note: My username is spelled with a lowercase g, and User:Nukes4Tots spells his name with a capital T. Some guy (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

thanks. do you have any input on the admin's behavior? you and i have never interacted before in an article or otherwise, except I sent you one message on your talk page a few days ago when GWH was harassing you for 'baiting' Nukes4Tots, the 10x blocked (among all his sock accounts) serial abuser. he at least 'warned' you for your behavior; i was not given a warning. was my block punitive for reporting GWH's friend? is it harassment/baiting to report abuse? are there any diffs of my abuse that warrants a 1 month block? Theserialcomma (talk) 05:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm somewhat reluctant to become involved because of George. I will say that this seems unnecessary and I can see how that could be considered baiting but I will leave it to others to decide if that warrants a one-month block. Some guy (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

1. blocking admin claims i baited a user: see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Nukes4Tots_back_from_a_week-long_block_and_back_to_uncivil_behavior as for why the 'baited' user was blocked. it had nothing to do with me; i just reported it after warning him. he ignored the warning, so i reported it. so how could i bait him? the abuse had nothing to do with me.

2. and as for me baiting him, where are the diffs? the blocking admin provided none.

3. i was blocked for 1 month, and i'm a long standing editor with 0 blocks on my record. so where are teh diffs of my abuse to justify this block?

4. the blocking admin alludes to the idea there is some sort of community consensus for this block. this is a lie. no discussion took place whatsoever, on ANI or anywhere else, and there was no warning given to me at any point. the blocking admin posted his 'block review' in the middle of ANI, on an already closed thread, and it's placed under a sub heading. it won't a get fair amount of viewing, and that's not fair to me. furthermore, in the blocking admin's 'block review,' he still provides no diffs or evidence, just irrelevant theorizing about baiting in general. where is the evidence?

5. this admin has a history of coming to the 'baited' user's defense. they are communicating off-wiki. i won't substantiate this with evidence. it's up to the admin to either admit this or not.

6. the blocking admin justifies a 1 month block on me, a user who's never been blocked, because i 'baited' a long term abuser who socks, is racist, and makes egregious personal attacks. so what did i really do? i warned him not to type 'RVV' in an edit summary if it's not vandalism. that's my baiting. here is the abuser's sock report ] see if you can count how many times he's been blocked amongst his known sock accounts.

7. there is no policy about warning or reporting editors who do not like you to report them for abuse. there is no policy about politely posting on an editor's page not to use the edit summary 'RVV' if it's not vandalism, even though they called you a stalker. abuse is abuse regardless of who reports it. if Nukes4Tots didn't abuse policy, I wouldn't warn him. He did abuse, and he was blocked. yet i'm reprimanded for 'baiting'. I didn't bait him into anything. He did the abuse before i warned him. whether i or someone else reported him to ANI is irrelevant to the fact that he abused, i warned him, and warned him again, and then reported him. that is not baiting.

8. georgewilliamherbert, the blocking admin, also came to abusive and blocked Nukes4Tots' defense against User: Some guy and passive aggressively tried to get him blocked, which failed. there was no community consensus. read the ANI thread for yourself. as for me, he just skipped community input and just blocked me, no warning.

9. i don't expect anyone will read my block review on ANI since it's buried in the middle/end of the page. Again, where are the diffs of my abuse? 1 month block? really?

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=i will try to make my unblock request more succinct. if it's too long this time, don't reject it, instead just let another admin review it. 1. blocking admin claims i baited a user: see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Nukes4Tots_back_from_a_week-long_block_and_back_to_uncivil_behavior as for why the 'baited' user was blocked. it had nothing to do with me; i just reported it after warning him. he ignored the warning, so i reported it. so how could i bait him? the abuse had nothing to do with me. 2. and as for me baiting him, where are the diffs? the blocking admin provided none. 3. i was blocked for 1 month, and i'm a long standing editor with 0 blocks on my record. so where are teh diffs of my abuse to justify this block? 4. the blocking admin alludes to the idea there is some sort of community consensus for this block. this is a lie. no discussion took place whatsoever, on ANI or anywhere else, and there was no warning given to me at any point. the blocking admin posted his 'block review' in the middle of ANI, on an already closed thread, and it's placed under a sub heading. it won't a get fair amount of viewing, and that's not fair to me. furthermore, in the blocking admin's 'block review,' he still provides no diffs or evidence, just irrelevant theorizing about baiting in general. where is the evidence? 5. this admin has a history of coming to the 'baited' user's defense. they are communicating off-wiki. i won't substantiate this with evidence. it's up to the admin to either admit this or not. 6. the blocking admin justifies a 1 month block on me, a user who's never been blocked, because i 'baited' a long term abuser who socks, is racist, and makes egregious personal attacks. so what did i really do? i warned him not to type 'RVV' in an edit summary if it's not vandalism. that's my baiting. here is the abuser's sock report ] see if you can count how many times he's been blocked amongst his known sock accounts. 7. there is no policy about warning or reporting editors who do not like you to report them for abuse. there is no policy about politely posting on an editor's page not to use the edit summary 'RVV' if it's not vandalism, even though they called you a stalker. abuse is abuse regardless of who reports it. if Nukes4Tots didn't abuse policy, I wouldn't warn him. He did abuse, and he was blocked. yet i'm reprimanded for 'baiting'. I didn't bait him into anything. He did the abuse before i warned him. whether i or someone else reported him to ANI is irrelevant to the fact that he abused, i warned him, and warned him again, and then reported him. that is not baiting. 8. georgewilliamherbert, the blocking admin, also came to abusive and blocked Nukes4Tots' defense against ] and passive aggressively tried to get him blocked, which failed. there was no community consensus. read the ANI thread for yourself. as for me, he just skipped community input and just blocked me, no warning. 9. i don't expect anyone will read my block review on ANI since it's buried in the middle/end of the page. Again, where are the diffs of my abuse? 1 month block? really? 10. this was a bad block done without community consensus, with misleading claims that it was ever discussed with anyone beforehand. 1 month for 'baiting' with no evidence and no support, of a user in good standing? give me a break. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=i will try to make my unblock request more succinct. if it's too long this time, don't reject it, instead just let another admin review it. 1. blocking admin claims i baited a user: see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Nukes4Tots_back_from_a_week-long_block_and_back_to_uncivil_behavior as for why the 'baited' user was blocked. it had nothing to do with me; i just reported it after warning him. he ignored the warning, so i reported it. so how could i bait him? the abuse had nothing to do with me. 2. and as for me baiting him, where are the diffs? the blocking admin provided none. 3. i was blocked for 1 month, and i'm a long standing editor with 0 blocks on my record. so where are teh diffs of my abuse to justify this block? 4. the blocking admin alludes to the idea there is some sort of community consensus for this block. this is a lie. no discussion took place whatsoever, on ANI or anywhere else, and there was no warning given to me at any point. the blocking admin posted his 'block review' in the middle of ANI, on an already closed thread, and it's placed under a sub heading. it won't a get fair amount of viewing, and that's not fair to me. furthermore, in the blocking admin's 'block review,' he still provides no diffs or evidence, just irrelevant theorizing about baiting in general. where is the evidence? 5. this admin has a history of coming to the 'baited' user's defense. they are communicating off-wiki. i won't substantiate this with evidence. it's up to the admin to either admit this or not. 6. the blocking admin justifies a 1 month block on me, a user who's never been blocked, because i 'baited' a long term abuser who socks, is racist, and makes egregious personal attacks. so what did i really do? i warned him not to type 'RVV' in an edit summary if it's not vandalism. that's my baiting. here is the abuser's sock report ] see if you can count how many times he's been blocked amongst his known sock accounts. 7. there is no policy about warning or reporting editors who do not like you to report them for abuse. there is no policy about politely posting on an editor's page not to use the edit summary 'RVV' if it's not vandalism, even though they called you a stalker. abuse is abuse regardless of who reports it. if Nukes4Tots didn't abuse policy, I wouldn't warn him. He did abuse, and he was blocked. yet i'm reprimanded for 'baiting'. I didn't bait him into anything. He did the abuse before i warned him. whether i or someone else reported him to ANI is irrelevant to the fact that he abused, i warned him, and warned him again, and then reported him. that is not baiting. 8. georgewilliamherbert, the blocking admin, also came to abusive and blocked Nukes4Tots' defense against ] and passive aggressively tried to get him blocked, which failed. there was no community consensus. read the ANI thread for yourself. as for me, he just skipped community input and just blocked me, no warning. 9. i don't expect anyone will read my block review on ANI since it's buried in the middle/end of the page. Again, where are the diffs of my abuse? 1 month block? really? 10. this was a bad block done without community consensus, with misleading claims that it was ever discussed with anyone beforehand. 1 month for 'baiting' with no evidence and no support, of a user in good standing? give me a break. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=i will try to make my unblock request more succinct. if it's too long this time, don't reject it, instead just let another admin review it. 1. blocking admin claims i baited a user: see http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Nukes4Tots_back_from_a_week-long_block_and_back_to_uncivil_behavior as for why the 'baited' user was blocked. it had nothing to do with me; i just reported it after warning him. he ignored the warning, so i reported it. so how could i bait him? the abuse had nothing to do with me. 2. and as for me baiting him, where are the diffs? the blocking admin provided none. 3. i was blocked for 1 month, and i'm a long standing editor with 0 blocks on my record. so where are teh diffs of my abuse to justify this block? 4. the blocking admin alludes to the idea there is some sort of community consensus for this block. this is a lie. no discussion took place whatsoever, on ANI or anywhere else, and there was no warning given to me at any point. the blocking admin posted his 'block review' in the middle of ANI, on an already closed thread, and it's placed under a sub heading. it won't a get fair amount of viewing, and that's not fair to me. furthermore, in the blocking admin's 'block review,' he still provides no diffs or evidence, just irrelevant theorizing about baiting in general. where is the evidence? 5. this admin has a history of coming to the 'baited' user's defense. they are communicating off-wiki. i won't substantiate this with evidence. it's up to the admin to either admit this or not. 6. the blocking admin justifies a 1 month block on me, a user who's never been blocked, because i 'baited' a long term abuser who socks, is racist, and makes egregious personal attacks. so what did i really do? i warned him not to type 'RVV' in an edit summary if it's not vandalism. that's my baiting. here is the abuser's sock report ] see if you can count how many times he's been blocked amongst his known sock accounts. 7. there is no policy about warning or reporting editors who do not like you to report them for abuse. there is no policy about politely posting on an editor's page not to use the edit summary 'RVV' if it's not vandalism, even though they called you a stalker. abuse is abuse regardless of who reports it. if Nukes4Tots didn't abuse policy, I wouldn't warn him. He did abuse, and he was blocked. yet i'm reprimanded for 'baiting'. I didn't bait him into anything. He did the abuse before i warned him. whether i or someone else reported him to ANI is irrelevant to the fact that he abused, i warned him, and warned him again, and then reported him. that is not baiting. 8. georgewilliamherbert, the blocking admin, also came to abusive and blocked Nukes4Tots' defense against ] and passive aggressively tried to get him blocked, which failed. there was no community consensus. read the ANI thread for yourself. as for me, he just skipped community input and just blocked me, no warning. 9. i don't expect anyone will read my block review on ANI since it's buried in the middle/end of the page. Again, where are the diffs of my abuse? 1 month block? really? 10. this was a bad block done without community consensus, with misleading claims that it was ever discussed with anyone beforehand. 1 month for 'baiting' with no evidence and no support, of a user in good standing? give me a break. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

can anyone else see the dangerous logic in georgewilliamherbert's latest statement on ANI about me (which i cant respond to) that "I am hopeful that we can start to set the precedent that if you appear on ANI too often even as the victim, there's probably something you're doing very wrong," and how this is the same mentality as "if a woman gets raped, it is probably partially her fault for putting herself in that situation." i report abuse to ANI. that is what the place is for. who cares if i've reported many people for abuse. isn't that what you are supposed to do? Theserialcomma (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would personally suggest you remove the second unblock request due to the ongoing discussion mentioned in the decline of the first unblock request. This is currently being reviewed at Misplaced Pages:Ani#Theserialcomma baiting block review. I know from experience that it doesn't help much if you keep posting extremely long unblock requests in this fashion. My advice is to remove the second unblock request, clean up and organize your thoughts a little bit, and post them here as input to be considered in the review currently going on at ANI. Some guy (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• how can you 'bait' someone who committed abuse unrelated of your warnings to them? i didn't goad him into saying anything that got him blocked; he was going to be blocked regardless of who reported him. either someone will step forward and say this block of me is wrong, punitive, unnecessary, and without community consensus, or wikipedia will lose a good editor in good standing because an admin made a poor decision. i refuse to play the bureaucratic game and defend myself with diffs against an accusation that has no diffs. it's an impossible situation to argue and too much burden to place on someone.

Theserialcomma (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Block reduction

Per discussion on ANI ( ) consensus has emerged that the standard I applied for block length here, proportional to the block applied to the person who you baited, was not a good one in this case and that the block length of a month was excessive. About half of those commenting feel that a few days to a week is appropriate; about half that reducing the block to time served is appropriate.

Pursuant to the clear consensus that no more than a few days is a more appropriate block duration, I am reducing the block time now to 5 days from now.

I recommend that you review the thread on WP:ANI in detail - there seems to be widespread agreement that your actions have been provocative and that the underlying issue of the block is valid. I hope that you take that message from the many who have commented there and work to modify your participation going forwards in a way to not provoke other editors here on Misplaced Pages. You have been a valued participant and I hope you remain so going forwards, but poking sticks at other contributors is not an acceptable hobby here. If you did not believe you were going to cause negative reactions, you need to review how you engage with people here and attempt to avoid provocative discussions. If you were doing it on purpose, you need to find another hobby - the number of senior admins who have agreed that they saw a problem indicates that further abuse will be responded to firmly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock