User talk:68.81.192.142

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Strike two[edit]

Let's see. Personal attacks, check. Edit warring even after I warned you not to, check. Swearing at me even when all I've done is talk to you in a civil manner, check. You're building up such a good reputation of camaraderie that soon, I won't even need to request that you be blocked. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One edit ten days ago, and two today, does not constitute an "edit war" by any definition of the word. Not only do you lack the authority to "warn" me about edit warring, my second edit was made two minutes before you abusively posted an edit war template on my page. You will likely have your pee-pee smacked by an admin considering that the "war" in question does not even involve factual matters, rather it concerns your hideous lack of writing skills. It is unnecessary to state that teams that score 8 runs usually win the game because anyone with a perfunctory knowledge of baseball knows that. The page was just a simple list until you and User:ChristheDude decided to turn it into a complete abortion of the English language. You and User:ChristheDude use countless examples of excessively verbose wording when more concise writing would be far more precise. You'll surely go far in life by crying to mommy rather than learning how to construct a simple sentence. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks – "your hideous lack of writing skills," "[y]ou will likely have your pee-pee smacked by an admin," "[y]ou'll surely go far in life by crying to mommy rather than learning how to construct a simple sentence." And you're asking to be unblocked and for me to be blocked. On what grounds, huh? You're the one spreading all this vitriol of hate. You clearly haven't learnt your lesson, have you? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only lesson I learned for about the umpteenth time is that Wikipedia is a complete pile of garbage, which is why I edit from an IP and can't even be bothered to create a username. That Grand Slam article is a great example of everything that's wrong with Wikipedia. It's a terribly written article in which two authors are responsible for almost the entire content. I nicely corrected a false statement, which you reverted, and then you edited to no longer be false, but instead completely unnecessary and redundant. You refused to accept an edit to "your" page, threatened to report me to admins (crying to mommy) for accusing you of owing the page, when you and one other user wrote the entirety of the content and refuse to accept corrections, even when the corrections aren't even a matter of content but rather the awful writing on the page. I've come across other people on Wikipedia who revert all edits to "their" pages and it's ridiculous that this behavior is tolerated. I can switch my IP address whenever I choose by resetting my router; I only appealed the block because I want to report that awful page to the Baseball Project and want it to be internally consistent.

You are completely delusional if you think putting an "edit war" template on the page of someone who page two edits and threatening to report them to the admins for their first edit is anything other than "spreading all this vitriol of hate." I sincerely hope you really are a child and not an adult, because if you're an adult and act this immature, you are in need of serious help. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack number...(you've made so many against me I've actually lost count). Calling me "completely delusional," "immature," and falsely claiming I need "serious help." As a decent human, I am highly offended by your personal attacks against me. I never thought I'd ever come across a fellow human being who would mudsling to the lowest level, having the nerve to egregiously insult my mother, my age, my maturity, my mental health and my English language skills in a "negotiation" that is completely unrelated to those topics. Well, you've proven me wrong. And I think it's only fair and just to say that, until I receive a full and sincere apology, I will absolutely refuse to negotiate with someone who has made personal attacks against my family and I. Making all those snide and false remarks against me; I'm still furious but I can suck it in. But you dropping that line against my mother was the last straw. That's all. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012[edit]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Bloom6132, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. —Bagumba (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Would you care to explain how one edit two days ago, and two edits today, is "starting an edit war?" This person has made over 70% of the edits to that page and clearly acts as if he owns the page. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing the content is fine. This warning was for your attack of the editor as opposed to the article content. I suggest you read WP:NPA.—Bagumba (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL that the same admin who made the block reviews the unblock request. Just a "slight" conflict of interest.
I had only made a single edit to the page in question when this user abusively put a "edit war" template on my page and then threatened to report me for saying he "acted like he owned the page," a justifiable statement when he reverted an edit that simply removed an unnecessary, obvious, redundant statement that did not alter the factual content of the article. Had it been an ongoing edit war, that would be different, but I made a SINGLE edit after a previous edit ten days ago. That he would put an "edit war" template on my page in response to a single edit that only dealt style and not factual content is pretty clear evidence of harassment that he believes he owns the page.
He continued to harass me on MY OWN talk page. How are my responses on MY OWN TALK PAGE considered "trying to harass another user???" The only thing I said in response here that could have remotely been considered a "personal attack" was the comment about his poor writing skills. It is nothing short of absurd that someone who refuses to allow "his" pages to be edited can abusively put an "edit warring" template on my page and I'm the one sanctioned. As I said, I only want to report that hideous article to the Baseball Project and be done with it, and I can easily switch my IP address as often as I feel like resetting my router, but you would rather make me wait 24 hours to be internally consistent with the IP addresses. How beneficial to Wikipedia. Nice that a "no shit, Sherlock" is block worthy but articles written in a style that would make any high school English teacher vomit are allowed to remain unedited. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies on incorrectly closing the request. I've reopened it.—Bagumba (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it standard Wikipedia policy to block people for comments on their own talk page? Literally everything I've posted since the initial warning, save a response on your talk page that, while harsh, did not contain any personal attacks, has been on my own talk page in response to his ridiculous use of the "edit war" warning template in response to a single edit. The civility page explicitly discourages overuse of warning templates. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:USER, "Wikipedia policies concerning the content of pages can and generally do apply to user pages, and users must observe these policies."—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NPA, "However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." Do you really think that I would have called him immature if he didn't immediately threaten to "report me to the admins" when I said he acted like he owned the page? Do you really think my accusations of immaturity would have continued if he didn't put a "edit warring" template on my page and then repeatedly accuse of edit warring for a SINGLE EDIT I made on a page that HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTENT but rather the poor writing style? Do you really think the accusations of immaturity would have continued if he didn't immediately complain to you after I called him immature ONCE?

Per WP:CIVIL "Sanctions for civility violations should only happen when nothing else would do" and "Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see." I don't think "nearly all editors" would consider it blockworthy to respond to a false accusation of "edit warring" by abusively using an edit warring template to call the author immature. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 day for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

User:Bloom6132 placed an "edit war" template on my page when I've only made one edit to the page in question and two today, and also repeatedly accused me of "edit warring" on various talk pages. I told User:Bloom6132 to not act as if he owns the page in question, to which he threatened to report me for harassment. The only statement I made that could be considered "harassing" was my use of "No shit, Sherlock." I was unaware a single mild profanity justified a block. I would like to either be unblocked, or User:Bloom6132 to be blocked as long as I am, as he at least as culpable as I am, if not more so. I do not plan on editing the page in question or his talk page, past mentioning the problems with the article on the Baseball Project page, so I would like to be unblocked.

Decline reason:

As you are continuing to attack other editors in your unblock requests and in other comments on this page, I have increased your block to 1 week and revoked your ability to edit this page for the duration. Please use the time to read the policy pages you have been given links to, especially WP:NPA. If you wish to appeal further, please see WP:UTRS -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:47, 7 September 2012 (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.

Your response in #Strike two above contains numerous attacks after you had been warned at 20:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC). I again suggest you read WP:NPA and the policy to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" —Bagumba (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)}} As the original admin, this response was originally incorrect placed in the unblock request. The request has been reopened.—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's a shame. It's clear, looking at your contributions, that you were in the right in your disagreement with User:Bloom6132. It's also clear that you were in violation of WP:CIVIL here, here, here, in this edit summary, here, here, and here. If, as you say, you don't think there is anything uncivil about that way of communicating, you're likely to do the same thing again in the future. I'm afraid there is no shortage of people who are wrong on Wikipedia, but the civility rules are essential if any useful work is going to get done. Let me caution you: it's clear you know your stuff. We'd like to have you stay. But you will have to find a way to communicate politely, even with people who are wrong, or you're inevitably going to be blocked again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have a better chance of seeing Jesus hit a home run for the Red Sox tonight then ever see me edit Wikipedia again, and the Red Sox don't even play tonight. I have always believed Wikipedia to be a complete pile of garbage (and apparently my block was extended by a day for saying that) and this incident demonstrates my beliefs nicely. I work in the baseball industry, am pretty successful (have free time today due to the small number of night games), and also happen to have a degree in English from a fairly good school. Yet because I do not suffer fools when falsely accused of "using original research" when trying to correct atrocious grammar, I am not wanted, while the person who made the false accusation, abusively put an "edit warring" template on my page, and went crying to the admins when he didn't get his way, is considered a valuable asset to Wikipedia.
Had we both been blocked for a day and told to knock it off, I wouldn't care. I am completely civil when other people are civil to me. When people use false accusations like "false original research" and "edit warring" for a lone edit, I'm afraid I have trouble responding in a civil manner. I am not one to turn the other cheek, unless Jesus hits a home run for the Red Sox. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not concerned about a block from a technical sense because I have no shortage of dynamic IP addresses. I can simply reset my router, or tether one of my phones to my laptop, which has a new IP address every time I restart my phone. The issue is not that "I am blocked," the issue is that Wikipedia policies are such that an editor is allowed to write a page using a writing style that would make any English teacher cringe, refuse any corrections to that article, toss around phrases like "original research" and "edit warring" for a lone edit correcting that poor style, and then harass me on my talk page, and can do all that with impunity. Thank you though for your contributions, but any environment where I must suffer fools who throw shots first for reasons of "maintaining civility" is not an environment in which I want to participate. My only remaining use of Wikipedia will be to report that page to the Baseball Project and then I'll be finished. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not had any success at getting my block reviewed, but if you are able to intervene on my behalf, the admin who blocked me has only been an admin for one week and is a friend of the user who I allegedly "attacked." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bagumba#Congratulations.21
Something didn't add up here, namely 1) the complaining user went directly to a specific admin when Wiki policy indicates plenty of intermediary responses in response to simply being called immature 2) the admin did not even respond to the other user placing an "edit warring" template on my talk page and warning me it was "strike two" despite the fact that the other user isn't even an admin 3) WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA suggest blocking should only be a last resort when no other option is necessary, and all of my alleged "insults" were on my own talk page in response to his claim that I was "edit warring" despite only having made one edit and 4) my "insults" were quite minor, basically nothing other than calling him immature and a poor writer. Given these circumstances and evidence of bias on the blocking admin's part, I would like my block to be rescinded, but that does not seem to be a priority for the other Wikipedia admins. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Block 2[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 days for continued personal attacks while blocked.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Bagumba (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

{unblock|I am requesting an unblock of the second block as all of my comments after the initial warning have all been on my own talk page. The personal attacks page states: "Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks." It should be obvious that any "personal attack" I wrote is only in response to the other user's initial attacks, i.e. accusing me of "using original research" and abusively putting an edit warring template on my page when I'd only made one edit in the "war." The civility page says "Be careful with user warning templates. Be careful about issuing templated messages to editors you're currently involved in a dispute with, and exercise caution when using templated messages for newcomers." Reading the civility and personal attacks page, it is obvious that blocks are generally used for far more extreme behavior than telling other person "You are immature and a poor writer" and doing so almost entirely on my own talk page. The only comment I have made outside my own talk page since the initial warning was a comment on Bagumba's page stating "LMAO. You are complaining about what I write on MY OWN TALK PAGE? The only "mediation" necessary is for you to cease reverting attempts at correcting your poor use of the English language, and to cease categorizing a whopping TWO EDITS as an "edit war." While my tone there may have been harsh, it is certainly not a personal attack. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 22:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC) }[reply]

(*removing excess unblock requests - you only need one at a time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Your edit at 20:27, 6 September 2012‎ questions the maturity of the editor with a reference to their age. They continued at User_talk:Bagumba#Help.21 where you make more claims of being "immature" as opposed to commenting on the user's behavior. Finally, before the initial block you made reference to user's "pee-pee" and "crying to mommy". Perhaps you could demonstrate your new understanding of personal attacks by refactoring your prior comments.—Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The implication in both WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA is that blocking is to the used as a last resort and that calling someone "immature" is nowhere near the level of a typical block. If calling someone immature for threatening to report me to an admin for saying ONCE that he acted like he owned the page, and calling immature for abusively using an edit template after I reverted his edit ONCE, both of which are clear violations of Wiki policy themselves, is actually considered an abusive enough of a personal attack to warrant two blocks, then no, I do not have a new understanding of personal attacks. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your latest edit is disturbing. Profanity aside, please be aware of WP:EVASION.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LMAO. I removed that edit within a minute of it being posted. What would anyone with any iota of common sense think is more likely, that I am talking to myself on my own Wikipedia talk page suggesting I reset my IP address, or that someone else posted it as a joke? (Nevermind that, as I have a dynamic IP address that frequently resets itself, AS YOU YOURSELF PUT A TEMPLATE ON MY TALK PAGE), by definition, I cannot "evade" anything as the IP address often changes on its own.
I cannot believe you are actually allowed to administrate Wikipedia. Considering the strangeness of this incident--that you have performed admin duties for this user before, that he contacted you directly about something as minor as being called "immature" rather than go through the zillions of other suggested behaviors that Wikipedia mentions, that you immediately blocked me twice for comments on my own talk page in response to his false and abusive accusations of edit warring, and that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA make it very clear that blocking is to be used in extreme measures when no other option is necessary and as a last resort--something is probably rotten in the state of Denmark. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And nevermind that Wikipedia has an entry for fuck anyway, isn't it just a bit strange that the other user's false accusations of "edit warring" that began this thread under "strike two" when he's not even an admin didn't even invoke a comment from you? I'd think an unbiased editor would tell the other person "you exacerbated the problem by falsely accusing him of edit warring and abusively putting an edit warring warning template on his talk page when Wiki policy specifically says not to do that." 68.81.192.142 (talk) 00:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I knew something was fishy here! 9 days into being an admin and you're already misinterpreting Wikipedia rules to benefit your friends. Not off to a particularly great start as an admin, are we? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bagumba#Congratulations.21 68.81.192.142 (talk) 00:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How the heck is Bagumba misinterpreting WP rules? The fact of the matter is, you attacked me on a personal level (and went as low as insulting my mother, my age, my maturity, my English language skills and labeling me "completely delusional" in the process). Utilizing personal attacks is one of the most major violations to WP policy; that's the reason why you're blocked. Edit warring on List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game has nothing to do with the block. If you had you told me politely that you disagreed with my stance and listed your reasons (rather than immediately taking on a confrontational stance, I would have actually been willing to negotiate with you. I'm still willing to negotiate on the article's talk page, even after all those hurtful and inconsiderate insults you have made against me. The question at hand is whether you are willing to sit down, discuss, negotiate and come to a consensus, rather than continuing on with your offensive rhetoric. —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|I would like to add to my unblock request that I have discovered that the admin who blocked me and the complaining user are friends. This admin has only been an admin for one week and the user in question congratulated him on his being chosen as an admin here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bagumba#Congratulations.21 which seems to suggest bias on the part of this admin. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA both suggest that blocking me for calling another user "immature" on my own talk page is excessive, since I was only acting in response after he abusively put an "edit warring" template on my page when I only reverted his edit once. 68.81.192.142 (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2012 (UTC)}[reply]

(*removing excess unblock requests - you only need one at a time -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Declined[edit]

  • I have removed the excess unblock requests, and have declined the remaining open one - see above. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.81.192.142&oldid=1041995475"