User talk:Theserialcomma

Welcome!

Hello, Theserialcomma, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
• 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 Wikipedia: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^Tally-ho! 19:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI Reports about other users

Please note, you are REQUIRED to notify other users if you post about them on WP:ANI. Exxolon (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It's at the top of the page - "As a courtesy, you must inform other users if they are the subject of a discussion (you may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so)."

ok, thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic banned on Koalorka

(Copied on WP:ANI and the users' talk pages and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions)

I'm going to one-up that. Every location in which Koalorka and Theserialcomma are butting heads has multiple uninvolved administrators participating. Their interactions have overwhelmingly been either baiting or attacking each other, and completely unrelated to article content, for a while now. Given that there's always an admin looking over their shoulder, they have no need to be reporting each other to ANI or WQA (or 3RR or anywhere else - someone else who can act will notice), and that they are unable to interact in a constructive manner, and that both have risen to the level of disruptive in responding to the other...

Koalorka and Theserialcomma are topic banned on each other. Broadly construed, neither may revert each others' edits, follow up a talk page comment by the other, comment on the others' talk page, or report the other to noticeboards.

If one violates, and no response is forthcoming within twelve hours, the other may make a single line notification to an uninvolved administrator with a link to the topic ban and the diff of the particular edit which violated it. If no response is forthcoming within 18 hours, a second admin, and if no response is forthcoming within 24 hrs a post to ANI with the same information. In no case may either party engage in additional discussion unless asked direct questions by uninvolved admins.

You both go to your corners and stay there. If one comes out swinging, they go down. If you both start swinging, you both go down.

Lest there be any question about it - this disruptive behavor on both of your parts has at this point exceeded community patience and the sum of your positive contributions to Wikipedia. Stop, or your tenures on Wikipedia are at the end. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• get an uninvolved admin to do this. you have a conflict of interest here. i complained about your unfair admining to another admin, koalorka shows up, attacks me, and then you topic ban me? Conflict of interest. i will accept this topic ban from someone else. please start an ANI thread if you wish. also, please provide diffs if you are going to accuse me of anything, or i won't accept it - especially from you. Thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I only have a conflict of interest because I've been trying to resolve the conflict. I am really not on his side or any such preference for one of you or the other, which would actually disqualify me.

You two do not get along. You can still edit articles alongside each other, as long as you avoid talk page discussions with each other or reversions. If either of you attacks the other, then it's a violation. If either of you attacks someone else, the pages you edit on have many admins watching, and someone else can report or deal with it. You lose nothing by this, if you really have no intention to annoy or harrass the other and just want to edit Wikipedia. Nobody gets away with anything.

If you fight this, you're essentially admitting that you want to keep getting in conflict with him. If that's your intention, that's what the topic ban is there to end. If that's not your intention, think about it. You really lose nothing under this, other than a safety separation to prevent incidents which have caused both of you significant negative impact.

He's not going to get away with anything, anywhere, against anyone else just because you can't report him for it. Trust me. He's watched very closely.

Please just think about it and accept it. Ultimately this is protecting you - a number of admins, completely excluding myself, are on the verge of indefinitely blocking both of you. If you want to keep editing, whether you're topic banned from interacting with him or not, your future here depends on not interacting with him. As does his, on not interacting with you. Better to make that formal and out in the open rather than leave it ambiguous, and the next time one of you complains about something both of you are gone forever.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I am uninterested in negotiating with you. you are aware of how i feel about your admining ability. yesterday i said i had no confidence in your ability to be fair, two days ago i said you were harassing me. now you topic ban me because he was uncivil, unprovoked. Get an uninvolved admin to make this decision. I don't have faith in your ability to be fair, but i will accept another, uninvolved admin's opinion. This is not an argument about the accepting a topic ban, just accepting one from you without input from someone without a conflict of interest. also show diffs or go away. i certainly do not accept this from you especially without one single diff Theserialcomma (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion is the proper place to get this overturned, or another admin to confirm if that is what will make you feel ok about it. The topic ban does not preclude your discussing the topic ban on ANI, and fortunately Koalorka is blocked for a bit so you two won't even have a chance to incidentally butt heads over it on ANI at the moment.

You have said how you feel about my admin actions, yes. But administrator conflict of interest and admin powers policies do not hold that an individual holding themselves to be in somewhat in conflict with an administrator, or having been sanctioned by an administrator, does not mean the administrator has a conflict of interest and can't use admin powers. The administrator has to be involved in a two way dispute or content dispute, or otherwise been disqualified somehow. If you feel that I should be disqualified from admin actions regarding you going forwards that's another legitimate question for ANI. If a consensus of other admins conclude that I am conflicted in some way I'll abide by that, but I know current policy pretty well, and I really do not feel that I'm in conflict with you in any way that is a disqualifier. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

i have no faith in your ability to be a fair admin, as i've been complaining about since July. as a wp:guns member, and someone about whom i've been actively complaining, you have had no legitimate place to take this upon yourself to topic ban me. you out of all admins should have stayed away. but, you took this upon yourself, without any diffs, without any support, and with a huge COI, and you still went for it. i am pretty sure that you will be desysopped in the near future, especially if anyone reviews what shenanigans you pulled by unblocking koalorka, blocking me for 30 days without diffs, trying to topic ban me without diffs, or whatever shady dealings you've done in the past. i await an uninvolved admin's input. as for your input, i really dont think the community is going to keep turning a blind eye to your abuse. Theserialcomma (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

GWS, wouldn't it be better to let someone else act to avoid even the merest appearance? But please not me--I do not want to figure this one out as to the merits. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Tucker

Hey, I've replied. Thanks for telling me. Sorry that I hadn't checked back myself; I was under the impression everything was sorted out. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 08:27, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim Del Rev.

Alas, I think it was you yourself who introduced my name--if I 've misread the history, let me know and I'll revise what I said there. Otherwise, what you said there is In my opinion completely correct, DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of JDOG

(I know it's redundant for you but figured I'd do the AfD things Chicago Smooth missed.)

An article that you have been involved in editing, JDOG, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JDOG (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination)

Since you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim, which was closed as relist, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (7th nomination). Cunard (talk) 08:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Something kind of funny.

Remember the editor (and his socks) in the Frank Dux article claiming that you and I are the same person? I wonder if they're reading the Ashida Kim AfD where we are on opposite sides of that issue? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

we are clearly just posturing for more credibility Theserialcomma (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oh yeah. I forgot we discussed that technique at the cabal meeting. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

excess AfD

I did feel the comments were excessive and uncivil but the best thing to do it point it out to him & ask him to refrain from using that kind of language politely. I know I have a strong POV in the area, so I try & stick clearly on the right side of the rules to avoid it getting in the way. Also I use those same rules to get self aggrandising puff pieces removed so I try to get articles to fit the rules, not always successfully, as I edit form work more than a quick goggle for refs is hard. --Nate^t/_c 07:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination)

Since you participated in the deletion discussion of Bullshido.net in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (2nd nomination), you may be interested in my renomination of the article for deletion. If you would like to participate in that debate, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullshido.net (3rd nomination). Thanks, Cunard (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• He is perfectly allowed to re-nominate it again. The discussion wasn't clear, a large amount of information was added to the AfD after people had !voted, and I really did consider for a long time deleting the article for lack of reliable sources, before NCing it. In fact, the more I look at that AfD, the more I believe I should have deleted it. Black Kite 12:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)