User talk:Nerdsplease

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).

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

Request reason:

the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I was blocked for, I will not do it again, and will make productive contributions instead Nerdsplease (talk) 23:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately it's common for people to say that they understand what they were blocked for when they actually don't. Thus I must ask you to please explain why your edits were inappropriate and how your future contributions will differ. Huon (talk) 00:00, 23 September 2017 (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 accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

They were inappropriate because you're supposed to talk about them if there is a dispute. Also, some of them, I learned after reading some policy, were not in line with the policies. I wasn't trying to be intentionally disruptive (I realize that intentions and "being new" are not taken into account for a ban, so not using it as an excuse, just saying). My future contributions will differ because I will attempt only post things that are allowed and if there is a dispute, I will talk with the disputer prior to editing the page again. Thanks for the quick response. Nerdsplease (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I've examined this case, I understand the reason for the block, and I think it was valid - we were looking at the repeated re-insertion of contested material, which was at best over-detailed and under-sourced (and at worst could have been seen as NPOV/promotion violations). And indefinte is not as bad as it can sound - it just means "until we can be confident it won't happen again". But you seem to understand the key point here - that if anything is contested, you should go to the article talk page and discuss it, and on that ground I'm happy to unblock. I would urge you to keep WP:NPOV and WP:Consensus in mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I tagged Nathan Fielder a little while ago so noticed this user on my watchlist. I don't agree with his edits, but feel this block has been a bit harsh. They have only edited the one article and none of it has been vandalism as we define it. I am struggling to follow how this led to an indefinite block so if someone can explain it that would be great. As best I can make out is this user is a big fan and was adding too much detail, many of it unsourced or poorly sourced, but none of it malicious or in anyway falling foul of BLP. They edit warred, so a block is justified, but to go straight to indefinite is surprising. The report mentions vandalism, (which I do not think is correct), after the final warning (which I can't find evidence of) and also removing talk page warnings (which is allowed). The first edit to the talk page was from a bot explaining its removal of some external links, then a caution, then a jump to a level three warning and then the final warning for vandalism (not seeing the vandalism). This is not my usual area, I would not be here if it wasn't for forgetting to remove the article from my watchlist, so I may be off base. However I do feel this is the wrong way to treat a new edit who as far as I can tell is making poor, but good faith edits. All I am asking is that whoever reviews this takes a closer look and does not trot out the usual "you need to be more contrite" rational. AIRcorn (talk) 08:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy pinging @Mistakenformatt and Master of Puppets:, the blocking admin and reporting editor. Also just like to add that there is no discussion on the talk page of the article and no discussion here apart from templated warnings despite this response from Mistakenformatt. AIRcorn (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. m.o.p 22:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nerdsplease

Good morning – I just wanted to make sure you're aware of the investigation regarding improper use of multiple accounts or IPs concerning you. Editing using an IP while blocked is against Wikipedia policy and usually results in an immediate extended block. This case is closed, but I wanted to make sure you're aware of the relevant policy for the future. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 13:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]