This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 3Kingdoms (talk | contribs) at 17:02, 18 February 2023 (→Canvassing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:02, 18 February 2023 by 3Kingdoms (talk | contribs) (→Canvassing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
A barnstar for you!
|
The Editor's Barnstar |
| Thanks for all your hard work, especially anti-vandalism! Tails Wx 14:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC) |
- Thank you! It's nice to be appreciated! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
February 2023
You removed my report of an IP user who has done vandalism countless times throughout their years editing on random articles. I provided evidence of their vandalism but was never given any other comment from Daniel Case. The IP user I think is definitely deserving of a block as you can easily go through their editing history to see their edits are pure vandalism. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 11:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Because they made two edits about six hours ago but their previous edit was four years ago. Which is why Daniel quite correctly decline it as "insufficient recent activity to warrant a block". Any administrator would have done the same. And declined reports are routinely removed from AIV so that admins can focus on the reports that do need our attention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of how long ago it was. Vandalism has still been done countless times, I mentioned before. So that still gets disregarded? The IP user can come back anytime and vandalize however they please without being blocked. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 11:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's very unlikely that the person responsible for the vandalism in 2019 is the same person who was vandalising earlier today, and even if it was, with a four-year gap between edits there's no reason to think that a block was necessary to prevent further disruption. That they made two edits hen haven't edited again only confirms that. Blocks are used to prevent further disruption, not punish past deeds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand. Well, if the IP user does happen to start vandalizing again, I'll just report it. Have a nice day! Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, if they start again and become a persistent problem, and it look like a block is the only way to prevent them causing more disruption, please report them to AIV. In that case, they'll be blocked quickly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Alright, I understand. Well, if the IP user does happen to start vandalizing again, I'll just report it. Have a nice day! Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 12:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- It's very unlikely that the person responsible for the vandalism in 2019 is the same person who was vandalising earlier today, and even if it was, with a four-year gap between edits there's no reason to think that a block was necessary to prevent further disruption. That they made two edits hen haven't edited again only confirms that. Blocks are used to prevent further disruption, not punish past deeds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
- Regardless of how long ago it was. Vandalism has still been done countless times, I mentioned before. So that still gets disregarded? The IP user can come back anytime and vandalize however they please without being blocked. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 11:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Canvassing
You seem like a level headed administrator despite your adoration of Taylor Swift, and I noticed you've cautioned Wes sideman in the past. I'm wondering if you could give him a bit sterner warning this time. Regarding RFC's at theShaun King and Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act talk pages he is clearly violating WP:Canvassing by contacting editors and groups of editors he thinks can help him "win" the discussion. Your efforts will be appreciated. Cheers! Goodtablemanners (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Examples:
- Hello HJ Mitchell. I'm really sorry for bringing this to your attention, but I feel like it needs to be. Despite being advised by you and others, Wes sideman, seems to have ignored it. Once again, they imply/accuse me of lying or claiming I am a "right-wing" editor. Here Wes accuses GTM and I of "tag-teaming" without evidence I understand that my writing here might make one think that me and GTM are "tag-teaming" here, but we are not. I was going to post this message here regardless of GTM posting. However, since GTM and my issue are with the same editor, I feel that posting in this section would be better than making a new one. Furthermore, they accuse GTM and I of "personally attacking" them by making the ANI. I understand how one might feel that, but I feel that I never attacked their character, only taking issue with how they treated me. The most concerning for me is this. It seems to me that Wes believes there was nothing wrong with how they treated people and ignored the advice you and others have given them. I do not want Wes to get in trouble, but they have refused to accept any fault on their part and seem determined to ignore advice given to them. Once again, I am sorry for bringing this up again. I hope you have a good day! 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm really getting bored of the three of you popping up all over the place. I've topic-banned Wes sideman from abortion for a short while for the repeated accusations of misconduct. However, I need the the two of you, @3Kingdoms and Goodtablemanners:, to back off from him. Unsupported accusations of misconduct are unacceptable, but so is badgering someone to the point that they lose their temper. Leaving neutrally worded messages inviting editors to a discussion is not canvassing, unless you can show that the choice of places the notification is left is skewed, and even then it's easier to correct it by leaving messages for a broader range of people than to complain about it. Please would you both acknowledge that you've read this, and agree that as long as he follows his restriction, you won't talk to or about him until it expires? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, HJ. I wasn't looking for a death penalty. However, groups such as Project Feminism and Project Civil Rights aren't likely to have many members of the Jesse Helms Fan Club, and NorthbySouthBaranof was the only other editor who had previously objected to Shaun King's rant about white Jesus images being included in his article. Regards. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- My message was not meant to come across that way. I am sorry for that. I agree that a cooling off between me, GTM, and Wes is for the best. Cheers and have a good day. 3Kingdoms (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, HJ. I wasn't looking for a death penalty. However, groups such as Project Feminism and Project Civil Rights aren't likely to have many members of the Jesse Helms Fan Club, and NorthbySouthBaranof was the only other editor who had previously objected to Shaun King's rant about white Jesus images being included in his article. Regards. Goodtablemanners (talk) 14:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm really getting bored of the three of you popping up all over the place. I've topic-banned Wes sideman from abortion for a short while for the repeated accusations of misconduct. However, I need the the two of you, @3Kingdoms and Goodtablemanners:, to back off from him. Unsupported accusations of misconduct are unacceptable, but so is badgering someone to the point that they lose their temper. Leaving neutrally worded messages inviting editors to a discussion is not canvassing, unless you can show that the choice of places the notification is left is skewed, and even then it's easier to correct it by leaving messages for a broader range of people than to complain about it. Please would you both acknowledge that you've read this, and agree that as long as he follows his restriction, you won't talk to or about him until it expires? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)