HJ Mitchell
|
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.
My IP
editHi, my IP i think is public and this is my cellular data IP thingy, there is a blocked article which is by you and i didn't do, it would be nice if you could remove it because i use this IP to edit and the block notice makes me look like i did it. 2605:8D80:400:9392:3921:D6A3:7729:EE70 (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, it's nothing personal. Someone else on that mobile network was causing a problem on that article. They were bouncing around multiple addresses on the range so I put a partial block on the entire /32 but that's no reflection on you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Shocking that the IP is a (now rangeblocked) sock. -- Ponyobons mots 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Blocked IP Address
editHello, I saw you blocked an IP Address of mine, particularly this one. Please note I wasn't doing anything wrong, rather all I wanted to do is fix the location of a little arrow. Unfortunately, the edit filter did not like what I was doing, but I got away with it in the end, as you can see here. My edit was reverted, and then un-reverted. I have reported the false positive of the edit filter, here. I must say, I got more than I bargained for, all of this for a measly edit request! Anyway, I do apologize to you if I caused any inconvenience. Please note, there is no need to unblock the IP Address, as I get a new one every 1-2 hours. Cheers! 2402:8100:24CB:B6DC:706B:CAA8:977:8E81 (talk), now known as 2402:8100:24CC:212C:8D1F:79FA:4C55:A53C (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
edit
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
You've got mail
edit
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Suspect account using IP to deceive
edit- I have a request, I think that account and that IP address is linked to make deceiving edits on the Serbia national basketball team page. They've already disrupted that article enough. --SpinnDoctor (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
About notifying and AIV
editHi there! Just to reply to your question at AIV. I warned them successively after checking each of their contributions and only after I did I realized all of his contributions were vandalisms, and that's why I reported them to AIV. In any case I'll keep an eye on their contributions and report again if they keep at it. Thanks. Rkieferbaum (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rkieferbaum Please don't report editors to AIV unless they vandalise after an appropriate warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:01, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your advice here is not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as here:
Vandals should always receive enough warnings before being reported unless they are vandalism-only accounts.
and here:Should you notice such activity from registered users, revert the edit(s) if not already done, and check the user's contributions to verify whether the other edits are vandalism. If so, the account can be reported to Administrator intervention against vandalism as a "vandalism-only account".
Otherwise the ARV twinkle gadget shouldn't even give the option to report to AIV for any other reason than "Vandalism after final (level 4 or 4im) warning given", and it does. Like I said, I didn't realize that account to be VOA until further inspection after reverting and warning about previous edits (and after I checked all edits, the filter log and the account creation timestamp). Cheers. Rkieferbaum (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)- @Rkieferbaum even vandalism-only accounts should be warned (with the exception of hate speech, libel, etc). The account you reported made a handful of silly edits then stopped. Then half an hour later you gave them four warnings and reported them to AIV. There's not an admin on this project who would have blocked them for that (trust me, I've been doing this for a long time and I've made a lot of blocks). Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not as a punishment (that's straight from the blocking policy, which trumps an information page and an explanatory essay. If they make a single unconstructive edit after being told they could be blocked, we can drop the banhammer because we know they haven't heeded the warnings but if they don't vandalise again then a block is (at best) pointless. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I understand and respect your interpretation of the blocking policy, and I do agree that reporting that account to AIV long after they stopped editing wasn't necessary. I still disagree with the notion that accounts can only be reported to AIV if they continue vandalizing after being warned. It wasn't due to a lack of warning that the account (and many others I reported) kept vandalizing after 3 or 4 clear instances of vandalism. If a new account performs a few constructive edits and then jokes around a bit, warning them serves to discourage that behavior by signaling that we are monitoring their edits. However, if an account is registered and immediately starts vandalizing different articles within minutes, repeating reversed vandalism, and making absurd edits (e.g., stating someone was born 4.5 billion years ago and their father is "Nazi Hitler"), it's clear they are not here to build an encyclopedia.
- Blocking such accounts is not a punishment but a quick and efficient way to stop disruption. This is why I believe the guideline page does not contradict the blocking policy. If you still feel there is a contradiction, then I encourage you to propose changes to remove the option in ARV to report an account as "Evidently a vandalism-only account" and to update the guideline page and essay accordingly. Until then, I believe it is reasonable to report (and block) accounts that are evidently vandalism-only.
- Cheers and thanks for the chat. Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Rkieferbaum even vandalism-only accounts should be warned (with the exception of hate speech, libel, etc). The account you reported made a handful of silly edits then stopped. Then half an hour later you gave them four warnings and reported them to AIV. There's not an admin on this project who would have blocked them for that (trust me, I've been doing this for a long time and I've made a lot of blocks). Blocks are meant to prevent disruption, not as a punishment (that's straight from the blocking policy, which trumps an information page and an explanatory essay. If they make a single unconstructive edit after being told they could be blocked, we can drop the banhammer because we know they haven't heeded the warnings but if they don't vandalise again then a block is (at best) pointless. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but your advice here is not in accordance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, such as here:
(talk page watcher) Hey K6ka, how comes that Loki guy gets all the fun?! LOL ——Serial Number 54129 16:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)