HJ Mitchell
Joined 29 March 2009
(Redirected from User talk:Harry Mitchell)
Latest comment: 1 day ago by Keldara in topic Football Edits
|
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.
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)
Hi, just dropping by to tell you that although you did give them a 31-hour block message an hour ago, you didn't actually block them. Cheers, — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Alien333 I blocked the /64. They are blocked. You can see the notice at the top of their contribs or check Special:BlockList. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, then my bad/ — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
New message from Drmies
edit
Message added 01:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The IPv4 vs IPv6 discussion I mentioned
editWikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Stricter policy for unregistered ipv6 users vs ipv4 users. Thryduulf (talk) 08:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 22 July 2024
edit- Discussion report: Internet users flock to Wikipedia to debate its image policy over Trump raised-fist photo
- News and notes: Wikimedia community votes to ratify Movement Charter; Wikimedia Foundation opposes ratification
- Obituary: JamesR
- Crossword: Vaguely bird-shaped crossword
Football Edits
editSorry HJ Mitchell, I'm not sure if I've made an error to my edits on association football and Cuju and got IP banned. My partner works at the national football museum in Manchester and she noticed some errors on those pages. I had an account so adjusted them (specifically around how Cuju relates to Soccer). If my edits/citations weren't valid for any reason please let me know.
Thanks. Keldara (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)