User talk:136.158.59.173

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


April 2021[edit]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism, as done at Dodge_Tomahawk.
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 ~~~~}}.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
@HJ Mitchell: Could you please clarify how my actions were considered to be vandalism, as I'm a little confused. My main confusion stems from reading the policy Wikipedia:Vandalism which states "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. For example, edit warring over how exactly to present encyclopedic content is not vandalism." I can understand if I was removing content without reason, or typing "UR ALL GAY" all over articles, but obviously that is not the case here, I clearly explained the reasons behind my edits on more than one occasion. The way I see it, I'm totally guilty of being a stubborn dick about that article, but vandalism? 136.158.59.173 (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}}

@HJ Mitchell: - should this be a disruptive editing block? PhilKnight (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be just a little vindictive to replace one block with another? 136.158.59.173 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sennen goroshi may be of interest. Best, Blablubbs|talk 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removing 10k characters of sourced prose from an article isn't vandalism? Pull the other one. I will not lift the block as I believe it necessary to prevent further vandalism. If anything, I might make it longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments here for more detail on the tangled sockpuppet case. There's a lot there but this is part of one of Wikipedia's largest and longest running long-term abuse cases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell - "Removing 10k characters of sourced prose from an article isn't vandalism?" No, it isn't. It wasn't the best way to deal with a content issue and was pretty stupid, but as my edit summaries and talk page comments show, it was exactly what Wikipedia:Vandalism says that vandalism is not. "I will not lift the block as I believe it necessary to prevent further vandalism." that is entirely up to you, and I agree the block calmed things down - wrong block, right outcome. "If anything, I might make it longer." again, that is your call - however, that would seem very much like an Admin who was very busy tagging everything as vandalism and blocking people, not looking carefully enough at the edits, having their mistaken claims of vandalism pointed out to them, and then not responding promptly as required by WP:ADMINACCT when asked about it. I have no desire to even look at the article in question again, I've said what I think on the subject and would rather work on other articles. But, if you think it's right to extend the block because you are upset that I criticized your judgement, then I won't complain. 136.158.59.173 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:136.158.59.173&oldid=1018783400"