User talk:Senderspace

Placing a high level block warning on a user's page in response to a single incident of vandalism, as you did on User talk:24.39.224.202, is not appropriate. I have replaced your warning with a more appropriate notification. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, and thanks. Does the user's "abuse clock" reset after an interval? The user in question has a pattern of vandalism -- and it seems, only vandalism -- going back months, but he or she gets a new escalation of warnings starting from zero?  Thanks again.  --Senderspace 17:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I do realize that the talk page in question has a 'might be blocked without warning' note at the top -- I'm at the higher end of the spectrum with regard to tolerating sporadic vandalism ... there are other administrators who would block this anon-ip without any hesitation (a one week block commenced 30 Nov and has since expired). As for resetting the clock - the IP in question is part of the RoadRunner network and it is rather difficult from my perspective to determine if the IP is part of a pool or static.  If it is part of a pool, it might be recycled for use by multiple people over time, which means that a new bout of vandalism from the IP might come from either a different person or from the same person but after the use of the IP address has cycled through several other people.  Looking back through the edits there have only been two or three of the last 50 that could be considered non-vandalous good-faith edits ... which nonetheless suggests the potential for good editing to emerge from the IP over time.  The reason why I left the message on your talk page is that I see soooo many people jumping right to putting block warnings in place without working up through the warning hierarchy (and there is a multi-level severity hierarchy); much experience (not my own) indicates that use of the full hierarchy often leads to a much reduced need to block editors, and reduction in blocking is to be desired as the end is not to punish the editor but to protect Wikipedia.  A long winded explanation, but you certainly deserved details of my thinking after the rather terse message I placed here. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 17:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the details -- it makes a lot of sense. It's true, I read a lot into the dire warning at the top of the user page promising hair-trigger doom at any moment should another bout of vandalism occur.  I like the idea of incapacitation rather than retribution (or deterrence) as the reason to place a block. --Senderspace 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)