User talk:Standard Operating Procedure
Question
[edit]Hi! Your edits seem to indicate that this is not your primary Wikipedia account. We try to avoid using multiple accounts without a good reason; can you clarify? What is your primary account? I've blocked the account for now, because the area of Palestine is such a volatile topic that I don't want to risk giving free rein to a blocked user. However, if this is a legitimate second account, please feel free to use the {{unblock|your reason here}} template to request unblocking when you've clarified the situation. Thanks! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- Is it common practice to ban new users just because they edit volatile topics? I was under the impression something more along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty" was in place. Breein1007 (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't why I blocked this account- his edits make it clear that he is not a new user to Wikipedia, and that he's already involved in a conflict with a specific other editor. This block doesn't have to be permanent; if there's a good explanation for why he needs this second account, though, he does need to make that clearer. My experience tells me that a brand new editor making edits like these is nearly always already blocked under another user name, but I'm open to the possibility that this user has a different reason for needing a second account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not debating that. I just didn't think it was standard procedure to block users based on suspicion but no solid evidence. I know that this is certainly never done when the anti-Israel trolls come in with their socks. They are allowed to edit with "free rein" on a consistent basis, until it is confirmed that they are a sock at which point they are of course banned. Anyway, I'm not really arguing anything here. Just thought I'd point out the blatant one-sidedness of the bureaucracy, which isn't a new trend at all. Breein1007 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know you, your history, or your issues. I don't have Palestine or Israel on my watchlist. I made a single, fairly obvious block. If you're looking for a place to discuss blatant one-sidedness, I'm not the person to help you with that discussion, and the obscure talk page of a blocked user isn't the place to have it. I've been here long enough to know that people on both sides complain that the other side is treated with favoritism, and that there'll never be a shortage of people from crappy countries I'd never consider visiting trying to fight their inane national conflicts on Wikipedia. The only 'side' I take on that is that they're all equally irritating. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that you think of these countries as "crappy" really sheds great light on your ignorance. Israel is one of the most developed nations of the world... not the 3rd world desert scene you likely imagine. But I digress. This is a whole new topic, and as you said, this talk page is the wrong place to discuss such things! Breein1007 (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know you, your history, or your issues. I don't have Palestine or Israel on my watchlist. I made a single, fairly obvious block. If you're looking for a place to discuss blatant one-sidedness, I'm not the person to help you with that discussion, and the obscure talk page of a blocked user isn't the place to have it. I've been here long enough to know that people on both sides complain that the other side is treated with favoritism, and that there'll never be a shortage of people from crappy countries I'd never consider visiting trying to fight their inane national conflicts on Wikipedia. The only 'side' I take on that is that they're all equally irritating. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not debating that. I just didn't think it was standard procedure to block users based on suspicion but no solid evidence. I know that this is certainly never done when the anti-Israel trolls come in with their socks. They are allowed to edit with "free rein" on a consistent basis, until it is confirmed that they are a sock at which point they are of course banned. Anyway, I'm not really arguing anything here. Just thought I'd point out the blatant one-sidedness of the bureaucracy, which isn't a new trend at all. Breein1007 (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, that isn't why I blocked this account- his edits make it clear that he is not a new user to Wikipedia, and that he's already involved in a conflict with a specific other editor. This block doesn't have to be permanent; if there's a good explanation for why he needs this second account, though, he does need to make that clearer. My experience tells me that a brand new editor making edits like these is nearly always already blocked under another user name, but I'm open to the possibility that this user has a different reason for needing a second account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)