User talk:Thebirdlover

Archives (Index)

2019/November 2020/February 2020/November 2023/May 2023/November 2024/April 2024/July 2024/August

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

User Claiming They Are Banned When They Are Not; Not Sure How to Address

User:Justcgi is claiming that they were community banned and banned by the WMF on their user page even though they don’t seem to be (unless they are some sort of sock puppet). I did not want to put a warning template, modify the userpage, and/or post to AN/I without checking because even though I am assuming it is against the rules, I cannot find a policy that explicitly forbids falsely claiming you are banned on your user page. Thebirdlover (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I found a template on Twinkle that addresses this and feel comfortable modifying the user page and putting a warning on their talk page now; please correct after looking at their user/talk page if I end up messing this up. --Thebirdlover (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what help you are requesting, so I've removed that template. The warning you've posted on Justcgi's talk page is fine - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 15:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if it was unclear what I was asking for, but I wanted to verify there was a policy that forbade users from claiming they were banned when they were not so I could address that situation appropriately--which it sounds like I did end up doing on my own. I was nervous if the user pressed me about it, I would not have a concrete policy that I could use to justify on why I took their fake "ban notice" away. Thanks for the info you were able to provide. --Thebirdlover (talk) 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of long marriages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Havre de Grace. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Just so you know (re intervention against vandalism)

At WP:AIV, all edits reporting vandals are reverted when the vandal is blocked. Later edits re-reporting those vandals are immediately reverted, on the assumption that more than one person has found the vandalism and made the report. Otherwise the page would expand to monstrous size within minutes. Not clear why you think your report in particular needs to stay up after the vandal has been dealt with, but that's what's happening. —VeryRarelyStable 05:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the main vandal accounts I reported are currently unblocked. I included the other two that were blocked to show that there is a trendline of sockpuppeteering occurring throughout multiple accounts so it is more obvious that the unblocked accounts with more recent activity should also be blocked. Because I marked them all under the vandal template, the bot did not realize that I was just including the two already blocked accounts to provide historical context on why these other accounts that are currently unblocked deserve to be blocked in one situation before violating an only warning and in another case without being warned at all. I have marked the already blocked accounts under the user template to prevent the bot from acting indiscriminately now. --Thebirdlover (talk) 05:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

The usual way to do that would be to submit a separate report for each vandal, with a much briefer description of their vandalism. "Historical context" is not required at AIV. Vandals who haven't been warned are unlikely to be blocked unless their vandalism is truly heinous, regardless of whether they "deserve" it – because blocking isn't a punishment, it's a preventative.

—VeryRarelyStable 06:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, but obvious abusive sock puppetry also isn't allowed under policy and I wanted to cite that this was the case. Are we supposed to warn every account that is obviously a quacking duck to stop doing behavior that we know they are actively under a block for? These accounts all have extremely obvious editing patterns of adding false information to animation articles. They have numerous edits that I can cite to justify this as well if need be. Not even including the accounts already blocked that I mentioned for context, one of the two listed accounts that is currently unblocked has been blocked two times already for similar edits--which yours truly was responsible for reporting. This is not asking for a punitive block, this is a trendline that was reported out on RPP among other places because a page needed to be protected due to this vandal. Thus, it is preventative not punitive, and I would suggest you look at the contributions of all of these accounts and actually read the evidence I wrote in AIV to see what I am referring to. With much respect, I feel you did not do this before messaging me. --Thebirdlover (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

And I was right because these two accounts did end up getting blocked after the fact. --Thebirdlover (talk) 17:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)