Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:03, 8 January 2011

In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law. –Dhammapada (1:5)

Thank you

Thanks for your input. I think you helped us both. Quarreling is such a drain on the system.

Thanks for restoring the block notice on the vandal's page.

I was questioned about my actions about that vandal. I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism, and I try to be very careful. (I see cases like this every day. This user was blocked after only a few minutes. But he was actually a vandalism-only tag teamer.) I am far more tolerant. I even keep a list on a desktop notepad of low-level vandals I have warned. I check up on them and drop them from list if they discontinue. Was I out of line in my judgement in the xxxtheproxxx case? I often need feedback on my actions to understand if I'm making the right call. I greatly value your opinion. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In regards to this thread, the current system of dealing with vandalism is maddening, but we have to wade through it the best we can. We shouldn't use a talk page notice on the user page to justify a vandalism warning. However, it was clear from the outset that this was a vandalism account. The mythology goes like this: some users may start off as vandals and become respectable editors. I don't know if it is true or not, but as the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, we have to sometimes give them the benefit of the doubt. You may find that talking with them instead of leaving template messages (or in addition to it) can offer more insight, as it encourages them to speak their mind and to interact with more experienced editors. Take it slow and let things work themselves out. Don't try to hurry things along, and you'll be just fine. Viriditas (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Alternate account

I was intrigued by your comments in AN/I. Can you clarify? ScottyBerg (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean without engaging in WP:OUTING? Well, the user has been around for many years now, and I'm very familiar with their editing habits, attitudes, writing style and unique vocabulary. All of their claims on ANI about not knowing who I am and about confusing them with someone else are completely false. The fact is, at least one administrator is fully aware of the real situation and watching it closely. That's about all I can tell you at the moment. However, many editors know who Jack really is, as his game is very poorly played. It's actually quite sad and pathetic to watch. My best advice for you is to stay away from him. I plan to do the same unless I see more of his nonsense on the noticeboards or on my watchlist. This guy is bad news, trust me. Viriditas (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh I believe you. I have no wish to "out" this account (and I'm not clear how that applies, unless he used his real name in the former account), but if policies on accounts are being violated then I think that they need to be enforced. The lack of an account history impedes dispute resolution, in the event that there is more problematic conduct that requires dispute resolution. ScottyBerg (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I know I am going to hate myself for getting into this conversation, but what admin presumably knows who "I really am"? I'd like to drop them a line and see who I am being confused with. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Jack, you aren't being "confused" with anyone. You simply haven't tried to hide, and linking you to your previous account, which got you into the same trouble you are in today, was very easy. Now, please, be on your way. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: SpikeToronto

— SpikeToronto 07:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)