Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:11, 26 August 2020

Welcome!

Hi HistoryManUSA! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 01:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Thanks for the note, Emily. I've been editing without an account for many years, but I appreciate your "welcome" to the registered world. Would you mind clarifying what you mean when you say, "Please notify me after replying off my talk page"? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I want people to use {{reply to}} or {{U}} templates, which you did. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 22:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@I dream of horses: Got it. Thanks. HistoryManUSA (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Talk page range block

@Yamla: In the edit at this link, you wrote the following to one of my relatives whom I'd asked to appeal a range block that included her: "Continue like this and you'll see the block extended and you'll see talk page access revoked." She didn't know what you meant by the phrase "ontinue like this", and I don't either. Would you mind clarifying? HistoryManUSA (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I have blocked this account based on WP:MEAT. This is part of the 208.53.231.240, 208.53.224.161 group. --Yamla (talk) 01:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, and more specifically, 208.53.231.158 which was blocked for 2 weeks for "Clear history of wasting time over pointless questioning, revoking TPA on current IP but not range block for now. See /21 range block". --Yamla (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

HistoryManUSA, you are welcome to request an unblock. WP:GAB explains how to do so. You'll need to explain why you are proxying for someone blocked for inappropriate edits. --Yamla (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: The block log indicates that you're accusing me of block evasion. Do you understand that the two-week block of 208.53.231.158 expired ten days ago? Is that the block you're accusing me of evading? HistoryManUSA (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It is indeed, and I did do the math incorrectly (as an idiot, I figured the block expired on the 26th, not on the 16th). I will lift your block immediately. Note if you are the person behind those IP addresses, your edits have proven substantially problematic and you need to take a different approach going forward. The previously linked policies and guidelines should help you understand. --Yamla (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thanks for your response and for lifting the block, but I'm still hoping for several clarifications about your administrative actions. Would you mind clarifying what you meant by the phrase "ontinue like this" in the edit at this link? HistoryManUSA (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Making multiple, almost identical, unblock requests, especially across a number of IP addresses, is disruptive. When an unblock request is declined, you (third person) are expected to read why the prior unblock request was declined and make a request that addresses those concerns. Making exactly the same request, the same request that has already been declined, just wastes your (third person) and our time. Users who do this tend to have their talk page access revoked for the duration of the block. Let me know if any part of that was unclear, happy to answer follow-up questions. Compare these statements with your argument, above, that I had done the math incorrectly when blocking this account. That was a new and compelling argument (and, objectively correct). New and compelling arguments are exactly the sort of thing we do want to see in unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thanks for your response. Her initial request for an unblock was via UTRS. As can be seen at this link, the handling administrator asked her to post the request to her talk page. Almost immediately after she did so, for reasons unknown to us, our service provider removed her IP address from circulation. Because of the original range block, that left her with no way to remove the unblock request from the talk page at 208.53.224.161. She posted the request to her new talk page at 208.53.231.240 roughly five hours before you'd declined it on either page. Would you have advised her to handle the situation differently? HistoryManUSA (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

I would have advised her to reference the prior request. Although she was not trying to be abusive in this case (I fully accept this), this exact behaviour is generally used by abusive editors who are the target of a range block. Again, I'm not trying to lump her in there, just trying to provide some context. We frequently see people make identical or almost identical unblock requests for literally years, in some cases. In this particular case, the user was blocked for inappropriate behaviour, so IP-hopping to post identical unblock requests appeared to be more of the same. Again, this is for context, to explain why I warned the user not to continue making substantially identical unblock requests. --Yamla (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thanks for your response. Is a user who's made a declined unblock request generally allowed to respond inside the template box? HistoryManUSA (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

They should respond in a comment, like you are doing here. --Yamla (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: I think I'm almost done interrogating you, but would you say in hindsight that the edit at this link was an appropriate use of rollback? HistoryManUSA (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The timing is important there. They made an unblock request over on User talk:208.53.224.161 (that was subsequently declined). They made a duplicate request at User talk:208.53.231.240. In both cases, they essentially admitted to violating WP:MEAT. That request was also declined, with a warning not to continue in this vein. Rather than address the inappropriate edits, they asked a question unrelated to getting unblocked. I could have responded, I could have revoked talk page access and extended the block, I could have removed the comment, or I could have simply ignored it. I chose to remove the comment which I believed would deescalate the situation. It's plausible I misread the situation, but it's also plausible that user was simply trolling. Remember, they had been blocked for disruption, both disruption at WP:ANI and on talk pages. --Yamla (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Yamla: Thanks for responding. For the record, I'm the user who's been vaguely accused of disruption at WP:ANI and on talk pages. You just told me above that a user who's made a declined unblock request should respond in a comment outside the template box, and now you're saying the question was unrelated to getting unblocked. I'm pretty sure her question was directly related to getting unblocked. Before she could address any of my inappropriate edits, she'd need to know where to address those edits, not to mention what those edits were in the first place (which remains unexplained even now). Regarding WP:MEAT, I didn't recruit her to influence a decision or support my side of a debate. I just asked her to appeal the original range block. I would have appealed it myself, but when I tried, Misplaced Pages's UTRS software falsely accused me of attempting to spam the site. Do you have anything more you'd like to add to this discussion? HistoryManUSA (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2020 (UTC)