Active talk page discussions

Knock it off

This isn't acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be so hostile, it was a single edit. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said to knock it off, rather than drop a {{uw-vand4im}} or something. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it came across stronger than you intended it. I didn't have the intention of making more than one such edit. :) TurboSuperA+_[talk] 17:52, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If a friendly warning doesn't get across the point that vandalism is wrong, the standard remedy for an experienced editor who vandalizes is a short deterrent block. I have blocked this account for 24 hours. Please don't do that again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin Your block is punitive, not preventative. What in my post made you think I was going to do it again? Please remove the block. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The part where you think there was something wrong with SFR warning you for vandalism. You seem to be under the impression that you are allowed to vandalize politically sensitive content as long as you, what, don't edit-war once you're reverted? Come on. If you dislike that you have been blocked, then that means the block is serving its purpose at deterring you from vandalizing in the future. Come back in 24 hours, never do that again, and this can all be a one-off lapse in judgment. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They already said they didn't intend to do it again, I agree that this seems punitive and not preventative, which is against WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. Please reverse yourself. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They said they didn't intend to "mak[e] more than one such edit", referring to the vandalism that SFR reverted. They didn't say they didn't intend to vandalize again, and in fact communicated the exact opposite by failing to understand why they were being told "knock it off" after vandalizing a high-profile politically sensitive article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:30, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're escalating this. SFR already dealt with it, and clearly didn't believe it was block-worthy. I think there is understandable frustration with what happened today, and a lapse in judgement is just that, a lapse. There's no need to pile on to it with a punitive block that isn't preventing anything that wasn't already addressed. Where is the imminent risk to the project in leaving them unblocked? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They said they didn't intend to "mak[e] more than one such edit", referring to the vandalism that SFR reverted. They didn't say they didn't intend to vandalize again

Yes, saying that I "intended to do only one such edit" (referring to the edit that was reverted) means that I intended to do that one edit and no more. Where are you reading that I communicated that I intend to vandalise again? I never said such a thing nor implied it. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin WP:BLOCKP says: deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior My edit was over 24 hours ago. This is clearly a punitive block for absolutely no other reason than to punish. Nothing in my post says that I think vandalism is OK, nor that I will do it again.

The part where you think there was something wrong with SFR warning you for vandalism.

I never said there was something wrong, I said it was "hostile", as in, the tone was hostile, when it could have been said in a more pleasant way. I don't think your block was necessary or warranted, especially since I have edited since and not vandalised any pages. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:25, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not in the mood to explain to an experienced editor why a 24-hour block is an unremarkable response to unrepentant vandalism. The mature thing to do here is accept the consequences of your actions and serve your 24 hours like every other vandal. Otherwise, please see the guide to appealing blocks. I have no further comments on this unless asked as part of an appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 05:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I briefly considered adding a passage to WP:NPOV stating that a certain article was exempt from neutrality, but I thought better of it. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 04:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

TurboSuperA+ (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for vandalism 24 hours after I had already received (and acknowledged reception of) a warning on my Talk page. Tamzin said the block was a "deterrent", but WP:BLOCKP clearly states that a deterrent block is for continuation of present, disruptive behavior. The behaviour did not continue (it was a single edit) and the behaviour was not present, as the edit was made over 24 hours before the block. I believe this to be a punitive and not a preventative block. The justification for it isn't very good because Tamzin claims that I "communicated" that I intended to do it again when I actually wrote the opposite. I wrote that I had no "intention of making more than one such edit" and the warning I received was enough of a deterrent, as evidenced by the fact that I edited since the warning and did not vandalise again. TurboSuperA+_[talk] 05:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I also see Tamzin's block as punitive rather than preventative. Normally I'd discuss with Tamzin before unblocking, but since they have already responded to concerns, e.g. from Giraffer, and the block is so short as not to leave much room for prolonged discussion, I have simply unblocked. Points: 1. I do believe that Turbo made it clear that they had no intention of vandalising again: if not 100% here, then definitely here. 2. ScottishFinnishRadish, an experienced and respected admin, had seen the same vandalism and elected to warn, not block. Blocking after that was an escalation. 3. Firefangledfeathers has requested "a comment [from Turbo] that convincingly explains that they understand the severity of their conduct" as a condition for unblock. I disagree: we don't require grovelling. Bishonen | tålk 12:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, thoughts on an unblock? I think the point has been made and they aren't likely to repeat the behavior, at least for the remaining duration of the block. FWIW if the behavior does repeat itself I think we would be looking at a much longer preventative block. Giraffer (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda see where Tamzin is coming from. Saying they didn't intend to repeat the same edit isn't a statement that they don't intend to vandalize again, or at least not a statement that they don't intend to express personal political viewpoints in articles again. Maybe the point has been made now, but a clear statement would be nice. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the point has been made. The point will be made when the block expires after 24 hours, a normal amount of time for first-offense vandalism. What point would we make by unblocking when they're still dodging accountability and trying to wikilawyer their way around a cause⇒effect consequence so simple that most middle schoolers vandalizing during Computer Lab know it? The opposite point, of course: Doing this is fine and if you do it again it'll probably be fine too. That is not a point I would like to make. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would absolutely want to see an acknowledgement of accountability and a commitment not to repeat it before I would unblock, but I wanted to see what your thoughts on unblocking at all were vs. leaving it to expire (hell, it's only a day). I am struggling slightly to see why a 24 hour block is better than say, an indef: the problem here is not going to expire with the block. Giraffer (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An indef would only be necessary if we thought a tempblock was insufficient to prevent further vandalism. I am reasonably confident that spending the normal 24 hours blocked for vandalism will adequately convince this user not to vandalize again, that being unblocked will convince them that politically-sensitive vandalism is no big deal, and that indeffing them would be excessive. This is the basic principle underlying blocks as deterrence. It's why we do short tempblocks for first-offense vandalism, edit-warring, mild-to-moderate personal attacks, etc. The inconvenience of the experience and the implied threat of longer blocks in the future make people think twice before doing it again. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 11:56, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tamzin is right to be concerned that TSA+'s response to the warning might indicate a willingness to repeat the vandalism. I'm overexplaining what is more of a quick judgment than a set of logical steps, but it's something like:

TSA+ engages in severe vandalism
SFR responds with a very mild warning
TSA+ says the act won't be repeated, but also says the warning was too hostile
Since my understanding of the warning (very mild) compared to the act (severe) doesn't match TSA+'s, I wonder why
Perhaps TSA+ view the act less seriously than I do
Perhaps TSA+ will repeat the act, since they are misunderstanding its severity

I would be fine with letting the block expire naturally, and I'd be fine with an unblock if they make a comment that convincingly explains that they understand the severity of their conduct. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:15, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen: Well I'm glad someone's sticking up for unapologetic politically-motivated vandals. Hope you'll be around to block this asshole next time they decide to make a mockery of the encyclopedia for their own cheap thrills. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tamzin, if I saw this text posted anywhere on Wikipedia I would consider blocking (you) without warning. And you should not act as administrator in the area you are so much emotionally invested. Please disengage now and switch to smth else, otherwise this is not going to end well. I think Bishonen made a good decision, and let us stop here. Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're completely right, @Ymblanter. The only thing I'll say in my defense is that I wasn't emotional when I made the block; I got emotional afterward. But that makes no difference as to the propriety of my comment, which was unacceptable. I apologize to Turbo for the personal attack and to @Bishonen for the very uncollegial language. I'd like to say more on this but I accept that I've tainted anything I might have to say, and will fully withdraw from this matter unless asked to comment on ADMINACCT grounds. If y'all are curious about what's going on with me that led to this outburst, you're welcome to see this section on my talkpage, but I'm not trying to make any excuses here, and y'all are of course welcome to not care at all what was causing me to be a dick. Again, my apologies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all is well what ends well. By "emotional investment" I actually meant that you started the AfD with the proposal which we should not discuss here but it is important to notice that it is highly unconventional, meaning you feel strongly about the subject. And TurboSuperA+ vandalized the article related to the same case. This is of course not a COI situation, but in such cases it is better to have someone else done the job. I hope this is all resolved now, have a nice day. Ymblanter (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm glad you're showing me and my opinions so much respect, Tamzin, and in the course of calling an editor an asshole, too. Good work. Bishonen | tålk 13:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

User talk:TurboSuperA+

Archives

Active talk page discussions

Knock it off

Unblock request