Revert warring with a user on their user talk page
. Don't ever do that unless you are an admin or supporting an admin in maintaining a necessary block notice. That's the only time I've seen it's allowable to revert a user from blanking comment on their talk page.
I've reverted alteration of my comments, that's a different matter, alteration actively distorts the record. I've also probed or questioned partial archiving, where a user archives the page, but leaves out what he doesn't want visible in the archive, thus hiding the action underneath archiving. You-know-who did that, he's the only user I've seen push these limits. I addressed it by putting critical information in the edit summary, where it would remain visible, at least for a while. Experienced users, dealing with the disruptive, learn not to trust the archives as being complete. --Abd (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- I am very sorry Abd, thank you for trying to help me here, I remember from your talk page with Telecom, and didn't keep that in mind. thanks! --~ Goldenburg111 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
About two months ago, a message was left on my talk page in regards to a 2009 comment made on my page. I am replying to this comment now:
- It's obvious that you guys haven't stop, see meta:User:Goldenburg111/Reports/Wikiquote Vandalism Statics. --Goldenburg111 19:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being accused of actions that are not mine. I attempted to contact the vandal to make them stop; but no such luck, and that was back in 2009. They said they would continue this behavior but for no apparent reason except for the fact that they were bored. I am sick and tired of being accused of having anything to do with this idiot. Please in the future, refrain from mentioning me at all in any of these vandalism notations; I suggest you pull another checkuser on the few hundred or so names that I compiled which were harassing me at the time. I barely come here now, and that's a clear result of being harassed at a systematic basis by this very same user who is responsible for over 300 accounts. None of the admins did anything about this; but rather, neglected my plea and ignored the truth of the matter; I put forth many summaries notating all the instances where this user repeatedly vandalized my talk page, my contributions, and furthermore, my own user name by creating similar usernames and going about in a childish infantile behavior. - Zarbon (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Zarbon, simmer down. I don't think Goldenburg intended to accuse you of anything, he just used "you guys" to refer to the vandal(s). He has been trying to help. Yes, vandalism can be irritating, but there is almost no way to completely prevent it, long-term. Saying that administrators do nothing simply isn't true. Your talk page was indefinitely semi-protected. YODO was blocked by a global sysop on request from Goldenburg. He's off the block now, but no new vandalism has appeared using that account. You are, here, complaining, but not pointing to anything specific other than Goldenburgs minor error. However, looking back, I find . Many accounts have been blocked and locked. Claiming that a vandal is childish is completely useless. It just encourages them to vandalize more. See w:WP:RBI. That's about the best you can do.
- Goldenburg, you mentioned the IP block exemption right in that discussion. I don't know if you have realized this, but this doesn't give the holder of the right to anything other than an immunity to IP blocks. I.e., say a user is using access that is included in some IP block or range-block, and it's hard block (not a soft block that only will block anonymous users). If this stops a legitimate user from editing, one if the possible solutions is to grant the blocked user "IP block exemption." There are no "IP block exemption-ers" except for any admin, who may grant that privilege. Only three Wikiquote users have this exemption, none are active, and one appears to have never been active. That account has only 5 edits cross-wiki, only to enwiki. I have my suspicion about what happened, but the granting user left almost no clue in the record. I hope you are well. --188.8.131.52 20:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)