User talk:Grewia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 21:25, 1 January 2015 editGrewia (talk \| contribs)59 edits →January 2015: r← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:45, 1 January 2015 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,052 edits →January 2015: comments and affirmed warningNext edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:{{reply\|Bbb23}} I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations '''before''' being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the {{t\|Socksuspectnotice}} template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. ] (]) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)		:{{reply\|Bbb23}} I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations '''before''' being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the {{t\|Socksuspectnotice}} template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. ] (]) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
			::There was a time when it was ''optional'' to notify users when opening an SPI, although, even then, not encouraged. That option was removed from the instructions. I don't warn editors who open an SPI and notify the user(s) because there is still some confusion about this issue, but ''you'' are not opening an SPI. You are apparently championing the cause of the accused, both in your notifications and in your procedural comments. My warning stands. If you persist, I will block you.--] (]) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:45, 1 January 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Grewia, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Please stop notifying users of SPIs that have been opened against them. You're not even the editor who opened the SPI. Also, please stop commenting on SPIs about procedure. It doesn't matter whether what you say is correct. There's no reason for you to do so, again in cases that you haven't even initiated. Consider this a warning that if you persist in this unusual WP:SPA-like preoccupation with SPIs, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing. You're a new user unless you have other accounts you've used in the past. Go do something more constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations before being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the {{Socksuspectnotice}} template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. Grewia (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

There was a time when it was optional to notify users when opening an SPI, although, even then, not encouraged. That option was removed from the instructions. I don't warn editors who open an SPI and notify the user(s) because there is still some confusion about this issue, but you are not opening an SPI. You are apparently championing the cause of the accused, both in your notifications and in your procedural comments. My warning stands. If you persist, I will block you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:25, 1 January 2015 editGrewia (talk \| contribs)59 edits →January 2015: r← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:45, 1 January 2015 edit undoBbb23 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators271,052 edits →January 2015: comments and affirmed warningNext edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:

	:{{reply\|Bbb23}} I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations '''before''' being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the {{t\|Socksuspectnotice}} template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. ] (]) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)		:{{reply\|Bbb23}} I have only added those notifications where I believe the users may not be aware that they have been accused. You did not say what you think the harm is, so have not justified your intimidatory warning. I know of several users who were glad to have the chance to rebut and disprove the accusations '''before''' being inevitably, but unjustly, blocked. Please supply a convincing reason for why not to forewarn accused users. Surely it's better to give them a chance to defend themselves before, rather then after, any block. After all, what is the {{t\|Socksuspectnotice}} template for, if not for notifying the accused. And there is no mention in its documentation that it should not be used for that purpose. ] (]) 21:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
			::There was a time when it was ''optional'' to notify users when opening an SPI, although, even then, not encouraged. That option was removed from the instructions. I don't warn editors who open an SPI and notify the user(s) because there is still some confusion about this issue, but ''you'' are not opening an SPI. You are apparently championing the cause of the accused, both in your notifications and in your procedural comments. My warning stands. If you persist, I will block you.--] (]) 21:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)