User talk:24.195.205.252

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: sorry for the trickery but I was falsely accused of vandalizing the article on Antisemitism which makes me look really bad. When I deleted the comments I was bombarded with warnings saying that I was vandalizing a talk page even though wiki allows users to remove content from their own talk pages. Now that I know the policies of the site I need not result to trickery to remove inappropriate comments.

This is a page of an unregistered by choice user. Non-constructive comments from editors, especially ones using bots, may be subject to deletion without warning.

This page for an anonymous user has been subject to frequent vandalism and false warnings. Please refrain from personal attacks on this page.


[edit] Could everyone step back a little?

Hold on, everyone, please.

I never, ever, in my whole life thought I'd defend someone accused of vandalism, but I looked at this user's contributions when I saw the AIV notice, and I think everyone is escalating for no reason.

Sefringle's original warning was either misguided or a simple mistake; 24.195.205.252 added an NPOV tag to Antisemitism because of what appears to be a vandal edit, Sefringle reverted the vandalism and 24.195.205.252's tag, but then warned 24.195.205.252. I think Sefringle accidentally thought the vandalism was by 24.195.205.252. Ever since then, it has been an escalation or removing and re-adding warning notices.

24.195.205.252 has not actually vandalized ANY articles (see below); all edits are either legit, or revisions to this talk page.

The use of sockpuppets was wrong. The sudden use of a level 4 warning was wrong. But it's all just escalation with no underlying cause. Plus, when you get right down to it, I believe policy says you are discouraged from, but still allowed, to delete warnings from your talk page.

If both sides just let this die, I suspect everything will go away. --barneca (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry, my mistake, there was some minor vandalism to elephant articles in April, but 24.195.205.252 reverted it himself. Less angelic than I implied, perhaps, but still my main point still stands...--barneca (talk) 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the sanity Barneca 24.195.205.252 02:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I see you were blocked anyway; unfortunate, in my mind, but hard to argue with, given your use of sockpuppets. That kind of thing really sets everyone off here. It was kind of like watching a car wreck; I could see what was happening, but was powerless to prevent it. For some reason you weren't given a block notice; the block is for 72 hours. You can either: a. let the block expire and resume editing in three days (easiest, and it does allow for a cooling-off period), or contest the block by adding {unblock|your reason here}} to your talk page, and another uninvolved admin will see it and come by to review. Your apology above, combined with the unfortunate misunderstanding that started it, *might* get the block lifted early. three final notes: 1. Please don't blame sefringle; it looks to me an honest mistake; I've warned the wrong person myself before; 2. Please knock it off with the elephant edits; it made my look dumb when I saw them after defending you; and 3. *AFTER* your block is lifted, consider getting an account, and getting a 'fresh start'. --barneca (talk) 11:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for making you look bad, consider it a test edit by an new user. I don't blame anyone except those who warned me after I removed the mistaken comment.24.195.205.252 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)