User talk:GrazingshipIV
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hi. Please don't vandalize pages. You were a good contributor and I hope that you return as a legitimate editor. Vandalizing user pages (even when provoked) will just give your opponents ammunition to use against you. BTW, if you want your old user page and talk page restored, I'll go ahead and do it for you. 172 10:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is indeed getting harder and harder to work on this site, but I vouch for the fact that there still is some room to maneuver. Please come back. 172 11:05, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please be careful. While you were gone, a three revert rule enforcement was enacted allowing any administrator to block anyone making more than three reverts in 24 hour period. You have a lot to contribute here; so please don't fall into a trap that gets you blocked. 172 11:11, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Please stop reverting. This simply a bad strategy for fighting bigotry on Wikipedia. Follow the dispute resolution processes. Get these users arbitrated. Beat them in discussions on the talk pages. But doing things that'll get you automatically blocked within minutes with no discussion is a waste of time. 172
I'm outta here suckers! HA! GrazingshipIV 11:18, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
-
- I hope that you reconsider this decision. 172 11:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Eh, unless I'm missing something, all his contributions are vandalism. --SPUI 11:26, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
He left Wikipedia I think sometime around mid-2004 after having been driven off by people like the user whose page he'd just vandalized and requested that his page be deleted. Since only admins can view deleted pages, his user history can only be viewed by admins. (That's why I asked him about having his pages undeleted.) 172 11:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- The fact that 172 would stand up for such an individual signifigantly reduces my opinion of him, and saddens me. User:GrazingshipIV well illustrated the concept that users who do more harm than good should leave the project. He did far more harm than good, and chose to leave rather than be banned. Good riddence. Example (talk · contribs) 13:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
-
- Standing up as in asking him to cease from vandalism and to channel his past grievences rationally, in accordance with policy? I strongly suspect that had this been the reverse case, Sam Spade would be acting much as 172 did – because clearly he is an 'inclusionist' for the right only, whereas 172 is one for the left. We can probably do without all this innuendo to conclude this very minor saga, but I suppose that's a part of this whole dynamic, too. El_C 14:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- I'm an inclusionist on a case by case basis. I favor cutting slack to users of all stripes that are knowledgeable and contribute factual content. For example, I stated support for TDC a few times. [1] During the Arbcom race, I also spoke out against sanctions against both VeryVerily and Shorne. 172 16:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify (because my comment was rather overgeneralized), the observation I made is limited to the type of interaction you had with this user, etc., I was not questioning (yet!) either of youres impartiality as editors, or in your case, also administrator. Both you and Sam will (for lack of a better term) 'take under your wing' and try to reform (to various extents, yes, on a case by case basis, I'm sure) users from the centre-leftwards or from the centre-rightwards (in his case, I would cite user:Wheeler; a user like Shorne, for example, would be unimaginable; and vice versa) – which is fine, I'm just saying, let's be honest about this. Naturally, there are degrees of standing up for/taking users under one's wing, on a case-by-case basis, sure. Hope that helps to clear my point. El_C
- I'm an inclusionist on a case by case basis. I favor cutting slack to users of all stripes that are knowledgeable and contribute factual content. For example, I stated support for TDC a few times. [1] During the Arbcom race, I also spoke out against sanctions against both VeryVerily and Shorne. 172 16:47, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Standing up as in asking him to cease from vandalism and to channel his past grievences rationally, in accordance with policy? I strongly suspect that had this been the reverse case, Sam Spade would be acting much as 172 did – because clearly he is an 'inclusionist' for the right only, whereas 172 is one for the left. We can probably do without all this innuendo to conclude this very minor saga, but I suppose that's a part of this whole dynamic, too. El_C 14:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
