User talk:CLCStudent/Archive 198
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | Archive 198 | Archive 199 | Archive 200 | → | Archive 205 |
Disproportionate warning levels
Hi CLCStudent. I notice that you left a level 3 warning on User talk:2A01:4C8:C45:2528:D4AB:6DBC:27B7:AA36 even though the IP only made one edit. Could you please explain this? I also notice that others have inquired about this on your talk page as well. I look forward to hearing from you. Woerich (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was clear to me that editor did not intend to contribute constructively. CLCStudent (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- That may be so, but my understanding is that warnings should escalate even when the vandalism is obvious, and that more severe first warnings should be reserved for especially egregious cases. Leaving a level 3 or “final” warning after one edit just seems like a rush to block an IP that may be used by more than one person. Woerich (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, your talk page is at this point filled with tons of different editors all saying pretty much the same thing about this. If you want to continue jumping to such severe warnings for first infractions, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings and other relevant forums to try to establish a consensus to change the way the user warning system works. Otherwise, please respect the established norms. Sdkb (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- The norms are not set policies. CLCStudent (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- They're not, but as an experienced contributor, you are expected to abide by consensuses wherever they are formed. The fact that consensuses about things like when it's appropriate to use a given level user warning are harder to enforce doesn't make them any less valid, or your choice to to disregard them any less detrimental to the project. Sdkb (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
- The norms are not set policies. CLCStudent (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- CLCStudent, your talk page is at this point filled with tons of different editors all saying pretty much the same thing about this. If you want to continue jumping to such severe warnings for first infractions, I suggest you go to Wikipedia:WikiProject User warnings and other relevant forums to try to establish a consensus to change the way the user warning system works. Otherwise, please respect the established norms. Sdkb (talk) 18:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- That may be so, but my understanding is that warnings should escalate even when the vandalism is obvious, and that more severe first warnings should be reserved for especially egregious cases. Leaving a level 3 or “final” warning after one edit just seems like a rush to block an IP that may be used by more than one person. Woerich (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- It was clear to me that editor did not intend to contribute constructively. CLCStudent (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with accelerated warnings. It violates no community standards or norms and is done by hundreds of editors each and every day. Personally. whem people show up on my talk page demanding I follow their norms, I tell them to save their advice for those who request it, and if they they have a valid complaint to take it to ANI or drop it. CLC has 8 times the number edits as Sdkb. A new editor asked a valid question and was given a good answer by the editor assigned this talk. For an editor with considerably less experience to jump in and argue with him about it looks, at best, petty (especially when they are completely wrong). At worst, it's disruptive and or harassment. Woerich, CLC gave you a good answer. Sdkb's statements are baseless and can be ignored. John from Idegon (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
I've been watching out for disruptive edits and if you look carefully at the edit history of the articles that were vandalised you can see pattern of similar (misguided at best or) disruptive edits, that appear to be related. Also the anon ipv6 editor was literally asking for it. -- 109.76.130.243 (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)