User talk:ChildrenWillListen: Difference between revisions

Archives

Hello, ChildrenWillListen. I just wanted to thank you for letting me know about the closed revert. And I understand that my page was protected, but my page had to be protected from non-autoconfirmed users due to sockpuppets from DiscoveryTeenHD harrassing me. Again thank you for the message. 98.235.155.81 (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can always create an account to avoid this, of course. Your IP is unusually static. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 16:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why it was removed? Phehlukwayo (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Phehlukwayo: If you mean this edit, it’s because you tried adding a spam link, which isn’t allowed for obvious reasons. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 04:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: ??? Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts exactly, looking at [1] ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildrenWillListen, I was surprised to see this block, but what on earth did you think you were doing on that article? Why didn’t you just wait for an admin to block the IP? — asilvering (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, looking at the timestamps again, and with this rather clear clarification that this was prohibited good-faith behavior that additionally fed a troll, it’s so unlikely that you’d continue or would repeat it on other pages that I can unblock right away. I also see that the first edits to their talk page were vandalism, but WP:UP#CMT exists and throwing an edit warring warning, of all possible messages, an edit warring warning! on their page in this fashion is absurdly beyond the options. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

throwing an edit warring warning, of all possible messages, an edit warring warning!: I didn’t even know that happened. When I enabled the script, the user was modifying warnings from other users (example), so I reverted their edits there. I don’t care if people remove warnings from their userpage, and I don’t recall ever edit warring those back in. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:11, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that one. It’s a script I created to revert vandals as soon as they edit a certain page; it’s meant for abusers like Salebot1 and others who rapidly vandalize articles or game permissions. I ran it on their talk page and went on to do other things, and it seems they just kept reverting over and over again. I realized this was happening for too long and shut it down. I also never realized this can be construed as edit warring (per WP:3RRNO), but I know better now and would not do that again, and remove that feature from my script just in case (and perhaps get rollback removed since it has clearly got me in trouble, just not the way I think it would.) Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 06:45, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did think for a moment about revoking rollback but I don’t think doing so would benefit either you or the encyclopedia. You would, however, have to request approval for such automation outside of your own userspace and without manual supervision. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also disclose of having used a script to rollback all edits by Spare account 1143546781 per WP:BANREVERT. I don’t think I ever used used rollback at all besides through those two scripts, and I’d like to have it revoked for now. I’ll request the perms somewhere if I ever need it again. Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 07:07, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may like to use rollback as a server-sided, fast alternative to Twinkle’s red VANDAL rollback link or similar things provided by other tools. For Twinkle, CSS for removing the red link is at User:ToBeFree/common.css. Revoking the permission, uh … from my side, not directly after the block and unblock today. It would feel too much like a forced revocation / delayed penalty. If you have thought about this for a few days and noone did it yet, feel free to ping/notify me about it again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Ah, one thing regarding 3RRNO, this is a rare case where not even reverting a banned user would be justification enough, as even banned users are allowed to edit their own talk page, not just for filing an appeal but at least also for removing read messages. It may be arguable whether someone whose account is blocked is allowed to edit their IP’s talk page and whether that depends on still having access to the account. But that’s a rather academic discussion as what happened there was simply pointlessly disruptive independently of the edit warring policy.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, reverting gaming edits does not do anything to stop them. What matters is their edit count as shown on the contributions page. Seercat3160 (talk) 07:10, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend reading Wikipedia:Don’t edit-war with vandals or sockpuppets to understand the downsides of such an approach. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bsilvering (talk) 11:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]