~2026-11192-80
February 2026
edit
Hello, I'm ESkog. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of oldest higher-learning institutions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of oldest higher-learning institutions. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, your edits are vandalism. It is not productive to have a list article start with an incorrect statement that the universities listed do not count as universities. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:28, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Of course they count as universities, that's the point, but you pretend your encyclopedia is not a harbinger of white supremacy by having an article listing only the white ones as "oldest continuous" as if the non white ones that are older do not count or must be segregated. For ALL THE WORLD to see. ~2026-11192-80 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- The introductory text at List of oldest universities in continuous operation explains why the current distinction is being made. You will find considerable discussion of the question at that article's Talk page and its archives, and you'd be more than welcome to participate in that ongoing conversation. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Of course they count as universities, that's the point, but you pretend your encyclopedia is not a harbinger of white supremacy by having an article listing only the white ones as "oldest continuous" as if the non white ones that are older do not count or must be segregated. For ALL THE WORLD to see. ~2026-11192-80 (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:ESkog. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Sugar Tax (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User_talk:~2026-11192-80. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Patchesthesnake (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I already started an ANI thread, he's far past his 4th. MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
Block Duration
editAm I crazy, or is one day not enough time? pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 18:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Agreed, brought up with blocking admin. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:19, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks. Let me know how it goes, if you'd be so kind. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:23, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Also agree. MossOnALogTalk 19:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Its a temp account on an IP address. IP address will likely change, so a longer block on a temp account isn't going to result in anything other than block an IP for the next editor who happens to be assigned it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Better safe than sorry though, right? They could literally just come back to this IP and keep doing the same stuff. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- When blocking we need to take into account the possibility of collateral damage, and we don't just block IPs for extended periods to be better safe than sorry. If they come back from the IP with this kind of edit, we'll block the IP longer. You need a good justification to block an IP for longer, like evidence its static to the disruptive editor. The other edits on the IP range are perfectly value, not disruptive, so there's no reason to assume they'd come back on this particular one. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the IP duration is fine, but why not block the temp for longer? I understand it may be easy to get around, but I think it is supposed to also set a precedent. Like if this person ever does create an account, without this discussion, would they truly know at first that this was an infraction that would normally lead to an indefinite block? Not to mention blocking the temp (not the IP), will almost certainty not lead to collateral damage. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Still getting used to the Temp accounts and what does and doesn't need to be blocked. I have zero objections to others increasing it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I've changed to indef. I treat the TAs the same as I would registered accounts as far as duration goes, there's no downside to doing so, and these edits were egregious. -- Ponyobons mots 20:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Still getting used to the Temp accounts and what does and doesn't need to be blocked. I have zero objections to others increasing it. Canterbury Tail talk 20:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- I think the IP duration is fine, but why not block the temp for longer? I understand it may be easy to get around, but I think it is supposed to also set a precedent. Like if this person ever does create an account, without this discussion, would they truly know at first that this was an infraction that would normally lead to an indefinite block? Not to mention blocking the temp (not the IP), will almost certainty not lead to collateral damage. – LuniZunie(talk) 19:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- When blocking we need to take into account the possibility of collateral damage, and we don't just block IPs for extended periods to be better safe than sorry. If they come back from the IP with this kind of edit, we'll block the IP longer. You need a good justification to block an IP for longer, like evidence its static to the disruptive editor. The other edits on the IP range are perfectly value, not disruptive, so there's no reason to assume they'd come back on this particular one. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Better safe than sorry though, right? They could literally just come back to this IP and keep doing the same stuff. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 19:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)
- Its a temp account on an IP address. IP address will likely change, so a longer block on a temp account isn't going to result in anything other than block an IP for the next editor who happens to be assigned it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:32, 19 February 2026 (UTC)