To help relax and find some comfort during the whack-a-mole sockmashing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for the great work updating and expanding the Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot article. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See this section. Thank you.Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort. Personally, I've been amused by and enjoying the desperation with which Defeedme continues to cry for attention, but I would probably feel differently if I were an admin that had to deal with his nonsense. Honestly, it's a good thing that I'm not an admin because I would probably just block every single range of IPs that he's been using for the next 3 years. That might be overkill. Wes sideman (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate the time. Wes sideman (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Killing of Tyre Nichols, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. 021120x (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@021120x: You should probably take a look at this before you post on my talk page again. In fact, on second thought, don't post to my talk page again, please. Ever. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wes sideman. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 09:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the ANI thread. Most of the complaints by the block-evading IP were barely comprehensible but I wanted to give you some advice because if an editor in good standing had taken the time to put together a case at WP:AE, you could have found yourself in hot water. Please be more aware of how you conduct yourself in controversial topic areas, especially when discussions start to get heated. Please also take extra special care when writing about living people. Note that if an editor's conduct consistently or egregiously falls below the standard expected, the Contentious Topic procedures (which apply to BLPs and post-1992 American politics) allow administrators to unilaterally impose blocks, topic bans, or other restrictions as necessary. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:25, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @HJ Mitchell:. I have to point out one thing - the only edit I made to a BLP wasn't even on an article that the reporting editor had worked on, and THAT edit was quickly and very amicably resolved here. I took Larry's points and agreed with him. The two pro-right-wing editors looking to impose their POV somewhere else just tacked that on to make me look bad. Wes sideman (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same also works in reverse. If you want to make a case that their editing is disruptive, you can make your case at ANI or WP:AE and it'll be evaluated. Both have been informed of the CTOP procedures. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really interested in reporting them. I was surprised by the ANI attack, because they had indicated that they would take my advice and start an RfC. My belief is that they both knew they'd be alone in pushing their right-wing-influenced POV and the RfC would go heavily against their preferred text - so they chose to attempt an attack on me personally instead. Wes sideman (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've been given good advice. You need to tone it down. It's clear these two editors work together, but so do other editors with differing views. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. See this section. Thank you. OgamD218 (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Above, I advised you about your conduct in areas designated contentious topics. Since then, you've continued to accuse other editors of misconduct but have refused to file an enforcement request or present evidence, so as an uninvolved admin, I am imposing the following restriction in accordance with the contentious topics procedure:

You are topic-banned from the subject of abortion, broadly construed, for seven days or 100 edits (whichever comes last). Your next 100 edits need to be unconnected to abortion and edits in your own userspace do not count.

If you violate this restriction, you will be blocked. You can appeal it in accordance with the appeals process. Note that this is a very mild sanction. I hope you'll take the week and the hundred edits to remember that there is a lot more to Wikipedia than one argument. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]