User talk:Widr/Archive 48

Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50→Archive 55

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Against vandals, the two of us go hand-in-hand. Here's to an awesome administrator that helps EX-TER-MIN-ATE those vandals. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Widr (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Buttman69style

Hi, I happened to notice this:

23:43, 26 February 2017 Widr (talk | contribs) deleted page User talk:Buttman69style (Mass deletion of pages added by Buttman69style)

Did you mean to delete the user's talk page? I would have thought such pages would be kept whether the user in question is a vandal or not. — Smjg (talk) 23:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, in this case it doesn't do much harm, so I have restored it. Widr (talk) 00:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User talk:2601:988:0:FE:540E:F36E:8BFE:61BD

Could you revoke talk access here, blatant inappropriate use. Home Lander (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Questionable AIV case

I'm not sure if User:204.184.29.226 was reported correctly to AIV. They were improperly warned by the reporting party, and a check of the edit filter log showed that only one filter was tripped today. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 17:42, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: Boomer Vial and I are discussing this on my talkpage... 172.58.41.130 (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Lots of IPs added to AIV at once

Was it wrong to do this? [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=767929352&oldid=767929282 ] — I saw an IP adding 20 or so IPs to AIV, and some of them hadn't edited for a while, so I assumed it was spam. But then I saw you and others blocking some of them, so now I'm not sure. Feel free to revert my revert. P.S. Why does it usually say something like “this user is already blocked by Widr, do you wish to modify the block?”, when I try blocking anyone? Κσυπ Cyp   19:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

That user tends to report lots of IPs at once; some are stale but most are school IPs returning to vandalize from lengthy blocks. The message you see just means that I have already blocked the user, and you arrived a bit late to the party. Widr (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so then I guess it's not spam after all, so I reverted my revert, sorry. You somehow seem to often arrive to the party before me, I guess I'm a bit slow… Κσυπ Cyp   19:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, sometimes I do. But it's always safer to take your time before acting on these reports. Widr (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
You work fast! And you work a lot! You've blocked many of the users I've taken to WP:AIV, usually almost immediately. Like K6ka, I swear you're a bot. But until the day I meet you and see if there's a human or a server behind that account, please accept this barnstar as a token of my gratitude. Blurp92 (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Aleski Sariola

Note I have nominated this article for deletion given it's not satisfying any of our set standards and guidelines, let alone our policies, for notability, and I'm unable to sufficiently improve it beyond acceptable means. SwisterTwister talk 05:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect request

Can you semi-protect Cold (Maroon 5 song), OneRepublic and List of births, marriages, and deaths in Coronation Street to persistent disruptive editing. 183.171.180.203 (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

None of those have quite enough disruption to warrant protection. But you can ask for a second opinion at WP:RFPP. Widr (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Block duration

I was about to block Aydenhau (talk · contribs), but saw you got to them before me. After looking at the combination of their contributions[1] plus their filter log[2], I was leaning towards indef ... but won't change the block already applied. Granted, we can also just grant some rope and hope they turn their editing around after the block, and indef later if needed. Your call. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I was almost going to indef them as well, so I don't mind at all if you want to change the block. Widr (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Re EdselOrdazTheAwesomeGuy

Hi, regarding the vandalism page you just deleted, their user page also needs deleting as vandalism. I can't tag it, because I'm not registered. The page is User:EdselOrdazTheAwesomeGuy, and I think G3 applies. Thanks. 86.20.193.222 (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Starlightzone2revived

Obvious sock is obvious. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Gross amount of AIV reports

Hey Widr, can you talk to the IP editor that left this[3] edit to AIV? That was is an extremely inconsiderate thing to do, considering they didn't warn a single one, and it clogs up AIV at the peak times of vandalism in the United States. Seeing that any AIVs, from a anti-vandal perspective is they feel with that many reports waiting to be processed "it could be a long time, and the vandal may never get banned". From an administrator's point of view, I could imagine it would go something like "Jesus Christ, the hell if I'm cleaning up that backed-up mess." I've already had to talk to them before about questionable AIV reports(they have a rotating IP, so it's not going to be on the talk page of their current address), as well as asked you to double check a few. I've also suggested that they enroll in the CVUA, to which they ignored. Thanks. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I cleared the list, didn't I? That's not actually anything you should really worry about. All reports will be dealt with eventually. Widr (talk) 20:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but like I said it can discourage some from even bother to report because they see that giant list that has to be done, and either don't want to add to the burden, or feel like the vandal they are going to report would take forever to get blocked, so what's the point? Not only that, but it runs the risks of duplicate AIV cases, and DatBot and ClueBot NG report on a basis of amount of edit filters tripped in a specific time frame. Makes it even more of a headache to go through, and as awesome as you are at anti-vandalism, you're not always online. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 20:27, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Many admins just pick random reports at AIV, regardless of how many reports there are waiting. We can't really prevent anyone from making (almost always) valid reports, especially when they come in so many shapes and forms such as this particular user. Widr (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Block of 195.195.142.10

Hi! I'm thinking your block on 195.195.142.10 - the college where I work - was a bit hasty? There was only a single edit, it wasn't the worst vandalism, and another admin had placed a warning about the issue. I'm hoping that we at the college can police this issue and educate students (it's what we do!) about how to use WP responsibly. Ewen (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

You had this discussion with Gilliam some months ago, and he then unblocked the IP, but soon after the vandalism continued. Your students can create accounts at home and then log in. The block only prevents anonymous editing. When there's a clear pattern of abuse (from one block to another), only one unconstructive edit may well justify reblocking. Widr (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
"When there's a clear pattern of abuse (from one block to another), only one unconstructive edit may well justify reblocking." - that's not clear from the warning given. And following the warning, you blocked with no further edits from the college's address. Seems like an overreaction to me. Virtually every user on this IP will be a new one. Don't bite the newcomers? Ewen (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There has been practically nothing constructive coming from that particular IP since September, and this is already the third block. After each block the bar for reblocking is lower. The talk page is also filled with warnings that clearly have had no effect. This is not biting newcomers but saving admin and RCP resources. Widr (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

2001:8003:a082:8200:add0:f280:a370:8189

This IPv6 address is in the same /64 range as 2001:8003:a082:8200:d0d3:aadc:5853:63c7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which did similar vandalism. Consider rangeblocking Special:Contribs/2001:8003:a082:8200::/64.--Jasper Deng (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic ip sock-edit warring.

Hi, An ip comes to ignore the discussion page and reverted the edits. He uses a dynamic ip address. Could you be interested. Thank you.

Thanks for be interested. But the revision ip-sock stayed.--78.165.72.147 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The protection was meant to stop the edit war. Whether the current version is "right" or "wrong" has nothing to do with it. Widr (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

comment was deleted. Why?

Hello Widr. I felt my comment was a justified one. Any business should have warnings to check the Better Business Bureau. This is especially the case when, if you did check, you would see hundreds of comments about the poor business practices of this company in particular. I think it is misleading to the public to have all that information and not giving proper caution. It makes them seems credible, whereas i know for a fact they are not. I felt my post was professional, not biased and just gave a warning, leaving the act to a potential user. With 91% of comments being negative, how can you ignore this reputable agency. If not here, where can someone find the two sides of companies.Kelli777 (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Kelli Phillips Kelli777

[1]

(talk page stalker) @Kelli777: See WP:NOTHOWTO: it is not our job to give direct advice to people.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)(talk page stalker) Exactly - this is an encyclopedia, not a forum. Garchy (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbb.org/losangelessiliconvalley/business-reviews/dating-service-online/eharmony-in-los-angeles-ca-13109297/reviews-and-complaints

User:168.9.35.17

How is this happening from a Special:Contributions/168.9.35.17 block IP? Do I miss understand something? —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Janweh64: By default, blocked users can still edit their own talk pages (as a solitary exception to the block). This can be disabled as well if the admin chooses - if so, you will see a "cannot edit own talk page" in the block log entry.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that's warranted here. Or maybe it's not a bad place for them to practice. Let the future-Wikipedian little munchkins go wild! I don't mind reverting once in a while.—አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Dealer's choice

It appears that user:Jacurani has went back to, personal attacks, source misrepresentation, using outdated/unreliable source(s), and reverting the change of a reference from one format to another. All the while restarting his previous edit war(s).

Do you wish to address this or would you like me to take said editor to a noticeboard? I am fine with either. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Addressed (blocked). Widr (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access

For this user? Thank you. Linguisttalk|contribs 12:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Self promotion by the same user

Probably those accounts are related:

Hkdaluda (talk · contribs) KurdoKardir (talk · contribs)

Both inserted self-promoting mentioning of Karzan Kardozi. Catharsis of Mind (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks!

MilkGams (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - quick link

Hi Widr, I don't mean to ruin your day or question your actions as an Admin, rather I noticed you handling the recent enormous number of reports at AIV (thanks for helping to chip away at that by the way) and your blocks reflect a trend I have been seeing with a large number of other Admins at AIV. Because I am concerned about that trend I believe there needs to be a larger discussion about our blocking approach to Shared IPs with a prior history of disruption I have used some of your recent blocks as examples due to their being immediately available. I do not mean to call into question your judgment or actions nor argue that your blocks should be overturned/modified, rather it appears we are drifting towards longer and longer term blocks concerning certain IPs and I believe a wider discussion is warranted about reflecting that drifting in our policy or reversing course. Best, Mifter (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Noted. I'm off now and will read it later. Widr (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

He or she has returned.

This person just made a bad edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesse_Yarnell&type=revision&diff=769185113&oldid=769150970 BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry (really belated)

I don't know if you remember, when you removed part of Geometry Dash I was really annoyed, I think i even harassed you and ToonLucas22, so sorry xD. --DashyGames (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC) (it was with my old account so you probably don't recognize me)

User:75.147.67.78

Hello Widr, Just to let you that IP 75.147.67.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who you recently blocked has re-surfaced, making the same alterations to the Celtic cross article. It seems they have not learned a lesson. Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to revdel summary

Hey Widr, I know it's not an attack summary with profanity in it, but would you be able to revdel just the summary for this edit? I think it was very inappropriate and the editor has been warned. Ss112 20:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, can't do that. The bar for revdel is quite high, and this particular summary is pretty mild. The warning you have given should be sufficient for now. Widr (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I didn't mean delete the revision, just the summary. Ss112 21:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm also talking about the summary. Widr (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure this IP is just the latest in a long line of IPs related to 73.81.147.192 and PeopleEater143. Exactly the same snarky attitude, just using a proxy located in London. Ss112 21:07, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Job never ends, does it?

Sheesh... HalfShadow 21:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

You can say that again. Widr (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Someone actually put forward a request to promote me to admin a couple of years back. It didn't go through, but now I'm not sure I'd want it anyway.I'm busy enough just cleaning up. HalfShadow 22:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please Un-erase Edits on my ancestor's page

Hello Widr,

I recently edited a page about my ancestor Buffalo Humper. I am Comanche by birth. My tribe name is Hunter Morningwood. I would appreciate if you didn't skew my ancestor's true name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunterd2000 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Hunterd2000: - Prove it. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If you don't realize this is just outright trolling I have a bridge to sell you.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, Humper? Morningwood? Seems legit...Garchy (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

User copying text from my user page for their own

Hey Widr, asking since you're an admin and would perhaps know more than me about it. I have just discovered a music editor, User:Whippyice will, has copied text verbatim from my user page, that I wrote of my own accord years ago, for their own user page, without asking or informing me. I know I don't "own" my user page per se and Wikipedia text can be copied etc, but there is no attribution that I wrote it, and they're passing it off as their own, and I feel that a user could suspect that I am related to their account in some way, shape or form and I'm not. What can be done about this? I have asked them to take it down, but I don't think they will comply. Ss112 21:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

BLPCAT Vandal

I know it's been discussed before that a range block would have too much collateral but it seems that this person is reusing the same few IPs lately (re: 69.115.73.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and others.) Wondering if you have any thoughts? Filter 825 is catching some but I'm kinda at a loss brain storming at this point of what can be done. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

If range block can't be done (I don't do those), just report to AIV. That's the quickest way. Widr (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

120.155.5.116

Hi Widr, hope you're well. Can you please revoke talkpage access for this IP that you blocked? Seems as if this is a likely troll. Thanks.Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 10:17, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. It's some LTA case. Widr (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks so much for your hard work as an admin! MCMLXXXIX 16:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Widr (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Protection on Hsiung Feng III

Hi Widr, thanks for the protection on Hsiung Feng III, which has had an ongoing problem with vandalism. It was a very speedy move on your part. I'm curious, does a revert using Twinkle trigger some kind of inbuilt mechanism that alerts admins to vandalism? merlinVtwelve (talk) 01:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

It was based on an AIV report. Widr (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This particular vandal has a very long history.... years, it seems. merlinVtwelve (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for removing that message on my talk page by Mukti Mohan Subedi. I knew 100% that it was another sock account, but since the user left a message on my talk page and with the first edit -- I figured I'd leave it to another admin to take action. Appreciate it! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 10:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they pop by regularly now, so you are likely to receive more of the same. Widr (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked for 62 days

Hi, Widr. You blocked 205.213.5.114 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 62 days on 21 December 2016, according to the block log. Nevertheless, the account edited on 28 February 2017 and again on 17 March. Very odd — do you understand what went wrong? Perhaps the block function doesn't accept "days"? I see there are no days in the dropdown menu for "expiration". Would be kind of stupid of it, though. And what's even more stupid is that there are no instructions, that I can find, for what's accepted in the expiration field. I should probably ask at the VP... heigh ho... or maybe I'll just avoid "days". Bishonen | talk 15:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

I think I manually typed 3 months, which I often do and which is always shown as days in the log. How they were able to edit again, I have no idea. Maybe it's a bug somewhere. Haven't noticed this before. Widr (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Bishonen: Um, I'm not seeing the problem? Block expired Feb 21st. --NeilN talk to me 15:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, Widr, you probably typed two months - to wind up with 62 days. --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh. I guess months are longer than I thought. Sorry. They go by so fast nowadays! Bishonen | talk 15:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
Especially when you've started dipping into that Irish Whiskey. --NeilN talk to me 15:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Seems this was a tricky IQ test that I clearly didn't pass. Widr (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)