User talk:Widr/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

Protection of Who album articles

Can you explain what on earth is all this silly reverting on things like Tommy, Who's Next and Quadrophenia? Having taken all three articles to GA I obviously have them on my watchlist and check the quality doesn't go backwards, but I'm mystified what on earth all this sales certification based reverts are? I don't particularly remember any of the book sources I used even talking about them, though they do mention chart positions. Frankly, I am quite sceptical of their use even to a layman reader and suspect it wouldn't particularly fall foul of the "focused" part of the GA criteria to get rid of them. Any thoughts? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. This user is adding deliberately incorrect chart and certification data to various articles. The Who articles have been their latest target. Widr (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Ritchie333: It's long-term abuse from Nikita; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. I started requesting semi-protection for articles in his usual stomping grounds (Green Day), so he's moved on to more actively vandalizing articles in his secondary stomping grounds (The Who, Kelly Clarkson, etc). His MO is some fairly sneaky vandalism; he changes chart rankings and certifications to intentionally false values with the apparent overall goal of making Green Day seem more accomplished than they are. For an example, he might change the chart ranking on a Green Day song to #1. He might then go on to edit a list article for the Billboard Hot 100 to indicate this ranking is correct by bumping Green Day up and bumping, say, The Who down. Finally, he'll even edit the article for The Who song to support the second edit. His vandalism is a pain because the typical regular change patrollers can't detect it. It just looks like someone's changing a single number in a table, which doesn't pop out as vandalism. To help combat this, I have the 100ish articles he's been known to target in the past in my watchlist. There's an ongoing thread at WP:ANI about a more permanent solution to this problem if you're interested. See here. While I'm talking about all this, would either of you consider blocking the range 2601:343:8180:5c50::/64 ? That range has been particularly active from Nikita lately. I can provide diffs/specific IPs if you'd like, but you'll also find at least three of them in my most recent 50 contributions. ~ Rob^Talk 15:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I was thinking. I did spot one that I actually went back to the original (book) source, verified was wrong and reverted, checked a bunch more and found they were all wrong as well, at which point I was, well, annoyed. It's vandalism alright (I can't believe anybody would accidentally change all those figures against what is sourced, it has to be deliberate) but as you say, a right pain in the neck to sort out. This comes back to my original point is that with the possible exception from FAs, it might not be too much of a hit on the layman reader to get rid of some of the figures simply so he can't disrupt them. As for a block, I've not tried doing IPv6 rangeblocks yet, so I'm not sure what the collateral damage is on a /64 range. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I think removing the tables is a poor strategy. They're typically the most significant measure of a song/album's success beyond winning major awards, and they're especially useful for gauging a song's international success. If we remove information to prevent vandalism, I see that as the vandal accomplishing their goal. Given that I'm watching these articles like a hawk, the vandalism isn't persisting for long at most times. I happen to be on vacation this week, which is why you may be seeing it persist for longer. I'm checking Wikipedia only sporadically. As for the range block, Bbb23 (a CheckUser) blocked a /64 range in the past to deal with Nikita. See [1]. If I remember correctly, that block was quite effective; vandalism was greatly reduced for a couple weeks, probably until his ISP assigned him a different range. Maybe Bbb23 can tell us a bit more about the potential collateral damage. ~ Rob^Talk 15:40, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Rob, there is also this list. I won't add myself there anytime soon. Widr (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Well I can't obviously speak for everyone, but when I'm reading an article, I'll digest the prose with interest, have an idea of what's going on, then when I get down to the charts and sales figures I tune out. And removing information if it's felt unnecessary to belong in the article that just happens to have a side effect of making the article stable is justifiable. But I guess that's because I've always played music I happen to like with little or no regard to how commercially successful (or not) it is. Anyway, these guys are on my radar now, and while I do A as much GF as I can muster, when I am absolutely certain somebody is a vandalism-only user, they get a swift "thwack" without me even bothering to make sure the door hits them on the way out. ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:55, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

This guy is a pain in the butt. Before protecting the Green Day articles I had to check his changes which was not easy using diffs and our table markup syntax. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. @Ritchie333: An IPv6 /64 range can be viewed as one IPv4 IP address. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me exactly what IPv6 range you folk are talking about (not the range I blocked before)? Also, NeilN, I don't understand your comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I assume you mean the second comment, which I think refers to a /64 range covering the same number of bits as a "quad" (ie: 1/4) of the older-style IP address (which would be covered by a /24 in IPv4). If you mean that he's a pain the butt, well I guess that's personal opinion sure, but it's one I share in this instance! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, when I first started as an admin I was told by a seasoned rangeblocker that blocking a /64 range was essentially the equivalent of blocking one IPv4 (xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx) address. I can probably dig up the diff if you want. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, Ritchie, I just found the range that Rob mentioned (I missed it first read). In any event, I found that range on my own. It's now blocked. I've also reblocked the original range because it too has been used recently. Neil, maybe what the other editor told you referred to the way IPv6 addresses are allocated, which, depending on the legitimacy of the owner, are generally allocated in much larger blocks than IPv4 addresses. It gets complicated to evaluate, but strictly speaking, the number of IPv6s in a /64 range is 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 (see mw:Help:Range blocks/IPv6).--Bbb23 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23, here's the conversation if you're interested: User_talk:Abecedare/Archive_20#Rangeblock_question. I've been going by, "What Berean said. In theory a /64 block for IPv6 addresses should effect only one ISP customer..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

"one customer" is one way of putting it. If you have an ordinary ISP allocating IPv6 addresses to a customer, whether it be a customer who has a router or one without, my understanding too is the ISP will typically allocate /64 to that customer. Probably because IPv6 addresses are cheap. Because there are so many, you may then see lots of different IPv6s editing as if they're the same person, even though obviously you aren't going to see the entire spectrum. Nonetheless, depending on the duration of a /64 range block, you may affect other people because the allocations may change over time. I don't know how often an ISP does that, but it's usually fairly easy to see when looking at other technical data and behavioral data. I'm not an expert. I know a lot more than I did before I became a CheckUser but I'm still learning because although there are rules of thumb, they aren't always applicable in every case.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Long durations should be preceded by a contrib check (obligatory poke to the WMF to provide us with a decent tool (yes I know I owe you an email)) but if I'm blocking for a couple days, I'm not thinking, "OMG 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses! I'm blocking half of Asia!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ritchie333 and NeilN: in addition to Widr: See this ANI thread, where the community has authorized 30/500 protection for use on articles affected by Nikita's vandalism. While the ANI thread was not explicitly closed with such a restriction, I think it's prudent to apply 30/500 protection only to articles where sleepers have been used to get around semi-protection. ~ Rob^Talk 13:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi protect request

Could Joakim Noah please be semi-protected. IPs and new users are constantly adding premature information regarding a transaction he is reportedly involved in. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi, 3 days. Widr (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hassan Whiteside as well please. DaHuzyBru (talk) 04:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Two more please – Ish Smith and D. J. Augustin on the same grounds as above. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Please leave further requests at WP:RFPP rather than here. Widr (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	you drservr it FabledGold (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Widr (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		With appreciation for your good work. Thank you. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! And likewise. Widr (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Suspected personal information in edit summaries

Over at Christian Longo - possible WP:OUTING. Thanks very much for your help, GAB^gab 19:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

User:LucasSalusky redux

Since returning from the 31h block, the user made one obvious vandalism edit, took a few days off, then made three more edits that introduced unsourced data. He couldn't be making a much better case for NOTHERE. 🖖ATS / Talk 19:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your amazing anti-vandalism work! ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 14:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Flag vandal

Please tend to 007szm, obvious reincarnation of Szm007... CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You missed one

One more page (Call phone history of Bangladesh) created by Smsarif87. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

User block

Hey Widr. I'd like to request a timeout for this user as I believe they are the same person as this IP that was blocked recently. The user has not heeded to warnings (or final warning) on their talk page and is continuing to be disruptive with premature edits regarding sports transactions. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

They seem to have stopped by now. If they continue, you should post this report at WP:AIV. Widr (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Kıvanç Tatlıtuğ

Dear Widr, Would you mind taking look at this article? The reviewer has accepted a content without any reliable source(s). Therefore, I thought it should be reverted. Thanks, Mona778 (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that you already reverted those edits, so it should be settled now. Widr (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

A concern

I am curious as to why you approved pending changes review rights for TerraCodes on May 27. As of today, he only has 145 mainspace edits and this does not bode well for his skills at the job. Inserting false info is a form of vandalism, and adding false names to notable alumni lists is a common form of vandalism. From the looks of his userspace, I'd guess this editor to be a kid who is in some forms hat collecting. Look at his talk history. I don't see how pending changes can be effective if we have that low of a bar for the right. I'll leave this to your discretion. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed a minor user right for which the bar is not very high. The mistake you provided is not a serious one; it's easy to make, as it appears that many pending changes reviewers tend to accept edits that are not obvious vandalism. In any case, ideally you would have discussed this concern with the user first. Widr (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Rollback request

Hello, can you review my rollback request? Thank you! --M4r51n (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Jasonski 16

Please revoke his talk page access, and also delete the revision on his talk page where he threatened violence against me. Also, I think that in the future, anytime you block a new sock of his, you should just revoke his talk page access by default. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Took care of it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For your speedy response to vandalism reports. Sario528 (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Widr (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Another of MarnetteD's fans

here. John from Idegon (talk) 06:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. Widr (talk) 06:55, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Rangeblock

I broadened User:2601:647:4780:1E70:D824:8B8E:AD26:6852 to cover a range he's been using the past few days. DMacks (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Widr (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Many thanks Widr  TUXLIE  15:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

IP block

I don't think you like me coming directly to you, but could this IP please be given a timeout. They are being very disruptive and not heeding to talk page warnings. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. It's not about not liking you reporting here, but at AIV you will often get a quicker response. Widr (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I personally find AIV to not have that effect. It often takes a few hours for an admin to attend to it. That's why I go directly to an active admin. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It can take longer if it's not obvious vandalism (obvious to anyone). Widr (talk) 16:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Either way, I appreciate your time. DaHuzyBru (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@DaHuzyBru: Where it's not obvious vandalism, it's very helpful to link to an SPI case or provide a detailed explanation of why the edits are disruptive enough to warrant a block. That will get the AIV reports handled faster. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand. I just prefer to go to an admin that somewhat knows of me and can trust my judgement so I don't have to do such an in depth request. I just prefer to get friendly with certain admins of whom I can go to for requests. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Aladdin 4 Vandalism Page

I didn't personally deal with this, but I saw the report on RFPP. It might be worth also applying create protection to Talk:Aladdin 4: Aladdin fuск ме рlеаsе. Regards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary; the talk page has never been created. Widr (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

All right. You just never know with IPs, though. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

your recent block of User: Soul of einstein

Could you please undo this user's last edits? He moved User:Yamaguchi先生's user and talk page to a non-existent user User:Fudu and I can't move them back since I get amessage that the original user page is on a blacklist. Meters (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Meters: Tried to give it a go myself, but it wouldn't let me. Something about it being on the title blacklist, so it likely requires administrator action to bypass that or something. I have, however, submitted indefinite move protection requests for the user and talk pages. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI to eveyone. I reported this situation here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Page move reversal.3F. Hopefully it will get things fixed but, if not, maybe you can find a better place to post this. MarnetteD|Talk 05:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Kekism

Can you have a look at this article? Looks like 4chan's having a field day with this one. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Deleted. Widr (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Please unprotect page

Hi Widr, could you please remove protection from my talk page. I don't think it is necessary at the moment. If it gets bad again I will let you know but the block evasion doesn't actually bother me too much. Thank you. Sro23 (talk) 06:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Pending Changes Reviewer

Just a quick thanks for taking the time to change permissions, etc. :) - Cheers, Burwellian (Talk) 12:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism / Spam intervention

Hey, just wanted to tell you I appreciate your swift action against all the vandal/spam accounts that I report! GSMR (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Me too ! Mlpearc (open channel) 16:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for IP blocks. Might need range?

Thanks very much for your recent blocks of 31.25.3.3 and 31.25.3.100 for vandalism. I just noticed the strikingly close match of their IP addresses and their editing patterns and their time-stamps. (31.25.3.3 received a one-day block on 13 July, then 31.25.3.100 resumed active vandalism on 14 July.) Perhaps an IP range block would be appropriate to stop the disruption from this schoolboy? —Patrug (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. I don't do range blocks, though, so you may have to ask someone else. Widr (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Patrug: Looking in to it. BethNaught (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The range 31.25.2.0/23, all of which belongs to North Yorkshire County Council Schools, has been blocked for 1 month. That should keep them out for the rest of the summer term. BethNaught (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hope their 31.25.3.* activity is also covered. —Patrug (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, 31.25.2.0/23 means 31.25.2.0 - 31.25.3.255. BethNaught (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Recently Deleted Page Recreated

Hello, I would like to notify you that Akshay Nawanshahriya was just recreated after you recently deleted it. Thank you Woodstop45 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, deleted again. Widr (talk) 21:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and while your at it, can you also take a look at Victor Cannella? Thank you. I might be wrong now, because it is starting to get added to. Woodstop45 (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeffed User:Hyperbeam823

Moi Widr. You may want to consider if this kind of shenanigans, which apart from making juvenile fun of the 'Pedia is in violation of WP:TPO, warrants the notalk parameter set. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Moi! They have stopped, so no action needed anymore. Widr (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:41.203.71.188

Has been a busy fellow today-! _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked (late reply). Widr (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well done police

The above User has now created an account with a username attacking you and RickinBaltimore. Thought you should know so he can be blocked. Thanks!Joel.Miles925 (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. Widr (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it nice to be so loved? RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. One of my favorites was "Widr in Baltimore" (never been there). Widr (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Great city, come for the crab cakes, stay cause you got murdered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Added to my long to-do list. ;-) Widr (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I once had a user create a page about me jumping off a cliff... very poignant. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Block evasion by ProfessorJane?

I'm not quite sure where I should take this, but I noticed you recently blocked this IP for block evasion by ProfessorJane. Now a new account, XiaoLanGo, is restoring Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China to the revision made by the IP. Could you take a look at it? Chickadee46 (talk|contribs) (WP:MCW) 18:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked. Thanks. Widr (talk) 18:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)