User talk:Widr/Archive 40
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Widr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | ← | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | → | Archive 45 |
Re sockpuppets
VitowikiperfectItaliy not blocked (see [1]). Yours, Quis separabit? 20:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- That one is globally locked. Widr (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I see (here). Sorry. Yours, Quis separabit? 20:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Lumen Christi Catholic High School
You recently protected this. Weird in that it is on my watchlist but I haven't seen the recent changes. Anyway, I had a long run of garbage on that page a little over a year ago, The antagonist was JacksonViking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Don't know if there is a relation or not, but he's indeffed for being really hard headed. Just an FYI....do with it what you will. John from Idegon (talk) 21:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Can you please mass delete these two contributors' new pages too? Thanks
[2], [3]. Lourdes 07:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. Lourdes 07:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- Widr, User:TIFFANY DO CLARENCE and User:JOEL CHONG GENG FU are clearly the same character as the SEET SIN YUAN, JANICE you just blocked. Here's their three-way interaction. Muffled Pocketed 07:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- All blocked now. Widr (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- They might turn their capslock off at some point ;) cheers. Muffled Pocketed 07:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
- All blocked now. Widr (talk) 07:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Teamwork Barnstar |
| For contributing your part to the International War on Vandalism in Operation Enduring Encyclopedia. If it weren't for your block, Brooklyn Nine-Nine would've been getting messed up frequently by LOUDOG. I added the {uw-block} template to his user talk page. -- AI RPer (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks! They will see the block message anyway when they try to edit. Widr (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
SPA 97.105.54.102
Thanks for blocking that vandal for 31 hours, but it appears that he is at it again, only getting personal:[4] and he is starting his nonsense offwiki Read the last comment by Wgray.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked again. Widr (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
New IP same edits
Hello Widr. Yesterday you blocked 107.77.210.49 (talk · contribs) for their disruptive editing including overlinking and removing the term "uncredited" from various articles. They are back at it today using 107.77.208.187 (talk · contribs). Thanks for taking a look at this. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. This is one of those O/C situations where nothing seems to change the way they edit. Thanks again. MarnetteD|Talk 18:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem, thanks for letting me know. Widr (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
October 2016
Hello Widr, you recently blocked an IP for vandalism on several film articles including The Wild Bunch. Unfortunately, they have re-appeared under 2600:100b:b125:e119:cddo:6do1:6e97:ae6b (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) making exactly the vandalism "edits". Can you please deal with this? I also wonder if a range block might be appropriate? Best regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked; not range blocked though, because I don't do those. Widr (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help, David J Johnson (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Well. . .
Super Widr saves the day again. Thank you. Peter Sam Fan 21:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem. Widr (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocking before edit after final warning - redux
Ping User:NeilN and User:Yintan
RE: MontesaurusRex
Warned once then reported then blocked 12 min after last edit? There's so much wrong with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: I reported the editor as 'evidently vandalism only' after checking the edit history. Looking at the edits that seems pretty fair to me. Yintan 19:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, all edits were vandalism, probably a school kid. Clearly WP:VOA. Widr (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Yintan. You may be right, but the user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Do either of you you keep an offline notepad to follow these editors? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: I occassionaly keep an eye on accounts like these, yes. Why? Yintan 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Most of these tend to be throwaway accounts, and they just move on to a new one. I rarely see them requesting unblocking, and if they do, they are usually just trolling. Widr (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Widr: Usually, yes, when they're "Jim657389892" or similar. But the ones with fancy names sometimes come back. Providing their block allows it, obviously. Those I sometimes check up on. Yintan 20:22, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have their talk pages automatically watchlisted, and that's enough for me. No notepads. Widr (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding no notepads: So when you block someone for two weeks, do you check their contribs once unblocked? If so, how do you remember? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- As I have them watchlisted, I usually see when new warnings start coming. But they are not my babies; I do not intentionally follow their actions or contributions. Widr (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- So if you block someone for, say, copyvios, you don't follow their contribs once unblocked? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes, but not necessarily. I usually block based on AIV reports, and there would be quite a lot of those to follow up. When they get reported again, I or someone else will block them again. Widr (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- For vandal temp blocks, fine. They'll get reported again. For copyvio temp blocks, it is essential to track them once the block expires. Adding copyvio content often goes unnoticed for ages. It is worth tracking those cases, and I would say even a responsibility. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which copyvio block are you referring to? I rarely have done those. Widr (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- None in particular. I know you do mostly permanent vandal blocks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Which copyvio block are you referring to? I rarely have done those. Widr (talk) 21:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- For vandal temp blocks, fine. They'll get reported again. For copyvio temp blocks, it is essential to track them once the block expires. Adding copyvio content often goes unnoticed for ages. It is worth tracking those cases, and I would say even a responsibility. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sometimes, but not necessarily. I usually block based on AIV reports, and there would be quite a lot of those to follow up. When they get reported again, I or someone else will block them again. Widr (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- So if you block someone for, say, copyvios, you don't follow their contribs once unblocked? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- As I have them watchlisted, I usually see when new warnings start coming. But they are not my babies; I do not intentionally follow their actions or contributions. Widr (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding no notepads: So when you block someone for two weeks, do you check their contribs once unblocked? If so, how do you remember? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have their talk pages automatically watchlisted, and that's enough for me. No notepads. Widr (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: I occassionaly keep an eye on accounts like these, yes. Why? Yintan 20:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: As you know, my blocking criteria is similar to yours and follows the same principles as I used when I was an editor reporting to AIV. That is, don't report (or block) until vandalism has occurred after an appropriate 3rd or 4th level warning. --NeilN talk to me 20:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi NeilN. Yes, you, me, and the vast majority of admins. I wish Widr would consider joining that vast majority. One of my personal rules governing my own admin actions is to stay away from the fringes. My actions are guided by what most of the admins do. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Yintan. A notepad is useful for such cases. Refreshing his contribs would not be effective because he vandalized then came back hours later and did it again. If he was not blocked, there would be a fair chance of him eventually coming back to vandalize more. A notepad is good to track them using a rolling list. If they stop, they get removed from the list. If they vandalize more in slow motion, then warn more or seek a block.
Widr rightly points out that most of these tend to be throwaway accounts. That means they continue and get blocked or they lose interest and stop. Losing interest is preferred. Blocking can create interest. I see it as a form of feeding. Our response to vandalism should be as gray and boring as possible, giving them nothing to push against or challenge them. Blocking likely increases the chance of them making that new account and turning vandalism and socking into a new, fun hobby. It satisfies a need. Many or these vandals are probably male 11-17 yrs old, who wish to test the bigger gorilla, if you get my meaning. A block notice can be interpreted as that gorilla saying "I'm more powerful than you. What are you going to do about it?" Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: I understand what you're saying but I couldn't disagree more. If you consider blocking a kind of feeding or challenge, you're basically saying it would be better not to block. Right? Just quietly revert and don't say a word? It's an interesting approach but I doubt if it would work better. But then again, Wikipedia's current system doesn't work all that well either. The whole 'anyone can edit' approach is far too lenient and I think user registration with an email address for confirmation (like on any half-decent forum) would be much better. But don't get me started on that.
Yintan 21:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just saying block if you have to and don't if there's a chance they'll stop. You'd be surprised how often they stop and leave after level 4. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's also about balancing. Could this user ever be a positive addition to the encyclopedia or just another timesink who we have to monitor and waste our energy on. Spending time at backlogged AIV may help balancing these issues. Widr (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Stop after level 4 and come back a day or so later. It's the standard school-vandal strategy. But anyway, I won't fill Widr's Talk with my rants. Yintan 21:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's also about balancing. Could this user ever be a positive addition to the encyclopedia or just another timesink who we have to monitor and waste our energy on. Spending time at backlogged AIV may help balancing these issues. Widr (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm just saying block if you have to and don't if there's a chance they'll stop. You'd be surprised how often they stop and leave after level 4. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Anna Frodesiak: I understand what you're saying but I couldn't disagree more. If you consider blocking a kind of feeding or challenge, you're basically saying it would be better not to block. Right? Just quietly revert and don't say a word? It's an interesting approach but I doubt if it would work better. But then again, Wikipedia's current system doesn't work all that well either. The whole 'anyone can edit' approach is far too lenient and I think user registration with an email address for confirmation (like on any half-decent forum) would be much better. But don't get me started on that.
- True Widr. The chance of him turning into a positive addition is tiny, but that is beside the point. The point is that we don't want to turn him into a negative.
Anyway Widr, you are an enormous force for good. What you do well far outweighs this instance I pointed out. But when I see a block notice under a level 1 warning for non-heinous vandalism, it just looks like a fringe approach. There's a reason why other admins don't do it that way and for the instructions at the AIV page. Anyhow, let's drop the matter. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Please revoke talk page access
For Magpahanggang Wakas (ABS-CBN). Cheers. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 10:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
User:Kamalikachanda possible block evasion
Hi Widr. A while back you blocked Special:Contributions/Kamalikachanda for personal attacks, etc. I think they might be back as Special:Contributions/Riisen since the editing topics (in particular articles/content related to Kamalika Chanda), the removal of AfD tags and personal comments made on other user pages (the use of "non sense", and the PAs) are similar. Please advise as to how to best proceed. SPI or ANI? Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's not really a block evasion. I blocked them temporarily for personal attacks, but Orangemike changed it to an indefinite username block, which kind of encourages them to create a new account. This new account may eventually get blocked for personal attacks as well, but I don't think we are at that stage yet. Widr (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking a look. FWIW, I only noticed the block had been extended to indef for username reasons after posting here. I meant to come back and rephrase things before you responded, but was too late.
- Are admins still able to see what an article looked like after it has been deleted? I'm trying to figure out if "Kamalika Chanda" should be tagged for speedy per WP:G4. The last AfD was just a month ago and the article seems no better now than it was then, but I can't remember exactly. -- Marchjuly (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's basically the same, just a few more refs added this time. Widr (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Refs that don't really mean much, source-wise. And as far as blocking for personal attacks goes, that's probably just a matter of time. I've already been told he'd "see my end" and that I'm a racist. Nice guy. Yintan 15:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- It's basically the same, just a few more refs added this time. Widr (talk) 11:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
94.119.64.0
The whole range seems to be being used by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive although I see at least one block as being the best known for LTA. But it geolocates and the IP is using the same ISP as the last account I blocked, Tiny Dancer 48. Doug Weller talk 16:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info! Widr (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Continued disruption
User:71.71.121.33 continued inserting dubious content after your warning. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Are those incorrect? Not many of their recent edits have been reverted. Widr (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- Their most recent edits to the article Futz! (aside from the bizarre self-reverts) are both unsourced and in direct violation of the infobox documentation. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I protected that one. Widr (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- While it may certainly stop the disruptive editing, I think administrators aren't supposed to protect pages against only one user. I actually retracted a protection request for this very page because of this (and another admin agreed with me on that). Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's actually true, so I removed it. Widr (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- While it may certainly stop the disruptive editing, I think administrators aren't supposed to protect pages against only one user. I actually retracted a protection request for this very page because of this (and another admin agreed with me on that). Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- I protected that one. Widr (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Their most recent edits to the article Futz! (aside from the bizarre self-reverts) are both unsourced and in direct violation of the infobox documentation. Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Quick question
Vandal Mil92945Render removed some Romanian refs from the ProCredit Bank (Romania) article and then moved it to ProCredit Bank (Hungary)[5]. I restored the article and moved it back but I'm not an experienced mover. Could you please check if all is well? I think it is but I'd like a check. Thanks. Yintan 19:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Can't see anything wrong there. Widr (talk) 19:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. Yintan 19:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks
There seems to be no capacity to use notification/thanks for blocks, so thanks anyways ! JarrahTree 15:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- No problem! Widr (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Widr, Just to say "many thanks" for your help on the Poundbury article. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Widr (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Widr, Just to say "many thanks" for your help on the Poundbury article. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
36.81.190.38
You do not forget one thing reverse the changes the user IP change the date of birth of the voice actors and other personalities. See contributions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 179.52.215.230 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- I did forget, but now it's done. Widr (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for deleting Denis Thiyam
| The article seemed to have somehow slipped into Wikipedia. How did that ever happen? Regardless, it's gone now._ CyanoTex (talk) 17:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Widr, just a note that you may wish to consider applying a common household condiment to the article, as it's likely he's simply going to recreate it otherwise. Mike1901 (talk) 17:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, if it's recreated once more. Widr (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, well, well
... guess who's back. Another extended block, please—up to 3 months, though 2 weeks likely will do. He's never returned to an IP—yet, anyway—following an extended block. TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 18:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
LA vandal
Hi there, this is that same user from a static IP making the same disruptive edit User_talk:107.77.205.40 Govindaharihari (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Overlinks is back
Hello W. The IP hopping editor is now using this address 107.77.208.54 (talk · contribs). Hopefully they will have stopped by the time you see this but I wanted to make you aware of the problem editing anyway. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 17:56, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Blocked, thanks. Widr (talk) 18:09, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- You are welcome and I thank you as well :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
97.105.54.102
He's back again and up to his old tricks [6]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Confused
I made my very first AIV report a few minutes ago. I see that you deleted it with the edit summary "rm blocked" but that the user wasn't blocked. It was about repeated vandalism to the List of Gangs in the United States. Was my report done incorrectly? David in DC (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I blocked the user. The bot isn't working currently, so we remove handled reports manually. Widr (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
recent school vandal/s 206.211.32.0 - 206.211.63.255
I noticed you blocked a school IP today - there has been a recent spate of recurring/ongoing vandalism from associated IPs, all emanating from the Desert Sands Unified School District IP-range. The IPs being used (that I am aware of so far) are:
- 206.211.34.2 - Level 4 Warning/October 13
- 206.211.34.11 - Level 4 Warning/October 13
- 206.211.34.12 - Blocked
- 206.211.34.15 - Blocked
- 206.211.34.18 - warnings
- 206.211.34.19 - Multiple warnings
All of the IPs exhibit similar behavior, vandalizing articles by changing correct years to incorrect years (say from "1998"->"1988"), by blanking entire articles or sections, or by placing false/fake info within the article. They are all obviously the same editor/socks or associated editors/meats, so I was wondering if a range-block of at least the above IPs might be considered. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't do range blocks myself, but I blocked some of those IPs. Thanks. Widr (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Annnnd... yet another IP in that particular 206.211.34.xx Desert Sands ISD IP-range has just been blocked: 206.211.34.7. Shearonink (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Unbelievable
174.29.29.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This cunning stunt just won't give up. 
—ATS 🖖 talk 20:16, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Much obliged. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
A Question
Hello, Widr, I have seen your name quite a bit when fighting vandalism, and so I thought you would probably be able to answer my question. I was wondering what sort of vandalism is bad enough to justify a {{Uw-vandalism4im}} warning. The WP:Vandalism page says that it is for "severe or grotesque vandalism only." What sort of vandalism would be classified as "severe or grotesque" (some examples might help me understand)? Thanks, Gluons12 ☢|☕ 02:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC).
- (talk page stalker) It would be vandalism after recent release from block to give an only warning I think. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I'm been doing 02:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if it's really serious (such as gross BLP violations), level 4 or "only warning" can be given. Usually it's best to go through with lower levels first. Widr (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Page move
You look like you might be online. Could you move a page for me, which by incompetence I've parked in a stupid place - User:Anna Maria Niemeyer should be Anna Maria Niemeyer over a redirect. Pretty please? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:08, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Widr (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- Much appreciated; thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2016 (UTC)