User talk:Widr/Archive 37

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 30

←

Archive 35

Your protection of Safe Schools Coalition Australia‎

Hi, Widr. I posted a note[1] about the repeated misleading addition to the lede of Safe Schools Coalition Australia‎ (apparently based on an egregious misreading of a source) before I noticed you had semiprotected it. But I'm actually wondering why you did. I don't see that the IPs were disrupting the article. To the contrary, in fact — a number of registered users were disrupting and the IPs were reverting them. Please compare my post on Talk. Bishonen | talk 17:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

I removed protection. This was based on AIV report of block evading IP hopper, but there may have been misunderstanding along the way. Widr (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I see. Yes, there may have been good reasons to block the IPs, but at the Safe Schools article, the disruption was by other people. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC).

If you get bored

Hi Widr, thanks for getting those couple of edit filter log -backed AIV reports - I've been working on Special:AbuseFilter/784 today, and the log is full of those types of editors. I'm only going to report a couple more of the worst offenders, but a couple of admin-eyes on that log would be appreciated -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 14:43, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll be watching... when I get bored. ;-) Widr (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Porto Montenegro

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that user Porto Montenegro who you have banned for advertising and violating name policy has made a sock account named Markokuc and has continued inserting propaganda and ruining the article which by now reads like a propaganda leaflet. All the best. Sideshow Bob 11:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Blocked, thanks. Feel free to fix the article. Widr (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I will when I get around to it.. I just don't know where to start, it's such a mess. Cheers. Sideshow Bob 10:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar

Thank you for taking quick and appropriate action on this troll account. That account could have easily fooled other editors into believing that it was me, something that's happened before, unfortunately. I appreciate your diligence and your fair and level-headed judgment, and I owe you a fist bump and a beer for having my back. For now, a barnstar will have to suffice :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Oshwah, and slightly belated congratulations from me as well! Glad to have you in the team. Widr (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

DivideBuy

May not be a bad idea to salt for a little while. Article has already been deleted at least once, and after some CSD template warring. If I'm not mistaken, was also created by two different users? TimothyJosephWood 16:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it was the same user both times. I'd rather not salt yet, but if it's created once more, I will. Widr (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

And it's been re-created again, might be time to get the shaker. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Salted, thanks. Widr (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much

for protecting my user page and talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

No problem. NeilN is probably fast asleep right now. Widr (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure this would require a far more formal request/investigation, but are there any possibilities of an SPI report turning into a range block? This particular IP sock has been jumping from IP to IP (but all on the same ISP, I think) and generally harassing anyone who gets in his sock IP fun, for quite a long time. It's easy just to revert them, but are there any better, long term solutions? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't do range blocks myself, but there are other admins who might. Neil being one of them, so you can ask him. Widr (talk) 08:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Genghis Khan loves Linguist111

Hi Widr, I think you made a mistake in deleting the page. It was the userpage of my doppelgänger account, which I created to prevent impersonation or attacking by Supreme Genghis Khan. Thanks. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please ping me (type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message). 21:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, restored. Widr (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

IP user 58.6.44.249

Hei! Thanks for blocking IP user 58.6.44.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). It would seem that they are now using account Tribblez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to evade the block. Politrukki (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's possible, yes. I protected the article for now. Widr (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

There was no block on my IP. I simply created an account as it was proper to do so. Secondly, I am rather concerned with Politrukki's act of vandalism, The section I was editing was in relation to the group Ruthless Ryderz www.ruthlessryderzcc.com . Mr DuBose was not a founding member, he does not come from California and his name is not Banit, he is not from Lebanon. Cincinnati is a chaper only and the spelling for the group is incorrect, also it is NOT a black motorcycle group, it is multi ethnic. I provided sources for my information as the information there had none. Tribblez (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar and thanks

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Thank you for your reliable assistance in blocking vandals and protecting articles. Very much appreciated, 2601:188:1:AEA0:19F6:B75D:5103:599C (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

24.130.148.156

Materialscientist blocked this I.P. in June for edit war, but was unlocked yesterday. And the I.P. says that he's not evading a block of User:Ritvik12. Ritvik12 actually shares the same I.P. address as Marole3 and YoshiFan155. He complains his talk page is semi-protected and submits an edit request, but Fanovian blocked him gain and he requested to unblocked several times at Unblock Request Ticket System — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B023:DA93:0:1B:BCA0:1801 (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Favonian/ ‎

Sorry. Accidentally recreated this attack page due to edit conflict while cleaning up. Could you please nuke it again. Meters (talk) 07:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your block

[2] Username blocking an IP after one edit and no warnings? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 10:19, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Why no indefinite protection?

I'm glad you saw fit to protect Ronda Rousey and Hello Internet per my requests at RFPP. I don't understand why you didn't apply those protections indefinitely. PC1 allows IPs and new users to contribute so I don't see why we'd have temporary protection. Thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd rather wait and see and protect them again if necessary. Widr (talk) 11:31, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

How come? I'd like to understand your philosophy here. Do you prefer to keep articles unprotected unless it's unavoidable? The stimulus each subject creates is still going to be present six months from now. Chris Troutman (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to protect those articles indefinitely "just in case". Free encyclopedia and all. If disruption gets out of hand, they can be protected again. Widr (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the clarification. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Your block of Guerilla Wikian

appears to have collaterally blocked an internet cafe in Germany. See User talk:138.68.79.17. Would you consider lifting the autoblock or otherwise working with the proprietor? Yngvadottir (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Done, I think. Thanks. Widr (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your quick responses in WP:PERM Ibrahim.ID »» 16:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you be so kind

... as to extend the block of 71.218.151.187 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This is the exceptionally disruptive, refuses-to-give-up "married hyphenate bore him days of the week causing complications leading to death because I'm paid by the word" vandal (as I've dubbed him) whom I've reported to his ISP. He (no contemporary woman would change a couple having children to "she bore him" children, never mind forcing the husband's last name as a hyphenate) has demonstrated a willingness to wait for a block to expire and start again before jumping to a new IP. Some of his other socks have been blocked for up to three months. This won't stop him until his ISP does but, in the meantime, it slows him down. TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 20:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended to 3 months. Widr (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow ... he's not usually on another IP that quickly. Would you, please, and thank you. —ATS 🖖 Talk 04:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Requests for permissions/Rollback

Sir, I made a request for Rollback rights here [3]. I think Admin don't check my request till now. If you can please check my request sir. Thanks Spartacus! ^t@lk 05:08, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure someone will take a look at your request in time. Widr (talk) 05:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Okey! Thank you. Spartacus! ^t@lk 09:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Mid-air conflict on 202.134.71.94

We mid-air conflicted blocks on this user. As you wanted 1 year and I wanted 1 month I have compromised and gone with 3 months. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Your recent response on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism of a "Stale Report, No recent edits. Also insufficiently warned" was that directed to my report or another user report? Thank you. YborCityJohn (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Please read the text on green at the top of the AIV page. Widr (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

As a point of reference the most recent edit by that user was TODAY so to say that there were no recent edits is inaccurate, further the sheer number of vandalism edits warrants a account block, if they are not blocked they will continue to vandalize unabated which is counter to a productive Wikipedian. I ask that you reconsider my request. YborCityJohn (talk)

You should have reported the most recent IP, the one you reported is very much stale. However, the article is currently protected, so they can't edit it now even if they hop to another IP. Widr (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Never know who you'll meet

This I just found, which appears to mention the account holder I reported, and whom you blocked: [4]. Feel free to rev-delete this. Sheez. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I only see error message, but maybe it's better that way. Widr (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The story is from 2015. No mention on Wikipedia in it. - BilCat (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No, there is no mention of Wikipedia. I'm referring to the named account and his mention in an article. 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. No proof of a connection between the names. - BilCat (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

...for blocking the vandal account. Perhaps you can re-delete this also [5]? Cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:E562:BE4F:6CEE:A08D (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

User:KyloRen123

Not sure if I'm missing anything, but even considering that KyloRen123 isn't showing much promise, that report at AIV from User:AdamDeanHall was a joke. Hall reverted with a truly bizarre summary, gave a once-and-only warning (with manual text instead of a template), and reported at AIV, all in response to one edit. And Hall has played these sorts of games at AIV before, where he goes right through the revert-warn-report process while ignoring the fact that he's supposed to let the alleged vandal prove their bad behavior. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The block was based solely on the quality of this user's edits. Also note that it's their fourth one. Widr (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I definitely saw the edits and block log and believe me, I'm not losing any sleep over that person getting a month. Am I wrong to be concerned about Hall's report? It's not the first time he's inexplicably put a hammer down way, way too quickly. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I should have included this link. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that might be a matter for another place or board (not AIV). For the record, I didn't review Adam's edits, only KyloRen's. With repeat offenders, we don't necessarily need to yet again go through all four warnings before taking action, and in this case, the report was valid. Widr (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hall warned Ren right before making an inherently dishonest AIV report ("I even gave him a warning about what would happen if he does it again" was him telling you that Ren re-offended since that warning even though Ren hadn't), and he's done almost this exact same thing before, where he demonstrates that 11 years as an editor here haven't been enough to teach him how warnings and reports work. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 19:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Like I wrote, the block was based solely on the quality of this user's edits, not on the quality of Adam's report. Reporting was the right thing to do, per se. I have blocked KyloRen before and I'm familiar with the pattern. If there had been no previous blocks, the case would be different. Widr (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is right in line practically the same bad habits that have gotten Hall called out before, by me and others, and the previous user he did it to has an empty block log and a long history of working in good faith with others to become a better contributor. See how he went from a final warning to an AIV report without the editor in question re-offending in the meanwhile? That's inappropriate behavior, and it's vintage Hall.

I know I'm being a pest and I'm happy to take this elsewhere if you think that's a good idea. You said "another place or board" up there but I've been wrong about knowing where to go to report stuff in the past. If you were me, where would you go? ANI? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:36, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, elsewhere would be good, because you are now discussing another editor and I'm discussing reasons for a block. I see that you have opened a thread on his talk page, so why not wait for a reply before rushing to other boards? Up to you, of course. Good luck. Widr (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

That's fine, thank you. I'll wait but I won't wait long; Hall doesn't ever seem to respond to anything regarding his behavior and I bet he won't start now. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It's up at ANI. RunnyAmiga ※ talk 22:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your excellent and prompt work. Denisarona (talk) 08:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 08:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

49.143.151.98 - South Korean football inventor is back

Hi, My pet South Korean football vandal returned from a one month ban (the third in an escalating set) on 31st July. Their MO is the insertion of invented football (soccer) players into squad lists. Since returning they have inserted footballers at the following clubs, many of which edits have stuck until today:

They have also vandalised other football (soccer) pages:

12th August Adding made up manager history to AS Saint-Étienne I should have spotted this one earlier as I actually made the next edit to the page :(
26th August Adding made up manager history to Roda JC Kerkrade

Every single one of this IPs edits, going back to 26 April 2016, has been vandalism. Could you reblock for longer, please, as it's clear this is a static IP?

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Done. Widr (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! Gricehead (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk page access for blocked IP

Hi Widr, hope all is well. I stumbled across 42.60.185.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) that you blocked for block evasion. He is now just using their talk page to continuing their vandalism. Would it be possible to revoke their talk page access? Thanks in advance. -- LuK3 (Talk) 14:04, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:ANOTHERRYOMIA

Please add talk page access to your block of this sock. He or she continues to misuse the talk page [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. The talk page was semi-protected by User:KrakatoaKatie but that is not sufficient since the sock is a confirmed account. Meters (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Wow! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! But now I wonder what's the wowest thing I have done to deserve this... Widr (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) It's all down hill from now on... ;) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

What have you done to deserve this? I see 18:15, 25 March 2016 Acalamari changed group membership for Widr to administrator and Pages deleted: 3,729, Pages protected: 1,130, Users blocked: 11,653 Am I reading that right? You are like five admins. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That's a lot of clicking. Widr (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your tireless anti-vandalism work Rahul^{Text me} 19:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Widr (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)