User talk:Widr/Archive 46
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 40 | ← | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | Archive 48 | → | Archive 50 |
Persistent vandalism
Widr, a persistent vandal is attacking a number of airliner pages again, and has already used two IPs to do so, here and here. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you review my rollback rights request
Hey, I'm the user "A Great Catholic Person". I applied for rollback rights and wanted to ask if I have qualified enough for the rollback right. I just don't want to use Twinkle, I just need the basic rollback rights like many users. I just want the basic rollback rights like other people who have rollbacked edits. Can you review my request? Thanks A Great Catholic Person (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Talk page abuse
User:69.67.94.170 is continuing to ping me and other editors nonsensical messages after I asked her to stop, so could you please revoke her ability to edit her talk page? CLCStudent (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
User Novmelab
Re: this block: I concur that Novmelab was ultimately disruptive, but consider that this was a simple content dispute in which CLCStudent engaged in an edit war, reverting Novmelab's edits without sufficient explanation. The edits Novmelab made to Magín Díaz were initially constructive, albeit unsourced. However I can find no source that either supports or disputes his claim that Díaz' latest album was released on NONAME records. His frustration at being continuously reverted without explanation is not unexpected. I might recommend a more lenient hand to allow him and CLCStudent to work out the content dispute at the talk page. (I've already warned CLCStudent about their behavior.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I object. His edits obviously indicated vandalism, and you did the right thing by blocking him. There is nothing more to discuss. CLCStudent (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Spanish Monarchy
I am right ..You don't elect .,and you know it.They know it. They aren't related to whom they say they are related to. Wake up. So u wish to block the facts. Who are you. Well, more then likely whom u aren't This is what I hate people that don't tell the truth nor do they want to tell the truth. So they hide it from others.
SPI
Do you think an SPI is necessary for the sock who keeps vandalizing Jurassic Park and E.T.? He's pretty easy to spot, and I think every IP he's used has been blocked. If his pattern remains the same, an SPI seems redundant. Your thoughts? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wouldn't be much use. Widr (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. I started gathering information, but paused and decided to ask your opinion before continuing. Thanks! ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
Thanks for your tireless work in helping with this 10 year BLPCAT vandal! Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
User 207.144.99.8
User talk:207.144.99.8 is a school IP. I can confirm this as I'm on it right now. Most of the other IPs listed there are also probably School IPs. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 19:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Cate blanchett
Just want to check if we have reference on Cate on her nationality how do we edit the page. Since it has been reverted so many time despite source is given and now you have lock the page. Please advise Stef23ho (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please go to the article's talk page to discuss your concerns. Widr (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Revoke talk page access?
For 86.174.63.180? They keep removing stuff from their talk page which they should not be doing, as they are a block-evading sock. Thanks! Linguisttalk|contribs 15:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. That was a revenge nomination by a disruptive editor for my nominating a page that he has created. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
User page used as......
User page being used for advertising here , not sure how or where to report it.Chris "WarMachineWildThing" Talk to me 16:58, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
perhaps take a look?
A difficult discussion with an IP editor regarding this reversion by me has degraded into what I believe is now harassment and ad-honminum attacks on me [1] [2]. Would you mind taking a quick look? Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- [3] Todd has a history of tenditious and incivil actions. An unattributed source that contradicts hundreds of books on the ruling of Juilliard v Greenman ([4]) was removed. The language that Todd insists is Fringe because it claims that US currency is not truly "legal tender," which is what militias and other groups claim. The Supreme Court, in the case cited, made it clear that all public and private groups must accept the US dollar. No source that says otherwise can be included as fact. The link shows plenty of reliable sources stating what has been said. Todd knows this. 2601:140:C004:83B0:1425:8B7F:AA76:A135 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
50.206.162.5
Can you please block permanently 50.206.162.5, as it is a school with persistent vandalism. I can confirm it is a school, as I was on it. R-athrill (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's currently blocked. We don't block IPs permanently. Widr (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- While you do not have the option to block it permanently, you may have the option to block it for an indefinite amount of time. R-athrill (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Indefinite and permanent blocks are mostly the same thing on Wiki. IP addresses are dynamically assigned, and we almost never block IP addressed indef. Garchy (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- While you do not have the option to block it permanently, you may have the option to block it for an indefinite amount of time. R-athrill (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
block long time
Hi Widr. Just a heads up - you might want to review your recent decades-long blocks, and consider not using custom block lengths at this time[5] -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hmm. This was the only one I noticed, and where I aimed for 7 years. It shows the previous block as decades too. I'm going off soon, but feel free to reduce any weird lengths you may find. Widr (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I count 17 of yours lasting more than 4 decades, going back 4 days. Apparently reports are that the block length is not affected, only the block log entry. I don't know whether the existing log entry will change when it's fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I assume they have not showed up as decades until today? I think I would have noticed. Widr (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I notice that you just reblocked Wikipediazzz as indef (you beat me to the button) after Deb had blocked them for four decades yesterday. Deb's block doesn't seem to have stopped them from editing, which is odd. Any ideas? Peridon (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Deb's block length appears to have been 12 hours. Widr (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- It shows to me as 12 hours - 12 hours is one of the dropdown values, so I wouldn't expect it to be affected. VPT discussion. I understand the bug will be fixed on Monday - I'd expect some weirdness until then. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's still showing "4 decades, 7 years, 27 days, 18 hours, 24 minutes and 43 seconds" for me. If it actually was 12 hours, that explains why more vandalism was possible. Strange. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Try this. Viewing the block in another language, such as British or French shows the long time, for me anyway. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's still showing "4 decades, 7 years, 27 days, 18 hours, 24 minutes and 43 seconds" for me. If it actually was 12 hours, that explains why more vandalism was possible. Strange. Peridon (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- It shows to me as 12 hours - 12 hours is one of the dropdown values, so I wouldn't expect it to be affected. VPT discussion. I understand the bug will be fixed on Monday - I'd expect some weirdness until then. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Deb's block length appears to have been 12 hours. Widr (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I notice that you just reblocked Wikipediazzz as indef (you beat me to the button) after Deb had blocked them for four decades yesterday. Deb's block doesn't seem to have stopped them from editing, which is odd. Any ideas? Peridon (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- I assume they have not showed up as decades until today? I think I would have noticed. Widr (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
- I count 17 of yours lasting more than 4 decades, going back 4 days. Apparently reports are that the block length is not affected, only the block log entry. I don't know whether the existing log entry will change when it's fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
...not that it matters but this editor is posting the anatomical term "penis" on their talkpage. I reverted it once but am not reverting it again, keeping Streisand effect in mind and the fact that it is their user talkpage. Anyway, you blocked them so thought you might want to know in case you think their talkpage access should be revoked or whatever. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
- A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
- Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
- Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
- When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
- Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
- The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
Arbitration
- The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.
Obituaries
- JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
205.126.15.216
May want to go ahead and revoke talk access for the duration of the block. TimothyJosephWood 17:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Fairleys Wines
Just a heads up, Fairleys Wines who you previously blocked seems to have returned as Rab070. CiarraiThiar (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The Visalia Vandal
Our anon IP-hopping "friend" from Visalia, California is back, now editing from an IPv6 address range starting with 2601:206:4001:7cea. It reads up as a Comcast IP, and based on the edit times this is probably when s/he is at home. Check out the recent edit history at Disney California Adventure for evidence. I've already left a final warning on their most recently used address, located here. --McDoobAU93 13:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Clarification
Just requesting some clarification regarding [6]. Did you mean to undo the user before me but then my edit conflicted? Feel free to remove this section once you respond. Dat GuyTalkContribs 17:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, you got in the middle. I blocked the IP you reported, though. Widr (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
New Page Review - newsletter No.2
- A HUGE backlog
We now have 809 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.
The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.
- Second set of eyes
Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.
- Abuse
This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and
- this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
- this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
- This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.
Coordinator election
Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.
Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Obvious block evasion
Guestremakesissaved is obviously a block evasion by Guestremakes, who you blocked last week. The latter is also obviously a block evasion by a persistent vandal at NJ Transit related articles. Just thought you might like to know/block. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably not here
May have originally come here to contribute positively, but is now blatantly trolling. May want to do adminy things. TimothyJosephWood 16:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Question
Hello Widr. I was wondering about this block. There have been no edits from the IP for over a year. I also cannot figure out why this warning was place on the IPs talk page since they had never edited the article mentioned. These California 172 IPs have been adding reports about users and IPs to AIV for several days. Most of them are stale. I did start a thread about this here Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#SPA IP. Thanks for your time and for all that you do here at WikiP. MarnetteD|Talk 18:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Please see the edit filter log as well, That would explain the warning. Widr (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks. I checked it and see what you are talking about. I don't understand why the edit history of the article does not show any of the actions that are in the filter log. I know you are busy so when you have a moment could you leave a link to some page that explains this. It doesn't matter how long I've edited here there is always something new to learn. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 8 February 2017 (UTC)