User talk:Jake Wartenberg

Welcome back
Welcome back. I am sorry about the display in response to your simple request to resume your good work here. I hope to see you around a lot. I also took an extended absence and returned to the project. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:58, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

That was uncomfortable to read; I imagine it was significantly worse when actually directed at you. As you may have guessed, you've accidentally stumbled into a hotbed of current community disagreement, and policy is in flux. While I'm personally not sure it's a great idea to resysop someone in your shoes until you've been back a little while - some things really have changed - I certainly don't understand the anger and aggression directed at you, particularly since the current policy wording implies you can simply do what you did. Thanks for volunteering to help, sorry for the way you were treated, and hope to see you around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

As Flo says, it's become a major source of disgruntlement, and that's in no way your fault. You've done the right thing all around, here. You shouldn't take any of this as a reflection on you. It's just where we are right now. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the course that discussion took as well: the current guidance remains far too unclear. I remember your name and am glad to see you back. I have a recollection of you being an effective and even-handed administrator ( feel free to correct if my memory fails me =P ) and personally think the project would have been well-served by a more immediate resumption of your administration. There is work to be done and a shortage of experienced and willing hands. –xenotalk 17:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Very sorry you are being asked to perform like a bear being made to dance on a ball. It is ludicrous to me that someone with your history of contribution to the project is being asked to fetch a shrubbery. Regardless I hope that you do jump through these hoops and return to your good work.

As much as people like to talk about how much Wikipedia has changed, it really has not changed that much. People are still making a giant fuss about the cause de jour.

If I ever take another extended absence I know that it is better to hold onto the bit rather than give it up temporarily for the safety of the project. I have 2fa and a strong password so not much danger there. I think it is sad that the community has asked admins to give up their bit with the promise of getting it back later for the security of the project and then renegging when the time comes. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:03, 12 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry it went this way too. As you probably saw on the Bureaucrats' Noticeboard, I believe your request was within policies and practices and should have been granted. I hope this experience doesn't put you off, and that you consider asking for your rights back again in the future. --Deskana (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for the kind words, everyone. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 05:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Glad that worked out!
Glad that we have another active administrator here. Much ado about nothing, but it worked out in the end. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 23:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll add my congratulations here, too. Glad it worked out for you. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 12:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the block
Can you also rev/delete their defamatory edits and summaries, as well? Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks for your work. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Big Thanks
Thanks for dealing with Nate Speed. I don't know how long we have to suffer from his deeds. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 04:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

KJ1990CS and the IP
Re this comment of yours, which to be fair I didn't see until after I blocked them: Perhaps he was right, but he never responded to the warnings by attempting to discuss, and continued using the IP after he got to the last one. It doesn't matter if you are factually correct, those behaviors are not conducive to getting along with other editors. Daniel Case (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I certainly have no problem with you blocking the editor, but I wanted to leave the note since it seemed like there was a potential BLP issue and I didn't have time to look into it. I will investigate when I have time and start a thread on the talk page.  Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Unblock-auto
In general, I suggest not lifting autoblocks for IP addresses like you did here. The autoblock system exists to prevent block evasion and the particular user involved here has engaged in vandalism and personal attacks across multiple accounts. I make that claim based on the unblock request itself and on Sockpuppet investigations/Andrew0711171/Archive, which you couldn't have known about when you reviewed the request. My statement should not be taken as checkuser evidence that this particular unblock request was made by the user, only that their own unblock-auto request implicated that particular vandal. My point is, as a general rule, it's only really worth considering unblock-auto when the request is made by an account in good standing. --Yamla (talk) 18:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for letting me know how to handle these kinds of requests going forward. Can I ask how you usually phrase the decline rationale?  Do you refer people to ACC?  Jake Wartenberg (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:ACC is a good pointer, but I'll typically only send someone that way if there were previously constructive edits from that IP address (for IPv4) or /64 range (for IPv6). If so, that tends to indicate it is a shared address. More commonly, though, it's almost certainly hitting the targeted person, then I'll tend to say, "Autoblock is working as designed, preventing a blocked user from continuing to edit". That doesn't exclude the possibility of collateral damage, but it's pretty rare. I'll also tend to do a whois lookup on the IP address; if it tracks to a school, I'll point them to ACC. It's a different matter for accounts, obviously. TL;DNR: "Autoblock is working as designed", unless there's reason to think otherwise. :) --Yamla (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI - User 47.157.129.133
You may want to contribute to the ANI discussion about user 47.157.129.133 since you were previously involved in the user's talk page with warnings or notices. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:4425:751C:D9BD:7885 (talk) 04:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

69.121.9.199 POV-pushing
Hey, I noticed you previously blocked for disruptive editing - they've continued to POV-push, for example whitewashing a convicted murderer here. Would you consider reblocking for a longer period of time? It seems unlikely that they're here to contribute constructively. Thanks! Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 02:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Lough
Hi, sent you an email re the block appeal at User_talk:JimmyLough. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

vandalism of Vish (game)
Thanks. Could you revert the edit too? --50.39.108.97 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --50.39.108.97 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Your indef block of 24.224.220.33
Sigh... This is the 2nd time I've had to tell an admin this, but per WP:IPBLENGTH, "However, IP addresses should almost never be indefinitely blocked. Many IP addresses are dynamically assigned and change frequently from one person to the next, and even static IP addresses are periodically reassigned or have different users. In cases of long-term vandalism from an IP address, consider blocks over a period of months or years instead. Long-term blocks should never be used for isolated incidents, regardless of the nature of their policy violation. IP addresses used by blatant vandals, sockpuppets and people issuing legal threats should never be blocked for long periods unless there is evidence that the IP address has been used by the same user for a long time." wizzito &#124;  say hello!  03:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was aware of that policy; I just hit the wrong button. Thanks for letting me know.  Jake Wartenberg (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:191.193.91.67
To balance out the previous topic on your talk-page, I extended your 48h block of this IP to a year. It's just another evading IP not isolated vandalism. I can't remember who the master is:( DMacks (talk) 03:12, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Your block of BanerjeeMarch1313
They evidently went back to their IP. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, blocked. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

NYCS IP
100.2.139.76 is not getting it following their first block.  Cards   84664   02:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I extended the block. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * They're still not getting it, their first edit is a revert.  Cards   84664   22:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Now they're editing from . Same edits as before  Cards   84664   21:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Need a range block on this one too, thanks.  Cards   84664   01:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

User:The edit has been disallowed
Yeah, a quick look at their contribs and their username just screamed NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I definitely meant to indef block. Thanks for catching it. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Indian IPv6 range editing issue
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Stricter block for Indian IPv6 ranges due to sockpuppetry. Thank you. — B. L. I. R.</b> 00:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive IP
165.16.47.4 is still at it: removing the proper sources and misrepresenting others). They are an obvious sock of Kayzer_aika_gas. The request to have the article protected is unfortunately collecting dust, so I don't really know what else to do. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Need a longer block for 87.127.204.105?
Jake, I just reverted two more edits from this vandalism-only user, shortly after your previous two blocks. Should this justify a new & longer block? —173.68.139.31 (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election
Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

User talk:Owentherosehead2008
OK to unblock? please see &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, thanks. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
<section begin="announcement-content" />
 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Thank you :-) Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you want to lift the block and have me accept the unblock request. Sometimes, it's just not worth the effort to keep fighting the editor. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that they will end up blocked again, unless they are able to slow down a bit, but I think it's worth a shot. If you could fix the templates, that would be swell.  Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done! Have a great day. :) --Yamla (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

TPA
Hello! Thanks for blocking the Robert Fico vandal. Is it possible to have their TPA revoked? The user is blanking it in an apparent effort to hide their WP:NOTHERE record on Wiki. Borgenland (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * They're allowed to do that, see WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Closing of Otago NORML
Hi there - I'm reaching out about your closure decision on Otago NORML. While I recognize that there were more keep than delete !votes, I don't think a clear consensus emerged. (It was 5 keep to 3 delete/redirect/merge.) Moreover, only one of the keep votes engaged with how WP:BRANCH would apply under WP:ORGCRIT. Just wanted to get some more detail on your reasoning for the close versus a relist given the debate that was going on. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. I've listed this at DRV and suggest you comment there, as well.  Jake Wartenberg (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Mail from me
Hi, Jake. This is to let you know that I've sent you an email. Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation
Hi Jake Wartenberg :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

My user talk page
Hi Jake Wartenburg, thanks for taking care of that LTA IP address person. Perhaps I should have mentioned this beforehand in the AIV report, but I really don't mind the regular weekly personal attacks from that person on my user talk page, and so I do not wish for my talk page to be protected at this time. Only if the disruption reaches maybe 5 times a day I would like it protected. That guy's insults honestly give me a good laugh most of the time (nowadays making ridiculous false statements) and perhaps an unprotected page would display my courage better. Either way, the previous three-month semi-protection by User:NinjaRobotPirate proved that they won't stop attacking me in some other way, as they will then typically go to their own talk or another user's talk and ping me in messages they leave over there. — <span style="background:#1F6295;color:white;padding:1q 5q;border-radius:10q;font-family:Franklin Gothic, Verdana">AP 499D25  (talk)  03:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've removed the protection. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

AFDs
Hello, Jake,

Could you please let AFDs run for a full 7 days before closing them? An hour or so early is fine but you are often closing AFDs a half day early and I'm not sure why you are not letting them run for 7 days as advised. WP:AFD states Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on community consensus and A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven full days (168 hours). Situations that allow for an closure are listed at Deletion process.

We sometimes get editors showing up late to comment those extra 6+ hours that an AFD is open can make a difference. Of course, AFDs that have been relisted can be closed as soon as you see a consensus. At first I thought this closing AFDs early was an aberration but it is something you are doing consistently and it would be nice if you let AFDs run a full 7 days before closing them. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 17:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, I'll be more mindful of this. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Reply to User talk:JackkBrown
I'm trying to reach an agreement: User talk:Oxbowa; I hope they answer me. JacktheBrown (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't resume edit warring when the protection expires. Check out WP:3O.  I've personally found it to be really helpful when I disagree with another editor.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact, I will not; if the user doesn't respond within a month I will ask another user for the rollback, but I will not intervene personally. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

... But there are very problematic situations, such as those who write that espresso and cappuccino aren't Italian without reaching a consensus (Sapsby). I don't want edits wars. JacktheBrown (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unblock request
Hello, Jake. On 8 July you blocked, quite rightly. later removed talk page access. The editor has now posted an unblock request at UTRS, basically admitting that what they did was unacceptable, and undertaking not to do the same again. Personally I am inclined in this situation to give the editor another chance, in the hope that they will stick to their undertaking, but with a clear statement that even the slightest repetition of unacceptable editing will lead to the block being restored, with far less likelihood of it ever being lifted again. However, not everyone is as willing as I am to consider allowing such a second chance. Do you have any opinion? (I would go via restoring talk page access and allowing an on-wiki request, rather than directly unblocking. Yamla has said that he is not optimistic but would not oppose an unblock, so it is reasonable to assume that he would accept restoring talk page access.) JBW (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for handling this. I've commented on the UTRS ticket.  ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)