User talk:Widr/Archive 56

Not all Wikinger considered harmful
Hi Widr. I don't think is a sock of the little pest. His track record at de-Wiki seems impeccable. I know that the other one sometimes uses "Wikinger8" in his verbal droppings, but that's how he operates. Kind of the Imitation Game without intelligence – artificial or otherwise. Favonian (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I unblocked. I'm not that familiar with this one of your many darlings. Widr (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Query on block
Hello. Could you help me understand your block of ? I was in the process of declining the AIV report when I received the edit-conflict message that you had blocked the user for 30 days. The anonymous editor in question has zero edit filter hits and has made just one edit in 154 days. While that edit was clearly vandalism, he or she apparently heeded the warning issued by ClueBot, because the editor in question has not vandalized again in the 11 hours since they were warned. If Blocking policy states that blocks are preventative and not punitive, can you help me understand why you even blocked this IP, let alone for a month? Respectfully, — Kralizec! (talk) 13:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The IP returned to vandalism straight after the previous block. I for one believe that the bar for reblocking should be considerebly lower after each block, but it's fine to disagree on that. Widr (talk) 13:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it really "straight after" the block when that edit was made 140 days after the block ended? We can agree or disagree on where the re-blocking bar should be, but policy requires blocks to be preventative, and I have a difficult time seeing how a block is not punitive when it is for 30 days on an editor who appears to have obeyed the warning to stop vandalism. It would be a totally different story if the IP had made subsequent non-constructive edits after being warned, or if they had a lot of prevented-edits in the filter log. However this IP made one edit, was warned and then stopped, and we know they stopped, because it was not until 11 hours later that the IP was even reported to AIV. — Kralizec! (talk) 14:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's preventative in a sense that past edits clearly suggest that nothing useful can be expected from the IP. It's also a waste of our time and resources to let these school kids run loose, and everyone who has ever done a bit of "vandal fighting" knows this. Straight after refers to the very first edit after the previous block. Widr (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Laredo AM power vandal
I've added a new LTA report at Long-term abuse/Laredo AM power vandal that you might be interested in having issued a number of the blocks to his IP range. Raymie (t • c) 21:14, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good to know and easier to identify when reporting to AIV. Widr (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:


 * https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.


 * Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

User:101.180.73.19 block
Would you consider unblocking this IP? A registered user was edit warring with them on multiple pages, so I full protected them all instead of blocking both of them. We seem to have crossed paths here. Since the articles are full protected, I don't think the IP is likely to be disruptive. This was a content dispute, and I don't think it fair to block the IP when the registered account was just as much at fault. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * And of course I see this was tagged on the talk as a potential sock by another IP right after I post here. I'm not familiar with that user so I'll trust in your discretion if you have dealt with them before :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll unblock. Something fishy going on probably. Widr (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi guys I'm certain this is Sockpuppet investigations/Xdeluna who had probably used no less than 100 proxies. I'm sure these are also her: User:110.136.32.178, User:139.218.187.205, User:141.168.229.111, User:41.218.222.160, User:2001:8003:A9DD:8800:F8F3:599D:2477:1A25, and these are just from the last 2 days (December). Protecting those 4 articles isn't enough, because she will use another proxy to edit other actors/TV shows/movies in Chinese/Korean entertainment and when she edits, it's often hundreds of articles at one time to suit her pet peeves, making damage control difficult and frustrating. The only thing I can think of is protecting the hundreds of articles in her "field", and I'm willing to spend the time to prepare such a list, if someone can protect all of these articles. Timmyshin (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Searchengineways
You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Block of User:92.72.102.39
That looks like part of a larger pattern that might need more substantial action. See User talk:Graham87. DMacks (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

User:47.203.0.180
Why was this IP actually blcoked? Only his today's last edit was vandalism. --Avoided (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a repeat offender. And you yourself reported the IP to the AIV. Widr (talk) 21:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I should have looked through the other current edits. IP has contributed a substantive amount of good edits today and in the last few days. Therefore, I would opt for unblocking that IP. There is really not much vandalism in this IP's history. 85 per cent of the edits are really okay. --Avoided (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow
What a edit conflict   -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * So it seems. Luckily our settings were identical. Widr (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

86.173.3.24
User:86.173.3.24 is trying to harrass Soro from her talkpage. CLCStudent (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like Cyp took care of it. Widr (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

User:184.147.29.85
You're gonna need to block this IP user's talk page access, as he obviously has nothing better to do whenever he's blocked. Also, as he's been using numerous IP addresses, should we open an SPI or LTA? - Areaseven (talk) 15:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They are free remove all current messages from their own talk page as they wish. See WP:OWNTALK. Widr (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The actual problem is not removing messages, but altering the wording of some of the warnings, which is why he had his talk page access revoked in his previous IP addresses. - Areaseven (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That can be seen as abuse, which simple blanking is not. Widr (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a persistent disruptive editor.
Hello Widr

Along with User:Tomas990 we have been diligently cleaning up and improving the Polo page. Please see the history and check my talk page.

There is endless editing, undoing and re-editing by User talk:میرسلوک غدیری قزوینی, who seems to lack the objectivity necessary here, to say the least, along with his possible compatriot puppet account.

Looks like you may have the juice to drop an official hint, something I never sought. I'll stick to the facts. Thank you much, in advance.

Ssaco (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I realize you came here because I previously blocked this user for unrelated reasons. However, this seems more like a content dispute over subjects I am not familiar with, so unfortunately it's not something I can help you with. The best course of action for all of you would probably be engaging in a discussion on the article's talk page. Widr (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Widr

I concur with Ssaco. I understand you're not familiar with the content, but would you be able to issue a warning or temporary block based on his behaviour? Especially considering his history of disruption. I am sure he has a sock account and he has reverted my edits 4 times and reverted Ssaco's edits too without engaging with my comments or providing sources. It is quite frustrating.

There are four reliable sources I cited in the article:


 * 1) Hong, Fan; Mangan, J. A. (18 November 2005), Sport in Asian Society: Past and Present. Routledge. p. 309.
 * 2) Laffaye, Horace A. (29 May 2009). The Evolution of Polo. p. 5-6.
 * 3) "The History of Polo". Polomuseum.com. Retrieved 27 March 2015.
 * 4) "The origins and history of Polo". Historic-uk.com. Retrieved 27 March 2015.

You can check these in the previous version that was reverted by the user in question.

This particular user decides to remove cited information and provide no reliable citations of his own to rewrite the article in a way that suggests polo originated in Iran. One of the pre-existing sources was/still is a hotel booking website. I didn't think this was an appropriate source so I removed it.

I have engaged with him on the Talk page but he does not provide sources for what he says. It does not seem like he is willing to engage constructively - unfortunately I believe he is only on here to push a nationalistic agenda.

Thanks. Tomas990 (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

LazyChkUsr and HolyChkUsr
I haven't seen this particular type of abuse before, impersonating CheckUsers and messing with the status of sock cases. Maybe you have seen it before. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Too many. But it's best not to give them any extra attention. Widr (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Beans. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates
Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 06:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation
Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

We are specifically contacting you for your ideas because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on en Wikipedia. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. You can post to the discussion in the language that you are most comfortable expressing your ideas.

Other ways that you can help

 * Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
 * If you know of current or previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

A Favor
Would it be possible if you could semi-protect Talk:List of fictional cats in animation for a while so that the "Disney's Pete is a wolf" vandal can cool his jets for a while?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Blocked IP seems to be back
Hi Widr, sorry to bother you. A few days back you blocked this charmer but it looks as if they may now be back as this person with the same content. Would you mind having a look, please? Thanks and best wishes DBaK (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

IP Address
Averagetennesseejoe (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Widr: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, — MRD2014 Merry Christmas! 01:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Rollback
Thank you for enabling me to use that. Is it possible for me to use it on mobile? Because I sometimes feel helpless looking at a vandalistic edit which I cannot revert. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  16:58, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No idea. I never edit WP on mobile. Widr (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for dealing with the IP sock, and for your hard work in general. It's greatly appreciated! 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I blocked the listed accounts and one of the IPs, others are a bit stale now. Widr (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you mind getting as well? The IP left a very nice message on my talk page. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Out of the blue question
Hi, I don't mean to bother you, but you're the only admin I could find online, so I thought I'd ask you.

Is there a guideline against promotional links for bands (i.e. linking to bandcamps on the article page), and if there is, could you direct me to it? I can't seem to find something that concisely states that.

Thanks, Abce2 (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't say for sure and I don't have time to search around now, but I would imagine you might find something following the links at WP:PROMO. Widr (talk) 00:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you. Abce2 (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Crazies
Just a friendly reminder to make sure you yank email access as well when you block crazies—it's been known to be abused in the past. Best, HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I intentionally do that rarely nowadays, unless there is a good reason. After all, attention is what they want, and they don't get much of it by sending emails. Widr (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Widr!


Happy New Year! Widr, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Iggy (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

January 2018
Eimukas22 is back as Baltics22. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Widr I Fixed Babak Rahnama Article References With Good References Like BBC Persian & Other On My Sandbox, Now I Want Share This Article How Can I Release? PLEASE CHECK MY SANDBOX & Help Me With Respect Mohammadrajabloo (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fear this singer may not be notable enough for an article. Please see WP:MUSICBIO for some further criteria and guidelines. Widr (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, Mohammadrajabloo is a sock of . —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)