User talk:Widr/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

Blocking before edit after final warning

I noticed a discussion between you and dear NeilN about blocking before edits after final warning. I just saw a case where I would have waited, but another admin blocked. They shall remain anonymous. :)

Anyhow, there are certainly two sides to it. Many admins block before a further edit after final warning. You are not alone there. I have been advised to make my judgement based on "...Ask yourself if they are NOTHERE and the chances that they will suddenly become constructive..." For me, it is case by case. If the vandalism is serious, maybe nasty BLP vios, tag-team vandalism, attacks, et cetera, I will usually block before final warning. If it is garden-variety vandalism, I will generally wait for an edit after final warning. You would be surprised how many stop just after reading that final warning and never edit again. Many many. One benefit of waiting is that, if you block them too early, they may get angry and start socking as a hobby. It is all about outcomes. Food for thought. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey Anna. Your thinking is similar to mine. For the run of the mill stuff I will block if they vandalize after a 3rd, 4th, or only warning as they all contain "you may be blocked" verbiage. That verbiage stops a lot of miscreants. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) @Anna Frodesiak and NeilN: Those are good points. I am, admittedly, a very impatient person by nature and I've come to have a short fuse with vandals. When I used to come across a new user whose only contribs are vandalism, I would wait until an act of vandalism following a level 4/4im warning before reporting to AIV, but now I usually report vandalism only accounts earlier on instead of waiting for five acts of vandalism, as the AIV instructions say the user has been given enough warning (not necessarily level 4/4im), Twinkle lists "vandalism-only account" as an option, and as a way of saving time I may otherwise waste edit warring with the vandal. Still, it's probably not the best way of handling vandals. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 19:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Anna, there are many ways to deal with vandalism, probably as many as there are admins dealing with it. From my years of AIV related work and vandal fighting I have developed a hunch that usually tells me quickly whether this particular user is worth another warning, or if they are here just to waste everyone's time. Because that's what it often boils down to: wasting our time and admin resources. AIV is a busy place, and we only have a small handful of really active AIV admins who know what it's all about, so forcing users to report again and again in a clear-cut cases just for the sake of bureaucracy can be rather counterproductive. Of course, when it's not clear-cut, admin discretion usually steps in. Widr (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Slightly related: Would it be beneficial to automatically add users who have recently (say, within the last week or so) received a 4 or 4im warning to a category or something like that and then remove them after that week? Would that help admins keep tabs on vandals? Is it even possible to change a 4/4im template to do that? -- Gestrid (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Widr. I'm confused. Are you talking about AIV reports where the user has been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior, right? Then, admins watch and see if there's more and then block. Are you saying this is a waste of resources? Then you talk of forcing users to report again and again. I am not clear on where the wasteage is? Sorry to be confused. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking about situations like declining to block a user who hasn't perhaps received all four levels of warnings, even though from their first edit it's clear that there is nothing productive coming. Also, if we refuse to block when good faith users file valid reports and demand them to jump through extra hoops, it may discourage them from reporting again. These are just some examples, but yes, usually it's case by case like you said. I also appreciate the fact that your focus is more on content than varieties of vandalism, so you naturally see things in a different light. Widr (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Good points. Well, filers can file and walk. I am not sure there are extra hoops. They've done their bit. All we ask is that they read instructions like "2. The user must have been given enough warnings to stop their disruptive behavior."' and use their best judgement. If admins decline or watch or block, well, that's their call. I would guess that filers would be more inclined to learn from common outcomes than be discouraged.

What's the difference between content an varieties of vandalism? I don't quite get that.

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess you would have to do a fair amount of anti-vandalism work yourself to understand it fully. The frustration when you get your reports shut down by drive-by admins who don't do anti-vandalism work themselves. ;-)

Mostly these are matters of opinion, though, and at some point we may just have to agree to disagree. Is there any specific block of mine that you wanted to discuss? They are not very dear to me, and I don't mind if you unblock. I often see my blocks altered afterwards by other admins, like changing rationale from "vandalism" to "vandalism-only account", when the user is already indef'd. It's pointless, but I wouldn't make a fuss of it. Widr (talk) 07:20, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Well, I've done my share of AIV back in the day. Now I just encounter it as part of my other work. I don't go searching for it much. And no, there is not specific block I had in mind, and I have no issues with how you handle matters, my friend. I only posted here to let you know one of the good reasons to not block too too fast. All the best and keep up the good work. :)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

All the best to you too, Anna. I stalk your actions often as well, and appereciate your calm and down-to-earth approach. I especially liked the way you reached out to a certain long-time sockpuppeteer just recently (no names mentioned). Not many of us would bother, but I wasn't surprised that you did. Widr (talk) 08:12, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

This is easily the best bunny at Commons. I just thought you should have it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

You stalk me? :) Actually, I never stalk you. I just go to block someone, and you've arrived and done it first. You are everywhere. :) I just posted here about the possible outcome of waiting (or not) until edits after final warning.

As for the reaching out, well, I just think that alternatives to DENY-whack-a-mole with LTAs should be tried, or at least investigated. It seems LTAs are here out of anger from an old block, or to help enwp, for kicks, or for POV. If it's the last one, I won't touch it. But if it's one of the first three, then they would have to be bonkers to waste years of being reverted. I don't think that many people are bonkers. Anyhow, so far I think I've talked around 1 out of 10 into stopping. Not great, but I may be getting better and more efficient. Like a sales pitch, maybe it could be refined into a series of boilerplates that actually pay off. Maybe. Maybe not. :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Stalking in a good way of course. Watching your talk page and such. Thanks for the bunny! Widr (talk) 09:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Pakistan Conservative Party

Should have been hardblocked IMO, as I was about to do, since they used their user page for their political manifesto. BethNaught (talk) 10:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to reblock, no objections. Widr (talk) 10:05, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

He's ba-a-a-a-a-ack

70.212.1.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). TIA. —ATS 🖖 Talk 04:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warrior is back

Please see Maddie Ziegler. User talk:Rnicraje, the person that you blocked yesterday, is back edit warring on the page again. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk pge block?

Hey Widr, do you think you could change the block for love astrology spambot User:Truemolvi so they can't post to their user talk page? They have been posting their spam there after being blocked. Thanks, --bonadea contributions talk 13:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Widr. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Fast, faster, fastest

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Because you respond to reports at WP:AIV with lightning speed. That keeps this vandal fighter motivated. Thanks. Yintan  08:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 09:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it's pretty cool I must say- put one in the other day that was 🚫 the same minute :D. _Muffled ^Pocketed 09:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it happens. When I'm around, I'm around. ;-) Widr (talk) 09:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

You can say that again. Yintan  09:28, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a race. If you rush quickly through backlogs and noticeboards, you are likely to make mistakes. I have seen you make at least 2-3 questionable blocks that I felt were puntitive, and despite pinging you to the discussions, you have failed to respond and justify your actions. Slow down and think about what you are doing, and remember that a real person is going to read your block message. The next time this happens, there will be a thread at ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Widr, excessive blocking and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problems. Thank you. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the work you've put in since your RfA. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism blocks

Hi Widr,

It looks like Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) changed a lot of the block durations that you had originally set. I just wanted to let you know of this just in case if you wanted to change them back to how you originally had them, and/or if you wanted to discuss this with them. Thanks! 2607:FB90:A452:9E80:0:3F:C908:DA01 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Just report again to AIV when vandalism resumes. Widr (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall changing any block durations, I am am twitchy about altering any blocks without consensus of the blocking admin. What it might be is sometimes you can get the admin equivalent of an edit conflict, and one block setting can clobber the other in a mid-air conflict. That could be what it is. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohi uddin Ahmad Al- Hasani Wal Hussaini Ajmeri

Hi Widr. I had messaged the deleting admin but I have not received a reply. I had voted for Speedy delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Mohi uddin Ahmad Al- Hasani Wal Hussaini Ajmeri as per A7 and G4, and then tagging it for csd shortly after. After the article had been speedily deleted, I decided to close the deletion discussion as per CSD; however I read WP:BADNAC and I wonder if my closure was inappropriate because I participated in the discussion, although my closure reason is completely uncontroversial (A7 and G4, also performed by an admin) and is backed by policy. However, if due to BADNAC, if my closure was inappropriate, please do assist to re-close the discussion. Thanks, Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 13:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not my area of expertise, so I suggest you wait until the deleting admin replies or ask another admin. Sorry. Widr (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) A CSD NAC is fine in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Widr!

I just wanted to leave you a message and tell you, "good morning"! :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Haha, good morning to you too! Widr (talk) 07:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hope your day is going well. It's always a pleasure to run into you :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

At work now and all is well. Hope you are fine too. It's a pleasure indeed to bump into you in the battlefields. ;-) Widr (talk) 07:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not in the office yet, but I will be in a few hours. Indeed I am doing well. The mop so far is treating me fine, as expected... other than that, just doing my normal thing ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Global Cycling Network

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Global Cycling Network. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 09:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Unsalted. Widr (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your most recent block

See similar ones at UAA. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh it's that guy (pun intended!) again RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

At least it's not dat boi. clpo13_(talk) 18:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I did. I think these should be reported to AIV, for quicker response. Widr (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Bullsfan103 sock

Mind blocking bullsfan103 for president? He just vandalized my talk page for reporting him at SPI. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your talk page? I don't see anything. Widr (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Check the abuselog. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 19:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems that all has been taken care of for now. Widr (talk) 19:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

New articles on software licenses

There are over dozens of new (but duplicated) articles on software licenses - do you know if it's a class project misplaced onto main space? It seems a bit random for all of them to show up at once. I couldn't see any wiki education notice on the accounts.--Cahk (talk) 07:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. Widr (talk) 07:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Nawab of Kalabagh

Legal Threats/Use of talk page as social forum? --Cahk (talk) 08:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks for doing your duties as an admin... What's that a mop on a star??? Well here have it :P Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Vandal?

Check out User talk:178.167.254.88, you've already question them but they appear unmoved! Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiBurger

Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC) haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Hey Widr! I hope that the recent controversies were not too upsetting for you. I was worried that you have been a little soft spoken lately. Hope things aren't too heavy on you, and my apologies if I have upsetted you. Thanks for all the help around here. Cheers!

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

Nah. All is good. Thanks anyway. Widr (talk) 05:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Revoke talk page access?

For this user? Thanks in advance. Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 09:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Anngelo

You blocked him for 48 hours, but I'm suggesting at ANI a topic ban or indefinite block for his edit "Turk or Turks most often refers to taking up the asshole". His agenda has been consistently anti-Turkish, but this is just too much. Doug Weller talk 14:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No objections. Indef is probably needed soon anyway. Widr (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please revoke talk page access

For User:Aghosting. Thanks! Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 18:59, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

TetraZon

Maybe some salt? I'm pretty sure they'll be back. Yintan  19:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not just yet, only twice created so far. Widr (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Wanna bet? Yintan  19:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about all these "revoke talk page access" threads

User spamming their talk page after block [1] Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 21:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all your work dealing with spammers and vandals :D Linguist 111 If you reply here, please type {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message. 21:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting them! Widr (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Mvdltubq

Mvdltubq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could use a talk page access reconfiguration. Cheers Jim1138 (talk)

Keeping up with the Joneses

It's amazing what people have time to do. Looks like they're just spamming talk page now, should access be revoked? RA0808 ^talk_contribs 19:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

User:182.68.230.121 at AIV

On the contrary, this is a matter of shifting IPs doing the same falsification and I have previously warned this IP for vandalism at Guiyang (with normal winter temperatures far closer to London than the tropics) and one of its bordering provincial capitals. But an ongoing thanks for decisive action to hold the Flag vandal to account. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Page protection is then a better solution and has been done now. Widr (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Everytime I come to report a no-good-nik, you're around to do what needs to be done. Excellent work! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Widr (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Jay Weatherill

Thank you. Very best, 2601:188:1:AEA0:5026:9BD2:9F02:C2DF (talk) 19:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)