User talk:Widr/Archive 42
 | 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 35 | ← | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
Hello. It's an obvious sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis, one of the most prolific sockers, hoaxers and vandals here. One of his habits is to get drunk and bored on Saturday nights (see Special:Contributions/Thosam.W, including deleted/revdeled contributions, for what he did a couple of weeks ago) and then try to irritate me (since I've nailed a large number of his socks) with one sock after the other until he's had too much to drink, and passes out. So we'll most probably see more of his socks here tonight... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Who-Hoo! TheOneFootTallBrickWall (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC) |
Who is this "Genghis Khan" guy?
Hi Widr. I noticed on my watchlist that you reverted an edit on User talk:Jetstreamer by a guy called Jetstreamer Genghis Khan. Im curious to know, do you know what was the original account that the sock master used before he was blocked and started socking called? The reason why is because I've been seeing a lot of "Genghis Khan" accounts (for example one i found was "Anna Genghis Frodesiak Khan") edits being reverted on lots of user talk pages and I'm curious to know how this started. Also, if i spot any edits by any similar accounts, is there an SPI that i can report it to? Thanks! Class455 (talk) 14:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- SPI would be unnecessary. It's best if you just revert and report all such accounts to AIV, because attention is all they are after. Widr (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again
Thanks again for your support - and for your seemingly-ceaseless vandal interdictions. ‑‑Dstone66 ⑆(talk)⑇(contribs)⑈ 07:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Complaints do not reach the correct people
"Hello, I'm Widr. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Hainburg an der Donau because it did not appear constructive."
This message ended up in my computer, and God knows how many others'. Yes, we share IP addresses since we connect via mobile broadband all the time. That is via a national Internet Provider. This means that Your complaint is thrown into the faces of everyone that logs in after the fact, and happens to get the same address You found it appropriate to address.
The problem is just this - the real contributor to the article You changed, may never get this address again. You just confuse and scare people away from Wikipedia, some of us never even thought of "contributing". After this, I am certain that I never will.
Bark up the right tree, or not at all.
This is more insulting to our intelligence than the Nigeria letters of past.
Kenneth Frisk
Non-contributor and Not Guilty at all
- Below that message there is also the following text: "If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices." Widr (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
You don't get it at all. The people that Do Not contribute will still get Your complaints. Registering does not help, since You in this case only reach an IP address with someone else logged in.
KF — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.243.58 (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's how it works. We issue warnings to users who abuse their editing privileges, both unregistered and registered. If there is enough abuse, we block such users. Warnings help us to keep track of abuse. When you create an account and sign in, you will not see messages that are not meant for you. Widr (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not how things should work.
How many million subscribers would have to register an empty, unused account just to get You out of their hairs ?
You are too repetitive in arguments and too unwilling to both understand and apologise for the invasion of my home privacy.
Why ?
KF (probably with a third IP address, since I made a point of logging out and in for each response) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.185.82.173 (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) You make a good point, Kenneth, the root of your problem is the design of Wikipedia. If people want to make a quick, one-off change, they don't need to register; also I edit logged out on public terminals so my personal details cannot be grabbed. Perhaps a way forward is for us to keep track of IPs that we know are part of a pool, and scrub warnings from them periodically, so people are not confused. A user will probably be drawn towards the scary warning icon above and beyond the "ignore this, it's collateral" message. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Gloria Estefan - Cuts Both Ways (song).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Gloria Estefan - Cuts Both Ways (song).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg){kind=link}
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Could you take a look?
After reverting and warning 174.105.190.46 (talk · contribs) for redoing additions that were previously reverted from Austin City Limits, I just now realized that the IP hopped from 174.105.181.77 (talk · contribs), which is currently blocked by you. Since I'm technically involved, I didn't want to do any further blocking, even for block evasion. So, if you agree about the duck, great. If not, I'll move on. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
User:PlasmaOrb220
We had the same idea, at the same time! Guess they are double blocked? RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Dame Beryl Grey
Regarding the entry on Beryl Grey, it states that Ninette de Valois gave Grey, on her 15th birthday, an inscribed copy of Gordon Anthony's book on Margot Fonteyn. Grey's 15th birthday was in June 1942. Mr Anthony's book on Fonteyn was not published until 1950.
I mistakenly thought that Fonteyn was born in 1929 - she was born in 1919. Thank you, Juliet JulietChaplin (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
209.140.37.67
I just added a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, but I noticed in the edit history you have been actively blocking people on the page currently. If you could please review the case with User:209.140.37.67, as they are vandalizing across several different articles in a very disruptive way claiming Trump is Hitler. I'd appreciate some help with this. Calibrador (talk) 06:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thanks
Special:Contributions/210.4.97.200 - many thanks for your work here at en wikipedia. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Nationalist People's Front
You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Checkuser is a tool that (Redacted)" article
It was moved to Title redacted. I saw you deleted the redirect. Can you delete the new title? —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Kendrys Morales
Hello Widr, and thank you for blocking the IP editor 2600:1:C721:23BE:6CB2:698:A7C0:C33D. I'd very much appreciate it if you'd consider semi-protecting the Morales page - I filed for page protection a while ago but it doesn't appear that any admins are available at present. Thanks again. Trut-h-urts man (T • C) 22:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Help and assistance required to manage talk page and if possible the article edits
I am from Physicist page, I previously came here for Revoking...-(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Widr&diff=748429642&oldid=748339138). The present problem is continuous problem making and comments to stirrup an ongoing collaborative approach. I hope you would be interested to act as a guiding hand in avoiding games for not succeeding to a progress in the article and help with correct interpretation of policies and support of policies to see the article edited in better form and content. Thank you.117.213.17.23 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Can you please block him/her who involved genre warring. 115.164.86.6 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Re bridge
Re bridge. Anonymous 'contributors' should be blocked by IP address. Peter Horn User talk 02:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Contributors should be registered. Peter Horn User talk 02:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi Widr.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just curious
Is this your longest block ever (not counting indef)? I was floored when I saw that the IP had resumed its vandalism streak a mere three days after a two-year block expired. Lizard (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- It may be. As you can see the IP has a pretty lengthy block log, basically from one block to another for a decade. Widr (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
FYI I found out what makes my Bot create pages on the wrong wikipedia. For now it's OK to keep the block as I don't have any plans to have this account write to en.wikipedia.org. thanks Kotz (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Widr:
I noticed that Myron Ebell's wiki page points out he is not a scientist which is accurate. So I thought it would be fair to point out the sane thing on Mr. McKibben's page. I don't know why that change was called "not constructive". Many people mistakenly believe Mr. McKibben has a science background yet he does not.
Best regards and thanks in advance for your response. You can reach me at mtbizbrokers@yahoo.com and my name is Tony Lynch
Have a good evening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.83.247.217 (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- That may be true, but what you added does not really belong to the section where you added it, hance the revert. Widr (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Would you please PP Dukagjini family and Bushati family?
The guy keeps changing IPs and continues to remove content.
- Dukagjini family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bushati family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 10:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Block evading sock
Could you take a look at Special:Contributions/Yinf? I'm certain this is yet another sock of Taokaka. I know in the past socks would do this a lot: [1] [2] [3], and then there's this worrying edit: [4]. I wasn't going to say anything because these sockpuppets normally aren't all that disruptive, in fact they do a lot of helpful vandal-fighting, and you're pretty good at nabbing these socks eventually, however somebody granted this account pending changes reviewer and rollback user rights, and they've been abusing these rights pretty bad, to the point where multiple users have been complaining so now they're at WP:ANI. Sro23 (talk) 14:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't want to create a new section. Could you remove talk page access to The Suix Six (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Thanks, Dat GuyTalkContribs 15:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Didn't want to create a new section either. You recently blocked User:172.30.3560O for 31 hours, but I assume this was a mistake as it's a sock. Could you extend the block to indefinite? Sro23 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
School
Hi, this is their (205.174.117.253) first edit after your block. JimRenge (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Let the new guy do some work!
Hey slow down Widr! Everytime I try to put in a block from AIV today, I keep getting it's been done. Let the new guy have a turn will ya? :) RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Aww, I'm sorry. If it makes you feel any better (probably won't), you have beaten me several times as well. :-P Widr (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Heh, better to have more eyes looking than none. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
May I have your assistance?
Hello. I've recently been having issues lately with Crovata (talk). For years now, the infobox photo for GZA was as such. Crovata changed it to a photo of the artist that's 16 years old (and rather outdated). I changed it back to the newer one, noting that it's more recent and that the editor should discuss this on the talk page. They've reverted my edits several times now, while stating "there's no need for discussion for such an obvious improvement" - which I find rather rude. Can you please contact them, as I don't want any part in edit warring. I'd greatly appreciate it. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Crovata has started a thread on the talk page, so it's probably best that you discuss the issue there. Widr (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
User:Adotchar and rollback
Hey there. I saw you refused the rollback request; could you please expand on why? I'm confused as to the issues you express as being a problem, as their edits appear to be just fine to me. From some other discussions it seems that requirements for various tools have become far stricter lately, so maybe I'm just old-guard and don't understand. I'd appreciate (and I'm sure the user would also appreciate) a further explanation. Thanks! Tony Fox (arf!) 19:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Their talk page history suggests that they are not ready for rollback at this point. Did you read their talk page history and see the previous declined requests? There are various concerns. Widr (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Sock
Can you please block Baraga Bull? [5] This is a clear sock of cow cleaner 5000. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, sorry for the trouble. I was undoing edits so fast I didn't have time to file much of any report. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello! As you know, I'm attempting to gain Rollback permissions, and I've taken notice of the last requests, and why they were denied, and I improved from them. I'm assuming that I just have to maintain this current status of not having many contested edits (starting last week. Yes, it's not that long.). I'll reapply in the beginning of 2017, and please, if you notice me doing anything wrong, please tell me immediately. I'm trying to get better at this, and eventually gain access to STiki. Adotchar| reply here 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, Adotchar. I won't follow you around, but I have your talk page watchlisted. The less complaints and concerns there, the better. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm going to reapply on January 1st if nothing goes wrong. I've gone to using Recent changes, the "old school way" of finding vandalism, as Snuggle and Wikipedia Vision have both crashed on me, and Wikipedia Vision is still broken. It's going great! Happy editing. Adotchar| reply here 10:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access as well.--Cahk (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Blocks
Thanks for blocking the vandals on POP TV. Here's their sock puppet investigation, in case you want to close it or anything [6]. I am sure that this person will just make another account. Adotchar| reply here 11:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Nah, I'll let the SPI people handle it. Thanks for the heads-up. Widr (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
You may wish to revoke talk page access.--Cahk (talk) 08:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
User:66.87.114.63
Hey,
You blocked the IP 66.87.114.63 a couple of days ago (rightly). Just letting you know that the same person (DUCK) is making same sort of vandalizing edits using other close IP numbers. They're all 66.87.114.XX, so I'm wondering if a range block to send a message that this behavior is unacceptable might be appropriate. oknazevad (talk) 12:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I don't do range blocks myself, but many other admins might. Or you can report individual IPs to AIV. Widr (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Well, that's the problem. I'd be at AIV constantly for each individual IP. There's already been at least three beyond the blocked one. That's why a range block makes the most sense, even if it's just for a day or two to break the behavior. Anyone you recommend for alsuch a request? oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Evlekis socks
Hello. Creektiming also needs talk page access removed (just like you did on Owaavaax). Evlekis is re-using old blocked socks to post attacks on other editors on their talk pages since he has been caught in a large range block, aimed directly at him. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Widr, can this article be protected? And is there any way to salt the variations of the MooWoo crap? Thanks, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- I protected. They just create different variations if we salt, but they get always quickly deleted anyway. Widr (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, you're right. Thank you and cheers, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello!
I've started receiving comments form vandals which have had their edits undone by me. I've created the page [7]. Is it good? Adotchar| reply here 22:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's OK, if you think it's necessary. You could also ignore messages from users who are clearly vandals. Widr (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry to keep annoying you, but if you were to look at my contributions right now and for the past week, and not look at my past rollback requests, do you think I'd qualify for Rollback? Adotchar| reply here 22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)