User talk:Widr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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

Fast, faster, fastest[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar Hires.png 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)

Talk pge block?[edit]

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[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg 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)

September 2016[edit]

Information icon 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![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png 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)

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

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)

Vandalism blocks[edit]

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)