Informatics Educational Institutions & Programs

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

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)[reply]

Thanks! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 05:49, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. –xeno^talk 17:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your admirable response to my suggestion at BN. Looking forward to seeing a good-natured, helpful, active user becoming an admin again in due course. Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 22:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you also rev/delete their defamatory edits and summaries [1], as well? Cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for your work. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 04:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Much appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thanks for blocking people who graffiti. 216.87.237.181 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Daniel Case, 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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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)[reply]

Yamla, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you previously blocked 69.121.9.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 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 | contribs) 02:44, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks. Could you revert the edit too? --50.39.108.97 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --50.39.108.97 (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 | say hello! 03:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks! Jake Wartenberg (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They evidently went back to their IP. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, blocked. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100.2.139.76 is not getting it following their first block. Cards84664 02:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I extended the block. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're still not getting it, their first edit is a revert. Cards84664 22:17, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now they're editing from 71.183.251.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Same edits as before Cards84664 21:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need a range block on this one too, thanks. Cards84664 01:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a quick look at their contribs and their username just screamed NOTHERE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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. 00:42, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK to unblock? please see -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, thanks. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]