User talk:DoRD

Hiding revisions

I noticed you deleted my recent edit and 2 of Ldecalmer's edits, but could you please delete the edit summaries from Ldecalmers deleted edits too? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention! I'm not sure how I missed ticking those boxes - probably because I need another cup of coffee - but I've taken care of it now. Thanks again ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

SPIKE SPIKE BAD and Territory war 3 pwner

Hi, I blocked User:SPIKE SPIKE BAD after this WP:ANI thread for his disruption, after coming back from his "retirement". An editor has now approached me on my talk page, suggesting that User:Territory war 3 pwner should also be blocked as you identified them as being the same at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPIKE SPIKE BAD/Archive. However while SPIKE SPIKE BAD returned to editing disruptively, Territory war 3 pwner has not made any edits and was not blocked after the SPI report, so I wanted to get your advice on whether Territory war 3 pwner should now be blocked as a sockpuppet? Davewild (talk) 07:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner - I got busy with an involved SPI and simply forgot about this. Anyway, here was my reasoning at the time, and pretty much my current thoughts on the matter: SPIKE "retired" about a minute before Tw3p's first edit. SPIKE wasn't blocked at the time, so there was no block evasion, per se, and since they apparently have some WP:CIR issues, I'm not keen on blocking Tw3p unless they return to SPIKE's disruptive behavior.

On second thought, I decided to have a look and found that they created another account less than a week ago, Ahohmygod (talk · contribs), so I have gone ahead and blocked the lot of them. Thanks for bringing this to me. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Pabdelma / SweetPoet345 redux

Re this recently archived ANI thread, the user NewbornCircle, created yesterday, professes in this Help Desk thread to be Pabdelma reincarnated. I don't think they get it. I haven't looked at all of their edits under this new username, but what I have seen shows continued lack of competence, including this edit and this new article. (Reply here is fine, I'm watching.) ―Mandruss ☎ 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was short on time earlier, so I asked another admin to look into the situation. Now that I've had some time, I left them some advice. On one hand, I don't want to see the project disrupted with the kinds of edits they've been making. On the other hand, I don't want to come down too hard on an impressionable young person. <sigh> This is always a tough balancing act, I'd say.

Anyway, I'll try to keep an eye on them, and I hope that they figure things out quickly, but if not, I'll give them enough time off to gain some maturity. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Since you indeffed SweetPoet345 as an obvious sock, I thought you might want to do the same with NewbornCircle. I gather blocking the first obvious sock is one thing but blocking the second is coming down too hard. Wikipedia continues to regularly baffle me (which speaks to my own competence, I guess). Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:54, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm just in a charitable mood after a good meal and a glass of wine. Also, the first sock was being extra obnoxious. Anyway, I expect to keep them on a short leash. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 02:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I read every thing you wrote about Pabdelma/SweetPoet345 redux and all of that made me upset. Yes I'm a young user that's why I'm really bad at making articles and that's how all my articles keep on getting deleted.NewbornCircle (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Autoblock question

When I block a named account and check the Autoblock box, that prevents other users from editing if they are using the same IP address as the blocked account. If I block an IP (there is no Autoblock box), does that prevent a named account from editing using that IP address? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Only if you select the "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" box. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. That box is not checked by default, so I'd have to manually check it. If I did, would it show in the block log as one of the attributes of the block (I assume yes but want to be sure)? --Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

(tps) Yes. Using the default settings, the block appears in the log as "Bbb23 blocked 12.34.56.789 (anon. only, account creation blocked)", whereas ticking that box produces ""Bbb23 blocked 12.34.56.789 (account creation blocked)". Here's an example of a hard block from my log. We should use them sparsely, but they have their occasional uses. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, most of my hardblocks have been based on CU results where I know that I need to prevent logged-in editing. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much, but I gotta say that's pretty silly, not the hard block, but the log. The only difference is whether it says "anon. only", meaning you have to infer what happened from the omission of that phrase. Wouldn't it be easier to have explicit language as one of the block's attributes? It may seem obvious to those who already know how it works, but to literal fellows like me who like everything spelled out, it's not. And now it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppetry case stuck

No edits by check users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Undertrialryryr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DeadlystockCosmicEmperor (talk) 09:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is a complex case, and I can't speak for any other CU, but I haven't had the uninterrupted time available to work on it. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Chicken

	Animals
	I LOVE Chickens DO YOU LOVE Chickens NewbornCircle (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)