User talk:BlackWidowMovie0

Advice

Hello,

Thought I'd let you know that marking userpages like you did with DanieleHentze is unnecessary busywork, and may even be counter-productive. Anyone can look at the block log entry and quickly determine why the block was placed.

I would also add that you have made some edits to internal testwiki namespace items, while this is not inherently a problem some caution is advised. Since your edit to the request permissions preload was redundant and also potentially confusing I have removed it. I'm also probably going to substantially modify your edit to the header as sub-optimal, although I can understand what you were trying to accomplish in all these instances. I don't want to be too harsh in my criticism since it seems you are trying to help, but ultimately the changes were not a net benefit.

If you are interested in helping out with internal things an easy place to start would be by patrolling Special:AbuseLog every so often. Like many wikis this one is frequented by spambots that need to be blocked, but the edit filter also sometimes prevents good-faith and productive edits. All you have to do is check new entries, currently the details button is not working (should be fixed soon) but the examine one is. If it's a spambot block it; if the edit is in good faith help them make it and direct them to the request for permissions page. If you have any questions check recent changes to see who's currently around and politely ask them on their talk page, best of luck and have fun testing. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding to the above, you appear to be trying to replicate the procedure used on a different wiki at UserWiki:Sourav Halder, while this is fine in abstract it would be better if you created your own test accounts (clearly marked as such) and tested on those instead. Since it's the userspace of a long departed and blocked user I'll leave it alone for now since testing there isn't really harmful, but please do use your own test accounts in the future, thank you. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fast: Ok, thanks for the notice! BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nominations (steward, sysadmin, etc.)

First I'd like to say that I appreciate the vote of confidence, and I wish I did have more time to help other people out. That said best practice with nominations is usually to reach out to the user you're nominating to see if they're up for it before doing so. Culture varies wiki-by-wiki and there may be some where it is acceptable, or even normal to nominate without asking first but not in the majority of ones I'm familiar with.

So I'd like to reiterate something I said earlier which is to slow down, read a lot, and get a feel for the local culture before diving into internal things you haven't done before (i.e. outside of mainspace). There is a saying on the internet applicable not just to wikis but online communities in general that goes "Lurk moar, it's ever enough" not literally true of course, but the basic idea is accurate and having a solid grasp of the local cultural norms will go a long way towards helping you cooperate well with others whatever website you're on.

In that same vein, maybe you can be a a little less aggressive in archiving things; this is a slow moving wiki, it may take up to 30 days for everyone to drop by and see something on the community portal and the "Main Page error?" discussion was not resolved in full, I won't unarchive anything in this case since that discussion is redundant to one taking place on Talk:Main Page and the only other recent discussions were resolved, but in the future just try to keep that sort of thing in mind, it almost never hurts whenever your unsure to ask others how they feel about something and go from there.

Anyway, I know all your actions were made in good-faith and you're trying to help out; one of the wonderful things about wikis is that they're very forgiving of mistakes since almost nothing is truly irreversible, so it's not a big deal I withdrew the nom, took me all of 60 seconds nothing to worry about. So have fun, don't be afraid to ask for help from other users, and if you see a spambot go ahead and block it, Best Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fast: Ok. One thing. I'm not seeing the sockpuppet relation with the IP you blocked. I'm going to allow him to edit his talk page if he wants to appeal, as I'm not sure of the relation. Can you explain as fast as possible, and I'll put it back, but meanwhile, kind of want to let up, as I'm not seeing it. Thanks! BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see Special:AbuseFilter/examine/log/1870, that is in fact why I emended the block log entry to indicate "(see abuse log"). Note that while it's often not necessary to revoke TPA even for prolific cross-wiki sockmasters as appears to be the case here, in this circumstance it would have been pointless to block the user without revoking TPA as they attempted to vandalize their own talk page, Best Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 03:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fast: Do you have IRC? If so, can you enter #testadminwiki and then DM me? BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I do use IRC on occasion, not so far relating to this wiki. I don't think I'll have time for extended conversation soon, and I prefer to keep wiki related discussion on wiki, but if there is a (really) good reason, I'll consider it. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent actions

Unfortunately I'm going to have to reverse some of your actions, but first I'll go thru and explain why.

Blocks

The biggest issue is your blocks. I'm not sure why you unblocked ReaganGirardin, I assume as a test? Anyway I've gone ahead and reblocked. Likewise I'm unsure why you unblocked Q8j-3, since it's not your test account; you are of course free to block and unblock your own test accounts so long as you don't clutter the block log too much, but leave the test accounts of others alone. 67.168.231.23 is a problem and may along with some other IP ranges associated with the sockmaster have to be given long-hard blocks in the future, but as a general rule of thumb indefinite IP blocks are a bad idea, since DHCP leases eventually expire and the IP moves on to a new user, granting some static IPs may stick for months or even years. But in this case a brief spurt of disruption is not enough to justify anything really long-term, hopefully they've gotten bored with this wiki but if not it takes all of 30 seconds to reblock it. In addition undoing autoblocks like "unblocked #3101" is rarely necessary, if you really want to test with that then ask me about it, but for now just leave it alone. The other issue is that some of your tests clutter the block log unnecessarily, strings like

17:15, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block blocked StefanieLithgow talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spam: for more information see abuse log) (unblock | change block) Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:15, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block unblocked StefanieLithgow talk contribs Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:15, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block unblocked StefanieLithgow talk contribs Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:15, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block blocked EarthaRag077655 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spam: for more information see abuse log) (unblock | change block) Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:14, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block unblocked EarthaRag077655 talk contribs Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:14, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block unblocked EarthaRag077655 talk contribs Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:14, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block unblocked EarthaRag077655 talk contribs Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit
 17:14, 8 December 2020 BlackWidowMovie0 talk contribs block blocked EarthaRag077655 talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation disabled, email disabled, cannot edit own talk page) (Spam: for more information see abuse log) (unblock | change block) Tags: Mobile web edit Mobile edit

should really only happen if you are blocking example, blocking yourself, or blocking a test account you created (clearly marked as such).

Your block of ᗡ; while defensible should have been proceeded by a warning first, granting I probably should have cautioned them earlier, and they really should have taken the hint from a steward, even with all that the reason for the block should've been disruption and misusing this site as a webhost for free online file storage, not inserting gibberish, as the content is meaningful, just not in english.

Finally your block of JJPMaster was flatly wrong, we can talk about identifying sockpuppets in the future both technically and behaviorally, but the evidence you used, "confrontational user," is completely inadequate and you really should apologize.

tl;dr

1. Confine your test blocks to test accounts
2. Don't indefinitely block IP addresses or block them for an unreasonably long time.
3. Don't reverse autoblocks unless it's a test or you know what you are doing
4. Don't mess with the test accounts of other users
5. Don't unblock spambots

User rights

You have recently been removing user rights from others as redundant; while not inherently a problem it is not neccessary and can come across as rude. The best thing to do is to leave them a message explaining the user rights are redundant. If they remove them fine, but if not move on; it doesn't cause any harm and some people just like having a long list of rights after their name, doesn't make any sense to me but some things aren't worth wasting time over.

Request permissions

There's no need to immediately jump in and tell someone they need to wait for a crat. They already know that, this just clutters the page without accomplishing anything useful. The only time it's helpful to chime in like that is when it's been an unusually long time, say 24 hours since the request, in that case adding a helpful note that no crats are currently available helps them understand the reason for the delay.

In sum

Your making some mistakes that create additional work for others. There's nothing wrong with an occasional error, mistakes happen and everyone no matter how experienced makes them. However higher error rates are disruptive due to the work created for others, and your rate is high enough that it will likely be sometime before others are comfortable granting you additional rights, so use this as a learning opportunity, and don't be afraid to ask others before taking action, you already did that once and because of that you didn't mistakenly delete a sandbox, that was good and you should continue to ask before acting when doing something you're not too sure about in the future, best Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fast: His justification for unblocking certain accounts is that there were multiple blocks stacked up over each other and he was attempting to fix that (see logs). However I am not sure why he decided to *only* remove the blocks and not reblock. But regardless the main message is clear here with multiple disruptions. Naleksuh (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Naleksuh: Thanks, I didn't see that so it all makes a bit more sense, still should've been re-blocked. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fast and Naleksuh: Apparently I forgot to reblock them after unblocking. I could've sworn I did........anyway, I removed the user rights because it is redundant, I didn't realize it was rude. For the RfP, I have no clue why I did that. BlackWidowMovie0 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Alright, like I said it's a learning opportunity, errors happen just be sure not to repeat them. Fast - ZoomZoom (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)