User talk:JBW

Please post new sections at the bottom of the page. If you don't, there is a risk that your message may never be noticed, if other edits follow it before I get here.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be auto-archived by .

IP Block Review

Hello @JBW,

Kindly review the IP block on this IP: 154.161.128.0/17 initiated by you.

New accounts cannot be created on Wikipedia and some new accounts within this IP cannot be logged in on Wikipedia.

On account creation request, the message appears that the stated IP 154.161.128.0/17 has been blocked and cannot edit on Wikipedia Znyadzi (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Znyadzi:

I have checked all the anonymous edits over a fairly long period before the block. Scarcely any of the edits were constructive: most were vandalism, and most of the rest were unhelpful in other ways. Therefore there is no question of unblocking.

I can't tell what the net effect of allowing account creation would be, but I have given it the benefit of the doubt, and removed the block on account creation.

The block on that IP range would not prevent logging into an account, so that must be caused by something else. If you let me know exactly what the message says which tells an editor that they can't log in, I'll see whether there's anything I can suggest. JBW (talk) 08:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JBW:

I have confirmed that the IP block has been removed and users can now edit.

Thank you. Znyadzi (talk) 09:44, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #106432

I think I scared them away. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Maybe. I'd wait a bit longer before deciding, though. JBW (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has replied. Inclined to unblock. Please opine at UTRS. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More whitewashing of racism

This time at Virginia Military Institute by 69.1.32.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). –Skywatcher68 (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now Truthyteller25 (talk · contribs) has joined in the whitewashing. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NB: user is now blocked and responded to said block with "I'll be back". –Skywatcher68 (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skywatcher68: Bishonen once said that maybe we should immediately block any account with "truth" in its username. I've partially blocked the IP address from that article for three months. If, as seems likely, the account was editing on that IP address, it may at least slow them down, or possibly even stop them. I think that is very likely to be more effective than semiprotecting the article for a few days, and it certainly has less risk of collateral damage. JBW (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of Truth69420, I hope! jlwoodwa (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, jlwoodwa! There's plenty of scope for a block there: an account clearly not here to build the encyclopaedia; sarcastic and flippant comments in discussions, amounting to trolling; sockpuppetry... and I'm sure I could think of several more if I put my mind to it. Shall we start with an indef block on the sockmaster account? And then what do you think? ANI, or directly to ARBCOM? JBW (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that “you can’t handle the truth”? Truth69420l (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Truth69420: You've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia doesn't want truth, even if we don't tell new editors that as often as we used to. Get truth out: verifiable falsehoods are much more welcome. JBW (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]