User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 8th September 2007

Harassment

Hello, you previously blocked user:Go Get Your Hole for harassment, well it seems that they are back as the imaginitively named User:Go Get a Hole, I'd be grateful if you could take a look. Fraslet 19:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Fraslet 22:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They're very persistent, back again this time as user:Fannybandit Fraslet 19:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking all of the sockpuppets of that user Fraslet-2007 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Torre Mayor and Alejandro Cruz Philion

Hi! I noticed you issued this user a warning on his talk page for his uncivil comments. I have an account of the situation here, along with a slightly more accurate translation (altough the one you provided was good enough).

Hopefully it won't go any further than this, but I'll keep an eye on the article in case this guy continues his mischief.

Thanks for your intervention! Roadmr (t|c) 22:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

202.76.131.2

I don't like to block shared IPs for a very long time (like Academic Challenger's 6 month block). If you'd like to lengthen the block to a week or so, you can do so. I think that 3 hours is enough to deter the vandal at present. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 00:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't find a month-long block too unreasonable, but I think that 3 months or more is too much. bibliomaniac15 Tea anyone? 00:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

There is absolutely no reason for that page to be created. It's a a waste of time, energy, space, etc to create pages to glorify vandals. The sockpuppet notice can go on the talk page though the block log is all that anyone really needs to see. -- John Reaves 01:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is going anywhere so I've posted at WP:AN#Uneeded userpages for sockpuppets, et al.. -- John Reaves 02:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Fannybandit

You posted a notice on User_talk:Fannybandit stating the user is blocked indefinitely for being a sock account of a banned user, and posted on the user page that the banned user is User:Go Get Your Hole. You haven't actually banned the said account [1]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave Randolph

Could you please explain what claims of notability make a db tag inappropriate on the Dave Randolph article? Podcast host is not a claim of notability unless there is an explanation as to how notable the podcast is. Would you mind taking a look at Systm and letting me know if all of the bluelinks in the templates there are notable? I'm trying to get input. Corvus cornix 15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the input. I'm still trying to assess how notable System is. Corvus cornix 20:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

user:KuroFalcon

Hi there; this user, which you have just blocked for 24 hours, appears to be a vandalism-only account, and I was just about to apply an indefblock. Do you think this is too harsh, or would you like to check through his edits? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Correction; Kurofalcon, not Kuru. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, and while I guess we both count as established users and admins, you have been both for longer than I have. Obviously in this case I would block recreation and IP, which should make it harder for him to re-appear, but I recognise that any vandal can find or create a new IP without too much difficulty. However, it seems to me that just to accept that they can, if they try, return, and hence not to attempt seriously to deter them, is defeatist. Not all vandals can find other sources, so that some will not re-appear. And those that can will re-appear anyway, whether in 24 hours or after any other time limit. But an indefblock makes it harder for them. This guy will be back tomorrow, and then what should we do? 2-day block? A week? A month? I have done quite a large number of indefblocks on vandal-only accounts. I am fully aware that some will come back under different IPs, and perhaps get blocked again. But I do, personally, feel that the more strenuously we oppose these people, the less impact they make on wikipedia. And bear in mind that quite a lot of vandal editors are using their home PCs (although I know many do not) and unless they have an ISP which uses dynamic IPs, a block for them is terminal. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Autoblocks

My understanding, which may be faulty but which appears to be confirmed in WP:AUTOBLOCK paragraph 4, is that in the case of a time-defined block the autoblock is set for 24 hours, but in the case of an indefblock the software resets the block ad infinitum. This is just my interpretation, and I am happy for you or I to seek clarification from a Steward or The Office or from some other exlalted one if we feel we need to. I just want to get these idiots out of the project, as I know so do you. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The other point you made, which I failed to answer is that of course we cannot indefblock a user editing under an IP; this is against wiki policy as it may be a dynamic IP. But blocking a user by name avoids this limitation. Of course, a user blocked by name may then come back as an anon IP, but as I have said, we can only keep working and try to stem the tide! May I suggest that we restrict this thread to your talk page, as going to and fro is not very efficient? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I am going to sign off now, but will look to respond to your thoughts tomorrow. In the meantime, if you do feel that we should extend the individual block, I have absolutely no objection to you doing so. Cheers TigerShark 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Even with your consent, I dislike giving the appearance of wheel-warring, so will not change your block. But I will watch him. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Matchi kaguri (original harry potter character)

We can't speedy delete a fanfic character which the author herself says in Talk and in the article is a fanfic character not in any of the books? Corvus cornix 22:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A1, A3 or A7 would work. It's ridiculous to have to go through afd when even the creator admits it's fanfic. Corvus cornix 22:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I did talk to her. See User talk:Tsubasa git. OK, I'll nominate it for afd, and fully expect to see a speedy deletion. Corvus cornix 22:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why PROD? That just means it sits around for five days instead of being properly deleted. But thanks for deleting it. Corvus cornix 22:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Straight Reads the Line

I have added a prod to the page, but you should know that the page was previously deleted.

As well, London, Ontario > that other London. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Mała Góra

The creator of this article, TheWriterOfArticles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), is a sockpuppet of the currently-banned Bormalagurski (talk · contribs), so this article should be removed per G5. 128.2.251.173 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point: Bormalagurski was banned for one year last October per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kosovo, and he created the sock two weeks ago, which is about two months before his ban was set to expire. If this doesn't count as ban evasion, nothing does. 128.2.251.173 00:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)