User talk:TigerShark/Talk Archive 10th March 2007

Barry Bonds et al vandalism

I do not understand your action on my vandalsim warning. Please advise. Please respond to my user page. However, I will be logging off in 5 minutes. TonyTheTiger 22:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP appears to have stopped vandalising, having made no changes for approximately 3 hours before your comment on their talk page. Although the other user may be a sockpuppet, they only made one edit and have also stopped. Blocks are only made for vandalism that is currently ongoing, which in this case it isn't. Cheers TigerShark 22:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your 3 hour rule is a reasonable one in most cases. However, look at this guys history of ignoring warnings. It is an I.P. address that is used solely vandalism. I have seen blocks issued specifically stating that the block is because the account is solely used for vandalism. Furthermore, this guy may have figured out that if he vandalises pages that aren't likely to be policed non-stop he will get away with it because WP does not chase after people if they are not vandalising at that moment. TonyTheTiger 15:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I understand your concerns, but the IP seems to be a school and the previous vandalism is very intermittant (less than 40 edits since last May) so, unless the vandalism is currently ongoing, a block is probably not going to do much good IMHO. They have not edited since, although that is probably because it is the weekend, but I will try to keep an eye on the IP. Cheers TigerShark 17:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

School or not virtually every edit from that IP is vandalism. It should be blocked because of that. It should not take more than 40 vandalism attempts to get blocked. It should take about 3 or 4 different days at most. We are talking 37 edits and 12 vandalism warnings. This is a serious problem for any single user or IP. TonyTheTiger 18:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. What makes leads you to conclude that it is a scholastic IP. Why doesn't it have a {{SchoolIP}} tag if that is the case? TonyTheTiger 19:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend came back to visit today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=prev&oldid=105832126 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are right, it is probably not a school IP (I am not sure why I thought that, I must have been getting confused with another recently reported IP). However, my reasoning for not blocking it was not primarily related to whether it was a school IP. The main reason was that the vandalism was not ongoing at the time the block was requested. If vandalism has stopped then a block should not be applied. In the case of very frequent vandalism, with recent warnings then a block may be appropriate because it is likely that the vandalism will restart soon. That is not the case when there have only been 37 edits in the last 8-9 months. I appreciate that this may be frustrating, but that few edits over that period of time, from what could be a shared IP does not warrant a block. The blocks must be used to prevent vandalism, rather than punish it. Given that there are usually days, and often weeks, between edits on this IP means that it is very unlikely that a block here would have prevented vandalism (the maximum block would only have been 24 hours, for a first block on an IP). Cheers TigerShark 22:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to learn more about fighting vandalism. I have recently been following along at CAT:RFU. I see User:TechBear has a {{Checkuserblock}}. It seems to me that in a case like this with extensive vandalism warnings, where there have been several earlier vandalism attempts in a given day (albeit ending a few hours earlier) a 12 or 24 hour block should be issued. As you have noted given the usage patterns of this IP address, this would likely not prevent vandalism. However, it would also likely not punish it either. Thus, it would give us a record of a having administrator involvement (I.E. a first admin block). At some point, even if no one catches this guy online, we have to start to take action since it seems to be a vandalism only IP address. A short term administrator block would seem to give us a record so that future vandalism attempts would be by an IP address that had been previously blocked. P.S., I am not really certain it is not a school. I admit I don't really know policy, I am just speaking about how I think it should work logically. Again, I will be logging off at 5:00 PM Central (8 minutes) TonyTheTiger 22:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and it does make perfect sense. However, the generally accepted policy is that we do not block if it would not be preventative. There is a record of warnings on the talk page, and although a record of blocks is more formal they should really only be given for the preventative reasons rather than to create a formal record. Although blocks may still be applied in the case of exntensive vandalism, I would still say that the level of vandalism from this IP, means that no real action is required here (except of course future preventative blocks if appropriate). I will keep an eye on this IP, and if the rate of vandalism increases, then I am happy to carry out a tougher course of action. Cheers TigerShark 23:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our friend came back to visit today: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethiopia&diff=prev&oldid=105832126 TonyTheTiger 18:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed he had a block log. He was blocked for 99 hours last May and today he got blocked for 1 week. TonyTheTiger 19:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Cheers TigerShark 20:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kemps Landing Magnet School

I think you deleted the AfD page instead of the article... just letting you know. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. Many thanks for pointing out my mistake. Fixed now. Cheers TigerShark 15:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot

Thanks for blocking the bot, Tigershark. I missed an incorrect code block in its AIV reporter, but it should be fixed now. Shadow1 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to unblock it then. Миша 13 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I did fix it! Shadow1 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Progressive Bloggers

You have edited the article Progressive Bloggers. This article is currently being considered for deletion under the wp:afd process. You may contribute to this discussion by commenting here. Thank you.Edivorce 23:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AIV

Hi. I see that my report of an IP was rejected for having the last warning being 10 days ago. I can't find a guideline for what to do -- there doesn't seem to be a consensus. How many days would you say should go by before the testx sequence has to be repeated? Thanks. Xiner (talk, email) 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not sure exactly which report you are referring to so I can't comment on the specific instance. In general, unless it is clear that the IP is not shared, the last warning should have been very recent as an older warning is very likely to have been directed at a different individual. You are corret that there is no definitive duration (WP:AIV says a "recent last warning"), but I would say that it should be within the last 24 hours. This is clearly a grey area, but 10 days would be too long in most cases. Hope that helps. Cheers TigerShark 18:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō

Hi, you had relisted an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ninjatō which was subsequently closed the same day by User:Doug Bell. I agree with your reasons for relisting and reverted the closure of the AfD after your relisting. Can you please revisit the AfD and resolve the issue as the admin who closed after your relist has reverted my change, closed the AfD and protected the article. Alan.ca 00:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

list of Sharp products

Hi,

Last April you deleted List of Sharp products. It was prod'ed as better served by a category. Was there actually a category ;v) ? Potatoswatter 05:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not aware of such a category. Cheers TigerShark 21:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the block

Hi TigerShark - thanks for responding so quickly to my request for admin intervention on User:65.197.95.190. Just for my curiosity, is the standard that a vandals being malicious after just coming off a block can be blocked again without warning? Thanks again! Debivort 22:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Whether a block should be applied without another warning is a little bit of a grey area but, in this case, the number of recent blocks combined with the fact that the new edits are all vandalism warrants an immediate block in my opinion. The block is for anonymous users only, so there should be no collateral damage. However in most cases another final warning is probably appropriate, and it is better to err on the side of caution. Cheers TigerShark 22:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:70.241.232.139 requested block

I gave him his fourth warning, which indicates a potential blockage, at 19:24Z today and he vandalized the same article right after my warning. The user, who issued the next warning at what appears to be a level one, is the follow-on next warning of vandalism. Morenooso 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide details of the edit made following the final warning. At the moment the last recorded edit in the contributions history is 19:23. Cheers TigerShark 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all on his talkpage. Here is the diff where I issued the level four delete template. In addition, looking the February 23, 2007 message, this IP received a level four warning then. Its contrib record shows a history of vandalism Morenooso 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him his fourth warning, which indicates a potential blockage, at 19:24Z today and he vandalized the same article right after my warning. The user, who issued the next warning at what appears to be a level one, is the follow-on next warning of vandalism. Morenooso 19:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you please provide details of the edit made following the final warning. At the moment the last recorded edit in the contributions historyis 19:23. Cheers TigerShark 19:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He made it then. I was on another article and cited him when I reversed the edit. He did two edits on the same article in less than two minutes (one which I reversed and another by another user). If you can't see that, then let's drop it. Morenooso 19:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I can see is that the last edit was at 19:23, then you warned them at 19:24. There were no further edits following the final warning at 19:24, so the posting to AIV was a mistake. There is nothing to drop, just please be more careful in future. TigerShark 22:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:82.46.32.107

I'm pretty sure their last vandalism was after the final warning (can't be sure as it was the same minute). However they appear to have stopped anyway, so I guess it doesn't really matter. Thanks for checking it out anyway. --Scot ^t 17:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I have also had lots of times that when I have thought that it was after the last warning. Just one of the things that happens when you are trying to stem the flood from multiple vandals at the same time. Thanks again! Cheers TigerShark 17:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anweshock

Hello, I was wondering if there there is an official way to report userpages that are created to dodge a notability tag in the main article space. I have been flipping through the untagged images and I have noticed a lot like that. Any thoughts? Burzmali 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, it is possible to have a bio for an individual on your user page that would no meet the notability guidelines for an article - but if the page is being used as a blog or to host web content, then it may be liable for deletion. In this case, it looks like it is being used to host content about a group and so may violate WP:NOT. In this case you may want to follow the relevant deletion policy. Let me know if you need more help. Cheers TigerShark 18:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]