User talk:Shirik/Archives/2015/April

Doppelganger
You appear to have a doppelganger account—parts of your user page biography appear word-for-word, or with minimal changes, on the freshly created User:Dormantos. On the off-chance that you really do operate both accounts, it would be great if you could make a quick visit to Sockpuppet investigations/Sanjoy64 to exonerate Sanjoy64. (Or alternatively, if you don't operate the Dormantos account and have further evidence that it is really operated by Sanjoy64, you could post that instead.) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * As amusing as it is, you're correct in your assumption that that account is not operated by me. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 17:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The account has nothing to do U|Shirik. I liked the piece of content so I used it on my account with minimal changes. Sorry U|Shirik for troubles that you faced. I have removed the content from my User Page which can be checked here and shouldn't be a problem now. Apologies. Dormantos (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Matheus Damon
A couple of weeks ago, you quite rightly blocked for advertising/promotion. Since then, I've regularly reverted him doing the same edits while logged out. In frustration, today I left a note on his talk page, asking him to knock it off, User talk:Matheus Damon. To my astonishment, he engaged positively, but in rather broken English. We're not there yet, but I think there's a chance we might get to the stage where he is able to edit constructively. If we ever reach that point, how would you feel about unblocking him then? There's no rush on this, but if I'm going to invest the time in explaining to him Wikipedia's notability and sourcing standards, I'd be happier if I thought there was a chance we'd get a useful editor out of it eventually. Cheers, --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no concerns with this, though such a user would likely be kept on a tight leash. If he's to be unblocked, if he ends up just going back to what he was doing with no indication of working constructively, he'll just end up getting reblocked. Feel free to try to work with him, and either I or any other administrator could unblock him if you feel confident that he is making a push to work with the community. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 23:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Block Evader Continues
Hi there Shirik, just wanted to let you know that the IP user you blocked a short time ago continues to evade blocks issued by various admins. This is the newest IP address of the user in question: 5.12.168.244. I saw a comment indicating that there may be a more broad-spectrum version of a block that would (I'm assuming) block IPs from that location or starting with 5.12...but I'm not sure about the details. Anyway, just thought I would let you know. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the entire zone as it does not appear to be active enough that it is worrisome. I generally avoid such wide blocks, but I looked up the network provider and this seems to be the only option in this case. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand the hesitancy in implementing such a broad block. It's a very reasonable approach but I'm glad to hear that it was warranted in this case. Thank you for taking care of this issue (hopefully for good or at least for a while so we get some peace & quiet). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RE:
I recommend you ask about the appeal to see if any work has been done since they've reserved it -- then they can release it if you want to take it over. Two days is hardly long enough for us tooladmins to consider the appeal "reserved then abandoned". ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If two days is not long enough when the user hasn't even been contacted, you should seriously reconsider whether you remember that there is an actual person behind the ticket in question. Two days is an eternity in today's world. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 01:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * UTRS is kind of a last-resort resource for users who have often gone through lengthy on-wiki appeal procedures before ending up in our basket; more complex appeals sometimes take anywhere from "a few days" to "over a week" to evaluate properly. It is customary to notify the user that we are looking into the matter. I am glad that you are starting to pitch in with UTRS appeals again, though! The more hands we have, the faster appeals get processed. In any case, this seems to be a rather simple spam+corpname decline case, so I'm sure Katie will promptly reply+close or hand over the ticket if you talk to her. But don't forget that UTRS users are volunteers and are "actual people", just like appellants. We tend to be cautious about forcibly releasing reserved appeals without good reason, as a matter of respect to the volunteer who took it on, but also because forcibly releasing appeals carelessly would seriously undermine the very concept of reserving a ticket. I agree with you that communication is absolutely the most important part of many of Wikipedia's processes, and that's why I recommend you try to get in touch with Katie. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  02:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - thanks for letting me know about this. I hadn't realized I'd reserved this one, and I just released it as I'm going to be away after today until Monday. Personally, I think he's one of those who wants to share his unique knowledge of life and love and the universe with the rest of humanity and we'll end up reblocking in the end, but I have no objection if you want to give him a shot at contributing. Thanks again. :-)  K rakatoa    K atie   10:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Meow
huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.161.50 (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)