User talk:Dan Koehl

From Wikispecies
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Dan Koehl/Flow Archive 1 on 2017-08-31.






Blockering och avblockeringsmall[edit]

Hej Dan. Ta gärna en titt här User talk:GermanGamer77#Warning 2 angående en evighetsblockering som du initierade den 16 januari. Utifrån användarens cross-wiki historia på frWP och enWP kan jag tänka mig att blockeringen fortfarande behöver vara kvar. Mina kunskaper i franska inskränker sig till sånt som rör mat, vin och fyndorter för killis i västafrikanska tidigare franska kolonier, men jag har läst en del av hans inlägg på enWP och flera av dem är synnerligen otrevliga. Kanske borde man ändå ge en ytterligare förklaring till läget här på Wikispecies, eftersom användaren åtminstone "på papperet" försöker visa ånger? Dessutom är det ju så att den {{unblock}}-mall du hänvisar till i blockeringsmeddelandet till användaren inte ens finns. Den saken måste vi förstås också ta tag i, alldeles oavsett just denna användare och hans synpunkter.

Sist på sin diskussionssida påtalar användaren att han behöver en sandlåda till användarkontot, för att kunna utföra lite förarbeten kring en sida om en spindelart han vill skapa. Den sidan har jag precis skapat, så någon sådan låda behöver han inte längre... Med vänlig hälsning, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 06:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

Thanks @Tommy Kronkvist:, I agree that the {{unblock}}-template must be made. As for the case with that user, do you think it needs any certain measures? It seems his discussion page is functional, which at the moment probably is enough? Dan Koehl (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, even though the {{unblock}} template is inoperative the user obviously wants us to reconsider the indefinite block. (I only saw their request by mere coincidence while checking up on unpatrolled edits, so we need that template up and running.) I feel that their request must be dealt with in one way or another. Even if it may be too early (?) to unblock just yet, simply ignoring the request is unprofessional, probably against Wikimedia policy, and quite frankly also a bit rude. As for "any certain measures", I'm undecided, but opening up a discussion on their talk page to clear up any misconceptions and tie up any loose ends will probably be a good enough start. As for the user's request to have a private sandbox I say nah, that seems unnecessary as long as the user account is blocked. If and when the user is unblocked they can create such a sandbox themselves, but until then the block should also subsume any user account subpages.
Lastly, if we decide to unblock we should also have a look at the similarly named user accounts GermanGamer1, GermanGamer7, and Germangamer42 (links to their Global Account Information, respectively). Those accounts are probably unrelated but for the sake of the matter we might just as well keep an eye out. Then again, I guess we always do... Regards, Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 13:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC).
@Tommy Kronkvist:, Its of course easy to block the user. If you think its worth a try, I have nothing against an unblocking, to give the user a chance to produce anything constructive, apart from taking time from the community, by trolling different user pages. And if, and when the user starts trolling again,without making any valuable constributions, its easy to block again.? Dan Koehl (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. You make the call – however bear in mind that starting at lunch tomorrow I will be offline and out of town most of the weekend doing other work, and will not be here as an active patroller during that time... :-) Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 15:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC).

Dracaenaworldwide[edit]

Please grant this user auto-patrol rights. We can trust his edits and he has hit the formats button very quickly. Best regards Andyboorman (talk) 21:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done Dan Koehl (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks he is a real published expert in his field! Andyboorman (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2019 (UTC)