User talk:ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ

Archives

Oldest – 1 February 2022

2 February 2022 – 31 December 2022

1 January 2023 – pres.

June 2023

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

GeneralNotability (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my... this'll make the ARBCOM case even more confusing. Or? Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nythar and others who may feel the need to comment here: please use your best judgment as to whether you actually have something important to say, or simply feel it important to say something. firefly ( t · c ) 20:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I was wondering whether this affects the ARBCOM case. Anyway, I've posted a comment there, so there's no need for anything else here. Nythar (💬-🍀) 20:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you really think SW knew about ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ being a sock when he made those comments, no, it shouldn't. small jars tc 20:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my capacity as a CU, I'll pre-emptively go ahead and say "good block". --Blablubbs (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs Do you want to tag their user page? Since they were locked away as LTA. -Lemonaka‎ 03:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Blablubbs (talk) 03:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that MalnadashBot needs to get unblocked, because the last edit by the bot was constrictive, even through the bot operator has been blocked indefinitely. 95.132.186.233 (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the operator is blocked/inactive, then it is procedural to block the bot(s) associated with the user as well. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But the bot did not vandalise articles, so it's not needed to keep the bot blocked indefinitely. 95.132.186.233 (talk) 06:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are looking for Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Blocking bots. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, per WP:BOTBLOCK, I think it's better to unblock a bot, even through its operator is blocked indefinitely from editing. 95.132.186.233 (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote the text from that bot policy that supports unblocking the bot. Here's the supporting text from the blocking policy: The edits of a bot are considered to be, by extension, the edits of the editor responsible for the bot. As a result, should a bot operator be blocked, any bot attributed to them may also be blocked for the same duration as that of the blocked editor. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also another reason why MalnadashBot needs to get unblocked. Because it has the biggest number of edits compared to all other bots (11637095 edits in total). So I think a bot with biggest edit count needs to get unblocked. 95.132.186.233 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One might argue it's too big to fail, but it would be a moral hazard since it would encourage other bots to get really big in whatever way possible, so they can never be blocked. There might also be an argument it is a systemic risk to block the bot, in which case someone would need to take over the bot's code (if available) or rewrite it . -- GreenC 19:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]