Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2016/October

Pending reviews in the LaTeX-Wikibook
I try to do some fixes to the wikibook. Some changes are reviewed quite quickly, other stuff is laying around for months without being checked. For example LaTeX/Modular_Documents. Can the admins (and reviewers) please check? I don't have the right to review yet. --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism
Hi. Please see this history and block IP  for repeated vandalism in this page. Thanks. --Ks-M9 (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 18 October 2016 (UTC).
 * ✅ Blocked for one year, nothing good to expect from it. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 00:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Surely we don't want to block an IP for an entire year; IPs being locations rather than people, after all? Pardon, but I dialed this back to 1 month.  Even if the IP were only the one person (which we don't know), that might not still be so in a while.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pi zero on this one, 1 year is just too much. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 13:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Internet cafés. Not everybody has an own connection to th world wide web. I would be sad to know that a group of people is banned from making improvements for one year because one of the group misbehaved. --Johannes Bo (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I disagree with shortening the block. This IP is allocated to a school (Macarthur Anglican School) and has been blocked for two years on the English Wikipedia - which has a lot more people to police vandalism than us - due to consistent unproductive editing. It is not unreasonable to effectively indefinitely block a school because they have computer use policies and the staff to enforce the policies. If they fail to police their own students then I don't see why we should have to do it for them. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a situation where some hint of that stuff (if known at the time) might have been very helpful to have in the deletion log summary. I might have been persuaded thereby not to shorten it.  I don't see it as too much of a problem, because if, after a month, further problems ensue, it'll be clear that a longer block is justified; my main concern would be that the admin who deals with this hypothetical problem down the road might be lacking the context of this discussion; but, a number of folks have now been involved, so there's a good chance it'd be handled by someone in-the-know.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But this someone is just supposed to have read Blocking_policy, which doesn't offer any example, not even the words day, month or year. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:48, 24 October 2016 (UTC)