Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Logs/Block log

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Historical archive

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sovietcollector (talk | contribs) at 17:27, 28 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please record controversial blocks at Wikipedia:Account suspensions. It's controversial if you think any other admin might dispute your reasoning, i.e., anything other than simple vandalism or clearcut 3RR.

This log doesn't seem to be including the user's address. RickK 03:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Except on an unblock. I thought it might be intentional. - Hephaestos 03:33, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Over-rides

I notice that several times a given IP has been blocked by more than one person, sometimes within the same minute, sometimes rather later. If you block an already blocked IP, do the new settings over-ride the old? For example, if someone blocks an IP for 24 hours and then a few minutes later the same IP is blocked for 6 hours, which holds? Does the system actually notice if you block an already-blocked IP? --Phil 09:13, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

The shortest one holds. When the first one expires, all duplicate blocks are deleted. This behaviour is essentially by accident, and will probably change in the future. Also, if an IP is blocked for a long period of time, and then a blocked user logs on with that address, the expiry time will be adjusted to be 24 hours in the future regardless of the previous expiry time. This is also by accident, and will almost certainly change. -- Tim Starling 07:58, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

So Plautus Satire is going to be unblocked in 6 days (as set by Evercat) not 7 (as specified by Jimbo Wales one minute later), is that correct? --Phil 17:10, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

aol proxy, again

  • 22:48, 25 Apr 2004 RickK blocked "152.163.252.167" with an expiry time of indefinite (Denchfield vandal) is cache-rh07.proxy.aol.com . Indefinite proxy blocks affect lots of innocent people; they should be clearly marked as proxies in the reason field.

I accidentally unblocked 64.252.198.108 meaning to unblock 62.254.64.10 so just wanted to note that 62.254.64.10 is an NTL proxy, not 64.252.198.108, which is Snet. Angela. 07:39, May 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ghosting of Wik

I signed on under the name "StopVandalis mAgain!", and (of course) wound up getting mistaken for Wik and blocked on one craputer. My bad. Rickyrab 01:06, 28 May 2004 (UTC) I apologize for "ghosting" Wik, but, what the hey.[reply]

Format and Generation of this page

Not being a sysop, I'm not familiar with how this page is generated, although I'm assuming it's an automagic thing. That being so, how possible would it be to make the links in the Block Summary rubric active? It would also be handy to wikilink the account name of the Blockee, maybe with a side-link to their contribs list. Is there a better place to make these suggestions? --Phil | Talk 10:07, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

It is generated automatically. Feature requests can be made at sourceforge. The Special:Ipblocklist gives links the contributions lists. Angela. 00:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anons not seeing their messages

There are reports on the village pump that anons are not seeing their user talk messages. If you are finding that anons are not learning the ropes as quickly as they usually are, please bear in mind they might be seeing your helpful comments. Pcb21| Pete 07:20, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question from anon

Q. What do block/unblock #9318 entries mean? --137.111.13.34 13:27, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A. The number is assigned when an IP is autoblocked because it is associated with a username that is currently blocked. --Michael Snow 22:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

New block log

The new block is at Special:Log/block. See MediaZilla:1156 and MediaZilla:1157 for related bugs. Angela. 04:55, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

How do I see my block?

I can't seem to bet the block log to display the time I was blocked (by Frazzydee). How do I do it? Lupin|talk|popups 17:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I got it. Lupin|talk|popups 01:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biff Rose and Will Beback

ATTENTION User:Will Beback blocks all anon users on this article as sock puppets, but the only proof he has of this is that those users are in edit disagreements with him. I've made an edit to the page, and it disagrees with this particular admin's opinions about the article. I fear reprisal via a block, and this severely limits my ability to edit and function here on wikipedia. I'm sure he will counter, but please keep an eye on his blocks that pertain to the biff rose article. Thanks 216.175.112.62 08:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but User:Jonah Ayers seems to care much about Biff Rose. -Will Beback 08:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He went ahead and blocked the IP, but there is no factual evidence that that IP is jonah Ayers, will someone please look into this. It's time to be protective of wikipedia, but this editor/sysop is not only blocking to favor his own edits, but he's abusing the facility to disseminate new information.216.175.121.129

every anon who come along coincidentally makes exactly the same edit ... which removes a bunch of factual information. the fact is that Will is employing common sense to deal with a persistent vandal, with access to multiple ip's, to an obscure article. Derex 16:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Allen Simpson running Botryoidal

Gentlefolk, earlier today (middle of night local time) Commander Keene blocked both this (my) User and my new bot User:Botryoidal. At the time, I gave up and went to bed. However, I just figured out that I was unblocked (and it took me another half hour to figure out where to post this -- if this is not the place, then please tell me where):

  • 2006-01-20 08:50:36 Commander Keane unblocked User:Botryoidal (collateral damage from blocking of Botryoidal)
  • ...
  • 2006-01-20 08:49:56 Commander Keane unblocked #84338 (collateral damage from blocking of Botryoidal)
  • ...
  • 2006-01-20 08:28:34 Commander Keane blocked "User:Botryoidal" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Unauthorised bot)

I followed each and every step listed for starting to use the bot. The bot was run manually, and run throttled. Indeed, I was manually running in alphabetical batches (20-30 or so edits at a time), and had just started 'E' about four (4) minutes before!

The stated rules for administrator block require that

1. "... they are unapproved, doing something the operator didn't say they would do, messing up articles or editing too rapidly."
  • Certainly the bot wasn't doing anything that I didn't say it would do (it was only doing exactly one edit, and that was what I stated, orphaning a template that I'd listed at WP:TFD) several days ago.
  • Certainly the bot wasn't messing up articles. I tested the first edits one file at a time by hand, and I checked each and every batch of edits on my screen before running the next batch. Heck, I'm generally considered a fairly careful and cautious "safe pair of hands"!
  • Certainly the bot wasn't editing too rapidly, Special:Contributions/Botryoidal shows that the edits were throttled to 30 seconds (as required), and run in the slack time (as required).

The stated rules for starting the bot say that:

"2. New bots should run without a bot flag so people can check what it's doing.
"3. Until new bots are accepted as ok they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits."

Now, how exactly are perfectly performing bots supposed to qualify during their "initial one-week probation" demonstrating they are run responsibly, when an administrator blocks them without any valid reason?

--William Allen Simpson 15:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous blocking

I added the following template to a talk page for an IP I was using: Template:Mohammed twice, even though I had NOT blanked the picture in question. Some admin was gullible enough to block the IP for 48 hours based on the templates alone. NEXT TIME, LOOK UP THE PAGE HISTORIES! thank you. 165.230.149.154 05:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) the IP I was using at the time was as follows: 165.230.149.152, I think.[reply]

Thank you. 165.230.149.152 06:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

The "user" search seems to work...but the "title" seems to be acting up...it never finds anyone...even if I copy/paste the names of blocked users.Voice-of-AllT|@|ESP 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

209.242.141.25 needs permanent block

This guy has been warned a zillion times and he's still up to the same shenenigans on a daily basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.242.141.25

208.30.83.3 aka Robert Merlin Evenson/Church of Ouzo needs permanent block

This guy keeps on insisting posting a link to his website in the Procter & Gamblearticle even after he was told it was not a legit reference. He has also taken to deleting links to other sites giving as his reason If one is not legit, the other is not legit. He has also removed other peoples comments from the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Procter_%26_Gamble

If I have done anything please also ban me

(~)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Historical_archive/Logs/Block_log&oldid=41630676"