Wikipedia talk:Administrators' guide/Blocking

Good idea! May I suggest a lesson for teaching about the autoblock function and how to remove an autoblock? That is one thing I had trouble with when I was new. A lesson about blocking IP ranges might be nice too. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that would be a good idea. I'll have a bash at the auto blocks - I'm not too good with range blocks so I'll have to leave it upto someone else. Ryan Postlethwaite 14:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so good with range-blocks either. So I don't really do them. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just going to suggest these both as well, especially since they're currently weak points for me. — Scientizzle 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might also suggest a discussion of softblocking. Perhaps, also, information about how one can check for and deal with (if necessary) open proxies, Tor nodes, zombie computers, etc.? — Scientizzle 18:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4 warnings?

Should we really be teaching "View ThisIsaTest's Talk Page and verify that he/she has been warned four times and that the warnings are recent." - From WP:VAND: There are several templates used to warn vandals. They are listed at right in order of severity, but need not be used in succession. The first level warnings are designed to AGF. If a user replaces a page with something like: "LOLZ U <offensive words> SUCK!!! BAN ME" - I really don't think we should be assuming good faith. I would suggest:

View ThisIsaTest's Talk Page and verify that he/she has been warned with a a final warning (such as {{uw-vand4}} ) and that the warnings are recent (for IPs only). --> Does recent warnings matter for logged-in users?
Click on ThisIsaTest's contributions.
Verify that ThisIsaTest has vandalized recently after the final warning.

--Mr.Z-man 03:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates aren't required - all that really matters is that the user has been given adequate warning (which requires judgment to decide) and hasn't stopped. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In cases of gross or extreme vandalism a warning is not needed at all, such as promotion of hate or racism. Other users will deserve one warning, others more warning. Decide on the severity of the behavior and the likelihood of salvaging a good user. No hard and fast rule will do, use your good judgment. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 06:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of the above even though I wrote the bit about "four warnings". IF it's OK with User:Until(1 == 2), I'm going to copy his comment directly onto the project page. --Richard 07:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very valid points here, Until's statement is very good and I agree, it would be a good one to have on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course you can use my statement. Both under GFDL, and my blessing. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

31 hours?

I think there should be an explanation of the reasoning for a 31-hour block - as i understand it, it's so that the user doesn't "sleep through" the block if they edit early one day and late the next, is that right? —Random832 14:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's from past experience that vandals would often come back at the same time next day and continue their vandalism. 31 hours means that's not possible, and if they have similar internet patterns on a day to day basis, it will most probably mean that the vandalism won't continue after the block (at least for the short term). Ryan Postlethwaite 14:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little late in responding.

More specific to what Ryan said, the 31 hours was to prohibit school IP based vandalism, figuring that in 24 hours the person would be back at the same computer at school. 31 hours would put them somewhere else. Keegan^talk 05:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate account changed

Since the recent policy change has excluded random/confusing account names from block on sight, I created User:Keegaṇ and replaced the username and language as to why "too similar" is a conflict that can be blocked on sight. Keegan^talk 05:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensitive IP addresses

The figure on this page gives a shorter list than User:HBC AIV helperbot/Special IPs. Is it out of date? Wnt (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking the blocked history

How can an administrator can check to see if a user has been blocked before or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehrdadd (talk • contribs) 14:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]