Wikipedia talk:Historical archive/Logs/Block log

Note: This is NOT the page to request someone be blocked, please report vandalism at WP:AIV.

Wikipedia:Block log/Archive1: 24 Nov 2003 to Mar 25, 2004
Wikipedia:Block log/Archive2: March 25 to 28 September, 2004
Wikipedia:Block log/Archive 3: 28 September to 8 December, 2004
Wikipedia:Block log/Final archive: December 8 to 23, 2004

Failure to block

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)

I realise I'm replying to a 2 year old thread, but hopefully somebody is watching this page! Has this behaviour now changed? It's still standard practice for admins to unblock before putting a new block in place, but from what I've seen in the logs that shouldn't be necessary. I get the impression from the block end dates that the most recently instated block is the one that holds? --kingboyk 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: {{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-All^T|@|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://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=209.242.141.25

Next time, try here, it's usually taken care of faster. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider permanent block on IP 139.142.154.129

I wasn't sure where to put this; hope this is the correct place. If it's not, please excuse the interruption.

IP 139.142.154.129 has a long history of vandalism (see User_talk:139.142.154.129) and they vandalised the Lent article today, just one day after the last block placed upon the IP address expired. Please consider placing a permanent block upon this address.

Thank you! jcarreiro 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP registered to the wrong place

the ip '205.213.111.54' belongs to www.wiscnet.com as a proxy. So please contact wiscnet.com of vandlism

--Ashfire908 20:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

132.241.245.49

132.241.245.49 blocking seems to be the result of a powertrip

case in point Health of Pope John Paul II could someone please point out the vandalism?

132.241.245.23 00:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs a block

Please block the user with IP address 195.194.74.200. User has vandalized several articles.

Please block the user with IP address 69.141.113.24. User has vandalized several articles.

Please block the user with this IP User:83.131.245.253 He has been vandalizing numerous football pages

Please block the user with IP address 207.99.90.253 - the user is randomly vandalizing articles.

Please block the user with IP address 65.0.101.151 - the user is randomly vandalizing articles (examine contributions and history) and does not register (very suspicious).

Adding 85.91.150.212 to this list - vandalizing one article, regularly. 213.226.50.50 23:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please block 68.1.169.1, he has vandalized the Marian Rejewski page with extremely disturbing images. Chickenofbristol 01:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add requests for administrator intervention against vandalism to WP:AIV, not here. haz _(user talk)^e 21:33, 10 March 2006

I would like to have the user 82.110.217.10 blocked without question as he/she is nothing but a constant vandal. Willirennen 12.15 9 April 2006 (utc)

216.56.60.130 is a regular and prolific vandal who has made dozen of changes of which 2 were not vandalism. The talk page is full of unheeded warnings. There are currently no blocks listed in the log. Give 'em some love, please. —BozoTheScary 22:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

69.68.219.144 needs to be blocked

I think this guys has been vandalizing pages with porno content (here) and i think he has been warned enough times. This ip needs to be blocked.

139.168.76.202 needs to be blocked

Today, March 20, while entering the inflames article, it said that they were a nu-romantic pop band (they are a death metal band, probably the reason for the edit), and had various changes in albium names (ghayman=clayman) and others... this was intentional and cruel, so please block this user.

Yikes, please block 64.18.38.240!!!

View his "contributions" today: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=64.18.38.240

Killdevil 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OMGWTF!

24.145.155.21 needs to be blocked, proof:[[1]] 66.169.0.252 01:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you please block

67.162.80.174 needs to be blocked because they keep adding the "Wrestler's liked by X" sections after McPhail stated (The "wrestlers who are X" section is inherently pov. Do not reinsert it.) and when he does put it back he does not put back the NPOV back to those sections.

Please add requests for administrator intervention against vandalism to WP:AIV, not here. Average Earthman 16:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

64.5.154.146 has vandalized the einstein page like 4 times...67.84.82.127 17:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this user for a longer period. Maybe now the message will get accross. Redux 00:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Every time User:68.96.102.166 comes off of block, they continue to vandalize pages. Recently, this user has taken to completely vandalizing or wiping out the featured articles. I'm not sure the message is being communicated successfully to this troublemaker! -VENICEMENACE

User:68.45.188.45 should be blocked. He's the sockpuppet of Flatts, and he's the same person as Gm1121983. So User:Gm1121983 should also be blocked. See Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism —Flatts 14:57, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

.csv of block log

Is it possible to obtain a .csv of the block log for statistical analysis? --HypatiaSD 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request a block

User:86.42.76.172 is causing general nuisance at Donna_and_Joseph_McCaul . There's such a thing as downgrading positive bias, but this is taking it a little far. Karlusss 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request a block

User 168.10.137.2 has a long history of "blank out" vandalism, and has recently started becoming more blatant, adding graffiti-like stuff. I do not know if he/she/it reads he/she/it's talk page (it's blank), but why would a warning do any good, after this long a history? Blocking somebody for a week or two is a warning, no? Sbharris 23:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please request blocks at WP:AIV. This page is for discussing the block log itself. Thanks. Chick Bowen 05:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Indefinitely blocked user TuzsuzDeliBekir

User:TuzsuzDeliBekir was recently indefinitely blocked. However, there still remains much material of a personal nature on his user page, including pictures of—I would assume—himself. In the interests of privacy, and insofar as he is effectively no longer a part of Wikipedia, I think it might be best, if possible, to replace the images and information on his user page with a notice that he has been indefinitely blocked, and probably to delete his personal pictures as well. —Saposcat 11:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since he can still edit his talk page and use the Wikipedia e-mail function, he can request that we delete his user page and images if that's what he wants--other blocked users have done so before. Otherwise I see no particular reason to do so--there's nothing inflammatory or otherwise sensitive on his userpage, that I can see. Chick Bowen 05:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see. Thanks for responding. —Saposcat 06:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block vandalism

This is an complaint about Naconkantari. He blocked Idontwantanaccount for no reason, then he blocked my IP as I tried to create another one. Then he removed the warning on his talk page without any reaction. This shows that he hasn't the comprehension that an admin needs. --84.131.68.87 23:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go away, sockpuppet. --Nlu (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you think this is the behavior of an admin? "Go away, sockpuppet"? Exemplary... --84.131.68.87 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thetruth566 is blocked indefinitely

Thetruth566 (talk · contribs) repeatedly attempted to add hatespam to Holocaust denial. When confronted, used openly antisemitic offensive language [2]. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite blocks

Lately I have indefinitely blocked a large number of accounts, all of whom I suspect to be the work of 84.64.15.181 (talk · contribs):

This IP declared some of them ([3]), and said, "I started with copying names from editors who'd changed the article or added AfD tags to it, then I moved on to getting usernames from the characters of An Inspector Calls by J.B. Priestley. Hope this helps." By "the article", he means TigerGardens and its variations (Tigergardens, TigerGarden, etc.).

Yesterday I posted about this vandal on WP:AN: [4].

I do not know if this vandal will create more socks, or if he is playing some sort of game, or what. Is it ok to indefinitely block this IP? I have been looking at policy pages but have found no help on that. Feedback is appreciated. --F a ng Aili ^talk 14:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal block required admin

This user 70.26.2.187 has been doing constant vandalism on Dhillon article with non-famous, non notable Dhillons and vandilism of other articles and upsetting other users- Please Block. --Dfg12 01:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by block log

[5] shows only two blocks, but the talk page and the summary for those blocks indicates that the user has been repeatedly blocked. What am I missing? JoshuaZ 03:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Block Log?

As the question asks, what is a block log? Axeman89 03:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log is a log of all users/bots who have been blocked/unblocked and by whom at what time. It's a very easy way to find out out who blocked a user when and why. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 05:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Axeman89 14:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Legal threats and blocks

User:Sussexman, User:Lightoftheworld, and User:Paul Marchment, as far as I can see, have all been blocked for their support of UK laws regarding Gregory Lauder-Frost's article. It would appear that none of these people are or could possibly be GLF but they all stand by the principles of the law in this case. So they have all been blocked on the most pathetic, flimsy, and most undemocratic excuses. It seems to me the muckrakers on Wikipedia are clearly in control as they use any excuse to block people saying what they do not want to hear. A blot on Wikipedia if ever there was one. 213.122.89.216 19:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The article has now been deleted. 81.131.3.209 09:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

203.214.7.46

203.214.7.46 - this person needs to be blocked for persistent vandalism of the Fabio Grosso wikipage.Mr Cool 14:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lightbringer

There is plenty of evidence between WP:RFCU and WP:LTA to conclusively show that User:Lightbringer has been continuing to vandalize Freemasonry-related articles long after his one-year ban was set (it dates to April, and we have IP edits made as of last week). Is there some process available to make sure that the ban timer is reset after every vandalism recurrence? MSJapan 20:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.10.126.130

IP 72.10.126.130 has just completed a spate of vandalism. About 9 edits on George Lucas inserting various random words. The same IP address was blocked twics in March 2006. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 13:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of admin priviledges by Zoe and Block log record for rueben_lys

I was blocked by Zoe on 8th october while editing the article Raid on Jaffna University in what seemed to me an attempt to gain advantage in an edit war. I believe this was an abuse by Zoe of her admin priviledges. I brought this to the attention of the arbitrations comittee. Subsequently, Netsnipe and NuclearUmpf both agreed that my grievance held ground. NuclearUmpf suggested that the block was not warranted and should be noted as such on the Block log. However, such a notification has not been placed onthe block log, while the issue of Zoe's abuse of her priviledges has not been issued either. Rueben lys 15:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

216.242.114.115 - block only unregistered users, please

The IP address 216.242.114.115 is a shared IP address for a school, North Broward Prep, in South Florida. While it's true that some students are immature and unscrupulous enough to vandalize pages, those who wish to make meaningful contributions should not be subject to the same penalties that the others are. So, please, in the future, if you're an admin blocking our IP address, block unregistered users only, that way we contributors who are not vandals can still help improve and expand upon Wikipedia's vast articles database. Plus, if you do block us and someone vandalizes again from our IP, you then know exactly which accout did the vandalization, allowing you to specifically block problematic accounts.

Thanks in advance for hearing my plea! --74.236.109.15 22:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

63.226.38.165 requires a block

63.226.38.165 ha been attacking, and vandalizing the Heroes pages for at least three days... adding links that serve no function, and are trivial. Please, someone with the power, block 63.226.38.165 --DJ Chair 20:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocking non-effective

IP address blocking is increasingly irrelevent. Most EU ISP dynamic user addresses change constantly. There are technical (DDOS) reasons why this is a good-thing. However, the end result is that IP blocking is useless. For example, my ISP (BlueWin.CH) changed my external IP address 11 times, last Friday and every time I cycle power on my router I get a new IP address. Unless every IP address in BlueWin's address block is blocked (the whole of Switzerland) all the blocked user has to do is to cycle power to their router.

On the other hand, being an innocent user, I risk getting a new IP address that has been blocked because of someone else' bad deeds. It hasn't happened yet, that I know of, but this is inherently unfair.

This practice, regarding dynamic IP address re-mapping, is in place in CH, DE, NL, and other countries. I am given to understand that parts of the US are following suit. Slamlander 04:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User at 24.180.19.26

User at 24.180.19.26 needs to be blocked (vandalizing Stephen Speilberg and Frank Capra articles)Antmusic 17:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oratoria motivacional y Positiva por Jose de la Rosa

es importante el la voz y poder desenvolvernos an te el Publico : en mi experiencia los alumnos como enseñar liderazgo http://josedelarosa.blogsome.com/ y la enseñanza en todo momento http://josedelarosaconferencis.vnunetblog.es/conferencis/ por jose de la Rosa Conferencista

User at 198.139.71.71

User at 198.139.71.71 needs to be blocked for vandalizing The Ross Tucker article multiple times, be randomly inserting the word blubber. Nov 11

I think Cedric should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Mariusz Paul Zielinski 15:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied. You're the one who's blocked. —Bill Conrad 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brian Barbera should be blocked indefinitely. —Bill Conrad 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah? —Brian Barbera 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User at 72.70.141.107

User at 72.70.141.107 needs to be blocked for extensive vandalism. He has vandalized four pages including Clementine and Ho Hos, after three warnings, the last one for a block. He uses wikipedia as more of a blog, than an encyclopedia. Thank you. Shy1520 04:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User at 84.148.87.220

Keeps going against the Manuel of Style on Charlie Chaplin, despite explanations and requests for him to stop, he continues to do so. --Berks105 11:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User at 71.161.60.9

Vandalized all the pages he has "contributed" to, including member pages. Has gotten multiple warnings and should be blocked. Shy1520 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now he even vandalized my page. Shy1520 20:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

68.50.146.208 reverted my article

68.50.146.208 reverted my article Brisingamen Revision as of 04:11, 9 December 2006, without explanations. I’m very angry with him! …(I’m joking!). My articles are seriously sources with famous historians and archaeologist. My English isn’t very good I know, so can you find a solution to resume what I've exposed in the discussion page? Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thorgis (talk • contribs) 10:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you and sorry for the mistake! may I write again my information in the article? Thorgis 14:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block log left behind when user name changes

Do the devs know that the block log is left behind when a user changes user name? This would seem to me to be an obvious bug in the software. Hesperian 04:09, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please block the user KARAZENPOMIKE frommaking erroneous changes, and vandalizing the article on Karazenpo Go Shinjutsu. I have to go back and fix his changes frequently. He is manipulating the article

User:204.73.192.162

Continued vandalism of the Andy Warhol page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freshacconci (talk • contribs) 21:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

How do I link to block logs?

How do I link to block logs internally? Asmeurer 05:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just link to the page with an external link. Copy and paste. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: 202.93.243.165

202.93.243.165 needs a block. The user behind the IP has done nothing but vandalizing throughout the use of wikipedia. (Cloud02 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Block? What is a sock?

=Hello, I'm having trouble using Wikipedia. I read a nice article on Patty Smith Hill which mentioned the Hill Floor Blocks for Kindergarten and Primary grades. I wrote on the discussion page that I had original photographs of children using the blocks which I would be glad to share with the writers of the article so they could add to their article if they wished. I checked the next day to see if anyone had responded and found a note saying that I was blocked by Rschen 7754 with a red X and the word SOCK given for the reason. I cannot reach Rschen 7754 because his page is "protected" and I can't find a way to email him to find out what the problem is. I am a 67 year old retired Primary school teacher and a first time user of Wikipedia. I'm very patient about trying to learn new things, but I have no idea why someone who writes about highways could be upset about my comments on Kindergarten building blocks. I'd like to resolve this so I can use your service to the satisfaction of all. Thank you, Carol Corson (209.244.188.200) I also didn't know what a tilde was and typed ---- instead. Now I've checked it with clean glasses and will write ~~~~ (I hope that's correct) Carol Corson 03:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Welcome to wikipedia, and sorry for the rude introduction. I'm fairly new myself, and getting used to formatting takes some time. A "sock" refers to the term "sock puppet" which you can read about here WP:SOCK but a quick definition would be a user creating a second identity, usually to falsely make it appear that he/she has support in edit wars and other disputes. If you are using a public computer, it may appear to the person who blocked you that there are more than one identities being used by one IP address. It sound like he was jumping to conclusions, since public computers in schools and libraries will have a number of different users over the course of a day. Why "someone who writes about highways could be upset about…comments on Kindergarten building blocks" is a good question and one which I don't have an answer to. An administrator (a longtime wiki user who has been "advanced" to a position with more user control) may need to unblock you. Again, I'm new, so I'm not sure how that's done. But as a fellow newbie, I just wanted to let you know that frustrations happen here, but don't let it put you off wikipedia. Freshacconci 15:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad

I think Bill Conrad should be blocked from editing. He happens to be the sockpuppet of Mr. Conrad. —Squidward Tentacles

Yeah, except you forgot the part where I kick your butt. —Flatts

AAAUUUGGGHHH!!! SOMEBODY BLOCK THIS GUY NOW!! —Squidward Tentacles