User talk:213.218.230.106

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -- KOS | talk 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. When the block expires you are free to continue editing if you intend to make useful contributions. However, if you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, this account will be subject to a longer block and action could be taken against the individual behind this IP address.

-- KOS | talk 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "The user blocked me for making a minor edit to someone's user-page, I was testing to see if adjusting font size made in the "edit this page" section actually made a difference. Is this enough grounds for a 2 day block?! I have made other noteworthy edits to Wikipedia. Moreover, the user gave me a first warning that totalled ONE MINUTE, how is anyone expected to view the warning, acknowledge it, and learn from it, in <1 minute? Please, unblock me when you get a moment. Feel free to advise the member in question of how to carry him/herself in future, as well. Thank you."

Decline reason: "Per KOS, Luna and Anthony below. The unblock rationale does not appear credible. — Sandstein 21:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

I've left a note on the blocking admin's talk page. - auburnpilot talk 18:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Er, and how do you explain "this user needs to get a job and pay tax"? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the issue is more that this user was warned at 17:14 UTC, 5 minutes after his/her last edit. Then, less than one minute later, at 17:15 UTC, the user was blocked...with no other edits having been made. Vandalism? Yes. After being warned? No. - auburnpilot talk 22:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, if we accept that a "brand new" user would somehow navigate to User:The Giant Puffin, edit the page, and somehow comprehend a complex maze of syntax well enough to add an insulting userbox on their first try. Seems a bit of a stretch. Add to that their complete failure to mention this in their unblock request and their removing it from this talk page, rather than providing an explanation. Not that you don't have a point, there's something odd about the warning/block times (checked, no deleted edits showing). – Luna Santin (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Care to investigate it then? I can't believe I have been blocked for one edit. Is this a run of the mill practice on Wikipedia? The admin seems reluctant to respond. Thank you, AuburnPilot, for your tenacity with this. Luna, I'm not sure what point you are trying to raise about my "first time" edits. Please clarify, I think I am missing out on the gist of what you are suggesting. 213.218.230.106 00:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Basically: how did you find your way to The Giant Puffin's userpage, and why did you add an insulting template? – Luna Santin (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

When, if you answer this question, please do so in the understanding that we all know that there is no way that a new editor, within 24 hours of joining wikipedia, would be able to insert that userbox on User:The Giant Puffin. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance of this either. Even if s/he is a veteran user, s/he only received one warning, moments later s/he was IP-blocked. Are you onto something? Are you suggesting that ever recent edit to that user's page can be traced back to the above IP-address? I've looked but I can't see any other similar edits from even the same IP band. The fact is: This user was NOT given sufficient time to probably even see the warning. Is it fair to ban the user outright because of one vandalised edit? 82.163.88.191 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Anthony.bradbury, did you even look at the other userboxes on that page? The one inserted here is identical in every respect to the one directly above it. The only difference is the text; nothing difficult about inserting this box. - auburnpilot talk 14:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the initial start of this, I don't have a PC at work. I did intend to block this user, but not for 48 hours, I may have hit the wrong tab. I initially saw the edit to Xy7's talk page through my watchlist, I checked it out, identified it as vandalism, reverted and warned. When I went through the contribs, and discovered the edit to Puffin's page, and mostly this trolling comment "The user above is clearly a bonehead" and "Have you got a job by the way? Most pitbull owners are swarthy fellows, so I do wonder." I decided to block the user in question, as I do not tolerate those type of comments, I don't know of an admin who does. I would not be opposed to unblocking this user, but he or she should know that if that type of behavior continues they may be blocked again, without warning. KOS | talk 15:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)