Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 10

message: A vandal has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism; his talk page is littered with "last warnings" and a statement that he can be blocked without warning.  The block expires, and he starts vandalizing again.  Does one really need to waste time issuing another "last warning" before reporting to AIV?  -- TedFrank 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *An admin put a form notice on my talk page to the contrary after rejecting my AIV report. -- TedFrank 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism post-block 

message: Having just seen this it made me curious. I don't see a provision for requests of self-blocking on this policy page. Is there some mention of such a thing elsewhere?  05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *That was my thinking as well.  08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: **Added a paragraph on the subject. Please copyed. >Radiant< 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: ***Looks good.  09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: User requested indef. blocks?

message: someone told me i'll be blocked.  and then i heard about autoblocking for ips, did autoblocking always block account creation? HP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2007  (UTC)
:If you're blocked, and the blocking admin uses "autoblock", the IP addresses that you try to edit from will be blocked for 24 hours.  If the admin also uses "prevent account creation", then during that 24 hour period where your IP is blocked, you won't be able to register a new account.  However, autoblocks are temporary. TomTheHand 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Honda Pilot

message: Do you have to vandalise multiple times to be blocked? Or can you be blocked immediately and indefinitely after your first vandal edit? The Serene Silver Star 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For vandalism that is particularly severe, some admins feel that an immediate, possibly indefinite block after a single edit is appropriate.  If the vandalism is run-of-the-mill page blanking, I would say that such a block is probably not appropriate and would probably be overturned on appeal.  If you're blocked and you feel it was for an inappropriate reason or for an inappropriate length of time, you can put an unblock request on your talk page (which you can still edit) with .   TomTheHand 15:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, note that it's possible that an account has several vandalistic edits to pages that have since been deleted. Such edits don't show up in the contribs log. >Radiant< 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Also please be aware that some apparent vandalism, for instance the blanking of the lower part of a long page, may be due to a browser software bug, newbie mistakes, or other innocent reasons. In the case of one such event, or a few slowly paced events, time may allow discussion before blocking. In the case of a rapid series of such edits, a block may be prudent to prevent further damage until discussion resolves the problem, even though you assume good faith and innocent error on the editor's part (and in this case the block reason should avoid suggesting guilt or deliberate malice). -- Ben TALK/HIST 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A single edit?