Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
:No. Remove it, please. We're not going to add every single possible scenario because it was used once or twice — this would make the list contain hundreds of things. And please stop making changes without discussion, Aitias. You don't have a very good turnover rate on MediaWiki pages without discussing them first. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) |
:No. Remove it, please. We're not going to add every single possible scenario because it was used once or twice — this would make the list contain hundreds of things. And please stop making changes without discussion, Aitias. You don't have a very good turnover rate on MediaWiki pages without discussing them first. - [[User:Rjd0060|Rjd0060]] ([[User talk:Rjd0060|talk]]) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC) |
||
::What you really should stop, my dear fellow, are your ridiculous [[Argumentum ad personam|argumenta ad personam]]. Or do you want to claim something like edit warring with one edit again, eh? — <small><b><span style="border:1px solid #20406F;padding:1px 3px;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif;">[[User:Aitias|<font color="#20406F">Aitias</font>]]</span></b></small> <span style="color: #999;">//</span> [[User talk:Aitias|''discussion'']] 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:00, 16 February 2009
Templates
This is a MediaWiki bug. It does not handle templates in the MediaWiki namespace well. —Centrx→talk • 16:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- This page is in the temporary userpage category, it shouldn't though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Moved
It appears that the page is now at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. Naconkantari 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
The vandalblock template
Big difference there, the one being for temp blocks, the latter being for indef, hence I added it to the list -- Tawker 18:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Your template-fu is weak, old man!
How do I get {{blocked proxy}} into that list? That's the one I use most! - David Gerard 22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Did it for ya... Don't transclude the template directly. —Resurgent insurgent 2007-05-09 06:01Z
- I think it would be best for that not to be in there. It is not the sort of block that someone should be making unless they know what they are doing, i.e. someone should not come across the template naively and think "oh that must be it". —Centrx→talk • 13:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
My addition
Maybe it is confusing, but I added "3RR violation on" to the block reason list. Once you click that option, you just copy and paste the name of the article in the "Other reason" section. Hopefully, that will not be too hard to understand for other admins. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
- good idea! :-P Cbrown1023 talk 22:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Link
{{editprotected}}
Change
** Attempting to [[Wikipedia:Civility|harass]] other users
Into
** Attempting to [[Wikipedia:Harassment|harass]] other users
Melsaran (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
- While I know that this seems like a small (better) change, I'd like to see a little discussion first, mostly because it's switching the target from a policy to a guideline, and guidelines have a note that they can have "occasional exceptions," which may give leverage to harassers. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
- Well, civility has little to do with harassment, and linking "harass" to Wikipedia:Harassment seems far more logical to me. Interpreting the guideline tag at Wikipedia:Harassment as "it has exceptions, so at times it is allowed to harass other users" is ridiculous, so I don't really know if that's an argument for letting it link to Wikipedia:Civility instead. Thoughts? Melsaran (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
"Wikimedia copyright policy"
{{editprotected}}
This part is inaccurate, because there is no "Wikimedia copyright policy"; different Wikimedia projects have different copyright policies (the English Wikipedia allows fair use, other Wikipedias don't, Wikinews is Creative Commons instead of GFDL, etc). This should be changed into "Wikipedia copyright policy". It may also be useful to link "copyright policy" to Wikipedia:Copyrights, by the way. Cheers, Melsaran (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Editprotected
{{editprotected}}
Can someone restore Abusing multiple accounts so that admins have it as a block option if they want?? It's a euphemism for sockpuppetry. --Solumeiras talk 12:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Not done You're basically asking me to undo what another admin (User:Freakofnurture) did ('for closer resemblance between links and text'); could you suggest it to Freakofnurture instead and see what their opinion on the matter is, and whether they're happy to undo that action. Note also that a non-euphemised version is already there, and that admins can type out their own block reason if they want and are not limited to the reasons here. --ais523 12:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
- I've made this change. "Sockpuppetry" is jargon, and shouldn't really be the first thing someone sees when they've been blocked; "abusing multiple accounts" is the actual activity, not playing with footwear. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Please don't remove the 3RR violation as it is better and more concise than Edit warring and gives the blocked user a clear link to what they've done wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Er, no it's the opposite. What they've done wrong is that they have edit warred. 3RR is a way of measuring edit warring, but a block for 3RR is a block for edit warring. And "more concise" makes no sense. It's a drop-down box! They take the same amount of time to click on. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 05:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- 3RR is a metric. It needs to go. Edit warring needs to stay as an upgrade. Also echo Mcdevit. Mercury 05:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to think Wikipedia:Edit war isn't policy? Or that a user who violates WP:3RR wasn't edit warring? It's not as if we keep separate rationales for "repeated vandalism" and "vandalized five times," is it? And wouldn't it be silly, if we did? As far as options, we can leave both items, we can remove one, we can merge the two. Could probably argue that any frequently used block reason should be listed (though at some point that'll leave us with a prohibitively long list). If we remove one, it seems to me that an "edit warring" block rationale would apply in more cases. Can't think of any decent merged wording, but if somebody can, that may keep the most people happy. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with the preference of "edit warring" as a reason. WP:EW states that it is inclusive of 3RR as a metric, but the reason "edit warring" makes it clear that there isn't really any hard-line numerical criteria for determining whether there is a problem. Conversely, WP:3RR always did say that the system was not to be gamed, but it always seemed that too many editors, especially newer ones, saw the number "three" and took it as a given that they would be blocked if and only if they crossed that line (even though the policy says otherwise, and always has). There's no such connotation with "edit warring". — TKD::Talk 05:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Promotion
Added "Spam / Advertising-only account", unfortunatly an all to common occurance. Should cover all aspects of persistent promotion, spamming, advertising within that subsection of frequent misuse on Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Removed "abusing multiple accounts"
As someone who frequently reviews unblock requests, the existence of this drop-down choice has made my life harder. Whenever someone uses this as the reason, they almost never actually give any useful information as to the specific user they are blocking. Sometimes I can glean that information from other sources but sometimes now. Whenever someone is blocked for sockpuppetry the block reason should include who they are supposed to be a sockpuppet of, or some informative information. Mangojuicetalk 19:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- And I'm restoring it; I use these frequently and repeatedly. Educate the user; don't castrate the tools. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- You use this frequently and repeatedly, often without noting the other user in your block reason. As for "castrate the tools", I'm sorry, but at a certain point it makes more sense to modify the tools. If there was a good way to provide the assistance and yet give a reminder that the admin should include more information, I'd be all for it. But as it is, this just encourages a misuse. Mangojuicetalk 20:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, I won't waste my time leaving any reason at all. Do you have any idea the quantity of sockpuppets some of our most abusive vandals are creating? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Is selecting this from the drop down menu really any easier than say copying and pasting (using keyboard shortcuts even) something like "sock of user X", which is much more informative? 00:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Jpgordon, from looking at your blocking activity, I see you making around 2-3 blocks per day over the last several weeks. I hardly think that filling in an informative blocking reason is wasting your time with that kind of volume. And I agree with John Reaves above; if there are a lot, a cut & paste is the best way to go. Mangojuicetalk 00:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't remove it again. This would be a silly place for an edit war, now wouldn't it? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- So were you going to answer the question or just threaten to edit war? John Reaves 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I haven't threatened to edit war; I've suggested other people not do so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- I'll take that as a 'no' then. John Reaves 05:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Um, I haven't threatened to edit war; I've suggested other people not do so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- "Abusing multiple accounts" is a perfectly good reason, and it can be augmented with other text if necessary. I suspect the single largest reason for blocking accounts is because of abuse of multiple accounts. Jayjg (talk) 02:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- So were you going to answer the question or just threaten to edit war? John Reaves 01:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, I've implemented a new idea. "Abusing multiple accounts" now has a colon at the end of it, as do a "Disruption" and "Arbitration enforcement". These three reasons all need additional reasoning all the time, and hopefully the colon will help remind people that there is something else they need to say. Mangojuicetalk 12:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea. (It will result in two colons, since filling in the additional information field adds a colon also.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- This got undone because of what Jay mentions. So I've now changed the reason to "Inappropriate alternate account of" so that it will look very odd without additional reasoning. Mangojuicetalk 17:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- Still doesn't work well. There are plenty of cases where it's obvious abuse of multiple accounts, whether or not we know who the puppetmaster is. Take a look, for example, at assholes like User talk:Gareth Hawkesworth, whose unblock you declined. I certainly don't know who he's a sock of; it doesn't really matter exactly who, does it? We need to be able to easily leave that blank when appropriate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown
- this is covered by "abusing multiple accounts"
It is, but it isn't. Block evasion isn't always direct sockpupptery. Especially in the case of an indef blocked/banned account, or just merely using an IP address to edit from only while blocked.
The above also adds the link to the page directly explaining the reason for the block (which is clearer than just indiscriminately linking to WP:SOCK).
Based on the above, do you have any issue with me restoring the line? - jc37 22:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- 'spose not. I just don't like to see these drop-down menus get crowded. John Reaves 22:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- I understand. And thank you : ) - jc37 22:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Continued removal of a speedy deletion notice from a page they have created themselves on
Is that one really necessary? -- lucasbfr talk 23:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. :) — Aitias // discussion 23:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- No. Remove it, please. We're not going to add every single possible scenario because it was used once or twice — this would make the list contain hundreds of things. And please stop making changes without discussion, Aitias. You don't have a very good turnover rate on MediaWiki pages without discussing them first. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- What you really should stop, my dear fellow, are your ridiculous argumenta ad personam. Or do you want to claim something like edit warring with one edit again, eh? — Aitias // discussion 17:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)