Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,721
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 54:
Line 54: +
MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown (view source)
Revision as of 01:16, July 19, 2011
, 01:16, July 19, 2011→Simplifing: redundant reasons
::I RARELY have seen a permanent block handed out that didn't block the user's IP address (unless it was for username, in which case the user is perfectly allowed, in fact, told, to create a new account); so generally in order for the "sock of blocked user" item to be used, an admin would have to determine that the user was a sock without using checkuser, which is certainly an inexact science and an unfair requirement of admins. I don't think there's any downside to removing it from the list. But I agree that perhaps a Checkuser conversation needs to happen.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
::I RARELY have seen a permanent block handed out that didn't block the user's IP address (unless it was for username, in which case the user is perfectly allowed, in fact, told, to create a new account); so generally in order for the "sock of blocked user" item to be used, an admin would have to determine that the user was a sock without using checkuser, which is certainly an inexact science and an unfair requirement of admins. I don't think there's any downside to removing it from the list. But I agree that perhaps a Checkuser conversation needs to happen.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:49, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
I genuinely think we should use my proposal above for the block rules - I think the first line of bullets exist for a reason, and my version makes use of them, I think and "other" option is important.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
I genuinely think we should use my proposal above for the block rules - I think the first line of bullets exist for a reason, and my version makes use of them, I think and "other" option is important.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ok, but it could be shortened. The user name items are redundant. A user name is either inappropriate or it's not, and we hano way of cheking (neither do we require they disclose to us) their real name. Parody, vandalism, false information (not mention violation of Commandments & guidelines) is redundant. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)