MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wouldn't "inappropriate edit to Obama article" fall under "liberal vandalism"? LiamG 11:52, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Yes, but more specific.--Aschlafly 12:06, 7 October 2008 (EDT)
Ok LiamG 12:49, 7 October 2008 (EDT)

Shouldn't we kill the "Obama" thing now that the article is on lockdown and noone outside of the inner sanctum can edit it? --DReynolds 22:01, 10 February 2009 (EST)


Just wanted you to know of a tiny typo, it should be vulgar instead of vuglar.--jpatt 17:18, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks Jp. Fixed. --DeanStalk 23:20, 26 November 2008 (EST)

Recent undo

It is irritating navigating through 35 block reasons, while some points are almost equal to others. Jallen 21:17, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

  • Yes, I am sure it is irritating to a young person demanding instant gratification, and never communicating. I made the note I was editing, removing and consolidating, and wasn't done before you jumped in, seconds after I made the first change...I received notification of urgent update needed to Norton 360 and Windows at the same time! What is a person to do, but stop what I was doing, and do that, lol. I will get back to it ASAP, and then, if it isn't to your liking, feel free to change it, or at least propose the change. Right now, it is 7pm here, and I intend to eat me supper. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:24, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
I think the blame is on both of us (older) friend. Jallen 22:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Yes, I am certain you do feel that..... --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:24, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
Well perhaps I didn't feel but I did think of it. Jallen 22:42, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

I have removed several, consolidated others, hopefully you will be pleased. I tried to re-order in a logical sequence. I left the *, because sometimes its better to have it not displayed. If you still think there are too many, feel free to remove more. --₮K/Admin/Talk 03:15, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

I did some changes myself, as well as Jessica, and I think we should keep the reasons as simple and direct as possible. Karajou 14:39, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Exactly, Karajou. Jallen 18:28, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
Well, I think there isn't a dispute here. So long as the blocking reasons are not cleansed for the deceitful reason of political correctness, all is good. I didn't add half of the entries, so we need to try and remember it was other Admins who did....and the reason for the pull-down is to help make it easier, so we don't have to type repetitive entries, right? --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:33, 30 April 2009 (EDT)
Afterthought: The reasons many were added, we need to remember this, is because users were complaining they couldn't even discern why they were blocked, so it was decided by Andy to make the reasons clearer, more concise. If we trim too many reasons, we are back where we were; obtuse generalities that little reflect the true blocking reasons. I mean we could say for 75% of the blocks, "Violation of CP Commandments and/or Guidelines".....which gives little specificity, leaving the blocked user clueless as to the reason. --₮K/Admin/Talk 18:39, 30 April 2009 (EDT)


This page should be simplified to this version, with perhaps a few modifications. Rob Smith 19:14, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

  • Violation of Commandments and/or CP Guidelines
This one is a good catch-all, but on the Blocking Policy page it would be too vague. Rob Smith 15:43, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

I think the list could be trimmed a bit; I would suggest starting with:

Common block reasons
  • Vandalism
    • Vandalism
    • Inserting false information
    • Removing content from pages
    • Spamming links to external sites
    • Inserting parody
  • User conduct
    • Intimidating behaviour/harassment
    • Abusing multiple accounts
    • Edit warring
    • Personal remarks
  • Username
    • Inappropriate name
  • Other (describe in box below)
    • Violation of Commandments and/or CP Guidelines

For full disclosure: I removed "Sock of blocked user" (very hard to prove, and really if they're abusing an account we should be able to block them for something else), inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages (seemed redundant, general vandalism covers that) and just made minor wording changes to others.--IDuan 12:33, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

We may have to have a discussion on Checkuser and the proper way to identify sockpuppetry. I klnow my own user account comes up from Geolocate and Traceroute as coming form Dallas or Phoenix when I'm in Albuquerque. And it's usually when I'm editing at McDonalds's which uses Wayport or something. I don't know how reliable any of this information is, or whether CP sysops have been interpreting the data correctly. Rob Smith 13:33, 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.--IDuan 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.--IDuan 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 have no 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. Rob Smith 21:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
Above there was a debate that concluded that the items should be at least partially specific, so the user knows why he is blocked; technically we could use "violation of commandments/guidelines" as the only block reason, but that would probably leave at least a few blocked users clueless. Also - in the current version: "Inserting false information" and "Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages" are both included even though "vandalism" is also included (I actually recommend taking the latter one out).--IDuan 22:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)