MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown/Archive 1

Archive 1

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. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed by adding switch-statements to the templates; [1], [2]. —Centrx→talk • 03:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Moved

It appears that the page is now at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. Naconkantari 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I merged the pages' histories. Prodego ^talk 22:55, 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)

"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)

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)

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)

N 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)

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)

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.

Block evasion

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)

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. Mangojuice^talk 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. Mangojuice^talk 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. Mangojuice^talk 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)

"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)

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. Mangojuice^talk 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. Mangojuice^talk 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)

One can always just use "block evasion" for a situation like that. Or, manually fill things out. And you could always leave the additional reason blank anyway, or just put in "someone". Mangojuice^talk 04:53, 7 May 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)

Seriously, changing MediaWiki pages without discussion is A Bad Idea™. Especially pages like this one that are used hundreds of times daily. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit protected request

{{editprotected}}

Please replace"[[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]]-only account" with "[[Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account|Vandalism-only account]]".

Per something that I saw at here. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have just shortened the link again. There is no reason for using the longer Wikipedia: instead of simply WP:. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 02:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Attempted vandalism

I'm thinking we should tuck something in here about "attempted vandalism" or "blatant abuse as detected by an edit filter" but I can't get the wording right. Also, shall it just join on the first reason? "Vandalism or attempted vandalism" something like that? –xeno (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still just vandalism. I would have thought it's probably not a good idea to directly inform every vandal about the abuse filter, though the link even goes to the same page. If anything it should be a separate item, though I think this is unnecessary, or even combined with the template the blocking mechanism might use. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edits

{{Editprotected}} Click here to see my proposed edits. -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from tagging proposed modifications with the {{editprotected}} template. Its purpose is to summon a sysop to edit a protected page in a manner that is uncontroversial or backed by consensus, not to advertise a proposal/discussion. —David Levy 22:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

But my edit was not controversial. -- IRP ☎ 22:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the additions.

First, we should probably capitalise the Abuse filter (for one thing, indicating that it's modifying the word "filter"). So I oppose that change.

Second, while I can see the distinction between that and block evasion or socking in general, I'm not sure for two reasons. One because not everyone seems to define what a "ban" is, in the same way (it's a perennial question at RfA). And two, because they tend to like to keep the number of options on this page to be only a few.

That said, I don't strongly oppose the addition. But I'd like to hear from others before it's added. - jc37 22:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Capitalizing "abuse" is incorrect, as it is not a proper noun. Modifiers are not capitalized. Regarding your comment about ban and block evasion, how about this edit? -- IRP ☎ 22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thought about that. It's one of the things I'd like to hear from others about. For one thing, since this goes into a (permanent) block log, we should be as specific as possible. So combining them may not be appropriate.

As for the other, Abuse filter could indeed be considered a proper noun. - jc37 23:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

List is getting long

The list is getting pretty long. Perhaps we should merge some of the entries. –xeno (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I've combined the nonsense and attack pages entries. I've also removed the redundant edit warring entry. If an admin wants to specify 3RR they can add onto the existing edit warring entry. –xeno (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW I realize the irony of me asking to add somthing immediately above, and then complaining the list is too long below. =0 –xeno (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • It still seems a prime candidate for removal. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yea, I didn't add it, no prejudice to its removal. –xeno (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
• This list is waaay too long now. Is there some kind of javascript I can use to get a custom list? –xeno^talk 23:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is the plan: "Vandalism" and "Vandalism-only account" become "Vandalism"; "Creating nonsense pages", "Repeatedly creating inappropriate pages", "Creating copyright violations" become "Creating inappropriate pages"; "Abusing multiple accounts" and "Block evasion" become "Abusing multiple accounts"; "Edit warring" and "Edit warring: Violation of the three-revert rule" become "Edit warring". How does that sound? — Jake Wartenberg 02:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Readdition of spam/vandalism-only account

Personally, I do not see a need for this. These rationales are rather redundant to "Vandalism" and "Spam", and are just taking up space right now, in my view at least. NW (Talk) 16:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks. My point here was that a block for "vandalism" is a short one - measurable in hours. A block for being a "vandalism-only account" is a long one - indefinite, in fact. Think of it in terms of the block log. If I saw "vandalism-only account (31 hours)" go past, I'd be brought up short. If I saw "vandalism (indef)" come up, it'd also stop me short. If nothing else, the two descriptions link to different policy pages and the info is useful for the blockee and other users.

Now, I will admit to being on shaky ground about the "spam/advertising-only" vs "using Wikipedia for spam/advertising". I suppose an anal need for symmetry drove that! But, yes, we can live without that one if we have to. Although I'd say that, as a regular user of the list, I'm not concerned that it has grown like topsy or crept away from the original plans for it: scrolling is hardly difficult. There may be accessibility reasons to keep the list ultra-short, but accessibility needs to be balanced with usability and the time saved hunting down the correct link to give to the correct policy to stop an instant timewasting unblock request. Although we have plenty of them!

So, in the spirit of compromise that I never usually show, how about we drop the spam one but keep the vandalism-only one? It really is useful, I promise. ↪REDVERS ^{The internet is for porn} 18:21, 17 September 2009 (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)

I find that there's a subtlety of wiki-culture that tends to see a difference between a "3RR block" and an "edit-warring block". I can't say as I agree with the perception, but it's definitely there. Has anyone else noticed this? --Elonka 21:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've re-added 3RR as a block option. I realise 3RR is a sub-text of edit war policy, however as noted directly above there tends to be some differentiation made generally by editors of a 3RR block vs a edit war block. If it's too controversial then please revert, but I find having it less ambiguous to have the option whilst blocking. Stating whether it's a 3RR vio or a edit war block can make things clearer to the editor, and sometimes to the reviewing admin should that editor request a review of their block. NJA (t/c) 14:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As the two are grouped together ("Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule") and don't occupy two lines, that is fine with me. NW (Talk) 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition

The uw-softerblock template seems to be used alot so i think it would be useful to add {{groupusername}} to the list. Triplestop x3 23:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a frequently used reason for blocks, and is less bitey than other templates available, so I have added it as {{softerblock}}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring/3RR

I'd like to separate these out again. We get lots of unblock requests from people indignantly insisting that they didn't violate 3RR, and they're correct -- they were blocked for more general edit warring, not for the specific number of reversions they made. It's somewhat of a waste of everyone's time. Of course 3RR is a special case of edit warring, but why bring up the 3RR issue at all when it's not involved? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"Abusing multiple accounts" again

Wouldn't it be better if it said "Abusing one or multiple accounts"? I mean, the user may not necessarily be abusing multiple accounts – they may be abusing just one. HeyMid (contributions) 17:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of one account is normally vandalism, though there are other alternatives already listed. This item is really intended to convey an abuse of multiple accounts. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps more precisely, "abusing multiple accounts" doesn't mean each account was abusive -- it means that the abuse itself was the inappropriate use of multiple accounts. (Or maybe that was less precisely.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"Abusing multiple accounts" means in this case, I think, that the operator has used multiple accounts abusively. But if an operator creates, for example, only two accounts, one is editing constructively, while the other account is used for vandalism, does that count as "Abusing multiple accounts", then? HeyMid (contributions) 22:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep. They are being abusive, and they are using multiple accounts. WP:BADHAND...The reason this text says "abusing multiple accounts" is that the term "sock puppetry" is both local jargon and quite opaque. What might be a better phrase? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:BADHAND – I think that answers my question. Thank you. HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Change

{{UsernameHardBlocked}} should be changed to {{usernamehardblock}} for consistency. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 14:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Links to templated reasons

They should end up on the talk page anyways, but to make it more clear and consistent with the "common block reasons", why not link to the templates in a {{tl}} kind of way, i.e. {{[[Template:vaublock|]]}}? — Kudu ^~I/O~ 14:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The person who is blocked tries to edit and sees a transclusion of {{vaublock}}. NW (Talk) 14:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Reinstate speedy deletion template removal reason

Now that SDPatrolBot makes reports like this I've found myself making blocks for repeatedly removing speedy deletion templates from pages created by the user relatively frequently. Perhaps we should reinstate an option for this block reason? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That is too specific. You can add it for yourself with javascript if you want, but it shouldn't be on this list. Prodego ^talk 03:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm...I didn't know I could add reasons with javascript...how do I do that? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can, but I am not one able to tell you how :). All aspects of the user interface are customizable with js and css, try asking at VPT. Prodego ^talk 03:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very unlikely possible at least not in a correct way. This page exist for the mentioned reason so I see no reason why not to use it. Perhaps let's wait for more people to join this discussion? Petrb (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Templated reason

The templated reasons don't work now (if they ever did). If nobody objects, I'm inclined to replace them with more descriptive messages. For example, currently we see a lot of entries in the block log "{{usernameblock}}" when it should realy say something like "Violations of the Username policy". -- Selket ^Talk 16:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I just tried it on myself,[3] and it worked just fine. Here is a screenshot: [4]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... so I guess the question is whether there's a way to insert a different message into the block log from what gets displayed to the user, and I think the answer is no without a software change. That's less of a big deal than I thought it was though, so probably best to leave it. -- Selket ^Talk 16:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As in the example above, the way to do this is by commenting out the block reason. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for a full change

Can someone change the Ipbreason-dropdown text like this?

*Common block reasons
** Inserting false information
** Removing content from pages
** Spamming links to external sites
** Inserting nonsense/gibberish into pages
** Intimidating behaviour/harassment
** Abusing multiple accounts/block evasion
** Unacceptable username
** Abuse of powers
** Copyright violation
** Uploaded inappropriate/explicit file(s)
** Other [[Wikipedia:Policy|Policy]] violation

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tariqmudallal (talk • contribs)

Why? And why does it matter to you? NW (Talk) 16:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

To reflect better things. Tariqmudallal (talk) 16:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done - Much of that is already covered in the current list. - jc37 18:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Village pump post

I've posted an idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 134#Templated reasons in MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown as this talk page doesn't seem to be used much. --Geniac (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE

@Prodego: I find WP:NOTHERE to be the most fitting rationale in many cases. It's a way to explain an indefinite block when other supplied template don't suffice. WP:VOA is an information page, that link was introduced to this list back in 2009. I can certainly note from my own observation that WP:NOTHERE has been widely used, and it also has its own user block template that is part of the standard installation of Twinkle. Pinging @JamesBWatson: who originally added it. — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I think NOTHERE should stay, it's a way of blocking for disruptive editing while giving both the blocked user and others the best idea of why they were blocked. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Too right it should stay. I use it where the actions aren't directly harmful, but are in need of stopping. Like the non-notable person who has posted virtually the same page about himself seven times, and his only other edit was adding himself to a list. Peridon (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hos about you go talk to that editor and explain how Wikipedia works. Do this once or twice before blocking. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Who said they weren't doing that? I don't think anyone is blocking without first giving the user fair warning — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have taken this off the list because there is always a better, more specific reason. You block based on a demonstrated behavior, not because you have amazing admin-fu that allows you to read a user's mind and determine why they are here. Vandalism and disruption are listed reasons. Use them instead and be prepared to show diffs. NOTHERE is vague. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• @JamesBWatson: blindly reverted my change without even attempting discussion. A few opinions here on this page are in no way representative of consensus on Wikipedia. The NOTHERE label is contrary to the Five Pillars. It wrong to block for vague reasons ("not here", "suspicion", "I don't like your edits"). When blocking, admins should cite specific policy or policies that are being broken and supply diffs if requested. Unless he comes here and states reasons for his revert, I will restore the change in 12 - 24 hours. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Jehochman: Thanks for being bold, but this is used a lot. We're going to need much broader discussion to remove it, or to prohibit it as a valid summary when blocking. Perhaps bring it to WP:AN? Also note this is included in the Twinkle block module, so removing the entry here is not going to stop its usage

  My quick 2c, to reiterate, is that you can't always put your well-rounded rationale into a single-line block summary. Contributions can often speak for themselves. The point of the dropdown pre-supplied summaries is so that you don't have to type it out – they do not govern the valid reasons for blocking. You can sort of think of NOTHERE as an umbrella for users who are obviously not here to contribute, as evidenced by their contributions. I'm led to believe it is primarily used on newer accounts and never for controversial blocks (should not be used on IPs, as it implies an indefinite duration) — MusikAnimal ^talk 22:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  Related discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Not_here_not_policy. Jehochman you'll note the request to gain consensus before removing it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  My policy is to ask forgiveness, not permission. A lot more good stuff gets done that way. Thank you for your help. In a nutshell, when somebody gets blocked we can't only link them to WP:NOTHERE. That isn't even policy. Look at some of the reasons listed there; much of it isn't blockable. A lot of people who are NOTHERE need to be counseled, yes, but they should only be blocked if their editing becomes disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

  NOTHERE is a form of disruptive editing and is a lot more clear and to the point than WP:DE. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's the other way around. Some NOTHERE is disruptive. I would link disruptive editing and provide a few diffs on the user talk page. Block messages should be clear. I think a lot of NOTHERE behavior should merit a warning before block. Jehochman ^Talk 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And as MusikAnimal has asked above, who says we're usually blocking without warnings? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't think giving ultimatums such as "Unless he comes here and states reasons for his revert, I will restore the change in 12 - 24 hours" is a helpful approach.
2. Apparently I "blindly" reverted without even attempting discussion. I don't know in what sense my revert was "blind", but there was discussion on this page, and I referred to that discussion. Is nobody allowed to read a discussion, assess consensus there, and act according to that consensus, unless he or she has taken part in the discussion? Thank you NeilN for pointing to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy about this. It's a pity that Jehochman didn't link to that when first making the change: I would then have been able to read both discussions before making a decision about the change. Instead, he or she gave an edit summary which simply said "She [sic] talk page for explanation. Don't revert or I will kick", encouraging anyone seeing it to think that this talk page However, in neither place is there anything that could be regarded as consensus to remove it.
3. "I think a lot of NOTHERE behavior should merit a warning before block": that is true, but totally irrelevant. Edit-warring should merit a warning before block, but that doesn't stop us from giving "edit-warring" as a block reason: the same applies to almost all reasons for blocking. The issue of whether we warn an editor before blocking is a completely different issue from what reason we should post when we do eventually block.
4. "A few opinions here on this page are in no way representative of consensus on Wikipedia" - but one editor's individual opinion is?
5. "A lot of people who are NOTHERE need to be counseled, yes, but they should only be blocked if their editing becomes disruptive" - what has that to do with what we should post as a block reason if and when we do eventually decide to block? Do you think that removing "not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" as a drop-down block reason will somehow cause administrators to counsel where they are now blocking without counselling?
6. Can you point me to a few editors blocked for being "not here to contribute" who needed counselling, but were summarily blocked instead? In my experience, a typical situation in which that reason is given for blocking is as follows: an editor comes here for some unsuitable purpose such as using Wikipedia to publish his or her own made-up fictitious country, he or she is told that doing so is not what Wikipedia is for, he or she persists, is told again, persists again, and is then blocked. It seems to me that in such a situation he or she is being blocked substantially because he or she is here not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but for some other purpose, and that being so, it makes sense to say so in the block log. Very often, none of the other drop-down reasons quite fits, so if that reason were removed from the list, administrators would have two options: either give a less accurate, and possibly misleading reason, or type in a reason by hand. I wonder how often what would happen would be typing in by hand that the block was because the editor was not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What reason would you give for that user? I would say "Writing hoax articles" or "Persistent violations of WP:N despite warnings". There is a box where admins can type in a bespoke block reason. I don't think we should make it so easy to say NOTHERE. That reason is just too vague, too easy to apply to anybody, and the drop down is more useful if it has fewer choices. Jehochman ^Talk 16:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason to continue this discussion here instead of just using Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Not_here_not_policy? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:NeilN, but since there is an outstanding question for me from Jehochman, I will do him or her the courtesy of answering before finally leaving. I had in mind a specific recent case. The editor did numerous disruptive things, including claiming that he would no longer try to post his article about his fantasy country, then after a while proceeding to do under a different title, creating a new account to do so, and so on. "Writing hoax articles" would not have been a good block reason, for two reasons: (1) I actually don't think they were hoaxes. The editor appeared to sincerely take the line that there are other "micronations" with Wikipedia articles, and his was as legitimate as the others. (2) Writing the articles was only a small part of the problem. "Persistent violations of WP:N despite warnings" would have been better, but not ideal, because once again that was only one part of the problem. There are several reasons why writing a complete list of the various problems in the block log would not have been suitable, not least that there would not have been room to do so. The most useful thing to do in a case like that is to mention the one feature which is central to the problem, and from which all the other problems are derived, namely that the editor's purpose here is something other than contributing to the encyclopaedia. Clearly you don't like it, and so you are not obliged to ever use that as a block reason, but many others think it is an acceptable reason to give (such as all five of the administrator other than you who have commented here). The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Open proxy

Is an IP being blocked as an open proxy already covered here? Thanks, Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 00:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yep, with {{blocked proxy}}, {{webhostblock}} & {{colocationwebhost}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Thanks! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 01:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a question

Screenshot. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Does this page look huge to asmins, or is it smaller due to wikicode not working in the dropdown? Krett12 (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Krett12: it appears as a dropdown on Special:Block and the templates don't transclude in the dropdown. The screenshot shows what it looks like for me, but the background will look slightly different for admins who don't use and Monobook and aren't oversighters. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: It's still awful big. And wh uhh is my username in there? :P Krett12 (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Because it's easier to select "block user" from popups while hovering over your name than it is to type "Special:block" into the search bar! ;) It is big, but there's a long list of potential reasons for a block and the general feeling seems to be that admins want to be able to access all of them from the dropdown rather than typing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Sorry, I forgot about popups. Krett12 (talk) 07:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 April 2017

Please link "Long-term abuse" to Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 01:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if that is correct. Does that block reason always refer to WP:LTA? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I object to the link, and in fact removed it last month. It does not provide useful information regarding the block, or for the blocked editor, and badly fails WP:DENY. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll just close my request. I see why it was removed. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 19:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Deliberately triggering the Edit filter

Do we really need to include "Deliberately triggering the Edit filter?" That's an insanely specific reason which strikes me as an infrequent occurrence. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is somewhat frequent actually, though only a few users likely make blocks for it (and some of those are probably bots). Prodego ^talk 03:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a very strange thing that people use this for a block reason. I don't think I've ever seen anyone deliberately hit the filter, though I can imagine it happens sometimes. The vast majority of users who are blocked for this would much rather their edit actually missed the filter. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 March 2018

Why is {{uw-ublock-double}} not included (the soft block/good faith version)? I see {{uw-uhblock-double}} (the no or bad faith/hard block version), but not {{uw-ublock-double}}. That should probably be listed in the block reasons list as this:
{{uw-ublock-double}} <!-- Username impersonation, soft block -->. — MRD2014 ^Talk 01:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 February 2018

The following template should not be listed twice:

• {{anonblock}}

The following templates should not be bulleted, because bulleting causes lint errors:

• {{school block}}}: Missing end tag <div>; Stripped tags </div>
• {{rangeblock}}: Multiline table in list
• {{uw-ublock}}: Missing end tag <div>; Stripped tags </div>
• {{uw-ublock-famous}}: Missing end tag <b>; Stripped tags </div>
• {{uw-softerblock}}: Missing end tag <p> (3)
• {{uw-spamublock}}: Missing end tag <div>; Stripped tags </div>
• {{checkuserblock-wide}}: Multiline table in list
• {{Tor}}: Multiline table in list

Why should any of the templates be bulleted? Anomalocaris (talk) 22:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done @Anomalocaris: As for the duplicate, it is not really a duplicate, one also includes an HTML comment that gets used. As far as Linter goes, which specific Special:LintErrors are you seeing? This page is used by the software to populate a list on the Special:Block form, it is non-standard in layout. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, if the specific templates have an issue they can be fixed elsewhere, they appear here because of the way that special block page is used as above. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Xaoxflux: How is this page used and why would that use be harmed by setting the templates in proper unbulleted format? See User:Anomalocaris/sandbox/Lint_Test for what this page should look like, and please explain why we can't use it. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, this page is used by the software to populate the drop down menu for Special:Block, it is part of the way it managed indentation. You should safely be able to ignore any lint error here unless you can show how it is going to actually impact the rendering of that special page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

To add to what Xaosflux said, the items appear as unprocessed wikitext, i.e. {{whatever}}, and so appear properly when bulleted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Xaosflux, Amorymeltzer: Well, could we at least have a comment at the top, maybe something like this:

<-- This page is used to populate the drop down menu for [[Special:Block]]. Display problems and lint errors are of no concern here. -->

Maybe you can improve on that. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Sadly no — the whole page, "hidden" comments and all, shows up in the dropdown. I can make a null edit, though, and note it in the edit summary; otherwise, you could put a note up top on this talk page. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown could be used to remind people NOT to fix this. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a much better idea! Quick draft created. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Should the item "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia" be changed to "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia"? My reason would be that it would match both the title for the associated project page Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia and some of the wording of the associated UTP block message Template:Uw-nothereblock: it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. ミラP 18:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I like it. Much more succinct and matches up with the User Talk message and the corresponding WP page. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Added in 2013 as not being here to contribute to building the encyclopedia, reworded November 2014 to current language. Some discussion related to its inclusion above at #WP:NOTHERE and at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_22#Not_here_not_policy. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of this, but I'll leave this open a bit before making the change in case there is further input. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

 Done. If anyone disagrees with this minor change, it can be reverted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:15, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 22 March 2020

I suggest adding {{Public Wi-Fi block}}, similar to {{School block}}. Some proposed adding the template at WP:AN#65.246.72.0/24, please unblock, after which I created the template. --MrClog (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC) MrClog (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. I don't see anyone suggesting that it should be added here in the linked discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:49, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for changes on {{uw-ublock-double}} and {{uw-uhblock-double}} reasons

Hey, would you please change the reasons to: {{uw-ublock-double}} <!-- Username closely resembles another user soft block -->

{{uw-uhblock-double}} <!-- Attempted impersonation of another user, hard block -->

I wanted to change this, because those reasons are clearer and more explanatory unlike "Username similarity" and "Username impersonation". 47.25.179.4 (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done good idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Request

{{uw-botuhblock}} <!-- Username represent a bot, vandalism-only account -->

Hey, would you please add this specific block reason to the dropdown? Appreciate it. 139.192.206.157 (talk) 10:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done unless the admins that use this really have a need for it, adding to the list isn't needed; declining as this only impacts admins who can already edit this. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Bypass those redirects

Can someone help me to bypass the redirect to WP:NOTHERE and change it to WP:Here to build an encyclopedia#Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia? Thanks. 192.12.147.117 (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Question: what is achieved by bypassing the redirect? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

So, that it directly goes to the target page instead of the redirect. 192.12.147.117 (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done the shortcut text results in a lot less clutter to the talk page text. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this text goes on a talk page? But I'm still not seeing the benefit, considering NOTBROKEN — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: oops, meant log text - but yea, notbroken. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Deliberately triggering the edit filter (2)

Can we get rid of this one? I've never seen it used correctly. They aren't "Deliberately triggering the edit filter", they're doing something disruptive (already on the list), while trying to avoid the edit filter. I'd suggest replacing it with these three options:

• Vandalism; see also filter log
• Long-term abuse; see also filter log
• Disruptive editing; see also filter log

There was a discussion about this in 2012 (!), but nothing happened apparently. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I could support this, as I still consider this a misleading reason. Actually, I've seen one person correctly blocked for deliberately triggering the filter, a few years ago. However I'd prefer a bit more input, if it's available, before adding three new items. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Couldn't we just change it to "Repeatedly triggering the edit filter" or something to that effect? We certainly don't need three new items, and this roughly comports with {{Uw-efblock}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That makes a lot more sense .. nice suggestion, well worth the wait. Any further thoughts from User:Suffusion of Yellow or anyone else? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

That's certainly an improvement over the original, but what about LTAs, porn vandals, and the like? It's not always "repeated" in that case. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I've always used the LTA entry for that. An alternative is just using the Vandalism option. I think by now most bystanders will know to check the filter logs. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Could have sworn I saw admin yelled at once for "blocking an user with no edits", but I don't remember the details. If it's not a common problem, then yeah, no need for the three entries. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't need to capture every possible option, either: you can still add a message to the dropdown, so sometimes I'll choose a good standard reason from here then tack on a "see also edit filter" or the like. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Future better suggestions are of course welcome. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 January 2022

• Remove Sockpuppetry

Isn't Abusing multiple accounts enough? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 03:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done this page is only used by admins, so if enough want this changed than sure - but why it can be useful is that not all admins will think the same thing when looking for a reason, so having the common term available will help them select a better template. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

@Oshwah: I removed the space for the reasons outlined here. I felt that the formulation should match the policy itself. What are your thoughts behind this? Sdrqaz (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sdrqaz - The space you removed within the wikilink is a good find! While many different WMF projects and platforms either use or omit a space when spelling the word, I don't think there's a "right or wrong way" of spelling it. The internet refers to the word both with and without a space; I don't think it's "standardized". I'm mixed on which is correct; I personally do not mind your changes (though "sock puppetry" reads cleaner to me in a block notice, but that's just my personal opinion, which is irrelevant).