MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown

I suggest removing the standard reason "Inserting false information" (we don't use that that often here I think). Any other reasons you feel we should add/change? - anja 19:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding vandalism comes to mind for a blanket content disruption sorta thing. Trolling? Personal attacks? Asshattery? Banned user? -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Asshattery for sure, Violation of GWW:NPA etc. --Lemming 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion

• Vandalism
  • vandalism
  • vandal bot
  • link spamming to external sites
  • removing content from pages
  • inserting false information
• Violations
  • personal attack
  • violation of 1RR
  • disruption
  • trying to circumvent existing block
  • unacceptable username

poke | talk 19:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah those are good; I suggest making the NPA violation to just "personal attacks", and changing the second to last one to either "sockpuppet of blocked user" or "circumventing existing block". Maybe change "major trolling" to just "trolling" or "disruption"/"disruptive trolling". Save the word-wiki-lawyering. -- Brains12 \ Talk 19:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Updated. :P poke | talk 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

What about something about violating the revert policy. - Bex 03:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I just used "Inserting false information" on an IP vandal, so yes, I think we should retain that. It does happen often enough, but we could move it down the list. Given a previous ummm "issue" regarding the use of a simple "NPA" as the reason, I think it would probably be better not to allow a generic "NPA" reason. Keep reasons like "Intimidating behaviour/harassment" is good. -- ab.er.rant 05:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, ok - but I think there is no reason to remove NPA, as you can always add an additional comment, for example for giving more details where it happened or something like that. (updated the list) poke | talk 12:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)