MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown

Stupidity

"Stupidity"... Is it really necessary? ZJH 14:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is usually accurate. Except that "user has issues with his own homosexuality" would be even more accurate in a majority of cases. Robert Ullmann 15:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well to suggest that these users are stupid or homosexual is out of line, regardless of the types of edits they make, whether malicious or in good faith. And your block messages could be misinterpreted as personal attacks towards each of these users blocked for "stupidity". And thus, I ask again, is it really necessary? ZJH 17:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support the removal of the "stupidity" option. Banning a user for being "stupid"... doesn't exactly give the best of impressions... --Yair rand 07:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Change it to "unacceptable conduct"? - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

List of block reasons as of 8 May 2017

• Abusing multiple accounts

• Adding nonsense/gibberish

  Merge with disruptive. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Disruptive edits

• Edit warring

• Intimidating behavior/harassment

  Merge with unacceptable conduct. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Knowingly violating copyright

  Remove, this is rare. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Re-adding previously deleted entries

  Maybe merge with disruptive, or keep. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Spamming/advertising

• Suspected open proxy

  Remove, this is handled globally now. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Unacceptable conduct

  Merge with disruptive. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Unacceptable username

• Unauthorized bot (see WT:BOT)

  Remove, this is rare. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• Vandalism

  Merge with disruptive. - TheDaveRoss 14:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)