Template talk:Checkuserblock

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm wondering about the recent reword of the template; we don't generally block IP addresses indef unless they are open proxies or compromised hosts, in which case, a different template should be used. Is anyone aware of indef checkuserblocks that weren't proxies? Essjay (Talk) 20:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

See 72.177.68.38, for one example - static IP, indef blocked. Picaroon 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, indeed, that is an unusual case, but point taken. Carry on! Essjay (Talk) 20:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That one is actually the reason for the reword - I'm not aware of any others like that, and I'd say there are slim chances there are any. Maybe a parameter so people who place the template (mostly checkusers, I assume) can type {{checkuserblock|temporary}} or {{checkuserblock|permanent}}? I'd do it if I knew how to code templates/create parameters. Do you think it's worth it, or should we just keep it like this and save you guys the trouble? Picaroon 20:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I would go for the easier solution; leave it like it was, and don't use it for indefblocks. ;) Back when I initially created the template, I included the temporary wording as an assurance for innocent editors hit by these blocks; we often had to block large ranges, and users get quite understandably upset when they get caught in such blocks. The idea was that seeing "temporary" in big bold letters might stem the flow of furious unblock requests to checkusers, unblock-en-l, and wikien-l. Essjay (Talk) 21:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)