Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Ipboptions/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

This poll...

...borders on the ridiculous and may eventually be BJAODN'd. Why the hell are we arguing about the usefulness of a "31 hour" block when there seems to be an even more inane "162 minute" block. Wtf is the significance of that number? And why is it out of sequence with the other "standard" block durations. And what's so hard about manually entering whatever amount of time you feel is appropriate? — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:58, Jan. 13, 2006

Where do I vote to get until hell freezes over as a block option? ok one I really want is "until the user has had some sleep" but that would be somewhat tricky to program.Geni 03:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
8 hours, perhaps? :-) Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't work. I hit them at say 9am and they will still be awake at 5pm.Geni 23:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Point is, it's pretty clear that a 31-hour block, for whatever reason, is a preferred option (from the limited sample of admins who turned out to express an opinion here). There's a good rationale for having a longer-than-24-but-not-too-much-longer block, and since only Wikipedia admins see the options, it's harmless. As my father would say, "it can't hurt and it might help". bd2412 T 23:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

31 hour block?

The 31-hour category seems rather odd, so I've changed it to 36 - halfway between 24 and 48. Just seems to make more sense that way. bd2412 T 15:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

31 hours does seem to be a really strange amount of time for a block. Even stranger is that this option was actually used sometimes block log. Maybe it's for vandals that are 29.2% worse than the 24-hour variety? In any case, I don't see a problem with changing it to the more sensical 36 hours. You know, for vandals that are half again worse than a standard vandal. ;) Carbonite | Talk 16:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, there are 3 main reasons for blocking for 31 hours rather than 24, as outlined in User:Drini/31 hours:
  1. Blocking times are not set in stone.
  2. Many vandals after blocked, just go away to do something else and come back next day at the exact same time for the block lifting to continue vandalizing. Using a 31 hours range interferes with this pattern.
  3. Most importantly, 31 is a prime number, 24 is not.
31 hour blocks are gaining quite a following, mainly through the proliferation of the Vandalism IRC channel. A number of users there have started to use it instead. What harm is it doing there, if it's used? --Celestianpower háblame 10:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree with reason one, but it doesn't answer the question of why 31 hours was chosen. Reason two is pretty good logic, though wouldn't 36 hours or 28 hours also disrupt a vandal's pattern? I'm not quite sure I understand the logic behind reason three. Why is it desirable for the block length to be a prime? Why would 31 hours be better than 30 or 32? Why not use 28, which is a perfect number? I don't oppose the use of 31 hours as a block length, but I'm afraid I still don't see the justification to include it in Mediawiki as a standard block length here. Carbonite | Talk 13:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I suppose its the same as asking "Why is a tomato called a tomato"? There's not particular reason, that's just the name that was adopted. 31 hours is the length that's become popular. Is there any reason not to include it. I also agree with Dan100 below when he says that we need to inject a bit of quirkiness here and there. --Celestianpower háblame 18:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, I don't really see any problem with it, I was just curious as to why it says Most importantly, 31 is a prime number, 24 is not. As a statistician, I've been racking my brain as to why prime number blocks would be better than non-primes. But if people are using 31 hour blocks, then, by all means, let's include it in the list. I also agree that the second reason is a pretty solid justification to block persistent vandals for longer than 24 hours. Carbonite | Talk 18:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Ah okay - I totally missed that. No, I don't know either. I just took it straight from User:Drini/31 hours (and plus, I thought it sounded good - as if there is a reason but the person reading it hasn't got a maths degree so wouldn't understand :D) --Celestianpower háblame 18:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry not noticed this :-). CP explains why 31 hours is why it is! And we're allowed a little quirkiness now and then, aren't we? Dan100 (Talk) 12:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

For me, reason nr. 2 makes quite a lot of sense. I think for a certain type of vandals it works that way. The other reasons don't really appeal to me, but then I'm not a mathematician :-) --JoanneB 12:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Eh. It's silly, but then who am I to judge. I'll probably start throwing up 31 hour blocks on that logic. bd2412 T 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The best argument so far is that vandals will come back at the same time the next day. A 36 hour block also interferes with that, and it makes more sense as an increment. If a minority of people want to stick to their 31 hour blocks, they need only click in the time field, type "31", down, and enter. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 18:45

Well, it looks like a majority want it, so I'm putting it back. Dan100 (Talk) 19:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The majority of people who happen to know where to find this obscure item, most likely were mass-directed here by one link in IRC. I make decisions based on rationale, not mob rule. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-24 03:35
Have you checked the block log to see who uses it? There is certainly a demand. Plus, who says it has to be logical? The fact that this project works is illogical in itself. As I see it, other than "it's illogical", you can't come up with any reasons why 36 is better than 31, wheras, I beliefve that as it's used, it's better in the box. I've re-instated it. Plus, the people on the en-vandalism IRC channel are the ones doing a great amount of the blocking so it makes sense that they should be able to contribute to the debate. --Celestianpower háblame 12:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Uh I missed this discussion, as I'm the one who started the 31 hours... wel, there's no aprticular reason why it should be 31, it's just a number I like, and though the reason 2 was the one that made me start doing non24 blocks, the other two were made up. 31 is a prime number, that has appeal TO ME over all the other 29<x<37 numbers , but that's my reason. And I don't mind clicking the time box to type it by myself (firefox does the autocompletion to me). I just created such page since a lot of people were puzzled when I started doing it and I didnt' want to repeat my explanation every time. And I agree it's a pointles request to ask for 31 (I for one would oppose it as silly) -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

31/36 hour block poll

Really, can we come to a reasonable consensus on this? Here, let's do it the old fashioned way:

Include a 31 hour block

  • Support
  1. I've been won over to this one. bd2412 T 02:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agreed. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 02:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. I use it too. NSLE (T+C) 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. I actually use it more than the 24-hour (and certainly more than the 48-hour) option for certain annoying vandals. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. If I'm allowed a vote, then I would definitely vote support, as it would serve a purpose as described above. SWD316 talk to me 04:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support - I use it all the time. Plus, |Wikipedia needs a bit of quirkiness here and there. --Celestianpower háblame 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support, it's a good idea. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support 36 would be overkill but 31 is long enough to make sure.Geni 23:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support, of course :-) Dan100 (Talk) 22:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. It's traditional. Dmn 14:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support I do not see any problems here. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose
  1. Even as I came up with the idea, as I said above, I oppose it, it's too silly. If it goes, then cases could be made for 29, 5, etc... -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Include a 36 hour block

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. No need - nobody uses it. --Celestianpower háblame 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Include neither a 36 hour block nor a 31 hour block

  • Support
  • Oppose
  1. Obviously, there's a strong demand for some intermediary position. bd2412 T 02:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Agree with BD2412. --Celestianpower háblame 14:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Include a 42-hour block

sequence of options

I have moved "indefinite" to the top of the menu, to allow for quicker blocks in emergency (vandal account, username block, etc.) cases. If nobody objects, should I be a bit bolder about it and reverse the order of the remaining options? — Feb. 17, '06 [22:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Having it at the top looks fine to me, I'd keep the rest of the list ascending though. xaosflux Talk/CVU 08:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree - indef at the top was a good move but I'd rather the rest were ascending. --Celestianpower háblame 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be pointed out on ANI or another suitable locale; those of us used to quickly scrolling to the bottom of the list are likely to start blocking people or a month instead of indef by accident. You know, the whole "old habits die hard" and "...teach an old dog new tricks..." Essjay Talk • Contact 12:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

We could have "Indefinite" at the top and at the bottom, maybe? — Feb. 18, '06 [20:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>
Having "Indefinite" at the top and bottom sounds like a harmless idea. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It currently is on the top and bottom, and has seemed to work out pretty well. — xaosflux Talk 23:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is very silly. Having the same technical effect at the top and the bottom is unnecessary for a start. For a middle, it's confusing since it used different words. For an end, it is not the same as indefinite, since we will never get to infinity, and there is a vanishingly small probability that there will be no technical failure in Mediawiki or Wikimedia that will not reset all blocks during that time span. For a conclusion, a block *could* be expired at any time, by any admin. If you have a fixation with infinity, tt would be more accurate to say "expiring in the limit of large time delays", and if any body eats those BEANS... For an epilogue, if you want to "send a message", then you should do that on their talk page, not in the admin interface. -Splash - tk 02:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the both of you. First, gaining consensus before making changes applies to everyone, especially when your fiddling with restricted pages. Second, Splash is right about the terminology; indef != infinite, and how it records the block is important. Third, indef has been at the bottom for as long as I can remember: the second mention was added to the top, supposedly because it was quicker for those who do a lot of indefblocks. It was initially moved outright, but the bottom placement was restored, as many of us are used to it being there, and it's entirely likely that incorrect blocks would be placed as a result of the move.
Now, if you want to remove something from the list, or change the name of an option, have a discussion somewhere like AN, where those who will be affected can see it. That's how we do these things. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I support a never ending options being at the top and bottom of the list. I did propose the change from indefinite to infinite here first, and gave it a few days before changing it, perhaps I could have gone after a larger audience in another location first, but didn't think it would be that big of a deal. — xaosflux Talk 03:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, no block is really infinite, though if we call it that, people will begin to see it that way. Indef is an option that means "until explicitly unblocked"; infinite does not have the same meaning. There is no policy to support infinite blocks (actual "this block may never be removed" infinite blocks); even bans by the Arbitration Committee and Jimbo are appealable. We need to avoid confusing people; I noticed just a few minutes ago, while dealing with a checkuser request, how easy it is for people to confuse the two. It should be explicit that these blocks are not infinite, they can be removed prior to the end of the world. :) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like a good case to me, if someone really wants to put it they can use custom block I guess, just like for good ol' fortnight blocks! — xaosflux Talk 04:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Or other useful options... ;) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
One of my monobook script automatically defaults to "indefinite" when I go to blockIP pages.Voice-of-All 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Indef

I'm not going to get into a wheel war with Splash, who has now reverted my reversion, but could someone move indef back to the bottom. Splash's assertion that the current version is "the way it was" is incorrect, as indef was on the bottom of the list long before the listing at the top was added. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 07:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My bad, I rv'd to the wrong version. I'll move it to the bottom. -Splash - tk 13:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I much perfer having some version of a non-expiring range at the TOP and BOTTOM. — xaosflux Talk 13:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I've linked this to WP:AN in the hopes of getting a stable consensus. — xaosflux Talk 13:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree indef at the top and bottom was fine, it has been like that for 4 months without any complaints, so I'm not sure why we've removed it now. --pgk(talk) 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I for one enjoy the convenience of being to use "tab, down-arrow" on the keyboard. — Jun. 17, '06 [17:53] <freak|talk>
Personally, I don't have any opinion on it being at the top, but I feel very strongly that indef should not be removed from the bottom. There are a lot of us who are very, very used to it being on the bottom, and removing it from there leaves room for incorrect blocks. I'm fine with it being at the top as well, but I really do think it must be at the bottom in any case. (As for the arrowing, would "tab, up-arrow" work to take you automatically to the bottom?) Essjay (Talk • Connect) 05:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Arrow-pressing against either end of the list does nothing, no wrap-around in this browser at least. — Jun. 18, '06 [14:11] <freak|talk>
Does "tab, end then enter" work for indefinite blocking? If end doesn't work, control-end should. It should work on IE6 at least; I assume it's just a standard combo box. Graham talk 08:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
As for me (I do a lot of indefinite blocks of open proxies), as long as it can be found at the end of the list, it's fine. --cesarb 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

IPB options survey

In the interest of optimizing the list of block lengths on the default combobox, I am asking:

What are the block lengths you use most often?

  1. 15 minutes,24 hours,1 week,infinite --cesarb 29 June 2005 01:03 (UTC)
  2. 15 minutes, 1 hour, 2 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 48 hours, 72 hours, 4 days, 1 week, 1 month, indefinite Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk June 29, 2005 01:12 (UTC)
  3. 15 minutes, 1 hour 24 hours 1 mounth indefinite untill a given time.Geni 29 June 2005 01:19 (UTC)
  4. I haven't been blocking, but I went through the last 100 or so blocks before the upgrade, and this is what I found:
  5. *The most common block length (45%) was "24 hours" or "1 day". These are mostly for vandalism and 3RR violations.
    • The next most common (29%) was "infinite" or "indefinite", mainly for inappropriate usernames and sockpuppets.
    • Third (5%) was "72 hours" or "3 days". Some of these were for repeat vandals, but one was for an IP whose only contribution was one brief spate of vandalism to a single article—i.e., the result of administrative heavy-handedness.
    • Fourth (4%) was "1 week", for IPs and usernames with a lengthy history of vandalism, and for sockpuppetry.
    • Various others rounded out the list, ranging from 15-minute range blocks to one-month blocks for "persistent vandalism, threats, and abuse". There were no more than two of each.
    Special:Blockip now has an "Other time" field, so sysops will still be able to place blocks different in length from the presets. —Charles P. (Mirv) 29 June 2005 02:41 (UTC)
    And since I'm the type who really, really wants to know what's behind the door marked "WARNING: DO NOT OPEN THIS DOOR. OPENING THIS DOOR WILL MEAN THE END OF THE UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT. SERIOUSLY.", I went ahead and tested it by blocking myself. Fortunately I logged out before the IP autoblock took effect. 70.22.90.31 (Mirv) 29 June 2005 02:49 (UTC)
  6. 15 minutes, 12 hours on shared IPs that aren't AOL etc (usually schools), 24 hours, indefinite--nixie 29 June 2005 03:33 (UTC)
  7. 15 minutes, 24 hours (most common), 48 hours (for returning vandals), occasional 7 days, indefinite — Knowledge Seeker দ 29 June 2005 06:11 (UTC)
  8. 15 minutes, 3 hours, 8 hours, 1 day, 1 century (aka infinite :) ). (I suppose 1 week is useful but I haven't used it yet) Radiant_>|< June 29, 2005 07:34 (UTC)
  9. 15 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, 2 days, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, infinite. Since admins can again (thankfully) specify any expire length, I think we should get rid of some rarely used lengths. I propose eliminating 2 weeks, 3 months and 6 months. Carbonite | Talk 29 June 2005 12:10 (UTC)
  10. 15 minutes, 24 hours (default), 48 hours, infinite This link is Broken 1 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)
  11. 24 hours, 1 week, indefinite — Dan | talk 03:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  12. Anywhere from 15 minutes to indef, depending on the nature of the vandalism or if it's recurring. I use an "escalating scale" depending on the circumstances. With registered users I usually start with 3 hrs and work my way up. I will not block anonymous IP addresses for more than 24 hours (or 15 minutes in the case of the shared ones listed on the block page), but have done so in the case of sockpuppets and accounts being used by known vandals/troublemakers. 23skidoo 19:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Additions Proposal

I would like to propose the following default options. Please add more if you feel like it; remember to provide sufficient justification. We can first discuss it like on WP:AFD; if there is a need after discussion, start a straw poll. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3 months

This would be used for chronic vandals that aren't bad enough for 6 months. Usually, 6 months is used for severe legal threats or abuse. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

72 hours

Sometimes, there is the need to go a bit above 48 hours before imposing a one-week block. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You know you can always just type in whatever arbitrary length of block you like, or indeed even an explicit expiry time? The menu is just a speed/convenience thing. -Splash - tk 14:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

True. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Additions to the template

I added 3 months and 72 hours because I find this to be used quite often nowadays. 3 months is perfect when you want to hand out a lengthy block, but something that won't be too lengthy, and 72 hours is given out to people who may be second or third-time block offenders. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm...

Is this page really necessary? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

All the pages beginning with 'Mediawiki:' define parts of the site's interface. This particular one produces the elements of a drop-down list of block-lengths when an admin is looking at Special:Blockip. For others, see Special:Allmessages (long). Splash - tk 18:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Hunh. One learns all sorts of things as a new admin - I didn't know anything about this namespace, even :) Thanks for the info! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting effect

The "display" name (the one on the left in each pair) defines how a block of that length shows up in the log. Changing this alters existing log entries. So, by adding the "2 weeks" entry, I have banished the fortnight forever. (or, at least until someone reverts me) —Random832 22:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Just reverted

I just reverted someone who deleted the "15 minutes" and "1 hour" options and added a "1 second" and "12 hours" options. 12 hours might make sense, but is there any possible use for a 1-second block? By the way, I frequently use the 15-minute block just to investigate weird vandalism before determining that the vandal is a serious problem. I think it sometimes helps just to let them know that they can be blocked. bd2412 T 00:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

15 minutes

Is that option really necessary? It's pretty rarely used and in most situations I imagine it only serves to inflame. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's pointless and uncommon. I'd remove it. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
After a day of no other comments, I've gone ahead and removed it. And now we wait for someone to complain.... --MZMcBride (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

To people making unilateral changes

Removing unused items (such as the "infinite" option that used to be at the bottom) or adding new ones is one thing, but many people are used to things being a certain way, so when a commonly used item ("indefinite") is moved, it is very disconcerting, at least for me. Please do not change commonly used mediawiki pages without at least leaving a note on WP:AN explaining what you have done. Thank you. J.delanoygabsadds 16:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive248#Block times. Logical ordering (shortest blocks at the top, longest at the bottom) would help make the drop-down more intuitive, especially to new administrators - is the only problem that you're not used to it? —Remember the dot (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Can't we add it at both places? IMO both make sense. -- lucasbfr talk 11:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

New List

{{editprotected}}

  • Less than one hour
    • 15 minutes
    • 30 minutes
    • 45 minutes
  • Less than one day
    • 1 hour
    • 5 hours
    • 6 hours
  • Less than one week
    • 1 day
    • 2 days
    • 3 days
    • 4 days
    • 5 days
    • 6 days
  • Less than one month
    • 1 week
    • 2 weeks
    • 3 weeks
    • 4 weeks
    • 5 weeks
  • More than one month
    • 1 month
    • 3 months
    • 6 months

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.164.253 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. What's wrong with the current list? -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New List

{{editprotected}}

  • Less than one hour
    • 15 minutes (1/4 a hour)
    • 30 minutes (1/3 a hour)
    • 45 minutes (3/4 a hour)
  • Less than one day
    • 1 hour
    • 5 hours
    • 6 hours
  • Less than one week
    • 1 day
    • 2 days
    • 3 days
    • 4 days
    • 5 days
    • 6 days
  • Less than one month
    • 1 week
    • 2 weeks
    • 3 weeks
    • 4 weeks
    • 5 weeks
  • More than one month

31h to 36h

Hi, following King of Hearts' suggesting that we move from a standard 31h duration to 36h duration, I feel this warrants some discussion. Personally, 31h is my normal duration for dynamic IP blocks, as it covers a 5h period for two days in a row (the idea being to block two school mornings, for example), and I am unsure of what added benefit is to expand the block duration. King suggests that it's there for legacy reasons but I am a bit confused as to what he means. Snowolf How can I help? 01:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There's no real difference between the two, and for that reason alone I prefer the legacy option. See also User:Magister Mathematicae/31 hours and #31 hour block?. If people really care, then it can be changed, but I would miss it (I also miss 55 hours; can we have that back please?). NW (Talk) 01:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
^What NW and Snowolf said. I regularly use the 31 hour option; it's not that there is anything inherently wrong with changing to 36h, I simply see no reason to do so (i.e. the "if it ain't broke" clause). --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above two comments. I was saddened to see that it was not on the list when I went to block a user. ;-) Rjd0060 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
(ec) Look at our progression: After the 3 hours, we have 12, 24, __, 48, 60, 72. Every one is a multiple of 12 except 31. I think for consistency's sake it should be 36. Of course people are going to resist change in an interface that's stayed the same for a long time, but I feel this change is for the better. Regarding the "two school mornings," well why don't we have a 5-hour block rather than a 3-hour block? I think overall a simplified, more streamlined set of options would be good. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Thirty-one seems arbitrary and out-of-place. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
But then you would be changing it solely for "consistency" sake as opposed to what admins have found useful no? What's the point in that? --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Aesthetic issues shouldn't matter, functionality and practicality should be king. 31h offers certain functionalities, has been widely user for years, and no advantage has been put forward for this switch, other than cosmetic issues, which are frankly irrelevant imo. Snowolf How can I help? 02:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Saying 31 hours is widely used is kind of silly. It's widely used because it's available in the drop-down menu. If it were no longer there, it wouldn't be nearly as widely used (remembering, of course, that a block can be set to a custom duration at any time). :-)
The defaults are arbitrary as are the values on this wiki. In that vein, if they're going to be arbitrary, I don't see much harm in following a logical pattern rather than sticking to an old value due to inertia. I'm not sure what functionality 31 hours offers over 36 hours. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There was a definite uptick yesterday when 36 hours was (briefly) listed in the drop-down menu instead of 31 hours. This seems to illustrate that the "widely used" argument is invalid. Stats below. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Extended content
mysql> select log_timestamp from logging where log_type = 'block' and log_params like '36 hours%' order by log_timestamp desc limit 50;
+----------------+
| log_timestamp  |
+----------------+
| 20121127012211 |
| 20121127002311 |
| 20121126223838 |
| 20121126223051 |
| 20121126221523 |
| 20121126220646 |
| 20121126191032 |
| 20121126190312 |
| 20121126171953 |
| 20121126134224 |
| 20121126130232 |
| 20121126130103 |
| 20121126111656 |
| 20121025151027 |
| 20120906015536 |
| 20120723085601 |
| 20120604052947 |
| 20120404142440 |
| 20120327221355 |
| 20120307172808 |
| 20120218062011 |
| 20120129234631 |
| 20111215172324 |
| 20111215163331 |
| 20110921214609 |
| 20110921165417 |
| 20110829110753 |
| 20110817184332 |
| 20110816125735 |
| 20110501221201 |
| 20110417145055 |
| 20110316181309 |
| 20110309010341 |
| 20110224164529 |
| 20110219233323 |
| 20110211033034 |
| 20110118145747 |
| 20101216084414 |
| 20101208183911 |
| 20101124061403 |
| 20101123220640 |
| 20101119182419 |
| 20101114222513 |
| 20101114222451 |
| 20101109132843 |
| 20101101210816 |
| 20101101210354 |
| 20101031191935 |
| 20101031191602 |
| 20101031190723 |
+----------------+
50 rows in set (3 min 1.04 sec)

mysql> select log_timestamp from logging where log_type = 'block' and log_params like '31 hours%' order by log_timestamp desc limit 100;
+----------------+
| log_timestamp  |
+----------------+
| 20121127223944 |
| 20121127223448 |
| 20121127221635 |
| 20121127214853 |
| 20121127212357 |
| 20121127210245 |
| 20121127205949 |
| 20121127205335 |
| 20121127195225 |
| 20121127193332 |
| 20121127191311 |
| 20121127190906 |
| 20121127185857 |
| 20121127185808 |
| 20121127185748 |
| 20121127181145 |
| 20121127173500 |
| 20121127173241 |
| 20121127173230 |
| 20121127172720 |
| 20121127172025 |
| 20121127171937 |
| 20121127162824 |
| 20121127161750 |
| 20121127144849 |
| 20121127140955 |
| 20121127132801 |
| 20121127131953 |
| 20121127131152 |
| 20121127124958 |
| 20121127120048 |
| 20121127104356 |
| 20121127103339 |
| 20121127101221 |
| 20121127094215 |
| 20121127083959 |
| 20121127080008 |
| 20121127073857 |
| 20121127052426 |
| 20121127044116 |
| 20121127040822 |
| 20121127034548 |
| 20121127014032 |
| 20121127011602 |
| 20121127005117 |
| 20121127003237 |
| 20121126211201 |
| 20121126205658 |
| 20121126205159 |
| 20121126204814 |
| 20121126201448 |
| 20121126195230 |
| 20121126194900 |
| 20121126191645 |
| 20121126191252 |
| 20121126181315 |
| 20121126162645 |
| 20121126145902 |
| 20121126140500 |
| 20121126140308 |
| 20121126094340 |
| 20121126092540 |
| 20121126084124 |
| 20121126075347 |
| 20121126065005 |
| 20121126020626 |
| 20121126020539 |
| 20121126020526 |
| 20121126015843 |
| 20121126000459 |
| 20121125235737 |
| 20121125234020 |
| 20121125222341 |
| 20121125222106 |
| 20121125211031 |
| 20121125204204 |
| 20121125204116 |
| 20121125185000 |
| 20121125181529 |
| 20121125123119 |
| 20121125112429 |
| 20121125104309 |
| 20121125085036 |
| 20121125072542 |
| 20121125053417 |
| 20121125053115 |
| 20121125051406 |
| 20121125041514 |
| 20121125034732 |
| 20121125014016 |
| 20121125012535 |
| 20121124234627 |
| 20121124231305 |
| 20121124223714 |
| 20121124222935 |
| 20121124222124 |
| 20121124200754 |
| 20121124133532 |
| 20121124131401 |
| 20121124125300 |
+----------------+
100 rows in set (0.03 sec)

Why don't we try having both options for a while, and resample at a random later date to see which one people prefer? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Given no response, I've added it in. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Ipboptions/Archive_1&oldid=1108734458"