Welcome to SmashWiki! Log in or create an account and join the community, and don't forget to read this first!
Notices
SmashWiki will be experiencing a server migration on April 16th, 2025, expected to begin at 7:00 am (EDT) and lasting for up to 12 hours. The wiki may be entirely unavailable during that time.

SmashWiki talk:Blocking guidelines: Difference between revisions

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Proposed addendum to the policy)
 
Line 12: Line 12:


Discuss. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Discuss. [[User:Semicolon|Semicolon]] ([[User talk:Semicolon|talk]]) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
'''Support with slight rewording.''' I agree with the three "strikes" (two blocks and an infinite warning). But I think the part that says "This policy does not ''respect policies regarding'' infinite bans of proxy IP addresses ''and'' unacceptable user names" should read more like "This policy does not ''apply to'' infinite bans of proxy IP addresses ''or'' unacceptable user names". I also think there should be an <nowiki>{{infinitewarning}}</nowiki> template or something if this passes. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] <choose><option>eXemplary Logic</option><option>The Stats Guy</option><option>The Table Designer</option></choose> 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:10, May 5, 2009

Proposed addendum to the policy

Per my discussion with Shadowcrest, found here, and per us once again clashing about this on his RfB, I think it is necessary to attempt to reach a consensus and implement a policy regarding infinite blocks.

Of course, at present it is specified that the length of a block is at the discretion of the admin, which is the way it should be, but as Shadowcrest rightly points out, infinite blocks should be treated somewhat differently. My proposal is to add a section on infinite blocking, which I would have it read as such:

Infinite blocks

In the event of repeated policy violations, despite consistent warnings and with at least 2 prior blocks, an infinite ban can be administered. Infinite blocks may not be administered to users or IP addresses without a warning of an impending infinite ban, and at least two prior blocks of any length. This policy does not respect policies regarding infinite bans of proxy IP addresses and unacceptable user names.

These are the sole criteria for infinite blocking. No presumption about the motivations of the IP address or user will factor into the block, as it is exclusively the conduct displayed by the offender that is used to determine the length of the block. Once the criteria are met, the administrator is not obligated to administer an infinite block, but he/she may not until the criteria are met.

Discuss. Semicolon (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support with slight rewording. I agree with the three "strikes" (two blocks and an infinite warning). But I think the part that says "This policy does not respect policies regarding infinite bans of proxy IP addresses and unacceptable user names" should read more like "This policy does not apply to infinite bans of proxy IP addresses or unacceptable user names". I also think there should be an {{infinitewarning}} template or something if this passes. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)