16,457
edits
SmashWiki talk:Blocking guidelines: Difference between revisions
m
→I can't add to this...
SmashPeter (talk | contribs) |
Omega Tyrant (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
Also, it should mention disruptiveness on the page. Just to pick one example, it is worth mentioning that re-incarnations of blocked disruptive users will be re-blocked if they continue being disruptive or edit in a way that suggests they will e.g. "YOU CAN'T BLOCK ME!!!!!" or even worse, "JOIN ME IN MY FIGHT TO DESTROY THE WIKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [[User:SmashPeter|SmashPeter]] ([[User talk:SmashPeter|talk]]) 10:35, 2 September 2011 (EDT) | Also, it should mention disruptiveness on the page. Just to pick one example, it is worth mentioning that re-incarnations of blocked disruptive users will be re-blocked if they continue being disruptive or edit in a way that suggests they will e.g. "YOU CAN'T BLOCK ME!!!!!" or even worse, "JOIN ME IN MY FIGHT TO DESTROY THE WIKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!" [[User:SmashPeter|SmashPeter]] ([[User talk:SmashPeter|talk]]) 10:35, 2 September 2011 (EDT) | ||
:For you to know, this policy really doesn't hold much weight, and admins handle blocks based on their own judgment. In fact, it was planned to be gotten rid of, but when Emmett left, it just stuck around. With that said, disruption is already a block reason used, and there's no point adding it to an essentially ignored policy. <span style="font-family:Edwardian Script ITC; font-size:12pt">[[User:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Omega</span>]] [[User talk:Omega Tyrant|<span style="color:forestgreen">Tyrant</span>]]</span> [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 10:45, 2 September 2011 (EDT) | |||