SmashWiki talk:Blocking guidelines

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 The Stats Guy 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't add to this...

There should be a subpage mentioning how to block/unblock/change block settings for users/IP addresses/Ranges on this wiki. Also, it should mention some more things on where blocks are appropriate, and there should be a subpage mentioning when blocking should not be used e.g. Administrators should not block themselves (called enforcing a "holiday" on themselves) because this will have a negative effect. SmashPeter (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

This is not needed. There's already an administrator guide for new admins, creating a subpage to explaining how to block is redundant. And admins are expected to know when blocks are appropriate, creating a subpage for that is just plain unnecessary. We don't need policies dictating admins how to act, and if an admin does, they weren't a suitable choice for adminship to begin with. Your example about admins blocking themselves is also far fetched, if an admin wanted a "holiday", they could just leave. Omega Tyrant 09:54, 28 August 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!" 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. Omega Tyrant 10:45, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Gonna be rewriting this

...to fit with how things are actually done around here, and I'd like to add "Apparent refusal to use reasonable communication skills" as a bannable offense. Discuss. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 08:28, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Can you explain what that means? Triple D Fighter (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2012 (EST)

A user using horrifically bad grammar/spelling that has no apparent effort put into it. Omega Tyrant 08:59, 15 February 2012 (EST)

As well as generally responding in an incoherent fashion that is confusing to understand, such as this guy. 216.11.189.3 09:04, 15 February 2012 (EST)

I put the potential rewrite here. Toomai Glittershine The Spark 14:02, 15 February 2012 (EST)

I approve of the rewrite, though I think this should become a guideline, rather than being a policy. Omega Tyrant 19:11, 15 February 2012 (EST)

^ It's up to an admin how long they wish to block a user for, so this is more of a guideline than a policy. Toast ltimatum 09:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)

April Fools' Day isn't a for a month and a half. – Emmett 13:15, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Yeah, I thought community consensus had determined that we don't need a blocking policy, as seen from the feedback I got for my previous proposal. Mr. Anontalk 19:00, 16 February 2012 (EST)

If this were changed from a policy to a guideline as suggested, then it would be less "admins should do this" and more "this is how things tend to happen". It would certainly be better than what's currently here. Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 22:00, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I agree with ToastUltimatum. It should be up to the admin to decide how long to block grammatically challenged users. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 22:05, 19 February 2012 (EST)

My proposal may have failed, but this is still a good idea. I support. Mr. Anontalk 22:57, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Support Let's get this thing done already. --Havoc48 >:D!!! 12:59, 22 February 2012 (EST)

I've decided to remove the blocks-for-asinine-communication from the list of common offenses, since it frankly isn't one. Other than that this will be implemented as a policy soon unless someone gives big negative input. Toomai Glittershine The Honcho 22:42, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Alrighty here it goes. Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 08:54, 2 March 2012 (EST)