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 eXemplary Logic 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)

Appealing an infinite block

There has been at least one historical case where a permabanned user has successfully worked out of the basement and gone on to become a respectful contributor. I don't exactly want to encourage people to try this, but I feel that we might want to add a paragraph stating "it can be done, but you should probably wait until we've forgotten about you, you must demonstrate that you have since matured, and you'll be on a short leash for a while". Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 23:53, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

While I agree with the idea in principle, I don't think we should make a policy out of it. Such matters should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not able to be encompassed by a policy. I also feel that adding the policy would encourage no matter how its worded and that's not something we need. DoctorPain99 00:50, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

This may sound like a nick-pick...

...but I personally think that there should be a mention about not saying things like "Don't make me have to block you again", "If you do X once more, I will permaban you", or even something like "Drop this now, or I'm going to extend your block". Like I said, it's kind of a nick-pick, as it rarely happens. But the way I see it, the admin is basically making a promise that for all they know, they won't end up following through with.

So an admin says that THEY are going to deliver the block, but let's say they're not there when it comes time to do so, and another admin does it for them, thus making their threat essentially pointless. That would be like me promising to start grilling the ribs before mom comes home, and forgetting to do it, forcing her to do it instead.

And as mentioned twice already, it's only a nick-pick, and I won't try to add this until these's a consensus. MeatBall104: PAWNCH!!! 18:44, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Oppose since it seems too nitpicky to matter. BRAWLS OF FURY 20:49, 29 January 2014 (EST)

It mostly shouldn't matter which admin makes a block. If an admin has made it public that another block is coming should bad behaviour continue, it is kind of their job to follow though, but it's not really a problem for another admin to have to do it. Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 22:40, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Proposal to add "bans" to SmashWiki

So, during my long stay at SmashWiki, I've come across a small handful of users who tend to edit certain pages often, but get a lot of flack over it (due to less-than-stellar edits, lack of knowledge of that category, etc.) which eventually leads to them being deemed disruptive and receiving even MORE flack. While the two users I have seen guilty of this are inactive as of now, I still think that it would be a good option to try and get this in, as for all we know, someone else could join right this instant and become an issue for the same reasons. Plus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with proposing changes to the Wiki to counter specific problems even if said problems aren't very prominent, or don't occur too often.

Anyways, I suggest that we implement "bans" on here. Basically, unlike a block, where the user is forbidden from editing anything, (except for their talk page if enabled) bans allow users to continue editing...except for the pages that they clearly should not be editing due to the disruption that they cause. When applying a ban, one basically selects the category that the user should not be permitted to edit for the set duration. You can also choose a number of random pages that aren't all in the same category to ban the user from, and can even ban them from one individual page if it's the main source of their disruptiveness without having to fully protect it and possibly disrupt the work of other editors; (especially useful for troublesome users who have it out for one specific page and not (so much) others). The way I see it is like the differing views in the "Probation vs. Block" debate that happened years ago. Blocking users for over-editing their userpages would be too harsh, as it prohibits the users from making any constructive edits that they may want to make, but probating them enables them to do this, but it just prevents them from editing the pages that lead to them getting in trouble...just like with banning them, except that these can be applied to almost any situation.

But it's not just restrictions from editing certain content. Bans can also be applied to users who share rivalries on the wiki. Basically, when this type of ban is applied, the user who is punished is not allowed to edit the userpage or talk page of the user that they are having frequent problems with, revert any edits made by that user, reply to them in discussions, or even mention their name anywhere on the wiki, (whether it be directly or indirectly). Now obviously, this type of ban should be used sparingly as it has the possibility of interfering with constructive behavior. That's basically the gist of it, and for even better explanation than I could ever hope to provide, you can check here.

(And as a note to readers: Yes, I know that I would need to personally talk to Porple about implementing this, but I figured it would be better to get community consensus first without clogging his talk page). MeatBall104; La li lu le lo! 18:56, 27 January 2015 (EST)

How would this be any different from just telling a user to stop being disruptive, and blocking them if they refuse? Toomai Glittershine The Brazen 19:19, 27 January 2015 (EST)