WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions
(New page: Different wikis have different policies and block lengths are inevitably arbitrary. Wiktionary hands out short blocks when Wikipedia would warn a user and in my opinion the Wikipe...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
#When users who have done something unacceptable get a warning on their talk page they will certainly see it next time they log in and the warning is less punishing. | #When users who have done something unacceptable get a warning on their talk page they will certainly see it next time they log in and the warning is less punishing. | ||
Wikia prefers warnings before blocks for minor offenses. Here’s the [[Liberapedia]] | Wikia prefers warnings before blocks for minor offenses. Here’s the [[Liberapedia]] [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Policy Category Policy] though in practise these rules are not consistently observed. At Liberapedia liberals are treated gently while administrators assume that conservatives aren’t likely to want to contribute constructively and they tend to get treated as vandals. | ||
From the blockee’s point of view being blocked is more unpleasant and more punishing that, for example finding that a wiki is no longer online or is temporarily out of edit mode for everyone. Ban windows are designed by expert advertisers to be unpleasant. | From the blockee’s point of view being blocked is more unpleasant and more punishing that, for example finding that a wiki is no longer online or is temporarily out of edit mode for everyone. Ban windows are designed by expert advertisers to be unpleasant. | ||
Spambots don't have feelings so it doesn't matter whether you are consistent not. I sometimes take character into consideration as well as the offense, that’s why I was harsher to [[User:Patricia Martellotti]] than to [[User:ChrisChanSonichu]] [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:31, 10 July 2009 (EDT) | Spambots don't have feelings so it doesn't matter whether you are consistent not. I sometimes take character into consideration as well as the offense, that’s why I was harsher to [[User:Patricia Martellotti]] than to [[User:ChrisChanSonichu]] [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 10:31, 10 July 2009 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 14:31, 10 July 2009
Different wikis have different policies and block lengths are inevitably arbitrary. Wiktionary hands out short blocks when Wikipedia would warn a user and in my opinion the Wikipedia policy is better for several reasons,
- Wiktionary users may not realize that they have been blocked if they don’t happen to try and edit again till the block has expired. Then they get repeated entries in their block logs without even knowing that they have done anything unacceptable.
- When they realized they have been blocked or try to edit during a block this is unnecessarily punishing.
- When users who have done something unacceptable get a warning on their talk page they will certainly see it next time they log in and the warning is less punishing.
Wikia prefers warnings before blocks for minor offenses. Here’s the Liberapedia Category Policy though in practise these rules are not consistently observed. At Liberapedia liberals are treated gently while administrators assume that conservatives aren’t likely to want to contribute constructively and they tend to get treated as vandals.
From the blockee’s point of view being blocked is more unpleasant and more punishing that, for example finding that a wiki is no longer online or is temporarily out of edit mode for everyone. Ban windows are designed by expert advertisers to be unpleasant.
Spambots don't have feelings so it doesn't matter whether you are consistent not. I sometimes take character into consideration as well as the offense, that’s why I was harsher to User:Patricia Martellotti than to User:ChrisChanSonichu Proxima Centauri 10:31, 10 July 2009 (EDT)