WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions

WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy (edit)

Revision as of 20:17, 20 August 2009

6,225 bytes added , 20 August 2009

short draft blocking policy proposal; far too long commentary on it.

DavidCary

Administrators

1,316

edits

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+== draft blocking policy proposal ==
+''I'm trying to make this (1) [[Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep | extremely short]] and (2) objective and unambiguous. Feel free to *completely* change this. However, I will be grumpy if you make it more than twice as long. --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 16:17, 20 August 2009 (EDT)''
+Wikipedia has an excellent [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]].
+The WikiIndex blocking policy is pretty much the same, except that -- since WikiIndex runs at a slower pace than Wikipedia -- we start with a longer "first block time".
+In summary:
+* Users may be blocked from editing by an administrator to protect WikiIndex and its editors from harm.
+* Don't insert irrelevant links to commercial advertising (spamming). (Please *do* [[Add a Wiki]] whether or not it is a corporate wiki). Sysops block anything that resembles a spambot -- 3 months on the first block.
+* Don't irk our gentle editors. Editors who are sufficiently annoyed will warn you on your talk page, with a link to a WikiIndex edit that irked them.
+* Don't irk our gentle editors again. Editors who are sufficiently annoyed will warn you -- again -- on your talk page, with a link to an irksome WikiIndex edit ''after'' the previous warning. Also, a sysop (who may be that same editor) will block you -- 3 days on the first block, roughly doubling at each additional block.
+* Any user may request a block at [[Category talk:Active administrators of this wiki]]. That's also the place (after your block has expired) to whine about particular incidents of sysops overstepping their authority and slamming down unnecessarily punitive blocks.
 == Discussion ==
 After staring at the red link to this page for a while, I grew suspicious that we aren't being real consistent in when and for how long we put down blocks on spammers. A cursory scan of [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia's blocking policy]] suggests the notion that lengthy blocks on IP addresses is a little extreme. For reference I pulled up the blocking policies on a few other wikis: [http://en.uncyclomedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Ban_Policy] [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/HRWiki:Blocking_Policy] &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Arial;">[[User:Sean Fennel]][[User talk:Sean Fennel|@]]</span> 14:19, 18 January 2007 (PST)
@@ Line 45: / Line 58: @@
 I once needed to edit my talk page at Wikipedia, I edited from a different IP adress, not my usual one and an administrator thought someone else was  impersonating me.  It was quite annoying but I'd have minded more if someone had really impersonated me and the admins had done nothing.  Anyway I edited my talk age and tried to explain and later wrote more from my usual IP adress.  I agree that blocked users should be able to edit their talk pages but if they write rubbish on their talk age then we protect the talk page or reset the block to prevent that. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 04:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
 [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 04:52, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
+: I think there are at least 3 different categories of "problem users". I have a particular hatred for one particular category, so I am almost relieved when I see other kinds of problems.
+: If someone inserted dozens of irrelevant links as commercial advertising (spamming) -- or worse, deleting good content and replacing with such spam on several pages? Then I feel justified in a immediate first-time block of a month (you could probably talk me into 6 months) with no previous warning. I would like to block spammers forever. But I don't think their IP numbers should be blocked forever on the first block, because many such spammers use a ISP that rotates their IP numbers periodically, and I don't want to punish innocent people for merely using the same ISP that was once used by a spammer 5 years ago. (If we get spam again from the same IP 6 months later, then you could probably convince me that spammer is not on such a rotating ISP, and so blocking that IP for years on the second block probably won't harm innocent users).
+: If you really want your edits to irk me the most, spamming is the way to go.
+: Every other kind of edit is, in my opinion, not as bad, and so should get a shorter block, or perhaps merely a warning, or perhaps ignored ("don't feed the trolls").
+: Even edits such as these are still not as bad as replacing good content with spam, even though they may make a lot of work for us to clean up:
+:* repeatedly blanking a user talk page even after being warned;
+:* blanking many user and user talk pages;
+:* edit-warring by repeatedly insisting on preserving his own version of some page;
+:* inserting a bogus category on many pages;
+:* trolling by posting inflammatory statements on many discussion pages;
+:* falsely accusing a bunch of editors of being spammers;
+:* blocking a bunch of good or mediocre editors forever;
+: etc.
+: I don't think reverting a single edit counts as "a lot of work", so I'm inclined to ignore such things the first time they happen, hoping that it was a one-time lapse of good judgment, or possibly revert them without comment. Perhaps around the 3rd incident, I'll post a warning and simultaneously slap on a 3-day block. Or if I see someone else has posted a warning, and they've continue to make such bad edits, warn them again and simultaneously block for a month or so.
+: Some edits are all too easy to do accidentally, and easy for others to notice and undo:
+:* accidentally blanking everything on some other user's talk page. Then I think it would be better to point out what happened on that user's talk page, tell them how to undo such accidents, and warn them not to do it again.
+:* making a page or two to talk about something would be acceptable on other wiki, but is considered off-topic here at WikiIndex, such as "vanity pages". Then I think it would be better to point out such things are off-topic on that user's talk page, tell them a wiki that would be more appropriate for such things, and warn them that such off-topic pages will "soon" be deleted. If someone puts a lot of work into such a well-intentioned page, and then they are blocked without warning and all their work deleted without warning -- that seems like overkill, and counterproductive -- too often such a user becomes angry and (as soon as the block expires) starts vandalizing.
+: But alas, even if you took my above rambling preferences (and I haven't even started my rant on how "reasonably named users" vs "IP users" vs "user names that make statements!!one!" affect my blocking decisions) and made it policy, I wouldn't like it -- policy pages should be short and crisp and objective and unambiguous.
+: I've attempted to create such a short, etc. policy above.
+: What it still lacks is:
+:* it would be nice if it was clear exactly what kinds of edits are so unacceptable as to draw a block. Is "insufficiently flattering our beloved leader" sufficiently irksome? Perhaps a link to the [[WikiIndex:Guidelines]]?
+:* It looks like one sysop is on a vendetta when a user's block log shows only one sysop name. Is there some way we can reduce the appearance of a vendetta, and show that more than one sysop actually does approve of the block? Perhaps tweak this policy to disallow one sysop making two consecutive blocks? Or only allow blocks by one sysop only after someone else (perhaps not a sysop) puts a warning message on the blockee's user talk page?
+: But alas, it's not obvious to me how to include any of that stuff without making it unbearably long.
+: --[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 16:17, 20 August 2009 (EDT)
+== zombie computer ==
 How do we check if a spammer is a [http://computer.howstuffworks.com/zombie-computer.htm zombie computer]? is there any way we can alert the owner? [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (EDT)