Bureaucrats, checkuser, interwiki, staff, Administrators
9,132
edits
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (→draft blocking policy proposal: SoftSecurity is my intent) |
MarkDilley (talk | contribs) (→Discussion: AssumeGoodFaith not spam, but TestEdits and talk instead of warn) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== Discussion == | == Discussion == | ||
: I think that all edits should be initially looked at as [[TestEdits]] - never as spam - this is from my strong belief in [[AssumeGoodFaith]]. ~~ [[MarkDilley]] | |||
: I think that when we phrase our work as '''warning''' people - we have started off on the not [[AssumeGoodFaith]] foot and so I suggest that instead we try to encourage people to be constructive. ~~ [[MarkDilley]] | |||
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] — <span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Arial;">[[User:Sean Fennel]][[User talk:Sean Fennel|@]]</span> 14:19, 18 January 2007 (PST) | 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] — <span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Arial;">[[User:Sean Fennel]][[User talk:Sean Fennel|@]]</span> 14:19, 18 January 2007 (PST) | ||