1,136
edits
WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions
→Comparing the block policy proposals: "slight" distinction here
(→Comparing the block policy proposals: err fixed link) |
(→Comparing the block policy proposals: "slight" distinction here) |
||
| Line 165: | Line 165: | ||
DavidCary's [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy&oldid=70223 original proposal] begins by saying it "is pretty much the same" as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy Wikipedia's block policy]. There was one important difference I noticed between WikiIndex' block policy, and Wikipedia's, but I don't want to mention it. If that is still the case the block policy shouldn't say it "is pretty much the same" Wikipedia. But I do think most of Wikipedia's block policy is along the lines of what is needed as a '''guide for sysops''', who are considering blocking a "troll" or editor who is "edit warring", disruptive/bickering/obnoxious/threatening/harassing, engaging in "gray spamming" (not obvious "spamming"), etc. | DavidCary's [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk:Blocking_Policy&oldid=70223 original proposal] begins by saying it "is pretty much the same" as [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy Wikipedia's block policy]. There was one important difference I noticed between WikiIndex' block policy, and Wikipedia's, but I don't want to mention it. If that is still the case the block policy shouldn't say it "is pretty much the same" Wikipedia. But I do think most of Wikipedia's block policy is along the lines of what is needed as a '''guide for sysops''', who are considering blocking a "troll" or editor who is "edit warring", disruptive/bickering/obnoxious/threatening/harassing, engaging in "gray spamming" (not obvious "spamming"), etc. | ||
''"Don't irk our gentle editors"'' opens the door to blocking people simply because someone is "irked", not because any rule was broken. Perhaps this is the '''real''' rule, but I think there should be some sort of guide for sysops. At least one "sysop" did what Dilley's suggested; they posted warnings, then blocked. But this block was not upheld by Dilley (or maybe the owner). | ''"Don't irk our gentle editors"'' opens the door to blocking people simply because someone is "irked", not because any rule was broken. Perhaps this is the '''real''' rule, but I think there should be some sort of guide for sysops. At least one "sysop" did what Dilley's suggested; they posted warnings, then blocked. But this block was not upheld by Dilley (or maybe the "owner"). | ||
''"People may be blocked [...] to protect WikiIndex and its editors from harm."'' That sysop may have believed that they were protecting themselves from "harm". There is no definition of "harm" here. Using terms like "harm" and "nonviolence", when we are only interacting through computers, seems exaggerated and vague. | ''"People may be blocked [...] to protect WikiIndex and its editors from harm."'' That sysop may have believed that they were protecting themselves from "harm". There is no definition of "harm" here. Using terms like "harm" and "nonviolence", when we are only interacting through computers, seems exaggerated and vague. | ||