WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions

m
→‎Comparing the block policy proposals: shortened and drastically rewrote my comments
(→‎Comparing the block policy proposals: relocated Felix and my comments (concerning my behavior) to my talk page, linked to there from here)
m (→‎Comparing the block policy proposals: shortened and drastically rewrote my comments)
Line 159: Line 159:
== Comparing the block policy proposals ==
== Comparing the block policy proposals ==


[[User_talk:Lumenos#1|Should Lumenos comment on this page?]]
([[User_talk:Lumenos#1|Should Lumenos comment on this page?]])


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" as Wikipedia. But I do think Wikipedia's block policy would be good for suggestions, for sysops who are considering a possibly controversial block.


''"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. One "sysop" posted warnings, then blocked. I don't think this block was 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 WikiIndex (or themselves) from "harm". There is no definition of "harm" here. Using terms like "harm" and "nonviolence", seems odd/vague, when most of this stuff is like content disagreements. Maybe there were some issues with "harassment". The point of policy is to clarify these sorts of things so that when there is a situation or emergency, you are prepared and united.


Sysops need to know what is an appropriate reason for a block and what is not. I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy Wikipedia's block policy] is an excellent guide for sysops and they probably already know the important differences between WP's block policy and WikiIndex' block policy.
[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:17, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
 
[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 14:37, 23 June 2010 (EDT)
1,136

edits