1,136
edits
WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions
→Comparing the block policy proposals: e-mail for possibly "private" information
m (→Comparing the block policy proposals: shortened and drastically rewrote my comments) |
(→Comparing the block policy proposals: e-mail for possibly "private" information) |
||
| Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
([[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" as Wikipedia. But I do think Wikipedia's block policy would be good for suggestions, for sysops who are considering a possibly controversial block. | 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 any administrator here, wants to know what I'm talking about [[Special:Emailuser/Lumenos|e-mail me]].) 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. One "sysop" posted warnings, then blocked. I don't think this block was 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 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". | ''"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". IMHO one of the primary reasons for policy is to clarify these sorts of things so that when there is a situation or emergency, you are prepared and united. | ||
[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] | [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 18:15, 24 June 2010 (EDT) | ||