1,136
edits
WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiIndex talk:Blocking and banning policy (edit)
Revision as of 01:42, 18 September 2009
, 18 September 2009Comparing the block policy proposals
("short" is a little vague for a "policy" page. Is 3 months "short"?) |
(Comparing the block policy proposals) |
||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
If you go [[User_talk:Proxima_Centauri#User:Jonah_Musto|here]] and see DavidCary's post dated 12:27, 5 September 2009, I think this may be considered a sort of "policy proposal" as well. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:01, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | If you go [[User_talk:Proxima_Centauri#User:Jonah_Musto|here]] and see DavidCary's post dated 12:27, 5 September 2009, I think this may be considered a sort of "policy proposal" as well. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 07:01, 6 September 2009 (EDT) | ||
== Comparing the block policy proposals == | |||
(I don't know if those of us who are not a part of the administration are welcome to weigh in on this stuff. I've gotten mixed signals when doing so. There doesn't seem to be any prohibition against me doing so, so I will post an opinion on this. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:42, 17 September 2009 (EDT)) | |||
I think DavidCary's [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=WikiIndex_talk%3ABlocking_Policy&diff=70363&oldid=70362 original proposal] was much more objective and clear. (Note, Dilley suggests someone could revert the changes he made. I think someone should do so, but I feel I am [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=User_talk%3AThis_is_not_the_solution&diff=71649&oldid=71591 in danger of irking someone], even by posting this.) [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:42, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:''"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. The last time, a sysop followed Dilley's plan; they posted warnings, then blocked. But this block was not upheld by Dilley.[[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:42, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:''"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. [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:42, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | |||
:Sysops need to know what is an appropriate reason for a block and what is not. The previous proposal addressed that more clearly. Dilley apparently prefers something "much different" from Wikipedia's block policy. I've read over both Dilley's and Cary's proposals, and any difference is not apparent unless it is really his intention to base this on a subjective feeling of being "irked". [[User:Lumenos|Lumenos]] 21:42, 17 September 2009 (EDT) | |||