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 09:19, 18 January 2012

83 bytes added ,  18 January 2012
m
→‎Discussion: fix some interwiki links, spelling mistakes, red-link corrections
m (→‎Discussion: fix some interwiki links, spelling mistakes, red-link corrections)
Line 20: Line 20:


== Discussion ==
== Discussion ==
: I think that all edits should be initially looked at as [[WikiIndex:TestEdit|TestEdits]] - never as spam - this is from my strong belief in [[WikiIndex:AssumeGoodFaith|AssumeGoodFaith]]. ~~ [[MarkDilley]]


: 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 [[WikiIndex:AssumeGoodFaith|AssumeGoodFaith]] foot and so I suggest that instead we try to encourage people to be constructive. ~~ [[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 [[wp: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] &mdash;&nbsp;<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] &mdash;&nbsp;<span style="font-family: Kristen ITC, Arial;">[[User:Sean Fennel]][[User talk:Sean Fennel|@]]</span> 14:19, 18 January 2007 (PST)
The [[wp:Wikipedia:Blocking policy|Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] is to block for 24 hours on the first incident, "longer for successive violations". Looking at [[Special:Ipblocklist]] and the [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block WikiIndex block log], I see some people at WikiIndex think "infinite" blocks are appropriate. Some people at WikiIndex at [[WikiProject:Junking bots]] suggest 3 days for the first incident.
 
The [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Blocking policy]] is to block for 24 hours on the first incident, "longer for successive violations".
Looking at [[Special:Ipblocklist]] and the [http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block WikiIndex block log], I see some people at WikiIndex think "infinite" blocks are appropriate.
Some people at WikiIndex at [[WikiProject:Junking bots]] suggest 3 days for the first incident.


I think we need to balance 2 things:
I think we need to balance 2 things:
* We need to make it long enough that we don't have to waste all our time cleaning up after spammers who continue to spam -- over an over again -- as soon as the block period is over. Because we don't want to become grumpy, overworked sysops.
* We need to make it long enough that we don't have to waste all our time cleaning up after spammers who continue to spam -- over an over again -- as soon as the block period is over. Because we don't want to become grumpy, overworked [[sysop]]s.
* We need to make it short enough that people who would otherwise be fine, productive, upstanding members of our community, but accidentally make a questionable edit and are (accidentally?) banned by grumpy, overworked sysops, aren't driven away and lost forever. Would you stick around some place that, after you made some tiny little mistake, publicly posted signs accusing you of being a (gasp!) spammer and refused to take those signs down or even let you say anything in your defense -- not even "I'm sorry and I'll never do that again"?
* We need to make it short enough that people who would otherwise be fine, productive, upstanding members of our community, but accidentally make a questionable edit and are (accidentally?) banned by grumpy, overworked sysops, aren't driven away and lost forever. Would you stick around some place that, after you made some tiny little mistake, publicly posted signs accusing you of being a (gasp!) spammer and refused to take those signs down or even let you say anything in your defense -- not even "I'm sorry and I'll never do that again"?
Is there any way to objectively decide whether the "first block time" is too long or too short?
Is there any way to objectively decide whether the "first block time" is too long or too short?
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 03:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
--[[User:DavidCary|DavidCary]] 03:11, 21 June 2009 (EDT)
Line 41: Line 37:
For minor offenses warnings should be given out the first time.  Users who have been warned will certainly see the warning when they get a notice that they have new messages. A short block may be overlooked if the user did not try to edit during the block period.  If an offense is repeated after a warning administrators can assume the user knew his/her behavour was unacceptable. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:17, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
For minor offenses warnings should be given out the first time.  Users who have been warned will certainly see the warning when they get a notice that they have new messages. A short block may be overlooked if the user did not try to edit during the block period.  If an offense is repeated after a warning administrators can assume the user knew his/her behavour was unacceptable. [[User:Proxima Centauri|Proxima Centauri]] 13:17, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
:Agree with proxima though spambots that are logged in should be blocked indefinitely but anon spambots have to be checked to see if they are open proxies or zombie computers and if they are, they should be blocked for a maximum of 1 year but if that IP has similar problems on all the other major wikis out there, block should be extended to 3 years as a safe precaution...--[[User:Comets|Comets]] 01:12, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
:Agree with proxima though spambots that are logged in should be blocked indefinitely but anon spambots have to be checked to see if they are open proxies or zombie computers and if they are, they should be blocked for a maximum of 1 year but if that IP has similar problems on all the other major wikis out there, block should be extended to 3 years as a safe precaution...--[[User:Comets|Comets]] 01:12, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::The key is to not be a target of vandals.  Then there are the spambots, which are obvious, I would hope.  Block them forever, or for years.  PC is right, a short block might go unnoticed by a real person editor, a warning makes more sense. Do you guys get a lot of wandalism here, or just random botting/trolling?  At [[Rationalwiki]] we really don't much wandlalism, a few trolls, I guess, but mostly no one harasses a wiki that has lots of active editors/sysops (we sysop everyone, pretty much).  OK, maybe it's because we're a fairly cool site, trolls prefer to attack loser sites.  But it might really be because we are active enough that trolls/spammers see they'd be wasting their time. Hope I helped in some way. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 06:23, 12 July 2009 (EDT)
::The key is to not be a target of vandals.  Then there are the spambots, which are obvious, I would hope.  Block them forever, or for years.  PC is right, a short block might go unnoticed by a real person editor, a warning makes more sense. Do you guys get a lot of wandalism here, or just random botting/trolling?  At [[Rationalwiki]] we really don't much vandlalism, a few trolls, I guess, but mostly no one harasses a wiki that has lots of active editors/sysops (we sysop everyone, pretty much).  OK, maybe it's because we're a fairly cool site, trolls prefer to attack loser sites.  But it might really be because we are active enough that trolls/spammers see they'd be wasting their time. Hope I helped in some way. [[User:Huw Powell|Huw Powell]] 06:23, 12 July 2009 (EDT)


----
----
Line 47: Line 43:
Different wikis have different policies and block lengths are inevitably arbitrary.  [[Wiktionary]] hands out [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Log/block short blocks] when [[Wikipedia]] would warn a user and in my opinion the Wikipedia policy is better for several reasons,  
Different wikis have different policies and block lengths are inevitably arbitrary.  [[Wiktionary]] hands out [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Log/block short blocks] when [[Wikipedia]] would warn a user and in my opinion the Wikipedia policy is better for several reasons,  
#Wiktionary users may not realize that they have been blocked if they don’t happen to try and edit again till the block has expired.  Then they get repeated entries in their block logs without even knowing that they have done anything unacceptable.
#Wiktionary users may not realize that they have been blocked if they don’t happen to try and edit again till the block has expired.  Then they get repeated entries in their block logs without even knowing that they have done anything unacceptable.
#When they realized they have been blocked or try to edit during a block this is unnecessarily punishing.
#When they realized they have been blocked or try to edit during a block this is unnecessarily punishing.
#When users who have done something unacceptable get a warning on their talk page they will certainly see it next time they log in and the warning is less punishing.
#When users who have done something unacceptable get a warning on their talk page they will certainly see it next time they log in and the warning is less punishing.


Wikia prefers warnings before blocks for minor offenses. Here’s the [[Liberapedia]] [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Policy Category Policy] though in practise these rules are not consistently observed.  At Liberapedia liberals are treated gently while administrators assume that conservatives aren’t likely to want to contribute constructively and they tend to get treated as vandals. Here are the [[Atheism Wiki]] [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Blocking_policies Blocking policies]  
Wikia prefers warnings before blocks for minor offenses. Here’s the [[Liberapedia]] [http://liberapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Category:Policy Category Policy] though in practise these rules are not consistently observed.  At Liberapedia liberals are treated gently while administrators assume that conservatives aren’t likely to want to contribute constructively and they tend to get treated as vandals. Here are the [[Atheism Wiki]] [http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/Blocking_policies Blocking policies]  
Retrieved from "https://wikiindex.org/w/Special:MobileDiff/92600"

Navigation menu