Wikinews talk:Blocking policy

Latest comment: 12 years ago by BarkingFish in topic Detalise

/Archive 1

Rangeblock info edit

Helpful rangeblock info and tools

? edit

If this is true, then why do all other wikis block IPs for less than indef? Open proxies are rarely open for long, so instead, a shorter time span should be fixed. Griffinofwales (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure why we do them indef, but there was some community discussion on the matter in this archived water cooler thread that might be of help. Cheers. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of date? edit

There's a few sections in here that seem quite iffy. For example, Wikinews:Blocking_policy#Personal attacks which place users in danger states that admins should inform Jimbo, which I doubt is current policy. Could someone do an overhaul? — μ 12:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This policy is complete bullshit. It should either be completely rewritten or just correct the inconsistencies. It introduces itself using "It is up to admins to use their discretion to decide when to block, and how long for [...]." Then says: "For vandalism and breaches of the three revert rule, admins should block for up to 24 hours." This should be fixed, to prevent disputes, and all that jazz. アンパロ Io ti odio! 21:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{sofixit}} — μchip08 01:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The page is mostly guidelines, which frankly makes sense. Some of the guidelines are indeed out of date with what is currently considered best practice, and should be updated. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Detalise edit

This policy may need to be elaborated (like discussed at one of the last workshop meetings); one of things to clarify may be the blocking policy length which per Brian McNeil is

In case of spamming,
  • 24 hour block
  • If 24 hour block expires, and they spam again, double the block.
  • If they spam after that - a week-long block.

Generally the reading doesn't seem to be complete and I have to ask others about how to block, or just wait; we might try to bring it to be a self-sufficient guide.

--Gryllida 12:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Better guidance could indeed be helpful to admins. What we don't want is for admins to hesitate to use common sense, nor anyone to be tempted into wikilawyering; so the more detailed guidance we provide, the more important it becomes to keep the heuristic tone apparent in the way we phrase things.
Various contextual circumstances would greatly vary the above rule of thumb, for example. --Pi zero (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just like to make it clear, per contact yesterday from Gryllida that I will be taking no part in the revision or updating of the blocking policy, or writing any essays in relation to the same. I consider my own views on blocking here to be exceptionally strong, compared to the weak assed POS we have now which lets people off with a slap on the wrist and a 5 minute time out.<sarcasm/> - I believe if people want to bugger around with the site, we should treat them like they treat us. Hit them hard, hit them heavy, and stop them causing anymore trouble. There shouldn't be a fear of using administrative functions when needed, and using them with good effect. Just use them right. BarkingFish (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to the project page "Blocking policy".