Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 11

message: I've removed the line that was edited to make it reflect WP:BADSITES - someone else can put back whatever was there before this tendentious editing began. Regardless of what one thinks of the proposal itself, editing live policy pages to gain an edge in passing a new policy is, well... just not cool. --Random832 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is done, I request that the section regarding off-wikipedia activities in WP:NPA is in sync with what is written here. Andries 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BADSITES 

message: I've protected the page due to edit warring. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking it might be a good idea for people to step back a little from this. I can't work out what's going on, but we suddenly have forest fires about attack sites breaking out everywhere, with an RfAr, a request for clarification, an RfC suggested, people posting links provocatively, insulting each other, a policy proposal, and now a policy protected. Perhaps we should just carry on doing what we were doing before, which was basically just using common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with that. Common sense and prior policy adequately covers what these changes were trying to proscribe.--Academy Leader 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warrings 

message: Mosat of the editors comemtnign here seem to support this, although not all do. Do we haev a rough consensus to implement the above proposed wording? How about a slightly more gradual version, such as:
*Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocekd indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute shall not be considered as a reason for such blocks.
Is there consensus for the above? DES (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *This is a most needed addition, I look forward to it being enforceable. I support this very good idea as it is worded above. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *I respectfully disagree, AGF says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", so one would not have to assume bad faith. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are we saying that advertising is evidence that a person has a conflict of interest?  I can think of other explanations... besides, we don't need to assume that they have a conflict of interest.  Just block them for the advertising part and don't speculate on why they were advertising.  —  Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Implement change to allow COI blocks?