Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 8

message: I don't know if this has been discussed in the past, but would it be better to create a series of standard fill-in-the-blank templates in order to explain the purpose and rationale of a block? It would certainly help to ensure that the message is constructive instead of being counter-productive, and that emotions are limited in the message.
A similar model could also be applied to warning messages.
Karn-b 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blocking Notice Templates?

message: I'm a new admin who has a question about blocking.  When and why should I click "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from" when blocking a registered user? - Gilliam 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about blocking a user 

message: sorry, I apologize in advance because I'm not a huge wiki-editor (barely any of one at all!)and my not be posting this in the right place. However I just wanted to say that I was disappointed that school IP addresses are always blocked. I have my computer at home log me in to all websites automatically so I never remember my passwords, so when I find mistakes on Wikipedia, I could do nothing to change them. I never have time when I am home. Isn't there something we can do to help school IPs? Bfissa 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They receive warnings most of the time... Short of magically making school kids more mature, what did you have in mind? Leebo86 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I spotted a few grammatical inconsistencies in the article.  Most of the article has correct use of the singular/plural.  eg "if a user does something bad then HE/SHE can be blocked" (emphasis added) is correct.  Or "then THAT USER can be blocked" is also correct.  But "if a user does something bad then THEY can be blocked" is incorrect.  MIxing singular with plural.  The fact that it is widely used colloquially doesn't validate it. Especially since the rest of the article has correct usage.  So I have corrected  a couple of those.  Davidpatrick 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Singular they --Random832 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor grammatical point

message: I've noticed some admins disclose the duration of a block and some do not. Is there a policy on this?  I can see where disclosing the block duration is appropriate for a non-anonymous user, but in the case of an IP vandal it almost invites them to come back at time T + epsilon for continued foolishness.  Apologies if the topic has been covered before. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclosure of block duration

message: I feel that it takes too much to get blocked and banned on wikipedia.  I think people are given too many chances, and as a result there is too much vandalism for us too catch all of it.  --Savant13 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on which Admin is involved. I have seen some very excellent editors being blocked for very little. Gold♥ 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banning/Blocking

message: I just added this... I think it will be invaluable:
* Unilateral actions to close discussions early against concensus, disrupting the community by forcing additional debate and conflict, and is blockable.
Thank you. - Denny 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is far too bold. Decisions from the Arbitration Committee do not make policy. The decision was made in a very specific context. There is a difference between the ArbCom or the Wikipedia community deciding to block, and a single administrator doing the same. The other entries in the list cover blocks which are regularly made and broadly supported. On the other hand, somebody who closes a discussion inappropriately is likely to be a regular editor, probably an administrator, and such a block will always attract drama (like the cool-down blocks mentioned further down). Changes to policy, and this one in particular, should be discussed for some time and not made in reaction to a highly charged case. For all these reasons, I reverted the addition. If you want to discuss this, by all means do so on this talk page or the Village Pump, but I don't think there is a consensus for the point you added. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Blocks are not punishment. The decision you cite doesn't even say anything about blocking based on WP:SNOW. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New addition... unilateral action disruption. 

message: would there be any merit to adding that initiating XfDs or unilaterally deleting pages that are hot-button or controversial could be seen as disruptive/blockable? Thinking specifically about the Brandt & Essjay messes. Note that someone just now (less than 24 hours later) sent the Essjay article back to AfD for poor reasoning... - Denny 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there would not be any merit in doing that. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  XfD/deletions/unilateral to disrupt 

message: I would like to apologize for this IP Addresses vandalism of this website.  This is a school, and I am a student, and I would appreciate having our IP address blocked from editing content, but not blocked from viewing content.  Thank you very much.
209.7.218.5 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies and Requests 

message: This page really never says that editors should receive a warning before placing blocked, although it is implied is some areas.  Is that intentional?--BirgitteSB 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every block requires a prior warning. Some cases require instant blocking, to prevent further damage. Crum375 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  But the policy clearly says which blocks don't require warnings without ever talking about the general principle of warning before blocks.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it is in general up to the discretion of the blocking admin. Often the warnings are issued by other editors, not necessarily admins. In the case of WP:3RR for example, we encourage a warning to be issued to new editors who may not be familiar with the policy. I think overall the warnings, like the blocks, should be done with common sense, according to the specific case. Crum375 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess my point is, where is in any guidelines or policies does it say that editors should be warned about their behaivor?  Or, where does it say it up to the discretion of the admin?  Reading the policy there is clearly an implication that warning is the standard and the X, Y, and Z are exceptions that do not need warning.  But I looked at a bunch of policies and guidelines and I cannot not find any general dissucsion of the principle of warning.  Everything I read seems to assume there is a general principle, but where is it?--BirgitteSB 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *It isn't really anywhere, except in the headers of some process pages. Perhaps this page needs a bit of editing to reflect that, or Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings should explain their thoughts on some policy pages. >Radiant< 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning