On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Thomas Larsen larsen.thomas.h@gmail.com wrote:
Short blocks tend to be punitive, and are thus, in my opinion, in violation of the blocking policy. This is because (a) they cannot be intended for any purpose other than cooling down somebody (which never works) or (b) creating a permanent mark on a user. Neither of these purposes are effective or fair. Personally, I advocate for (a) no blocks, (b) long-term blocks, or (c) permanent blocks, depending on the seriousness of the situation.
Sometimes it's not so much marking a user, but that some admins feel the need to have something there on a permanent record, not just in a talk page history or archive. If justified, that can sometimes be reasonable, but if not justified it can, as you say, be a mark of shame. The way people react to their first block is interesting. Either they accept it quietly, or they get incensed. Some people see it as no big deal, even if incorrect, as long as the incorrectness is acknowledged. Others get clase about being blocked, not realising that as the block build up, they acquire a reputation (though you can get a reputation without a lock log record).
Carcharoth