Right! I think that's the basic rule people are taught in dealing with this. I dont see the point really of a block, unless they're repeating it elsewhere--if its a prank, the damage has already been done. And the police are better situated to explain emphatically enough the disruption such stuff causes. Obviously the material should be removed as soon as the nature of it has been determined, but blocks are to prevent harm.
On 10/2/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On 10/2/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/10/2007, Steven Walling steven.walling@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, maybe I just need more coffee, but can someone explain to me why in god's name an indef block is the desired response to a suicide note on-wiki?
Well, once it's been confirmed as a hoax, an indef block is obviously appropriate. Before that, I'm not so sure. I guess it helps keep things under control by keeping everything they do on their talk page. I think it is also our standard response when someone dies - we block their account, since no-one should be using it any more, so anyone using it must be up to something.
I think the logic is that it's disruptive and indicates someone we probably don't want to continue to have associated with the project, for both their and our good.
There may be exceptions and times when allowing them back makes sense eventually, but I can agree that block and freeze or delete pages is appropriate for first responders.
I would avoid being too hasty. If there is a strong suggestion that there is a crisis an immediate block could be a mistake, and could push a person over the edge. Keeping them busy may be a better option while exploring the situation to find out what is really going on. Punitive measures should only be considered after that has happened.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l