On 9/16/06, Phil Sandifer Snowspinner@gmail.com wrote:
On Sep 15, 2006, at 9:09 PM, geni wrote:
If I can't remember how many warnings a vandal gets, I'll just zap 'em for 24 hours two warnings early, and call it a day.
This violates AGF thus WP:DICK.
As an admin you are not empowered to do this. Those who enjoy state analogies would use the comparison you have the role of the police rather than the executive.
Those who prefer analogies from the world of comic books would argue that you're Judge Dread rather than Rorschach. You do not have the power to decide to make a practice of not warning vandals.
Unless I happened to guess wrong and two warnings is now the convention, I didn't say I was swearing off vandal warning. I said I'm not going to worry about going up from {{test}} to {{test500}} or whatever insane number has been cooked up - I'll warn once or twice, zap, and call it a day.
Two warnings is quite possible within process (you can block of test3 and skip test2). Blocking within one warning is possible but I understand that people were complaining that the CVU were using it to a degree that people were objecting to.
In short your suggestion would have involved blocking after no warning.
If it's not obvious why it's bad, I don't really see it as a waste of time.
I don't see it as my job to continually educate people as to why certain things are bad (we will ignore the issue that I tend to end up doing this anyway)
Is our copyright policy that bad? We should probably fix it up then.
Really? Were you planning to run as a successful third party or go straight to armed revolution? In any case it won't help there are another 200 odd legal systems out there to worry about.