The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which says in part:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked."
And, BTW, the warning has now become a discussion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re:_refactoring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#refactoring for the previous discussion that led up to this.
Thanks, Brian (BCorr)
Phil Sandifer wrote
What portion of the blocking policy are you invoking in this warning?
-Snowspinner
Netholic is not an IP address, however - he's a logged in user, and he certainly doesn't qualify as a "new" account, which is a criterion for blocking logged in users under this policy.
Not saying I don't think he's a problem - just pointing out once again that we do need more options in the blocking policy, because as it stands the rules don't leave any room for dealing with this.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 7, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Brian Corr wrote:
The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which says in part:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked."
And, BTW, the warning has now become a discussion. See: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re: _refactoring> and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#refactoring for the previous discussion that led up to this.
Thanks, Brian (BCorr)
Phil Sandifer wrote
What portion of the blocking policy are you invoking in this warning?
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
it seems to me all these policies are making things a bit hard to do, It might be a good idea to have another policy (yes i know!) that says you can ban any user for a certain amount of days (say 10) whilst other policies are being reviewed etc.
This way u can stop the problems and then decide on the appropriate course of action instead of choosing one course and then getting contradicted by others etc.
This probably already is in place, but thought it might be helpful :)
Regards,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:22:20 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Netholic is not an IP address, however - he's a logged in user, and he certainly doesn't qualify as a "new" account, which is a criterion for blocking logged in users under this policy.
Not saying I don't think he's a problem - just pointing out once again that we do need more options in the blocking policy, because as it stands the rules don't leave any room for dealing with this.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 7, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Brian Corr wrote:
The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which says in part:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked."
And, BTW, the warning has now become a discussion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re: _refactoring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#refactoring for the previous discussion that led up to this.
Thanks, Brian (BCorr)
Phil Sandifer wrote
What portion of the blocking policy are you invoking in this warning?
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I'm through. I won't be blocking a single vandal again. Danny and Guanaco have allowed this nonsense to run rampant, and I get no support in the issue. They want to mentor any and all vandals, let them.
RickK
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
For instance, once a month an admin can ban a difficult user, after (someone has issued) more than one warning, for up to 3 days, while working out what to do about said user? That would be an improvement over current policy, which is in many cases 'allow logged-in users to be disruptive until consensus is reached about how to respond'.
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:29:09 +0100, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
it seems to me all these policies are making things a bit hard to do, It might be a good idea to have another policy (yes i know!) that says you can ban any user for a certain amount of days (say 10) whilst other policies are being reviewed etc.
This way u can stop the problems and then decide on the appropriate course of action instead of choosing one course and then getting contradicted by others etc.
This probably already is in place, but thought it might be helpful :)
Regards,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:22:20 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Netholic is not an IP address, however - he's a logged in user, and he certainly doesn't qualify as a "new" account, which is a criterion for blocking logged in users under this policy.
Not saying I don't think he's a problem - just pointing out once again that we do need more options in the blocking policy, because as it stands the rules don't leave any room for dealing with this.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 7, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Brian Corr wrote:
The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which says in part:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked."
And, BTW, the warning has now become a discussion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re: _refactoring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#refactoring for the previous discussion that led up to this.
Thanks, Brian (BCorr)
Phil Sandifer wrote
What portion of the blocking policy are you invoking in this warning?
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Matthew Larsen
mat.larsen@gmail.com 07739 785 249
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
That would be a great idea. Gives everyone a chance to agree (on something). The user can still get browse rights in case they turn out to be innocent. What do the admins think of this?
On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 12:14:26 -0400, Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com wrote:
For instance, once a month an admin can ban a difficult user, after (someone has issued) more than one warning, for up to 3 days, while working out what to do about said user? That would be an improvement over current policy, which is in many cases 'allow logged-in users to be disruptive until consensus is reached about how to respond'.
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 22:29:09 +0100, Matthew Larsen mat.larsen@gmail.com wrote:
it seems to me all these policies are making things a bit hard to do, It might be a good idea to have another policy (yes i know!) that says you can ban any user for a certain amount of days (say 10) whilst other policies are being reviewed etc.
This way u can stop the problems and then decide on the appropriate course of action instead of choosing one course and then getting contradicted by others etc.
This probably already is in place, but thought it might be helpful :)
Regards,
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:22:20 -0500, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Netholic is not an IP address, however - he's a logged in user, and he certainly doesn't qualify as a "new" account, which is a criterion for blocking logged in users under this policy.
Not saying I don't think he's a problem - just pointing out once again that we do need more options in the blocking policy, because as it stands the rules don't leave any room for dealing with this.
-Snowspinner
On Sep 7, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Brian Corr wrote:
The relevant policy is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption, which says in part:
"Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia. Such disruption is to be objectively defined by specific policies, and may include changing other user's signed comments or making deliberately misleading edits. Users should be warned that they are violating policy before they are blocked."
And, BTW, the warning has now become a discussion. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#Warning_re: _refactoring and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netoholic#refactoring for the previous discussion that led up to this.
Thanks, Brian (BCorr)
Phil Sandifer wrote
What portion of the blocking policy are you invoking in this warning?
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Matthew Larsen
mat.larsen@gmail.com 07739 785 249
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- +sj+
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l