Netoholic blocking (was Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Re: Re: Re: VfD isbroken)

[Sj]

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 at 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 at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> 
> 
> --
> Matthew Larsen
>   > mat.larsen at gmail.com
>   > 07739 785 249
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 

-- 
+sj+