Wikireligion talk:Blocking policy
From Wikireligion
(bad policy) |
P.B. Pilhet (Talk | contribs) (Proposal) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==New Policy changes== | ==New Policy changes== | ||
this new policy proposed by ForestH2 is absolutely unacceptable and untenable. Indefinitely blocking users without any warning for "rudeness"?? Rudeness is wholly subjective. And besides, shouldn't policies be ''proposed'' and not just ''dictated''? [[User:Seven of nine|Seven of nine]] 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EST) | this new policy proposed by ForestH2 is absolutely unacceptable and untenable. Indefinitely blocking users without any warning for "rudeness"?? Rudeness is wholly subjective. And besides, shouldn't policies be ''proposed'' and not just ''dictated''? [[User:Seven of nine|Seven of nine]] 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Proposal for Blocking Ammendment== | ||
| + | |||
| + | I suggest that we remove the "3 months then 6 months then year" part in the blocking times for accounts. I mean, if a user continues to vandalize after s/he's been blocked for a whole ''month'', then s/he should just be indefinitely blocked. I also suggest that we have a vandal-account only policy, which would state that if 90% or so of an account's contributions are clearly vandalism, then s/he may be indef blocked on the spot (Wikipedia has a similar policy). Any thoughts? -- [[User:P.B. Pilhet|P.B. Pilhet]] 14:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:55, 19 April 2007
Where is policy? Seven of nine has been warned but he continues to be rude. Can we justify how this happend and can we block him for twenty four hours? ForestH2 20:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)
New Policy changes
this new policy proposed by ForestH2 is absolutely unacceptable and untenable. Indefinitely blocking users without any warning for "rudeness"?? Rudeness is wholly subjective. And besides, shouldn't policies be proposed and not just dictated? Seven of nine 11:54, 15 March 2007 (EST)
Proposal for Blocking Ammendment
I suggest that we remove the "3 months then 6 months then year" part in the blocking times for accounts. I mean, if a user continues to vandalize after s/he's been blocked for a whole month, then s/he should just be indefinitely blocked. I also suggest that we have a vandal-account only policy, which would state that if 90% or so of an account's contributions are clearly vandalism, then s/he may be indef blocked on the spot (Wikipedia has a similar policy). Any thoughts? -- P.B. Pilhet 14:55, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
