Lightbreather (talk | contribs) m →High content contributors 1: outdent |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) →RfC Re WP:BP: Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to "When blocking may not be used": Went ahead and linked it for those who want to play dumb, and so that WP:Newbies get the drift. |
||
Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
*'''Oppose''' per [[hard cases make bad law]]. Yes, there are instances where we find that people have been deemed "unsanctionable" for whatever reason. The existence of those situations does not merit a change in policy. Real life is messy, and real situations don't always obey the little algorithms we set up to deal with them. The existence of situations that go sour doesn't mean the rules are bad rules. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Oppose''' per [[hard cases make bad law]]. Yes, there are instances where we find that people have been deemed "unsanctionable" for whatever reason. The existence of those situations does not merit a change in policy. Real life is messy, and real situations don't always obey the little algorithms we set up to deal with them. The existence of situations that go sour doesn't mean the rules are bad rules. --[[User:Jayron32|<font style="color:#000099">Jayron</font>]]'''''[[User talk:Jayron32|<font style="color:#009900">32</font>]]''''' 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Note''': This [[WP:RfC]] is the result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=628115933&oldid=628115254#Admission_that_content_contribution_excuses_incivility this discussion], and having seen such exemption myself (all of us very experienced editors know which editor is the most exempt), I can't state that I blame Lightbreather for starting this WP:RfC. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Note''': This [[WP:RfC]] is the result of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=628115933&oldid=628115254#Admission_that_content_contribution_excuses_incivility this discussion], and having seen such exemption myself (all of us very experienced editors know [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett|which editor is the most exempt]]), I can't state that I blame Lightbreather for starting this WP:RfC. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Lol''' I mean, it ''is'' de facto policy. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
*'''Lol''' I mean, it ''is'' de facto policy. [[User:Protonk|Protonk]] ([[User talk:Protonk|talk]]) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 19:12, 3 October 2014
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Temporaily need to block users when two editors make a editor war when they are spectators
Spectators of the editor war need to be blocked infinite (not derivatevly indefinite). Most spectators need to get Wikiholiday to prevent the block. User wars are derivately(you can't need to spectate). So in someblocking tortoises are very spectative(you need to place your bet before starting). √el? 3еЯ 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujhj (talk • contribs)
Block evasion
Isn't it possible for people to evade blocks simply by going to coffee shops or internet cafes? Some coffee shops allow use of the computer or Wifi hotspot for free and this is a possible method to evade blocks. I think we should also include this in the section "evasion of blocks". There should be a policy regarding this type of block evasion. Warrenkychu (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is nothing special about the use of the Internet at coffee shops or Internet cafes except that they have their own IP address pools. A registered user who is blocked cannot log on to Wikipedia from any IP address, either his or her own ISP or a coffee shop. The use of IP addresses by blocked users, regardless of whether they are using their own ISP or at an Internet cafe, is considered a form of sockpuppetry for block evasion. IP hopping by unregistered editors is a problem for which there is no obvious solution, due to the nature of IP editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Blocking policy
Hmm... what is a blocking policy mean? This goes to administrators' or bureaucrats' abilities. --Allen talk 05:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- @AllenHAcNguyen: Blocks are issued and otherwise handled by administrators. —LucasThoms 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Block Review Followed by Unilateral Block
Sometimes an editor is blocked, and the blocking admin reasonably requests feedback at WP:ANI, and then, while there is still discussion, and no consensus has been reached, and there has not been even time to declare a formal "no consensus", another admin, not the blocking admin, unilaterally unblocks the blocked editor. This has happened twice recently, once within the past few days, and other times also. This sort of WP:IAR unblock is not encouraged by the blocking policy, but it isn't actually discouraged either. Should these unilateral out-of-process unblocks be discouraged? Should the policy be revised to discourage unilateral unblocks, or at least to state that they should only be used when there is an evolving WP:SNOW consensus that the block was incorrect? In both of the recent cases, this sort of unilateral unblock results in some editors stating cynically that the unblocked editors was one of the Unblockables or belongs to the right cabal. Isn't the purpose of the blocking admin requesting a review of the block to get the community to review the block, not just to provide other admins with a chance to unblock. Since blocks are said to be preventative rather than punitive, the discussion of any reblock takes place on a shifted playing field. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
RfC Re WP:BP: Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to "When blocking may not be used"
Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to When blocking may not be used? Lightbreather (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Unless notifying all high content contributors that they can do anything they want without accountability or consequences is deemed good for the project. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose As above. No-one should be exempt from sanctions just because they contribute highly, those who have contributed greatly should know the rules better than those who are relativley new to editing. Amortias (T)(C) 18:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose and further oppose this pointy use of RFC. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Support If it is a de facto policy, let's make it for real so it doesn't keep surprising newbies (and the otherwise uninitiated) and disrupting the community every "x" months. Lightbreather (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per hard cases make bad law. Yes, there are instances where we find that people have been deemed "unsanctionable" for whatever reason. The existence of those situations does not merit a change in policy. Real life is messy, and real situations don't always obey the little algorithms we set up to deal with them. The existence of situations that go sour doesn't mean the rules are bad rules. --Jayron32 18:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This WP:RfC is the result of this discussion, and having seen such exemption myself (all of us very experienced editors know which editor is the most exempt), I can't state that I blame Lightbreather for starting this WP:RfC. Flyer22 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- Lol I mean, it is de facto policy. Protonk (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Suggestions and discussion
High content contributors 1
Editors with a high content count should not be blocked automatically in regards to civility complaints without community discussion, except for obviously egregious violations. The following are examples of obviously egregious comments:
- You, [username], are a cocksucker. (simple, unmistakable second-person subject/object construct; uses "you" and a vulgarism)
- You, [username1], [username2], and [username3], are cocksucking cunts.
High content editors should not be blocked for statements like:
- [username] is a cocksucker. (indirect insult)
- You are a cocksucker. (no explicit target for insult)
- You are cunts.
- You, [username] are stupid. (it may be uncivil, but it's not egregious)
- Your edit was motherfucking stupid. (directed at the edit and not the editor)
- If you don't want to be called a [cocksucker, cunt, etc.] don't act like one.
--Lightbreather (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
- 1 and #2 seem not to be materially different than the egregious ones (as long as "you" is easy to identify based on threading). The example that you may be looking for is the one that was specifically used that you took offense to previously "If you don't want to be called" etc. which leaves open the possibility that the target isn't actually being an X at the current time. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)