Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,721
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 23:
Line 23: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy (view source)
Revision as of 03:04, July 19, 2011
, 03:04, July 19, 2011Discussion on 5 year blocks
I believe we should have a link to the rules themsevles so everyone is on the same page as to what they are. Referencing the rules without the ability to easily see what we are talking about could lead to confusion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
I believe we should have a link to the rules themsevles so everyone is on the same page as to what they are. Referencing the rules without the ability to easily see what we are talking about could lead to confusion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)
==Drop down lists==
:''Discussion moved from [[User talk:Iduan/guidelinedraft|here]]
How would the drop [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Block/RobSmith down lists] be edited? It should also contain 1 year and 2 year blocks, I think. It's a b ig spread from 6 mos to 5 years. Other changes on the lists also need to be considered. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:59, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've never dealt with the drop down lists to be honest - but I'm certain they can be edited. I'll attempt to research this and get back to you very shortly.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:46, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
Found it! [[MediaWiki:Ipboptions]].--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:58, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:How is those pages don't have page protect? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:02, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::They're protected for me sir! Mediawiki pages might be protected by default? (That's just a guess, though.)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:04, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::What about the link for the blocking Reason? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
::::[[MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown]] --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::Let me know if you can edit [[MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown]]; I propose we begin with this [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown&direction=prev&oldid=512439] list of offenses, even then, some need to be reviewed/merged/clarified. I'm going to begin inserting them at [[Conservapedia:Blocking policy]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::I can not edit that page - it was actually protected by TK [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=&page=MediaWiki+talk%3AIpbreason-dropdown&year=&month=-1 here]. I'm in favor of starting with that list. Sounds good!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:26, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Should be working now. I got a limited protect on it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:41, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Are we gonna move this into the mainspace? I think it's more concise and up-to-date than the current version.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:40, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
===5 year blocks ===
:::::::::Item #3, ''Obvious vandals who have been blocked indefinitely (or for 5 years) should have their user and user talk pages deleted '', is one where we've had some serious problems with. Users with consrtuctive careers, but who have taken hiatus or retired for POV reasons, have had their pages deleted by sysops as a form of payback for past disagreements. None of this has created a healthy environment. A sysop should not be looking for a reason to block someone for 5 years so they can retaliate by deleting their page. All this, I'm sorry to say, has happened in the past. And if a user is blocked for 5 years, what's to stop them from coming back as a good faith editor in 5 years after a period of rehab, to find their page deleted. What then? They may as well create a new user account under a different name rather than go through the ordeal of asking a sysop to undelete, which only raises suspicion, and has them targeted all over again as a problem editor. So why wait 5 years? They may as well sockpuppet now then deal with the hassle. Only now they have a chip on their shoulder for having their user account deleted and recognition besmirched for their positive contributions. Is there a housekeeping reason a temporary blocked editor should have their account deleted? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:40, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
<-Another way of looking at it. User:A, with extensive mainspace contributions, is blocked or 5 years as a retalitory tactic for un ugly disagreement with a sysop. Their account is deleted. User:A does not edit for 5 years, comes back in 5 years as a good faith editor, but is afraid to ask to have his account undeleted so he can get full recogition for his positive contributions. User:A creates a new account under a different username. Techncally, this could be seen as a violation of CP rules against multiple accounts, despite his block having expired and the editor's return as a user in good standing. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:56, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
::I must admit I'm slightly confused just about your interpretation. What I've written (as you accurately quote it) is "obvious vandals who have been blocked indefinitely (or for 5 years)..." ... therefor non "obvious vandal" users who have been blocked for 5 years would not be subject to page deletion. I agree that it's a de facto problem - you're absolutely right - I'm just pointing out that it's not what I've written. I think the important thing is making clear that situations like the one you describe should not happen. No one should be blocked as a retaliatory tactic. Perhaps this should be explicitly stated. I shall work on that--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:51, 18 July 2011 (EDT)