Conservapedia talk:Blocking policy

This is a COPY of Terry's comment, in response to the post "Please don't block me!"

Don't beat yourself up, Ed. You're a good guy. There is a reason Andy (among others) advises to block early. Once you have been an Admin on a site or two, you spot them, and go with your gut, not your heart or mind. ;-) Easier to add someone back, than to block too late, imo. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 09:55, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

• One might add that there isn't some codified "right" to belong anywhere on the Internet. Users removed for real or preceived violations are not abused in any manner. Fairness is what matters. If you are wrong, or there is the strong possibility you are, your actions can always be reversed. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 20:22, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, repeated reverts, after a warning either on the Talk page of the article, or the users Talk page, should suffice for blocking grounds. --~ TerryK ^MyTalk 23:59, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

If you are wrong, or there is the strong possibility you are, your actions can always be reversed. If you can make your case heard, haing been blocked, and against entrenched and dogmatic oppositiuon. There are too many pharisees on this site. Unthank 18:49, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

• Well, that is a productive statement, eh? --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 18:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

"visitors who do not appear to support this project"

Could somebody maybe clarify this one? It currently sneak-attacks both the Commandments (by saying that even if you follow all the rules, you can get blocked anyway) and the "we don't block for ideology" comment (though I can't find that page on the fly... been a few days...). This is another carte blanche because it's so extremely fuzzy. Who gets to decide what behavior counts as "doesn't support the project", and is there any sort of actual guideline other than arbitrary decisions made by sysops who openly disagree about blocking decisions already (as can be seen on the Abuse Helpdesk page)? --DirkB 15:04, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

The answers to all these questions are in the commandments and the guidelines. Please consider yourself on probation until you have studied these thoroughly. --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:34, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I have, and thoroughly. I just assumed that you wouldn't change a guideline to effectively read "For those visitors who violate the rules or violate the rules..."

I simply oppose phrasings that are vague, and "does not support the project" is a vague phrase, especially when it's portrayed as not simply breaking the rules. Going by a harsher interpretation, any user disagreeing with a sysop on a talk page could be portrayed as not supporting the project. Do not mistake my desire for clarity with a lack of knowledge. --DirkB 20:41, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Link to the Rules

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. Learn together 18:29, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Drop down lists

Discussion moved from here

How would the drop 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. 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.--IDuan 22:46, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Found it! MediaWiki:Ipboptions.--IDuan 22:58, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

How is those pages don't have page protect? 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.)--IDuan 23:04, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

What about the link for the blocking Reason? Rob Smith 23:19, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown --IDuan 23:21, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Let me know if you can edit MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown; I propose we begin with this [1] list of offenses, even then, some need to be reviewed/merged/clarified. I'm going to begin inserting them at Conservapedia:Blocking policy. Rob Smith 19:19, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

I can not edit that page - it was actually protected by TK here. I'm in favor of starting with that list. Sounds good!--IDuan 15:26, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Should be working now. I got a limited protect on it. 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.--IDuan 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? 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. 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--IDuan 22:51, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes, but it's the same sysop who hands out the 5 year block & deletes the page. If this is to be retained, it should include language such as, "vandals who have been blocked indefinitely (or for 5 years) after a review process may be subject to having their user and user talk pages deleted", but nobodies given a reason for deleting the page, to my knowledge. Rob Smith 23:08, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

OH now I understand. I'm certainly fine with removing it; to be honest I'm not sure if it really does much harm (if a sysop disagrees with the block he can always restore the user and user talk pages), but besides for saving a modicum of space I don't think there was ever any reason for deleted the pages. I have no opinion as to whether its kept or not.--IDuan 23:14, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Rob, for those of us who are not admins, it's really hard for us to opine. I do know that Wikipedia does indefinite blocks for user accounts, but might block an IP for a short set time. The only comment I would have is that the blocking rules be predefined, but it seems like it is already here. If people get blocked for a liberal point of view (I don't check the block log so I wouldn't know), I would think here that's fair game. HP 23:23, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

People get blocked for registering accounts here and never making an edit. Rob Smith 23:27, 18 July 2011 (EDT)