Wiktionary talk:Blocking policy/new

I think that it would be fair if the new blocking policy could only be voted by admins actually patrolling occasionally. Say, those that have issued > 50 blocks and/or manually patrolled > 500 pages in the last 1 year. --Ivan Štambuk 04:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

That would seem to be unfair. I invite the few who fall into that category to correct this page where they disagree with its contents - note that, once the vote has passed, the restriction on editing policy only applies to the two sentences in the box at the top (see the BP discussion). The "policy" itself is worded to make it clear that (at the end of the day) the assessment of the blocking administrator is all that is important, the rest of the page contains explanation that should help people make consistent assessments, but, as you have demonstrated below, this is impossible to actually prescribe. I have attempted to address your voluminous comments by editing the page directly, if I have failed in some manner please improve the page yourself; from experience protracted discussions on discussion pages are horrendously inefficient mechanisms for effecting changes. Conrad.Irwin 13:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Given all the changes made, I'm not sure what is the purpose of proposed vote in the first place. What is being changed with respect to the previous guideline? --Ivan Štambuk 17:03, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Primarily that we are then allowed to change parts of the page without requiring further votes, as an excuse to test this style of policy page, and to remove a few of the really old things (usernames with limited punctuation are allowed, we don't really contact ISPs anymore). Conrad.Irwin 17:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

. It is not acceptable to block a whitelisted user or an administrator unless they already know they will be blocked for their actions;

This convoluted sentence makes absolutely no sense at all. --Ivan Štambuk 04:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Why not? It makes perfect sense to me. --Yair rand 04:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

It basically says: "you cannot block X unless X already know they would be blocked by you". It's completely meaningless because it doesn't regulate at all conditions for blocking whitelisted users or admins, other they saying "it's OK to block them if you warned them before".

Also I find the part:

...or are deliberately disobeying policies.

problematic because experience has showed that interpretation of Wiktionary policies sometimes lies firmly within some people's subjective interpretation of it (e.g. the definition of "language" in the Serbo-Croatian context, where we're dealing with one pluricentric language in 4 national variants that some naively perceive as 4 different languages whose separate treatment is guaranteed by the WT:CFI). --Ivan Štambuk 04:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

However, there are people who make innocent mistakes; they should not be blocked instantly:

From my experience, 99% of all revertable edits come from damage-only IPs, i.e. those not contributing any real content, and not having any intent to do so in the foreseeable future. It's pretty easy to spot what is merely a formatting mistake or a protologism content committed in good faith, and what is an obvious vandalism, however "innocent" it may appear.

Also; I assume that this guideline wouldn't collide with the prior one stating that it's OK to block any IP "adding useless content or pages", right? Where exactly is the demarcation line between the "innocent mistake" in a "one or two unhelpful edits", and plainly adding worthless junk? The subjective estimate and patience of a blocking admin? --Ivan Štambuk 04:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Is there any particular reason why the block duration tables are being omitted, and replaced instead with this:

For most IP addresses, a first block of one day is used, as the addresses frequently change hands. If there is repeated trouble from a particular IP, then the length of the block can be increased.

? I find them very convenient, reflecting more or less commonly established blocking practice. They're easy to skim through, and leave much less space for user-determined speculation on block duration.

Also the guidelines on blocking IP ranges, sockpuppets, e-mail usernames... they do not apply suddenly, or are just not being covered? --Ivan Štambuk 04:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Chill Ivan. This is an ongoing process, and if something isn't already added, you can add it yourself if you think it will be beneficial towards helping to further the process along towards its' intended goal. I also don't think that you should pick apart everything that is related on the page with such a critical tone. Instead, maybe a kind and helpful suggestion would be better. Razorflame 23:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Can we have a special clause specifically allowing me to make insensitive racist, sexist and homophobic jokes without any punishment, please? --Vahagn Petrosyan 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You may make such comments, without fear of repudiation, every time a lunar and solar eclipse coincide on a Friday the 13th. Conrad.Irwin 16:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

*Sigh* You are not a very nice person, Conrad Muriel Irwin, not nice at all... Like all Englishmen. --Vahagn Petrosyan 17:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Or, more generally, every time a full moon and a new moon coincide on the same day, whether or not the full moon is a lunar eclipse, whether or not the new moon is a solar eclipse, and whether or not the day is Friday the 13th. See how generous I am? (And to think, some say Jews are stingy!) —Ruakh_TALK 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I would be fine with such comments so long as they aren't directed towards another user on this site, or if it is done in a jokingly fashion against a user who either knows your sense of humor fairly well, or knows you very well. I probably wouldn't use it with too many new users ;) Razorflame 17:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Reply