Forum:CT Archive/Establishing a unified blocking policy

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Basically, this topic concerns the creation of a new, unified blocking policy. Under the current system, admins pretty much have free reign (to quote, a "free-for-all") and this is reflected in block lengths. Depending on which admin is online and what mood they are in, vandals can get drastically different lengths of time, even for doing the same thing. Note that what we are proposing is not a set of rules, but rather a set of guidelines for admins to follow. Vandalism is often difficult to pigeon-hole, and much should be left to admin discretion. However, consistent disregard for these guidelines by an admin would be a cause of concern, and perhaps be grounds for action.

This issue was brought up in, but we decided to move it over here. Also, at this point, I think it would be best if we brain-stormed for a while before moving to a formal vote, to ensure that all aspects of the situation can be discussed. RMF 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Okay, to lead this off, I have a few points. First and foremost, we need to lighten up on IP vandals considerably. Although the person's vandalism might deserve a lengthy (or infinite) ban, what we are forgetting is that IPs are most often dynamic – they change each time the cable modem/router/normal modem establishes a connection. So, when we throw down an infinite block, most likely we are only blocking that particular vandal for a few days, until his IP changes (or, if the vandal is tech-savvy at all, until he gets himself a new IP by other means). I propose a system similar to Wikipedia and Uncyc, where blocks build on each other: for the first offense, they get a 24-hr ban. For the second, it gets upped to a week. If the vandal won't let up, it can be extended to a month, but at this point the vandal will probably either have lost interest or changed IPs long before. Under no circumstances should an IP ban last longer than 3 months. It is very easy to check a user's contribs (not to mention the block log), so using a "building policy" of this sort would be very easy. Username blocks should be stricter, as we know that the only person affected by the block is the vandal in question (in most cases at least, autoblocks could be the exception here). Also, for anything but the most serious and blatant vandalism, I think we should warn before blocking (although in the past few weeks we have gotten much better about this). Finally (for now), I propose that we go through Special:Ipblocklist and unblock some of the "infinite" IP blocks from way back. Like I said before, if they continue to vandalize (which is extremely unlikely by now) checking their contribs/block log makes it an easy matter to re-ban them. Thoughts? RMF 14:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)