SmashWiki talk:Block talk

Hmm. I'm unsure about this proposition.

1. Okay, threatening blocks and saying things such as "if you keep doing this you'll be blocked" isn't needed. But how much of it is already covered by SW:QDV?
2. Makes sense; should probably direct users to the admin noticeboard as well/instead.
3. Good idea to tell people to not write that stuff; I'm not sure it should be treated as a "request to be banned". Instead, I would just say that it's considered disruption, which is a bannable offense.

Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 15:00, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it,

1. It's actually not. Telling someone they'll be blocked for some general douchebaggery doesn't only apply to vandals. In fact, the principal concern here appears to not be with vandals.
2. The admin noticeboard is a ghost town, but maybe that would get it some use.
3. We don't have an operational definition of disruption, and I highly doubt that 'You can ban me for this but...' disrupts anything. Typically it's the thing after 'You can ban me for this but...' that's disruptive, but not always, but if you introduce a comment with such a qualification, it nearly always is something that ought not to be said, for one reason or another, and this policy gives a nice, clean, easy way to get rid of the troll who says it without dealing with the muddled definition of disruption.

Semicolon (talk) 16:17, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

Points one and two: Users threaten other users with/request blocks so very rarely that there's no point having a policy against doing so. Point three: The only people who say things like that in their posts have little to no wiki experience, so they wouldn't read the policy, and they never return to the wiki, so banning them is pointless. PenguinofDeath 17:29, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this policy is rather limited in scope of application, but I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. I'm not saying that this will solve all (or even most) of the problems on the wiki, but there is not anything wrong with having a policy that is rarely but correctly applied. Also, as for the third point, ignorance of policy is no excuse, and let's make sure that they don't come back in that case. Clarinet Hawk (talk · contributions) 17:32, March 2, 2010 (UTC)