User talk:Mr. Anon/Blocking policy guidelines

I may someday propose this as a guideline, but so far, it would be nice to see feedback on this. If you don't like the stuff there, make suggestions on improvement. If you don't like the idea in the first place, think of this as just a guideline to give people (admins and users) a good idea of how block length is given. Mr.  Anon  talk  21:40, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

OK, now that it is finished, I propose this officially. Still, if you have specific problems with this, bring them up and I may edit the policy to adapt to them. Mr.  Anon  talk  23:31, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

Too many people oppose this. Mr.  Anon  talk  12:42, 2 October 2011 (EDT)

hey
Very well written, and I pretty much Support this. Blin dcol ours TONDA GOSSA. 21:44, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Thank you, though it isn't quite finished yet. Mr.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   21:48, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

This is unnecessary
"This policy is a bad idea because we shouldn't need hard-coded pages telling admins how to do their job. If someone is trusted enough to be promoted to sysop, they shouldn't need a policy to tell them what to do in a specific situation (even if a policy could encompass every possible situation, which they can't), they should be able to reason it out for themselves or discuss with other admins. "

Quote from Emmett on why blocking polices aren't needed, which matches my sentiment on this. Omega  Tyrant   23:23, 1 October 2011 (EDT)


 * Again, this isn't a policy, but rather a guideline. Its purpose isn't just to tell admins what to do, but to give users a general idea of what block lengths they should expect for certain violations. You can see that much of the proposal uses words like "usually", or "this should receive a block of X length". However, if you still do not like the idea, so be it. Mr.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   23:29, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Policy or guideline, what Emmett said still applies. And the block length varies on the specific offense and circumstances, you can't write a guideline telling users the ban length they should be expecting, especially as you can't encompass every possible situation. Also, I question the practical use of a guideline telling users what ban lengths they should be expecting. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 23:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
 * "This policy is a bad idea because we shouldn't need hard-coded pages telling admins how to do their job." That is not what this is. It isn't a policy, it isn't hard-coded at all, and really I don't see it conflicting with how the present admins handle their jobs. In addition I really don't see any major holes in what this policy covers. Mr.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   23:50, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Whether it's technically "hard coded" or not, such policies/guidelines telling admins how to do their job still aren't necessary. And there certainly hasn't been any problems on this Wiki ever with admins handing out frequent unfair blocks because of the lack of "blocking guidelines". Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 23:54, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Still though, a main purpose of this guideline would be to give users a good idea of what block reasons are, and what the general block lengths accompanying them. As for "telling admins what to do", what this does for admins is it standardizes blocking for all of them, as, for example, you might block a user for disruption longer than, say Miles or Toomai. Mr.  Anon MatchupUnknown.png talk   00:00, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Telling users what block reasons are is unnecessary, as plainly, violating the policies will get you blocked. We don't need a separate guideline/policy telling you that you will be blocked for violating another policy, when that is quite frankly common sense.


 * "Standardisation" is also completely unnecessary; we don't hand out vastly different block lengths, and it's up to the blocking admin's judgment on what an appropriate ban length is. If another admin/user disagrees with the ban length they handed out, it can be discussed with the block length adjusted if necessary. We don't need a blocking guideline for that.


 * Plus, you never refuted Emmett's statement on why we don't need policies/guidelines telling admins how to do their jobs. Omega   Tyrant  [[Image: TyranitarMS.png ]] 00:15, 2 October 2011 (EDT)
 * Why is this a good idea, Anon? We haven't had a single issue concerning blocking or banning in a very long time that hasn't been resolved by simply having a discussion with the admin who made the block. Toomai and OT know how to handle block tools without any "guidelines" telling them what to do, and any future admins that come along should know how to as well, or they shouldn't be promoted to admin. This policy is very unnecessary, and since it can't code every situation, may end up actually doing harm. What we have works; let it be.  Dokteur Pain99   12:34, 2 October 2011 (EDT)