User:Diebot/User talk:Iduan/Blocking Review Panel Ideas

Avoided at all cost? I Suggest rewording it
Iduan, I think more care in the past should have been taken concerning blocks. For example, I think of the 6-8 editors I invited to CP, 2 were blocked unfairly. One was the first name and last initial reason, if memory serves, even though they did not have a silly username. I got both blocks overturned.

At the same time, the "avoid at all cost" blocking someone unfairly doesn't sound practical because at the present time due to the significant amount of vandalism/parody, I think it should ultimately be a cost/benefit decision. I think you should reword it to something like "great care should be used to not block someone unfairly". Perhaps, if the day arrives where the volume of vandalism/parody goes down, the "at all cost" standard could be used, but I think it is impractical now.

For example, as of 8/13/11, I think it is obvious that these articles are purposefully written poorly and in an unencyclopedic manner plus there are no citations for some of the material (see original articles):


 * Abortion and bleeding


 * Abortion and Christianity


 * Abortion and contraception

The blocking policy panel is going to have to decide whether the policy should be to ask the person to fix the material or just block them on the spot and move on. And of course, if they don't fix the material, how soon before they are blocked?

Conservative 19:05, 13 August 2011 (EDT)