RationalWiki talk:Blocking policy

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

Prevent account creation

Should this box not always be checked? If so, then why can't we alter the policy to state that it always, not just "almost always" should be checked? Kiko4564 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Permanently disabling account creation

What are the guidelines on this? I'd say we shouldn't do it. Let's face it, infinite blocks of vandals are strictly emotional. If we infinitely block their IP as a result, wouldn't we theoretically be inconveniencing future editors?-Hastur! (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Site policy is to permablock people with disruptive and offensive usernames. Fuck off with your shit-stirring. — Oxyaena ^Harass 18:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

The duration is not the question. I just want to know if we ought to be checking the disable account creation box, and the automatically block IP address box.-Hastur! (talk) 18:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

If it means that much to you, bring it to the CS talkpage and talk it out. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

To purely answer your question and keep us away from HCM 1, I'm no tech, but I think that "account creation" means that unnamed BoNs get autoblocked for 3 pi hours, which is why you see so many "Autoblock #X" IPs. --Goatspeed. _{Watch me}CircularRasoning^{See what I'm planning} 19:00, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

And the box that says "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from?"--Hastur! (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to use that option. Most vandals give up after less than 3 tries, and the more persistent ones can be dealt with on an as needed basis. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

With those 'non-WP/RW bits of the wikiverse where I also operate' normally 'a block of several days' is the norm - long enough for the vandal to get bored (but 'those bits' are somewhat quieter in nature than RW).

There may be some access to RW from 'libraries and other public access IPs' so usage may be more complex

There is a case for - with 'look at me vandalism' (and a few other cases - 'descent into slapping each other with wet fish and similar disputes') have a couple of short-term blocks to start with, and then progress to longer ones (and possibly review in the middling-longer term). Anna Livia (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Unjustly blocked procedure

Hi, can you please explain how come it says "If you feel that you have been unjustly blocked or vandalbinned you can either protest it at the Chicken coop or on the talkpage of the person who banned you.", yet someone I know found themselves getting bollocked, or even blocked for that. Would a better procedure be to refer people to the coop instead? Harry Potter (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

It should say “you can protest it on your talkpage”, anything else requires block evasion by definition. Christopher (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and just correct it. Thanks. Harry Potter (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Suicide threats

This discussion was moved to RW talk:All things in moderation.

21:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talkpage access

Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked: Usually, blocked users will be able to edit their own user talkpage. This checkbox should almost never be checked, because blocked users should always be allowed to protest their block. The only exception to this rule is if the blocked user, for some odd reason, decides to spam their user talkpage (in which case this box may be checked and the block extended).

I personally think this is the way it should work, but revoking talkpage access has been de facto policy for years now. Should the page be updated to reflect that? Christopher (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the current policy is correct and sysops should change their behavior, not otherwise, but I'm just another user in a mobocracy. GeeJayK^{Where all evil dwells} _{Where every lie is true} 20:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I think we should make it clear that it's okay to block TPA for spammers, but otherwise I'm unsure. Plutocow (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

There are also the long-term trolls and blatant bad-faith actors to think about (which probably explains the current de facto policy, come to think of it), but… yeah, we should probably only block TPA for people who are clearly more interested in flinging taunts, insults, and/or threats than discussing the ramifications of their actions (in which case it's just "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"). --Luigifan18 (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)