Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Line 243:
 
== Proposal to community ban the "Best known for IP" ==
{{archive top|In as much as it makes any difference, the anonymous user can be considered banned. <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> <small>([[User:JzG/help|Help!]])</small> 21:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)}}
 
I think I personally have blocked the user described in [[Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP]] about 15 times now, including several lengthy rangeblocks for chronic block evasion, edit warring and incivility, and I'm not the only admin to do this, and I'm now a bit fed up of blocking the same person for the same policy violations over and over again. Unlike most long-term abusers, he's [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=next&oldid=700057640 never actually been community banned], merely repeatedly blocked ''ad infinitum'' after evasion. While this might seem like an exercise in pointless red tape, it does give us a firm consensus to say "you are banned, goodbye" without any possibility of wasting anyone's time arguing about it. [[WP:CBAN|Our banning policy]] does permit it, though it's rare. Your thoughts, please.
 
Line 284:
::::*We want to minimize editors being nasty to each other, but the way to do that is not to endorse the blanket reversal of good edits on spurious grounds. This is a circular mess. The editor is not banned, and who wouldn't react badly to knee-jerk reverts of positive edits? Those who "don't know who they are" are mostly reverting just because the edit was by an unregistered user - there is rarely any other reason ''per se'' to revert their edits. And that's harmful to the encyclopedia. So is treating an overwhelmingly positive contributor like a vandal by banning them. The better solution is to give only commensurately short blocks for actual instances of bad behavior, so that they don't get constantly caught for "block evading" when they fix grammar errors, eliminate peacock words, and improve science articles. [[User:Yngvadottir|Yngvadottir]] ([[User talk:Yngvadottir|talk]]) 21:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
::::* Given that they "evade blocks immediately and often" -- converting a de facto ban into a we-all-voted-on-it ban doesn't actually make any difference to anything. <small>[[User talk:NE Ent|NE Ent]]</small> 21:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
 
== Legacypac’s persistent bullying ==