About: MSPA Wiki talk:Block policy   Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

So we kind of need to come up with guidlines for the lenght of blocks? The article atm just uses placeholders. Discuss away. My suggestions were: * minor spam, additional rule breaking --> 1 week * vandalism --> 1 to 3 months * severe vandalism --> 1 to 3 months I agree. I think if an account was specifically made for vandalism (i.e. the very first entries in the contribution list are already vandalism) we can give a permanent block if the malicious intent is clear enough.bitterLime 17:42, February 28, 2013 (UTC)

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • MSPA Wiki talk:Block policy
rdfs:comment
  • So we kind of need to come up with guidlines for the lenght of blocks? The article atm just uses placeholders. Discuss away. My suggestions were: * minor spam, additional rule breaking --> 1 week * vandalism --> 1 to 3 months * severe vandalism --> 1 to 3 months I agree. I think if an account was specifically made for vandalism (i.e. the very first entries in the contribution list are already vandalism) we can give a permanent block if the malicious intent is clear enough.bitterLime 17:42, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
dbkwik:mspaintadve...iPageUsesTemplate
abstract
  • So we kind of need to come up with guidlines for the lenght of blocks? The article atm just uses placeholders. Discuss away. My suggestions were: * minor spam, additional rule breaking --> 1 week * vandalism --> 1 to 3 months * severe vandalism --> 1 to 3 months Now you might wonder why vandalism and severe vandalism get the same range. Well my idea was that the only difference between them should be that admins can act directly without handing out a warning in case of severe vandalism. You could argue that severe vandalism should be punished harder and I am open to to that, actually I just gave out a 1 year ban for uploading extremely pornographic photos (maybe that was a bit of an overkill). Now, I think most of the time an admin just knows how long they should block someone and I don't want you to think I am trying to set rules into stone here. I just think we need some guidlines, so we don't give out completly different block lenghts. - bitterLime 19:36, February 26, 2013 (UTC) On the current vandalism, whoever it was created the account directly before the vandalism. When an account is CREATED for the purpose of vandalism, I'm not sure if we should be giving second chances with temp blocks, especially if the person turns around and makes another account (sockpuppetry) to just continue what they were doing. I suggest in such cases that a permanent block is appropriate (at least after the sockpuppet is made). - The Light6 (talk) 23:09, February 26, 2013 (UTC) I agree. I think if an account was specifically made for vandalism (i.e. the very first entries in the contribution list are already vandalism) we can give a permanent block if the malicious intent is clear enough.bitterLime 17:42, February 28, 2013 (UTC)
Alternative Linked Data Views: ODE     Raw Data in: CXML | CSV | RDF ( N-Triples N3/Turtle JSON XML ) | OData ( Atom JSON ) | Microdata ( JSON HTML) | JSON-LD    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software