Thread:Sylvandyr/@comment-5089372-20121109034204/@comment-4830404-20121109040713

The 888th Avatar wrote: Great, thanks everyone for clearing up the "bad edit" thing. Sylvandyr, it does make sense now and I think that'll help reduce confusion. I would also suggest that when undoing these edits, users should be strongly encouraged to add an edit summary. Is that a standard practice here?

The improvements to the section on user pages are also good, but when I go over style later on I may have some further suggestions.

Blocking policy – I want to know why it's structured the way it is. It seems pretty fixed to me, if you know what I mean. I'm of the mindset that there should be more flexible without specified time periods. See here for my home wiki's blocking policy.

Feel free to move the discussion too – just tell me where it is and we'll keep going. :)

Yes, it is standard practice to add edit summaries. I believe this is a useful thing. Also, if the edit was a mistake rather than vandalism, we tend to inform the user involved on their Message Walls or in the page's comments. I have had some users panic and feel very bad for breaking formatting on a page for example, and I like to alleviate their fears and reassure them that accidents are really no big deal.

I look forward to your further suggestions :)

Hmm, I think I understand what you mean now about the blocking policy. However, I do not feel like the blocking policy is as structured as you say. The progression is numbered for easier reading, but the wording behind each step allows for quite a bit of leeway. It doesn't outline a specific formula that states "User X has reached phase Y, initiate block step Z."

The second point, for example, says "one or more additional warnings", which gives each case a chance for individual discretion. The exact number of warnings before escalating to a block can be taken on a case-by-case basis.

To me, all of the points are pretty vague with a large variation in time windows. The way I read it, the intent is the same as the example you gave me: Longer blocks for more serious violations, permanent blocks should be issued sparingly.

Looking at your list, though, I do think that we should be more specific about what constitutes a minor or serious violation. We should also add that anonymous users should never be blocked permanently. Doing so can punish an innocent user that happens upon the blocked IP some time in the future. There's no telling where a blocked anonymous user logged in from; if it's a public network like a libary, innocent users may be unnecessarily shut out.