Guild Wars Wiki talk:Blocking guideline

Hurray! Guideline! — ク Eloc 貢 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, this looks good. Have we had bad vandals being registered? It seems quite a while for a year ban. --People of Antioch talk 05:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I notice a serious lack of "reincidence consideration" in this guideline. Also, there may be some conflicts between "minor intentional spam" and GWW:AGF if the one in charge is overzealous.--Fighterdoken 06:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is this here? Why is anyone even proposing this? The only thing this does is add another piece of useless shit to the GWW namespace that takes this wiki one step closer to being more of a bureaucratic nightmare. More guidelines and more policies make it more difficult for new users to join the wiki. The need for this guideline is further negated by the fact that a sysop knows what he's doing before he/she's a sysop in the first place. They would have observed block logs, the admin noticeboard and other such things enough so that they're aware of the precedents that previous sysops have set in the first place. Think of the newbies. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 15:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much common sense tbh. If a sysop doesn't know how to write a proper ban message or the proper block length, why is he a sysop in the first place? -- Mini Me 19:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The one year for registered users seems ridiculous considering how much less an IP gets. why should people be punished for trying to be active on the wiki?--Yankeefan984 00:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should they be punished? Because they are accounts for automated vandalism. They should not exist, period. IPs are a more delicate situation because they change, so long-long-term blocks aren't such a good idea. Anyway, this is a somewhat dead proposal at the moment :/. -- Brains12 \ talk 00:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

i gots an idea

use yer brain — Skakid 15:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

no way, lets create guidelines for everything thats obvious! --Cancer Angel 00:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

But is it obvious? I thought it was pretty obvious that proper user accounts (as opposed to throwaway accounts like the ones used by spambots) should never be permabanned without a formal review by an arbitration committee. I thought the main benefit of an arbitration policy was that it could allow serious misconduct and long-term bans to be handled in a fairer, more formal, more open and less controversial manner. Near the end of my bureaucrat term, I was quite surprised to discover that both of my fellow bureaucrats disagreed. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What about unblocking and adjusting the length of existing blocks?

How should unblocking and lengthening or shortening existing blocks be handled? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Should we also list repeated violations of the copyrighted content policy? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I am actually quite surprised that you keep ignoring the objecting comments on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Blocking and just continue to edit (both) guideline(s)... poke | talk 15:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I abandoned Guild Wars Wiki:Blocking after you reminded me about this guideline draft. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)