Forum:Blocking Policy

Now that I can block people myself, I wanna share a wierd experience I had a few months back before I joined this wiki. It was a fine day and my printer was shitty that day, OK? Shitty printer. So, I went to my neighbourhood cyber cafe to print some files. OK, so while printing, I decided to surf the web and make some changes here. So, I was surfing and tried to correct a spelling mistake when ... BOOM. I couldn't edit, turns out the machine I sat on had been blocked by the-then-admins. Being a cyber cafe, many anonymous users may have used it and one of them may have been the vandal. So, the main thing I want to ask- Should one-time anonymous vandals be blocked. We can make a policy to block a user after 5 vandalisms after checking the contributions. "Fear me" (f")f <-- Mobokill 02:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should, as admins, firstly warn the user. Maybe we could establish a point based system. For the first point a warning, then a couple of days, then a couple more days, and so on until that ip is banned from editing for good. 5 points, you're out or something. Dan (talk) 03:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, what a coincidence. Isn't that funny how you just happened to go on a computer that was blocked? I mean, there aren't that many people that we blocked. Atrumentis 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Duration
Look at Diablo_Wiki:Blocking_Policy. I think those are pretty fair. Anyone disagree? - Dan, your friendly neighborhood sysop (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. I agree with that. But there are a few indefinite blocks set by the higher powers a few months back. I'm talking bout those. Shouldn't they be unblocked? We can block them again if need be but not indefinitely. On the topic, I don't think blocking anonymous users indefinitely is a good idea. We need to understand why people vandalize. Either they're doing it for a joke or to deliberately bring us down. Now, if they're just taking a joke too far, we don't need to block em indefinitely. Only 1 day or so would do. Now vandalizing deliberately is another thing, they may be trying to promote another wiki or site, or just plain mean. Now, I don't think they're that stupid to vandalize on their own pcs cause they already know they're gonna be blocked. Unless the offender is a mean 2-year old. Heh heh. So, they should also not be blocked indefinitely, only a week or two would suffice. Sorry for the long post. I had to get my message through. "Woohoo!!! New class(es) gonna be revealed at Blizzcon!!!" - Mobokill 05:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I said that exact same thing about a week ago. Yeah, if they make edits that are malicious in nature and not jokes, they should have longer blocks. We should speak to atrumentis and unblock those that he blocked and possibly with kirkburn, 'cause he gave out some long blocks too, if I remember correctly. - Dan, your friendly neighborhood sysop (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes, sorry I joined in so late. I basically can't really say much except agree with both ya'll :D. Sometime though, it might be good to just officially draw up what defines "malicious behavior" and along the same train of thought, what behaviors correspond to what treatment. But yeah... indefinite blocking is definitely overkill that may be more harm than good to the wiki CologneCerroneHoudini 06:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * By all means revert indef blocks of IPs. (Wikia doesn't recommend it either any more.) Kirkburn (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Before the return of the Lord of Terror...
Back in the day, before DIII was announced, I had a bit of a 'zero tolerance' policy, mainly because the wiki was so dead I really didn't want anyone kicking it while it was down. Also remember that at the time there were a lot of people who said that whoever thinks there will be a DIII after so long is an idiot. Obviously, those guys are the idiots. So yeah, now that DIII is announced, we can be a lot more lenient on our blocking policy. We can unblock the ones I blocked. Atrumentis 03:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)