Wikipedia talk:Block protocol
Appearance
![]() |
|
For your consideration. Gerardw (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused, what if anything substantive this adds to WP:BLOCK that isn't covered. The purpose appears to be a proposal to make block logs subject to oversight. (is it even technically possible to hide block log entries without a software alteration?) Although I understand that misinterpretation of the block log can have long range negative consequences, as long as unblocks are carefully worded and dummy blocks are used as necessary to update the log, this seems like a solution in search of a problem.
If this is addressing a wider concern of which I am unaware, forgive me, otherwise this looks creepy to me.Crazynas t 21:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
This is in response to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Unblocks_and_enabling and Wikipedia:Ani#User:WebHamster_block_and_unblock.3B_possible_wheel_war_-_leaving_it_to_the_community_to_judge_me_and_others. The issue of past blocks is a recurrent, and usually irrelevant, theme at WP:WQA. Gerardw (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the relevant reading, I'm still confused why this needs a separate page (as opposed to an amendment to official policy) however. Crazynas t 22:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
- Me too. You might want to look at some of the contemporary discussion at Wikipedia Talk:Blocking policy. In case this is the intention (though I'm not yet sure that it is), we do not want to make blocking policy more prescriptive, and we definitely don't need a "prescriptive fork" of policy. causa sui (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)