Bulbapedia talk:Blocking policy: Difference between revisions
(→Regarding the point on uncivil behavior: Adding incorrect time stamp. Will go back to correct it.) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Regarding the point on [[Bulbapedia:Blocking_policy#Uncivil behavior|uncivil behavior]]== | ==Regarding the point on [[Bulbapedia:Blocking_policy#Uncivil behavior|uncivil behavior]]== | ||
Is it okay to use abusive language under the proviso that it is not offensive to anyone?--[[User:Tmwps|Tmwps]] 17: | Is it okay to use abusive language under the proviso that it is not offensive to anyone?--[[User:Tmwps|Tmwps]] 17:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:23, 9 April 2009
Blocking administrators should be required to have registered e-mail addresses
I think that any administrator who blocks a user, for any reason, should have his/her e-mail address on the Bulbapedia system, to allow the blocked user to e-mail the administrator and ask for more details for the reason of the blocking. User142 | Talk 05:24, 12 January 2006 (CST)
The block log is visible to all, and I think a blocked user will see the reason they are blocked when they try to edit pages. In any case, as per current policy, appeals go to the Editor-in-Chief. - 振霖T 02:54, 13 January 2006 (CST)
It should be fairly easy to appeal the ban on BMGf as well anyway, especially with that allowing for posting by unregged users, unlike 'pedia. --Archaic 06:14, 13 January 2006 (CST)
You should be able to edit your tpage anyway, even if blocked.
Regarding the point on uncivil behavior
Is it okay to use abusive language under the proviso that it is not offensive to anyone?--Tmwps 17:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
