Bulbapedia talk:Blocking policy

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.--Tmwps 17:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but some people get banned because of their talk page. The Dark Fiddler - You enter a poorly lit room... 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How's that?--Tmwps 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate comments, such as swearing and etc. --Clarky13 06:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with swearing? Wikipedia isn't censored, so why should we be?--Tmwps 06:42, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It's because.. this is not Wikipedia. It's Bulbapedia. And besides, there's a forum, you can do swearing there.. If I'm not mistaken. ◄Kevzo8► 06:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Right.--Tmwps 09:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

Considering the language is abusive.... no. — THE TROM — 07:05, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

You know...

Bulbapedia is read by many young people, so we can't swear. --Pikagold 17:38, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

While a one-off won't subject you to a block (although this does depend on the administrator's discretion) it should earn you a lovely little warning. —darklordtrom 20:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding vandalism

The current policy seems to be a bit relaxed. My problem is mainly to do with the last paragraph:

"Repeated and pointless page creation/modification can be grounds for blocking. Creating a page entitled "MAGIC PEEKACHU", and then another called "MAGIC RAICHOO", and so on, is grounds for a temporary blocking, because it's quite simply unwanted. Anything that clutters Bulbapedia like that will be removed and any user that creates it will be blocked for 24 hours on the first offense. Repeat offenders will be blocked for longer periods of time."

This says that if a vandal creates a page where good faith cannot be assumed and malicious intent is clear, they will be blocked for 24 hours. Not only is this far too relaxed, it is not what happens in practice. If a vandal were to create this kind of page, it would be deleted and the vandal would be blocked indefinitely, unless there was some history of the vandal making constructive edits (where they would still be blocked for well over 24 hours). Giving out temporary blocks to vandals is nonsensical, vandals stay vandals. Most likely they will get bored after the first ban and forget about it, but some will still come back again. Most vandals would also be using a public computer (most likely a school) or a proxy, which are just big vandal magnets. By blocking account creation from these, it prevents different individuals who are also vandals from vandalizing. Of course, I'm not saying go through and block ever proxy we can find, but just block the IPs of those that have been used before. --SnorlaxMonster 06:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior, not behaviour

In uncivil behavior section. Wow, it's spelled right on the name of the section and yet not in the section. --☆ヨッシ ー の世界☆ 19:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not spelled "wrong". It's spelled like it would be in Canada or Britain (among other likely places). Luna Tiger * the Arc Toraph 20:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)