UESPWiki talk:Blockers

Nomination Process?Edit

I'd like to nominate, say, S'drassa, since the current three all seem to be in similar time zones, but where would I go about doing so?--Ghurhak gro-Demril _{or TAO}^Yes? 02:25, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Seriously. 2 other users and I have been reverting all night because all of these guys are in the same time zones. Its early in the night here in the East Coast, which has quite a few people. So lets be more generous about giving out this positions. Its really hard to abuse and its results are temporary, so there is relatively little long term affects of abuse. Ideas?--Catmaniac66 02:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Since we almost definitely need more blockers I would recommend a system similar to that at which we currently use for User Patrollers. Easy come, easy go. If they abuse there rights by making several non justified blocks (By which I mean using there powers to try to win arguments, or blocking people for good faith edits. These powers should really only be used for when no admins are available to deal with the issues, and that seems to have been the intention) they can easily be stripped of there powers at there request or an admins discretion. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Id be happy with someone who is on at this time have the ability to do it. Id say S'drassa, AKB, and TAO are probably more qualified than me, Id support them just because they are the only others online right now :-D!--Catmaniac66 02:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there should be better blockuser procedure. I asked Krusty directly about it, but a nomination procedure could be handy. The problem arises in that Blocking is of course a very powerful ability on a wiki, and cannot be handed out willy-nilly. There definately needs to be blockers (whether they be Admins or Blockusers) available at nearly any hour though, to prevent vandals from all time zones. Normally I would have seen the one from earlier but real life got in the way (graduation stuff, winning scholarships, that pointless stuff :þ). --DKong27 ^{Talk Cont} 03:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way Dkong, that IP is still unblocked and definitely deserves a strike from the ban hammer. Swing away please before someone else steals the kill! --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 04:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Stole the kill. Dkong, AKB is right, you're supposed to use your Block User rights when needed. Sorry, but as of now, and forever as far as I'm concerned, Block User rights is not something we can "nominate". Way too often, mistakes are made in brief moments of anger and a block lasts "forever" on a Wiki. For the record, I blocked the penis-obsessed anon for a full month and next time, he will be gone for good. Now, that was a brief moment of anger - but a justified one. --Krusty 04:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(←) Just because mistakes can be made doesnt mean that we should have any less blockers. Obvious situations like this need to have a blocker ready to halt the flow. I mean, looking at the block log I saw where rpeh accidentally blocked someone instead of warning. Accidents and mistakes dont mean someone shouldnt be able to block an IP who adds 50 vandalism edits...--Catmaniac66 04:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was 24. - Neural Tempest 04:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If you think blocking might be abused, just keep an eye on the block log, and only grant these abilities to extremely trusted users who have been shown to keep a cool head. Being a wiki, mistakes can always be corrected. - Neural Tempest 04:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  : Look, I can't really do anything about it. It is common sense - and when we have a user with Block User rights discussing the plot holes in the policy instead of blocking, what do you want me to say? --Krusty 04:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just simply believe that there should be some system in place for becoming a blockuser, even if it isn't a nomination system (I proposed more of an application system really, you ask for these powers, admins say either yay or nay). Even if it is just a note that you should ask admins about becoming one, this way that there is a clear process for those who are interested. It's not that I think blocking should be anything else but a last resort, I simply wish for us to have the ability to block someone more or less around the clock as necessary. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 05:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because a blockuser didnt do his job (hey, he might have just dropped in for a second and left before realizing something needed to be done) its grounds for not having more blockusers to pick up any possible slack, especially during off hours? Especially when their blocks are very short term (as I understand).--Catmaniac66 05:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That IS the exact policy. Ask and we will discuss whether or not we feel safe granting you the rights. That is what DKong did, and it worked. --Krusty 05:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Recomend Adding the Ability to Bar User Talk EditsEdit

Would it be possible for blockers to be able to prevent a blocked editor from editing their talk page? Given the events of "Vandalfest '11" it seems like a reasonable move, given that Dwarfmp was the only user with blockuser rights on during most of the latest series of events. Dlarsh^(T,C) 00:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

This would certainly be helpful, at least temporarily. The current vandal is spamming up the recent changes via the edit summaries of his talk page(s). --Legoless 00:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we can only revert edits. They are vandilising quicker than three of us could repair. Something needs to be done. --Manic 00:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) The thing is, the only page they can vandalize is their own talk page. It doesn't really affect the content of the wiki, which is the reason for blockusers. They are given rights so that, in the event an admin is not available, the effect on the wiki that our readers and editors use is minimized. Worst case scenario: their talk page is offensive/obnoxious/ugly for a few hours until an admin can block talk page access.

I prefer to think that if a user is ready for more rights than those given currently with blockuser, they might as well be RfA'ed. Conversely, if a user wouldn't pass an admin nom, then they don't need these extra rights. I simply don't see that it's necessary. --GK^talk2me 00:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I see your point. The recent changes page will have to weather it, but that's of no real use to anyone but patrollers anyway. --Legoless 00:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Rights?Edit

I'd like to request a set of Blocker rights having just had to sit and watch someone vandalize the OB:Breton page 4 times, and then tamper with warnings on his own talk page (albeit not remove but yet more nonsense). --kiz ^talk_email 11:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

UserboxEdit

If anyone's interested, I've attempted to make a Userbox for Blockers. I had some time on my hands and I wanted to try making a simple template, so it killed two birds. I don't know if it should/must have formal recognition to prevent misrepresentations, such as with the userbox for patrollers, so I thought I should point it out. I basically copied and pasted the Patroller userbox, so it's already got that thicker border which apparently implies it's restricted. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 04:21, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

I think it's a nice idea. The box and cat would enable someone to know who is a blocker in order to handle a situation of that kind of urgency... Not that there seem to be a lot, and of course the admins are on often enough, it seems. ES^{(talk•email)} 04:40, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

Indeed; blockers haven't had to play much of a role recently, and that's a credit to our admins. It's nice not having to exercise it, as filling out the Block Notifications page is a hassle. Anyways, I think the userbox might have a deterrence effect in some rare situations, possibly reducing even further the amount of incidences where one of us has to act. That is, some disruptive people who get warned/reverted may take that action more seriously and be dissuaded from continuing their behavior if they happen to notice that the person who did so has blocking privileges. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:01, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

Where did you read that the thicker border means a userbox is restricted? It makes sense, and I think we should probably make our main userboxes follow that rule, if they don't already, but it's one I've never heard before. Great work on the Userbox. I really like the idea of using the black hand. My one teensy complaint is that I'd prefer a 1:1 image for a userbox. My other complaint is that now you're making me go find something to pair it up with in my layout :/ but that's not your fault. – Robin Hood↝talk 05:19, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

I noticed the border thing in one of Lurlock's edit summaries. I assume there's a proper discussion of it somewhere. Sorry about the ratio; I just nabbed a pre-existing image because I thought it likely that whatever image I picked would be a placeholder. Minor Edits^{Threats•Evidence} 05:36, 10 November 2012 (GMT)

That's okay, I just did the same for my legendary dragon userbox. :) – Robin Hood↝talk 05:37, 10 November 2012 (GMT)