User:ThatIPEditor/Essays/On BP

My view on the blocking policy: Mostly ok but flawed in some parts.

Does not AGF enough
The current AF false blocks way too many people, to the point, that they are not AGFing. Also, the system relies on having the users prove that they didn't do something, and not that they did do something, and relies too heavily on appeals. Like, disruption... So, If I mess up once, then I could be blocked without warning...? The policy should require at least 2 warnings.

Too POV
There are many sections of the blocking policy which is completely based on the administrator's point of view. I'm talking about immaturity here. For what I think could be fine, another may not.

Regarding the removal of warnings
I think removing warnings should be OK, but it must be at least 1 month old, or not relevant. After all, administrators can view deleted posts.

Second Chance
A lot of the users do not understand that we have a second chance system. To be honest, the administrators here would most likely just keep the block, and ban them from the discord. In my opinion. this is very unfair. People grow and change, and therefore, they may regret decisions made in the past.

Range blocks
Range blocks are given out way too easily. Range blocks may cause widespread collateral damage, especially if you use /8 or /16. We should only give range blocks if they are for sure IP hopping.

Prevention, not punishment
A lot of blocks are dished out as punishment, especially timed ones. I think that once someone recognizes their mistake, they should be unblocked. But, if they continue, a reblock is a good solution. We should not "punish" bad faith editors, instead, stop them from wrecking the wiki even more.

Think about all the good things they did!
Remember: When you are blocking a long-time editor, you should see all the good stuff they did! I do not think indefing the regulars is a good thing, unless if they do something serious such as oversighting the main page, or make constant legal threats. For example: if User:Regular1 gets angry at User:Regular2, regular1 may make a personal attack, but I think that regular1 should apologize, and be unblocked. We should not judge someone by one mistake they made.

The bottom line
Although I have not mentioned all the good parts of the policy, I think that the blocking policy needs some work, regarding certain sections of it. Because this is a policy, which requires consensus, we need to uphold our principles and change the policy, no matter how hard it is.