Board Thread:Wiki management/@comment-30144972-20180206214748/@comment-4360159-20180206234810

Hello,

I briefly skimmed the convo here, but I was the one who indicated to Acebatonfan that perhaps their block should be reapplied after seeing the specific offense that was cited in their original block which included a word known to be controversial in usage and can be considered a borderline slur.

I had warned them based off of their entries in the abuse log which had shown him starting off with blatantly offensive words and then subverting the filter with censored versions of the same words (contributions that have since been deleted and are no longer accessible). After seeing the blocking offense I deemed that perhaps a block would be necessary per our profanity policy: "Users who violate this policy may be issued a warning for their first offense (at administrator discretion); however, this will be forgone if this first offense is laced with excessive profanity or if the offense infringes on any other policy, in which case a block may be deemed more appropriate. Further offenses is grounds for a block." Listed in this post, not even including the deleted contributions, is many distinct offenses that cumulatively is excessive, and one offense that violates FANDOM and wiki policy: "Post or transmit any content that is obscene, pornographic, abusive, offensive, profane, or otherwise violates any law or right of any third party, or content that contains homophobia, ethnic slurs, religious intolerance, or encourages criminal conduct;" Thus meeting both criteria for a full block. As for the length, I'm a bit split in the middle. We do not have a strict policy regarding block length; it is listed as a guideline. I believe a month may be sufficient, but I also believe that a 3 month block isn't entirely unwarranted.

I am of the personal opinion that the 3 month block stays and they may be offered the option to contest their block for a shorter duration of 1 month.