Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Blocks of long-standing contributors

Until this year, the page classified "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block" as "controversial". Who removed this and why? Was there a consensus that the guideline should be dropped? --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm unaware of the clause you cite, and I'm also unaware of anything related to its removal. However, I would challenge the logic of any such statement in the 3RR rule. A claim that says something is controversial, regardless of the reason, is problematic. The wording you cite is equivalent to saying that, because of his outstanding record, (a United States Congressman, with perfect 20 year history of serving), should not be convicted of shooting his wife, and that any such conviction would be controversial by definition. (How would the rule apply to 2 long-term substantial contributors in an edit war?)

Preferential treatment for an admin, or any established editor, should not be provided for under the rules. In fact, in my opinion, quite the opposite should apply. An established editor should know better than to push 3RR, or any other rule. We should not make 'exceptions' for long term editors but instead we should hold them to stricter standards. Similar logic supports increasing the block time for each subsequent 3RR blocking. Editors are expected to learn as they go, and are expected to behave better and better as they gain experience. Long-term editors should set an example for newbies, not be gifted permission to out revert them. There are already legitimate exceptions to 3RR (vandalism for example). Quantity (or quality) of contribution to wikipedia should not be a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The other part of the wording you cite substantial history of valid contributions, is also problematic. Substantial history of contributions (number of edits) is easy to quantify. However the word valid is troublesome to me. How do we decide if the majority of those contributions were valid? Are we to base it on quantity or quality? Who decides the quality? 17,000 edits looks good. But what if the majority of those edits were poorly or incorrectly sourced, or SPA POV? How much time should each admin spend, to determine if a user qualified under the exemption you refer to?

And, ultimately, what does that phrasing accomplish? It tags a block as controversial. Ok. And? It creates controversy, by definition. But then it does nothing to help resolve the controversy.

IMO, the bottom line is: a rule, is a rule. All users who break the rule should be equally subject to the same process and outcome. The system allows for admins to make each VIO/NO-VIO decision, based on AGF and the merits of the report. Second guessing admins, by tagging any decision as controversial in the definition of the rule, is wrong.

Admins (and long standing editors) don't get reported for 3RR because admins (and long standing editors) don't edit articles. My meaning is.. we are all equal. Editors edit articles, and violators of 3RR get reported. We all come before the 3RR board naked, and should be judged based on the merits of each case. Lsi john 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how long have you been in the project? --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Your example of the wife-killing congressman is over-the-top, and, I think, irrelevant to the issue at hand. As for the relevant issue, I think it's worth having some cautionary language in here about blocks on established contributors. The whole "rules are rules and therefore must be followed exactly" stance will never fly here- creating a good encyclopedia is always going to be WAY more important than exactly following some list of rules. Friday (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was extreme, and I encourage everyone to ignore the specifics of the example and go with the spirit of it. I don't think it is irrelevant and my rationale is addressed (above) in the remainder of my post. My point was not rules-are-rules and must-be-followed, as much as it was everyone-should-be-treated-equally and without favoritism or bias. A 3RR violation reported by a newbie against someone with 24,000 edits deserves the same consideration as the reverse. Established contributors should not be granted immunity or favoritism. They should be held to higher standards. No block should be given lightly nor avoided due to favoritism or pre-supposed elite status. Lsi john 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I do think it is rather poor form to give "established users" a free ride, we are not doing them any favors by not correcting their misbehavior. ^(H) 19:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I don't see that suggesting people tread carefully in blocking amounts to giving anyone a free pass. Friday (talk) 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Friday, you lost me there. I thought you were wanting language which cautioned against blocking established users. If not, then we're all on the same page (or at least reading the same book). Blocks are already subjective (and established users already get favoritism, its part of the system). Putting in specific language to suggest favoritism, unfairly tips the scale against newbies. (bad bad bad). Lsi john 20:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the above discussion, there was no consensus to remove the vital element of our blocking policy. If so, I will restore it in a day or two (if no further comments ensue). --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me that the discussion is against giving long term contributors special treatment, at the very least there is not consensus either way. I don't think returning the clause would reflect the discussion at all. ^(H) 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool down blocks

I'm concerned with this section, because while a block solely to calm down someone who is angry but not acting inappropriately is a bad idea, it is absolutely justified to (1) block a user who is angry and who is acting inappropriately (eg, being incivil, making personal attacks), and (2) tell them to "cool down" when doing it. See User talk:Thewinchester for instance. Mangojuice^talk 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If the user is violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, then might not that be the qualifying reason for block? (after proper warning of course). The way I read that Cool-Down section is, if the only justification for the block is to cool-down, then a block is probably not appropriate. So, your (1) gives the reason you would block and your (2) is what you tell them at the same time in addition to citing the specific behavior violation. Cooling down may be needed, but it isn't sufficient in itself to justify a block. Lsi john 20:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading this all three times, I think we're saying the same thing. What is your specific concern? Lsi john 20:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience the so called "cool-down" blocks only heat things up. They should be terminantly forbidden, as it was the case previously (I think).

NPA policy clearly states (stated? I've been away for some time) that blocks should never be made to "cool down". --Sugaar (talk) 05:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocking in disputes

I've made a clarification to WP:BLOCK#Disputes to address a mismatch between the existing line, which categorically prohibits blocking in disputes, and WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, which explicitly authorises blocking in disputes where BLP violations are involved. The section should now be consistent between the two policies. See [1] for the diff. -- ChrisO 20:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the policy speaks of content disputes, not just any old dispute. ^(H) 20:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point - thanks for the clarification. Of course, BLP issues are a type of content dispute, so stating the exception is clearly necessary. -- ChrisO 20:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. ^(H) 20:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that granting an involved editor, carte blanch permission to interpret WP:BLP and block is the best route. I do think WP:BLP is very important. My concern is not whether or not a block should be done, but whether or not an uninvolved admin should be called upon to avoid any appearance (possibility) of conflict of interest. Blocking is a permanent part of an editor's record and getting a block overturned is difficult. Having a second set of eyes on the situation would seem to be prudent. Lsi john 20:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

And, repeated attempts to re-insert the material would eventually qualify for 3RR blocking anyway. Lsi john 20:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a long-standing part of BLP, for obvious reasons. If you see a potential libel, you can't hang around until you find someone else to deal with it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

What prevents 'removing the material' and 'protecting' the article, until another admin can be contacted?

I'm sorry, but, respectfully, I don't buy that argument. If a non-admin is trying to remove the material, they can't block the user and they would need to contact an admin for help. Certainly it is faster (by 2-3 minutes?) to have an involved admin handle it immediately, but that opens a door for both potential and perceived abuse. I don't see the emergency. I'm against granting exceptions in general, and there is no shortage of admins on Wikipedia. The article can be protected, and that gives time to contact another admin. Lsi john 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done properly, blocking for BLP violation is blocking for disruption. So blocking for BLP violation does not need to be listed as an exception to blocking for content dispute. Just like 3RR, vandalism, and copyvio are not listed. I would remove the section paragraph just added. (I am also not sure the prohibition on blocking in the case of personal dispute should have been removed.) -AmendmentNumberOne 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I clarified that there are a number of things that are not considered to be content disputes (I added removing libel and removing copyvios). Your point about disruption is good; there was an awkward paragraph restored to that section recently covering this same issue, drawing the distinction between what is and isn't a content dispute. Perhaps that could be explained in the one place somewhere? It wouldn't necessarily have to be on this page. --bainer (talk) 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi john by proposing that the page be blocked instead of the offending edit warriors you are by proxy punishing editors who obey the rules who would then be unable to edit the article in question because of the actions of others. If an admin blocks someone for edit warring, the admin should show good form and refrain from editing the article until the block they've issued expires, this way the warring stops (temporarily anyway) and editors who are not violating policies/guidelines are not affected.

It should also be pointed out that the protecting of a page as a default solution to edit warring could be used to sabotage anyone's ability to edit an article a potential abuser does not want edited. Anynobody 05:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody, in almost every other instance, admins (voluntarily) surrender their admin tools in articles where they are involved, or when dealing with editors that they know. This is done for a good reason. It protects both the editor and the admin. Blocking someone affects their permenant record. Dealing with appeals takes time. Emotions can run high in articles of personal interest. It's better to go into a block with checks and balances. And, it always looks more professional for an uninvolved admin to mead out a block. We're talking about protecting the article for 2-3 minutes, not weeks. Presumably there is already revert warring going on with the material, which is already disruptive and is already preventing editors from successfully editing the article.

Suggesting that an admin not edit for the duration of a block, is a bit odd. This is not about edit warring, this is about BLP material beging removed and blocking a user for violating BLP. Lsi john 09:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The reason the section paragraph should be removed is proper BLP violation blocks are blocks for disruption. The section on disruption already covers blocking for disruption in BLP violation cases and other cases of disruption. These are not exceptions; blocks are not to be used for disputes over content. By way of example, when an editor is persistently adding back unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons, they are not engaged in a dispute (with this action) but rather being disruptive. In my mind, the section on disruption already makes the distinction clear. As does the page organization, having a section covering when a block may be used and having another section covering when a block may not be used. Both sections must be read when deciding if a block is appropriate. The fact that disruption is given a heading under when blocks may be used, and more specifically the behavior of persistently posting unsourced or poorly sourced contentious biographical material about living persons is considered disruption means this behavior is not the same as engaging in a content dispute. -AmendmentNumberOne 17:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

You were doing so well. Please do not make me protect this page or give out blocks for edit warring. This is a policy talk page, argue here, not on the article page. ^(H) 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? (I'd assume myself, but there are other possibilities on this talk page.) Anynobody 23:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking of all the people reverting the policy page back and forth. It seems to have stopped now though, thank you. ^(H) 23:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, btw I like the new sig/account. (Not that I disliked the old one.) Anynobody 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent revert

Jossi, I am unclear as to why you reverted without comment. Per the above discussion:

1. There was concern about libel due to violations of WP:BLP. The concern was raised that someone who was repeatedly inserting material needed to be stopped.

2. An exception was added for admins to allow them to block a person, even if they had been editing the article. (in order to stop the abuse). It was indicated held that it is important to stop the abuse quickly.

3. I pointed out that

a) If an admin were not actively editing the article, a non-admin editor would need to seek out an admin to get the user blocked.

b) Admins who block users, where they are involved in the article's content, could be viewed as having a conflict of interest. And, being human, could potentially over-react and block sooner, or longer, than necessary. In other cases, such as 3RR, actively editing admins refrain from performing the blocks themselves, and allow an uninvolved admin to make the decision and the block.

c) By removing the objectionable material, and then protecting the page, the immediate problem is solved, giving time for the normal 'review' process by an uninvolved admin, prior to any block being issued. This review process would not take an inordinate amount of time, and thus would not inconvenience the article's editors.

4. This position satisfied all previously stated concerns.

What was your reason for reverting it? Lsi john 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Lsi, you changed long-standing policy. That wording has been in BLP for quite some time; it was moved here recently to make sure the two pages are consistent, but it's not a recent addition to policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did nobody object here in the discussion on that basis? We were discussing it. Concerns were raised. The page went through several revisions during the discussion. It seemed that the wording I used, satisfied all points of concern.

I have no desire to unilaterally 'change policy'. It appeared to me that the BLP policy conflicted with blocking policy and that discussion was underway to obtain wording which worked for both places.

With the current wording, the COI concerns are not addressed. With a 'temporary protection' policy, COI is handled in the same fashion as 3RR and other blocks. I'm unconvinced that an exception for involved admins, granting permission to block is required or justified in this case. Lsi john 16:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin,

BLP Blocking

"Editors who repeatedly add or restore unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy."

All this says is that an editor can be blocked. It does not grant an exception to involved admins. I submit that granting an exception in the blocking policy is changing long-standing policy (your words). If I am missing something on the BLP page, please let me know. I think this should have been discussed before Chris made the change. Lsi john 17:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a closer look at the BLP policy. That exact wording is there.

I didn't get your point above about COI. Can you explain? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, What I pasted was from the WP:BLP blocking section, and the wording isn't there. I will go look again.

Regarding COI, as it has been explained to me, admins (voluntarily?) give up their admin tools in articles where they are editing. This removes any possibility of an accusation of impropriety. Admins have repeatedly told me they will not block users with whom they have had conflict or are co-editing with.

As humans, the potential is there for us to over-react and block too quickly, or for too long. And, even if we don't overreact, the potential is still there for the person being blocked to feel that it was 'personal'. That is the COI that I am discussing. Personal involvement has the potential to be viewed as a conflict of interest. We should avoid, if possible, any perception of abuse or COI.

I am generally against 'exceptions' to the rules. Whether or not they are abused, it gives the appearance of a higher-authority that isn't subject to the rules. When admins are editing articles, they are editors and should set an example by following the same rules and procedures as other editors.

In this case, my suggestion of a compromise 'exception' would be a temporary protection on the article. That would stop the BLP violation. And then an uninvolved editor could handle any necessary blocking and the article would be unprotected within minutes.

Lsi john 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I found the material in BLP, thank you.

And, I still disagree that an exception is needed for an involved admin to make a block in this situation. The same arguments/logic which suggest that involved admins seek out an uninvolved admin for 3RR and other content disputes, apply here as well.

If an admin is involved in an article about his/her hero, and encounters a content dispute regarding a BLP issue, this rule gives them judge, jury and executioner power and removes all of our checks and balances. Even if they act properly, there is the possibility of perception of abuse of power. Blocks are a permenant record and the deck is already stacked against getting a block overturned. Protecting the article solves the immediate problem. The rest of the 'trial' and 'judgement' should be handled by uninvolved parties. IMO.

Lsi john 18:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You're getting all kinds of issues mixed up here. The COI policy is not connected to admin actions, and this is a long-standing part of BLP, one of our most important policies. It's up to admins whether they protect, semi-protect, or issues blocks, and it depends on the severity of the violation, who's doing it, how many warnings, how often the material has been added, and so on. We can't and don't want to legislate for every nuance. Common sense has to be used. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The COI I mean, is a conflict of interest due to personal involvement in the article. An involved admin, in a heated debate, has a conflict of interest when applying a block. Why is BLP any different than 3RR, once the article is temporarily protected? The BLP violation has been stopped, and the uninvolved admin can place the block if its necessary. (Not the COI, like paid to write articles for your company) Coi=personal interest in the outcome. Lsi john 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"Protecting the article solves the immediate problem." Not necessarily. Four or five days ago I blocked a new user who was posting negative BLP info to a university related page. It occurred to me at the time that the person might try to create an article on the name they were slandering, or gone to related pages with the same unsourced info. I had never edited the article, but the logic holds: the editor needed to be blocked immediately. If an admin trys to fudge what is and is not BLP info in the midst of a content dispute to block an editor, it can be taken to other forums for review. But in general they must be allowed to block for clear BLP violations, even on pages they are editing. Marskell 21:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Marskell, the imediate concern (from above), was the urgency in getting the BLP violation stopped in order to avoid libel. I did not buy into an emergency then, and I still don't. But emergency or not, temporarily protecting the article, does stop anyone from inserting BLP violation material (and hence solves the immediate problem), and gives an uninvolved admin time to look at the situation with unbiased eyes. Your concern about creating a fork doesn't justify that the involved admin needs to do the blocking either. Even a blocked user could change IPs, create a new account, and create a forked article.

How/why is this any different from the logic that keeps admins from doing 3RR (and other) blocks on articles where they're involved? And I still have not seen a reason for why its necessary for an involved admin to do the blocking. Convenient, sure. Necessary, no. Controversial, sometimes.

We are confusing convenient with necessary. Without an involved admin on-scene, no 'immediate' block would happen, and thus either the logic justifying an exception (on the basis of urgency) is faulty, or an exception should be extended to non-admin editors (granting any editor the power to block for BLP violations). And I'm pretty sure we'll all agree that granting blocking power to non-admins is silly.

I also understand that the block 'could' be taken to other forms of review (later). And, as a newbie, I can tell you that those other forms of review are both daunting and discouraged. And, WP:AGF works against anyone trying to get a block overturned, because the blocking admin is given AGF + admin status. And, even if the editor ultimately wins his case, they were still blocked for 24 hours (or whatever) and there is still a block on their history. So what did they really accomplish? And why should we set the stage for something like that to happen in the first place?

At this point, I think I've said it in as many ways as I can. Either I've been clear or I haven't. I see nothing here which justifies an exception for an admin (involved in editing the article) to do the blocking themselves. Page-protection, yes. Blocking, no. I'll answer questions, if there are any. Lsi john 21:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

How/why is this any different from the logic that keeps admins from doing 3RR (and other) blocks on articles where they're involved? Because the living person might see the improper info being added to their article and decide to sue Wikipedia. Marskell is saying it's worth the risk of a rouge admin blocking an editor over a content dispute and then saying it was for a WP:BLP violation to offset the chance of a lawsuit. A 3RR situation is usually not as likely to result in litigation.

Like I said in my edit summary when I reverted your change, it's also unfair toward editors who are following the rules to just protect the page in order to stop a dispute/BLP violations. (Unless there are dozens of editors posting content that violates BLP, but that would be a special case not the norm.) Anynobody 04:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case (and it does appear to be so—when the disputed section was added to BLP back when it was a guideline, a bit over a year ago, the editor also changed the heading it was under to Safe Harbor[2]), the part over at BLP should make it clear this only applies to suspected libel cases. Even then, how does blocking a user relate to litigation? If the blocking exception occurs here, then surely it must occur for the equally weighty legal problem of copyright violation? -AmendmentNumberOne 06:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Litigation and blocking aren't the connection, libel and litigation is. An editor making libelous claims on a WP:BLP article could put the project in a situation where it might be sued. To stop this from happening, admins should be able to block any occurrence they see of this, even if it's on a page they've been editing. Anynobody 06:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about wording

My concern is about the wording and not about the substance of what is being added. I agree that removing/restoring content that violates BLP is not a content dispute, but I also think if that's going to be mentioned, it needs to be said that other things are not content disputes either, such as removing/restoring proven copyvio material. Furthermore, I think that it clutters everything up (and introduces the possibility of inconsistency) to cut and paste the paragraph from BLP, and that it would be preferable just to refer to the policy. --bainer (talk) 07:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Anynobody 07:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

New "Prevent user from sending e-mail" feature

There is now an option on the block menu called "Prevent user from sending e-mail". We need some generally agreed upon standard for when to use it. In other words, it's a really bad idea to check this just for the sake of doing it - a well-meaning user needs to be able to email the admin that blocked him/her. Possible standards include:

• Only use this feature if the user has actually engaged in harassment
• Use it for all trolling/vandalism-only accounts
• Others?

--BigDT 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose the standard should be that it is preventative, not punitive. ^(H) 21:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I added this about a week before it went live here:

block e-mail will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature. When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as unblock-en-l) through which he can discuss the block.

These were the ideas with which it was implemented, and I believe any use outside of this context constitutes abuse. It certainly should not be blindly applied to anyone--only accounts with which there have had e-mail related problems. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Compromised accounts

I have added a section on "compromised accounts" as a reason to block, since I believe this reflects current practice, and count on that this is not too controversial. Any objections, comments, or corrections will, as always, be welcome. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you request a block?

I have scanned this article top to bottom over and over for a good 5 minutes. How do I request that a vandal be blocked? That would be something worth having on the page, right? --Kainaw ^(talk) 12:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Second paragraph at the top: Any user may request a block at the administrators' noticeboard for incidents or a specialised venue such as the administrator intervention against vandalism noticeboard. Leebo ^T/C 13:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change in "Blocking Procedure"

I propose a change in the Blocking Procedure. I propose, that an editor who has, let's say over 500 edits, should have immediate recourse to a lifting of the block subject to appeal. The problem arises when a very worthy editor is blocked by a sometimes ill-tempered or hostile Admin, and if the case is a bit difficult to decide, then it's less easy to have other Admins promptly overview the case. Of course the immediate lifting would be subject to some conditions, whatever, not editing the page again until the appeal is decided etc. I request this from personal experience, I have seen WP loose too many good editors through hasty Admin decisions. Gold♥ 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

So... you're proposing that whan a user has 500 edits they then gain the power to unblock themselves? Exploding Boy 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not exactly that. A user who has over 500 edits is usually a pretty worthy editor. The proposal would work just like in a court of law, the sentence can be delayed until the appeal is heard. I am only talking here about longstanding editors, editors who have given something to WP. The 500 edit qualifier is pretty notional, also this would protect WP against new user-name and IP abuse. Gold♥ 16:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see any benefit here. Why can a longstanding editor not post a request for unblocking on her talk page like everyone else? Exploding Boy 16:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have seen an instance this week where the same admin came back and refused a lifting. He was an excellent editor, and he subsequently left WP. It all started from a trolling IP putting tosh on his page, and it's my belief that the Admin made rash call. I don't want to quote the incident here, as it would probably deflect from the substantive proposal. I don't propose any change in procedure in the implementation of the 3rr rule. Gold♥ 16:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, Gold, but I wish that admins would have enough sense to get consensus (usually on ANI) for a block of a productive contributor; I am of the opinion, however, that some admins would block a productive contributor, regardless if the terms you describe (or the similar terms I describe) were explicitly in the blocking policy.

That said, there are some cases where even a productive contributor should be blocked w/ or w/o consensus, usually if they are editing warring (i.e. break the 3RR rule). So, basically, admins just need sense. :P I guess that's why we have RfA. --Iamunknown 19:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with last. If only it was a perfect world, like judges, admins can make the wrong call too. WP will change in time, I guess. Gold♥ 15:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Duration of block

{{editprotected}} In section Duration of blocks add: "Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future."

reason for this edit

Question arises "If blocks are not to punish, then why longer blocks for higher disruptions?". Longer block for higher disruption is very similar to longer jail for greater offense. To avoid this confusion this edit is necessary.

This disambiguation is necessary as blocks are too often confused as if they are punishments. There is already some effort to clear matter with sentence "The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behaviour", but complete connection between cause and effect is not established. Where basic cause for longer block is "to reduce/limit administrative burden" not to punish, as far as i could think. Kiss 398 not 04:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not to reduce administrative burden; they are to prevent continued disruption to the encyclopedia. I think I understand what you're trying to say, but it's not exactly right. - auburnpilot talk 05:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply to User:AuburnPilot: Im not stating reason for "block". But "duration of block" is directly correlated to administrative burden. Kiss 398 not 09:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block

Is an indefinite block to be used as a "long" block, or as a possibly very short block, where if the blocked editor can give some indication of change, they will be unblocked (without any set definite duration of the block)? I applied an indefinite block to allow the possibility of the latter, but was told that there is a stigma associated with indefinite blocks that has them appear as harsher than any definite block could ever be. Sancho 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Such a block can be both. There's sort of a body of precedent around indefinite blocks and how they are used which can make it difficult at times to apply blocks. Typically an indefinite block which will be lifted on some condition (your latter case) is for situations such as users making legal threats on-wiki (who may be blocked while the threats are outstanding, and unblocked when the threats are no longer outstanding on-wiki) or bots malfunctioning (the bot can be unblocked when it is repaired), that sort of thing. In other situations that approach may not be regarded as the best one, though I've seen it done before successfully, not necessarily with indefinite blocks. Undoing relatively long blocks on condition of good behaviour seems to produce pretty good results in my experience. --bainer (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

indefinite=infinite?

some admins mention it as "infinite block", and some people translate it as "ban"(indefinite block does not satisfy conditions stated in wikipedia:banning policy).. proposed policy change: indefinite blocks can be unblocked by other admins without discussing blocking admin. only timed blocks unblocking should be discussed. $nevesso$ 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Note: this comment is by a suspected sockpuppet of an indefinitely banned user. andy 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

new template for unblock notifications

I've created a new template for notifying administrators of undoing their blocks. I hope that fellow admins will find this useful. :) --Ixfd64 19:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts Ixfd64, but I would hope that noone would consider using this. It would be a sad day indeed if it were common practice for admins to only attempt to discuss blocks after unblocking, by way of a templated message. --bainer (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sharing a user account

The text of the policy says that "public accounts (where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group)" can be blocked. I have also seen discussions where user accounts that are shared among a small number of people have been considered against policy (usually when the accounts have been used abusively).

I am working with a university professor in Mexico who is planning to have her students form groups of three or four and share a single username. This strikes me as a bad idea because of the loss of accountability. However, it is not technically against policy as three or four is arguably not "a large group".

For more details see the "Group pages" section of School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca.

Any thoughts on whether policy sanctions the sharing of an account across three or four students taking a class that is centered around learning how to use Wikipedia?

--Richard 18:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Your link is broken.

As you say, three or four is not "a large group". I do not believe that such accounts are inherently disruptive. While there is a loss of accountability, it is not severe. I would compare it to pseudonyms vs real names. I can see that it could aid students in determining what their peers have been doing, so helping them to work together. Martin 13:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume the link was meant to be Wikipedia:School and university projects/ITESM Campus Toluca? On the issue at hand, the page you are after is m:role account. Role accounts are generally discouraged, for all sorts of reasons mainly to do with being able to attribute edits to individuals (for copyright and other reasons). I would think that better options would be for the students to create separate accounts, or for each group to nominate one student to perform any editing. --bainer (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Length

Just out of curiousity, does anyone know how long we can give finite blocks for? I blocked myself until 2027 (and then unblocked myself out of process!) but the interface rejected a block until 2743. This has no real practical significance, I'm just curious. WilyD 02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Probably some flavor of MAXINT. >Radiant< 12:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I played around with it, and got January 19, 2038 as the last date a finite block can be set to expire. I have no idea why that's significant, but I think there used to be/is a Year 2038 problem article .. WilyD 15:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of accounts of deceased users?

Recent practice has been to block accounts of deceased users, e.g. Tgarden (talk · contribs). This is sensible for preventing all sorts of mischief, and also for licencing reasons (one account = one person). How about making it official by adding something like the following to the policy: "Accounts of users who are reliably known to be deceased should be blocked, so as to prevent use of the account by others."? Sandstein 20:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Unblocking yourself

An administrator recently blocked himself on accident (intending to block a vandal. Whoops.) and then unblocked himself.

I'd like to suggest this as an exception to "Admins will not unblock themselves":

If, in the event that an administrator blocks themselves on accident and is not further blocked, they may unblock themselves.

This way, there's no need for further wiki-rules-lawyering over the point. ~Kylu (u|t) 23:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. However, I believe writing that into the policy is unneeded. Common sense must apply here, if I were an admin who blocked myself as a test, or by accident: I would not use the unblock template, I would unblock myself without fear of...anything. Note, if I were blocked by another admin, that would be another story. I would not unblock myself. (I'm not an admin currently, so I don't have these tools) It goes to, I can always reverse my mistakes, my actions. Regards, Navou ^banter 00:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the section on unblocking starts with "Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators..." (emphasis added) for a reason. --bainer (talk) 03:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well obviously an admin gets to change his mind and overturn his own decisions, including blocking oneself. >Radiant< 09:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Semi-blocking

Now that we know blocking is a way of life here, I would like to know it's possible to restrict users in such a way that they can still edit, but their edits are not immediately posted until it is reviewed by a trusted verifier. If it is in good faith the edit is posted. If not, the edit is rejected, dropped and the user who posted is notified that the edit did not meet guidelines. I know some will disagree, but I want some input. Since blocking often provokes some people to create new accounts and continue there disruptive behaviour, I think we should consider a middle road between being allowed to edit and being blocked. Although this is not currently possible. I'm sure a programmer can improve the edit filter when an edit is submitted to check if the user is blocked. VoltronForce 01:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This feature is often called mod-preview, as in moderator preview, but I don't think it's necessary. There is currently a proposal called Wikipedia: Flagged revisions which would do essentially the same thing for all new users. At 500 edits and 60 days editors would automatically get a trusted editor bit allowing them to save "sighted" revisions. I suppose that once this feature exists, a disruptive user could lose their trusted editor bit. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Is being a pedophile or pedophile supporter a reason for permanent blocking? Just curious. Busboy 08:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not in itself, no. However, it may be that some of the reasons for blocking would be more likely to apply to pedophiles or their supporters than to other people. Blocking in response to actions that put other people in danger is an example that springs to mind. --bainer (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to know in response to something I read on Corporatesexoffenders.com. busboy 03:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Respecting views of Blocked editors

I asked this of Durova (talk · contribs) and another editor, but I also felt this was good to ask here. I think this article needs to discuss how we treat people who have been banned (with regard to their perspective on a discussion). How do keep a user's opinion in consideration while they are unable to edit? This question is applicable to an ongoing situation where one user is unable to edit because of a block. Many people disagree with him, although some agree with him. If we continue to address the issue and his "perspective" is ultimately set aside, I don't want to simply go back and adjust all the contentious edits - even with support - unless I know that is acceptable on a broader scale. It appears that other's share my same concerns as to how to deal with a "suspended" users input. JmFangio| ►Chat  22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

After reading the above I've decided to watchlist this page. Shortly after the above was posted, checkuser confirmed that the above account was a returning sockpuppet of a community banned editor. Durova^Charge! 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Stupidity as grounds for a block?

JzG (talk · contribs) recently added "egregious stupidity", linked to m:DICK, to the policy as grounds for a block. I have undone this. There appears to be no prior consensus for this addition. Also, m:DICK is not formal policy here. Moreover, leaving aside the violation of WP:NPA such a block would entail, a blocking rationale of "egregious stupidity" would be arbitrary; such a criterion would allow the blocking of anyone the blocker deems to be "stupid". Wikipedia is not a kindergarten where people are simply called "stoo-pid" and kicked out. Sandstein 11:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it was probably meant as a joke. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Somebody should explain that to JzG before he gets hoisted by his own petard. - Jehochman ^Talk 11:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it was egregious stupidity, which certainly is grounds for a block :o) Guy (Help!) 09:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL - Jehochman ^Talk 09:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How did you guys pick 31 hours as a common block time?

Not that it has any real significance, but every block I've seen for vandalism after the last warning tonight has been for 31h. – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I use 31 hour blocks mostly for IP addresses, on the off chance that the person will be sitting in front of the same computer in exactly 24 hours (for example, in between classes). Others have told me this is nonsense. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess that might make sense. Is it in the pulldown box for block times, or do you enter it yourself? – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 02:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Pulldown. It's the next greatest choice after 24 hours. Newyorkbrad 03:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. en.wb doesn't have that option. curiouss... – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocks

Indef blocks may be less well understood, by users and editors who associate them (slightly mistakenly) with unending blocks. They may simply mean "until the concern or issue is no longer current" or "pending agreement to abide by policy". [3] [4]

I've added a short clarification. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I've copy edited it, because this is a wiki... If anyone disagrees with FT2's clarifications and wants to delete the whole thing, I won't be upset. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is "wiki-ish" and apt. However given the way indef blocks are sometimes misunderstood, it's useful to clarify indef has a very specific meaning and does not usually mean a ban. I can see times that it will be useful to have this. An indef block can often be reverted quite quickly, and I think will pay off. I've noticed the old shortcut WP:INDEF was an undocumented redirect to WP:BLOCK, so I've pointed it to the subsection for ease of reference. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Very clear and accurate description of indef. Strongly support this needed clarification. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree also and have attempted to phrase FT2's explanation in a somewhat more straightforward manner. Sandstein 16:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Changing duration of Block

I suggest to add "Changing duration of block" to the Unblocking section. I mean other administrators should consult blocking administrator regarding to changes in duration of blocks. At least reduces are very important and controversial. Hessam 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone oppose?! Hessam 16:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Clarifying "punitive"

I think the indication (in the second sentence) that blocks aren't punitive needs some clarification. It's true that they are not punitive in the sense of retribution (the community hurts the blockee in response to the harm done to the community). But blocks are sometimes coercive, like blocks for sockpuppeteers. (After all, what's the preventative goal of blocking a sockpuppeteer after the sockpuppet is blocked indef?) Unfortunately, the article for coercion is quite negative, as are the word's connotations. Is there some other way we can describe the reality of coercive blocking (perhaps in a footnote)?--Chaser - T 22:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Deeterrence may be the more appropriate word.--Chaser - T 22:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Self-referential "for more see..." link

Under "Enforcing bans" it says, "For more details on this topic, see Wikipedia:Banning policy.", which is the article you're already in. Uh... huh? Is that supposed to link somewhere else? -- HiEv 03:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

You're getting confused between Wikipedia:Blocking policy (this page) and Wikipedia:Banning policy (the page that is linked to). --bainer (talk) 06:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(squints) Oops. You're right. Thanks.  :-) -- HiEv 13:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mandatory block messages

It is standard practice that some admins may choose not to leave a block message in some circumstances such as when blocking a troll who is seeking attention.

I have reverted the addition of a new rule making block messages required regardless of the circumstances. I object to this change because admins need to have discretion in this area in order to avoid feeding the trolls. I would like this new rule to gain consensus before being added, or ideally not being added at all. 1 != 2 16:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's sometimes best not to bother with a block message. However I also don't particularly object to language saying that admins "should" notify the blockee. Generally, they should. Friday (talk) 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That makes it sound like it is required. I do however see the point about recommending it. Perhaps a more verbose wording will deal with all concerns such as "While it should be standard practice to leave a message explaining a block, it may not be needed in all circumstances.". 1 != 2 16:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If we're willing to go a bit further maybe something like "except in cases of indefinite blocks on obvious vandalism-only accounts, admins should leave a message.." Friday (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds too specific. I think policy should be kept as general as it can until there is a problem. How about "Admins should leave a message explaining the block unless they have a good reason not to." 1 != 2 16:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I just wanted to clarify this is talking about a note on the blocked users talk page, even when a note is not left the block reason given in the block summary will still be shown to the user. 1 != 2 16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Except in the case of obvious trolls who came here to disrupt, I believe admins are obliged to leave a note. The arbitration committee had a proposed principal that said a similar thing not too long ago - take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand#Communication. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Obvious trolls would be classified under "a good reason not to", but I don't think we should assume another good reason not to might not come up later. 1 != 2 17:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I didn't read your suggestion above which I certainly support. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Notification of blocks

I wrote what follows under the misunderstanding that the above proposal was that no block notification at all would be left on the blocked editor's Talk Page. It appears the proposal is simply that a verbose explanation is not always required and I can understand that. However, I have a different perspective to share...

Why would leaving a block message feed a troll? The troll will figure out soon enough that he has been blocked.

I actually think that block messages should not only be left on the blocked editor's talk page but also on the Talk Page of the last article or project page that he/she edited. Not necessarily always but usually.

My reasoning is that doing so would be a courtesy to other editors so that they know what has happened. Recently, two edit warriors were blocked from editing Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War;one for 48 hours, the other for 2 months. I was oblivious of the brouhaha (mini-wheelwar) going on over the first block for 36 hours. I only stumbled the two blocks because I was looking at the user's Talk Page and saw the discussion.

To state the obvious, blocking an editor may affect the discussions on one or more article Talk Pages. Some editors view failure to respond as passive aggressive behavior. In the case of Chinese in the Russian Revolution and in the Russian Civil War, it was difficult to tell between deliberate refusal to respond vs. inability to respond because of a block.

--Richard 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Neither of those users were a blatant troll, despite the accusations. They both certainly deserved a block message. Trolls actually go out there and collect blocked accounts. By not putting anything on their talk page we deny them a trophy. Revert, block, ignore. Ignore being the important part. 1 != 2 17:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I got that part. But what do you think of the idea of placing a notification on the Talk Page of the last article or project page that the blocked editor has edited? This would give the editing community a "heads up" telling them what has happened. This would not be a mandatory requirement but as a suggested courtesy. --Richard 17:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A fine suggestion. 1 != 2 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

may notify or should notify?

excuse me my dear freinds for my change. I think the admins must notify user becouse some admins in some wikies blocked the users with personal attack and this admins never don`t say reasons about blocking. however I know notifying the block to all blocked users are difficult, but we could ask the admins not needed to notify blocking of super-vandals or very bad users becouse it take more time from them. we may write in the policy that only admins must notify to normal and popular users, not to all. what`s your opinion?--Gordafarid 21:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a discussion about this underway already just above this thread. 1 != 2 21:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

yes. I read it but what`s the result? they should or may? my english not native and if you can explain your reason for object in simple words.Gordafarid 22:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is still being discussed. 1 != 2 04:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

May or should?

Does it really matter? Can't we just leave this to common sense? If somebody needs something to do, I've got an ideas section on my userpage of articles that need writing or copy editing or reviewing. Cheers - Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

in en.wiki doesn`t really matter. but in some small wikies it`s a way to admins for blocking the opposed users without any good reson. --Gordafarid 22:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested blocks

Why do we generally refuse self-requested blocks? It seems silly enough that it'd be easy to get one (for instance, you could issue a legal threat, then withdraw it when you wanted to be unblocked or something) other ways. Is there some rationale behind it? WilyD 14:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I've always just considered them silly and irrelevant. Anyone can log out and stop editing any time they want. Why complicate the situation with a block? Friday (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It would not be preventative. If someone wants to act in a way that will get them, blocked then they will be blocked, but to do so solely based on a request would not be blocking to prevent harm to Wikipedia. Now if they made their intention to cause harm clear, that would be another story. 1 != 2 14:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR in Block log

I noticed 3RR but what does it stand for (this time, not for three revert rule)? If any of you don't understand, here's an example: Example blocked EvilExample with an expiry time of 42 hours (3RR on article). TobytheTramEngine 01:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't stand for anything other than the three revert rule. If a blocking admin has mentioned 3RR in the block summary, that means the user was blocked for breaching the three revert rule. --bainer (talk) 02:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. TobytheTramEngine 02:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: deterrence

In September, Chaser added a note #Clarifying "punitive" in this policy, an edit that I think was a well judged one. Having noticed it, I feel that it's worth promoting from a footnote to a subsection in the main text. Would anyone object to this?

Current:

When blocking may be used Protection Disruption Open or anonymous proxies Enforcing bans Evasion of blocks

Addition (proposed sub-section to go after 'disruption'):

Deterrence Blocks are not punitive in the sense that they aren't retribution for past behavior. They are sometimes used to deter future repetition, and to encourage future conduct to differ from past conduct, when it is felt a warning would be unlikely to do the job. Deterrence differs from protection in that deterrence emphasizes behavior change in the user, and protection emphasizes separation of the project from the user. Deterrence examples: To deter future repetition of the present conduct. To encourage an understanding that the present behavior cannot continue. To encourage a congenial editing environment within communal norms. As deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition, an action which has happened even a short time ago and has not repeated, may not justify a deterrent block, even if one might have been justified at the time.

It's not quite the wording I'm after, but the sense of it seems to be about right, and would clarify a norm that's fairly widespread in practice but not explained in the policy. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the "When blocking may be used" section; deterrence is not a reason for blocking because you have to be deterring someone from doing something. It's possibly relevant in terms of determining the length of a block. --bainer (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In the long run, all reasons for blocking ultimately come down to "protecting the wiki", but blocking to deter repetition of present misconduct and encourage change is a different intent and motive, than mere protection (which doesn't necessarily care whether the user changes or not), and as such is well worth noting. Deterrence of future problematic conduct and encouragement of a congenial environment is not just a "factor" whose only relevance is to judge "length of block"; it does probably exist in its own right as a purpose or reason. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What I meant was that if you're "blocking to deter repetition of present misconduct", then the basis for the block is still that present misconduct. "Deterrence" alone can't be a situation when blocking may be used because you have to be deterring someone from something. I'm just interested in keeping this page in some kind of logical order because of the mess it was in when I rewrote it a while back. Perhaps the best place for something like this would be as a new subsection in the "implementing blocks" section. --bainer (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's take a look at this. It needs some revision and tweaking and I certainly invite your critique. This would come immediately following the introduction

==Purpose and goal== One goal of blocking is to protect the project. While blocking is not intended to be punitive, it builds upon prior warnings and discussions to emphasize that disruptive conduct is not acceptable. A second goal of blocking is to encourage disruptive users to become valuable contributors to Wikipedia. For example, blocking can accomplish four important objectives: Blocking prevents imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. Blocking deters the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit. Blocking encourages a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated. Blocking encourages a productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Through the twin goals of protection and encouragement, blocks may escalate in duration to protect the Wikipedia while allowing for the cessation of disruptive editing and the return to respected editing.

JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad point at all. Very nicely spotted, in fact. "Purpose and goal" is missing, and that is the logical answer too. Nicely spotted. Wording may need some tweaking, we discussed this, it's tricky and likely will need others input. Mine for now is, the "For example" can go - don't need that here, especially in policy. More in a bit :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think FT2's proposed addition is a good idea. It would reflect current practice in a way that the policy does not already. As for which section it goes in, I don't think it matters as long as it fits. 1 != 2 19:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I quite like this wording. A better fit might be under the "implementing blocks" section, or perhaps as an entirely new section. --bainer (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny - I was just thinking, try this version of Jody's! Maybe either would work?

Purpose and goal All blocks ultimately exist to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. When lesser measures are inadequate, or problematic conduct persists, appropriate use of a block can help achieve this in four important ways: Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia. Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit. Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated. Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Important note -- Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. For the purposes of protection and encouragement, blocks may escalate in duration to protect Wikipedia while allowing for the cessation of disruptive editing and the return to respected editing.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note - "or where there is no current conduct issue of concern" added following detailed discussion - if theres no current concern, we don't actually block even if there was a concern in the past. We might ANI or DR, but usually we do not block for 3RR a week ago, civility 4 days ago, etc... we do often block, if it happens again (ie, currently) though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It fills the same gap between common practice and policy and is laid out in a fashion that shows the philosophy behind it better. 1 != 2 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty comfortable with this. But one thing lacking - and it exists in present practice - are blocks without warnings. The example is the sleeper sockpuppet who may be blocked without a warning. JodyB _{Roll, Tide, Roll} 23:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section for warnings is Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Education and warnings. Can you suggest any improvements to that section? --bainer (talk) 01:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If a statement is needed, then all that would be needed a simple edit to the warning paragraph: "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity, and accounts whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sock-puppetry, obvious vandalism, personal attack, and so on) may not require further warning." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This also reflects current practice, I can support that too. 1 != 2 15:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this idea reflects current practice, has support here, and there is no objection, I am going to boldly move forward with these changes. Revert and discuss if you disagree. 1 != 2 19:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur. JodyB _talk 20:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Can vandalism be remedied by protection?

Is protecting articles for weeks (2,3,...) a right remedy against vandalism - especially the unpredictable random one, and not wars - or should blocking individual vandals be used instead, because protecting is detrimental to editing up to grinding it to stop, where anonymous editors are the edit driving force, please? Additionally, vandalism can be provoked or made up from IP addresses by editors violating WP:OWN just to instigate protection in order to restrict anonymous editors. For an example click here, and for clarifying the vandalism definition to easier identify vandals see Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort". -70.18.5.219 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Protection policy#Can vandalism be remedied by protection? by -70.18.5.219 (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC):

Blocking takes precedence over protection. But in many cases, the IPs are dynamic or there are just too many different IPs to block without creating more collateral damage (for example, a while ago we blocked an IP that was used by every person in a country, I think it was Qatar). Sometimes a user is making a bunch of new accounts or they did, so the best way to stop them all is to semiprotect. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

So, it seems that: Yes, as the last resort, when other remedies were exhausted or could not have been applied. That policy is reasonable in theory, but how it has been followed? I can give you two examples of articles being often (over)protected: Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. Not a single vandal has been blocked, and I found just one warned and not even blocked (User:24.8.104.191)! Both the articles were overprotected and the protection was subsequently lowered after a tedious process that nobody would pursue; I did it, but only twice, just to exemplify the abuse of protection policy, as a rule rather than exception (see Talk:Diego Rivera#Protecting Diego Rivera for 20 days... excessive and abusive??? and Talk:Frida Kahlo#"Protecting" the article for 2 weeks - too much!!!) caused - I think - by "taking shortcuts" by sysops not careful enough. My point is that the protection policy was (and still is) systematically abused, and - so - I have proposed improvement to the vandalism definition (Wikipedia talk:Vandalism#Make it less vague, define "deliberate" & "good-faith effort") to clarify subject of blocking to make it reality rather than theory. -70.18.5.219 (talk) 03:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Help

I dont have authority on wikipedia therefore i cant block Halo legend 00 (talk · contribs), look at what he has done to my disscusion page. I think he should at least get a warning for he has done this before but not ever to this extent. cheers --Metal to the Max! 02:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Please post such requests at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. — Satori Son 18:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Confidential Evidence

In the interest of heading off an edit war on this page, I thought I'd ask for comments on the recent addition of a section discussing blocking based on controversial evidence. --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• I personally support the change, as if there is a true need to use secret evidence, ArbCom is well equipped for such situations. Outside of ArbCom, the use of secret evidence and the resulting loss of transparency could be damaging to the community. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• I think it is just plain common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the alteration to policy. However I dispute that the given footnote is an adequate representation of consensus. I left the addition to the policy as I agreed with it, but I removed the footnote because I think the referenced discussion does not justify this change, I think the change should justify itself with its wording. I approve the wording, but do not accept the fact that consensus has already approved it. 1 != 2 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that there will be discussion. The user in question said that instead of blocking on secret evidence distributed to undisclosed recipents, she will send such secret information to ArbCom so they can block. Since those who ask to see the evidence so they can make an informed decision are accused of aiding the terrorists trolls, this unilateral declaration is about as clear a decision of practice that one is likely to find. We're outgrowing childish notions such as "consensus"; aren't we proud? (If anyone checkusers me on suspicion of sockpuppetry because I dare to express these thoughts, please notify me so I know that it's time to leave the project. I get enough such treatment from my government; getting it from my hobby would be too much of a good thing. Thanks.) - BanyanTree 23:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, I want to say I think it is appropriate to block based on potentially privacy revealing evidence and then send said evidence to arbcom and ask that any unblock be done through arbcom. Sometimes the evidence gathered, if revealed, would compromise a persons privacy. If a block is warrented but disturbing someone's privacy is not warranted then such a block makes sense. I trust arbcom to examine evidence that cannot be made public, and I know they will not let an admin do a block in their name without good reason. 1 != 2 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that such actions should only taken be in emergencies, i.e. there is good reason to suspect imminent damage to the project, or to halt immediate subtle damage. Otherwise, I think it would avoid some drama to simply wait for arbcom or checkuser to take care of it, thus saving everyone a little time in the long run. After all, if there isn't any immediate danger, there's no reason to rush and risk blocking a good contributor, which just tends to create hard feelings and general distrust. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

• I agree completely. I think confidential issues should be in the hands of individuals such as arbitrators and Checkusers, who are used to dealing with such things anyway. Cheers, ( arky ) 19:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree as currently presented and worded. Separate page proposal. Too wide and open wording, also doesn't handle at all, the range of necessary issues. The idea is fair, but that's not a good version nor is the idea of individuals acting as described, certain to have been "rejected by the community" in all cases as asserted. Issues of secret information extend outside blocking policy and a subsection couldn't cover them properly. I think a separate page where it can be covered properly, is more appropriate than a subsection of Blocking policy, and would propose a policy instead. I've drafted a sample proposal at Wikipedia:Confidential evidence for review; it would need careful consideration to see if it works. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you announce the proposal at WP:AN? One thing for sure, if we have clear guidance, there will be less drama. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN is an administrative noticeboard, this policy is decided by the community, not just admins. A post on WP:AN would not hurt, but a post in a more generalized area would go with it well. Those who are interested in the content of this policy will have this talk page watch-listed. I have yet to read through FT2's proposal, though I will as his proposals are usually sound. 1 != 2 22:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Posted to Village Pump (Policy), WP:AN and Template:Cent. Note that the aim of the proposal is really, "if consensus says we need to cover confidential evidence (which makes sense given its potential impact whether accurate or inaccurate), then a separate page is the place to do it".

The draft is therefore intended as a "reasonably sensible starting-point". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• The new section has obvious merit, which is not to endorse the calls by some for extensive details of the way in which serial abusers of the project give themselves away (which, obviously, we should keep close to our chests). A properly independent sanity check via ArbCom and/or CheckUser is good sense and not appreciably obstructive to protecting the project. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence vs conclusions drawn from evidence

I altered the title of the section from "confidential reasons" to "confidential evidence". The use of confidential evidence in certain circumstances should not abrogate from the general obligation to provide reasons for making a block. --bainer (talk) 04:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Question about indefinite blocks

I've seen that although in most cases indefinite blocks are labeled as "indefinite", they are sometimes (not very common) labeled as "infinite". For a long time, I've wondered what exactly is the difference, technically and socially, between these and why they are used separately. Could someone explain this to me? Angel Cupid (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't be labelled infinite. The admins in question may have been thinking of our banning policy. Please ask if anything is unclear, as this is an area that is likely to be discussed here over the next few days. Carcharoth 20:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is one example of a block labeled "infinite". -- 71.72.72.161 (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Request immediate block this user

I found recently someone has stived to do harm on the thread of South Korea by the Jjk82. I have checked his contribution, and I found that he has been obessed with altering and adding the information on variuos threads regarding South Korea to demote its reputation. I have no idea the reason why this user have done this, but this is a serious crime, and I won't disregard his misconducts. The enviroment section, the Jjk82 added, was suppored barely by some columnists' private opinions. In addition, the Jjk82 concluded South Korea is a dirty country with his pathetic so-called references, but on those references, they also refer and indicate that many other developed or developing countries, including Japan and Taiwan, also have the same problem. Moreover companies like toshiba and other Japanese companies were rated lower than Samsung and LG. So can I claim that the those countries are disgusting and dirty, and those companies are sick and ignorant to enviromental issues? I will ask administrator to assess the user Jjk82's conduct. This Jjk82 reminds me of someone who had tried to do vandalism on the Seoul's thread. Please remember that defaming other rivalry country is not a patriotic deed. It's nothing but huge disgrace on your country.

Please trace what the user Jjk82 has commited on the South Korea article[5]. Most his so-called references are not definitely relavant to his urges, and those references are nothing but aggregations of some particular persons' opinions, not even close to be proved.Patriotmissile (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

As noted in the large banner on the top of this page, this isn't the page to request blocks. For repeated blatant vandalism, try WP:AIV. For non-blantant repeated vandalism, please see WP:ANI. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

On confidential evidence and the police function of administrators

Among other tasks, administrators are charged with maintaining public order on Wikipedia. Usually a blocking action can be justified by direct evidence that can be disclosed. However, there is a continuing problem on Wikipedia with sock puppets, who seem to me to be growing in sophistication and patience. It has been argued that sock puppets do no damage until they are actually disruptive; however, that's not true for some socks. It is possible for a sophisticated sock to create a mass of helpful edits and then insert a few subtly POV edits, the latter being the goal of the sock.

Some socks operate through methods that make it impossible to identify them through IP. However, there can be other signs that a user is a sock, and there are possible sophisticated research techniques *other than checkuser* which could be used to detect them with reasonable probability. Disclosing these methods could hamper the ability to detect socks, because then socks might be able to take measures to avoid detection.

Now, we, as a community, have recognized the need for a subset of users to be entrusted with a kind of police power. They have no power to punish, but they do have the power to, so to speak, detain, to restrain, for a time, editing, pending some resolution. This is exactly what police do in the real world. They cannot lawfully determine that a person is a criminal, convict, and punish them. They can, legally, only detain and protect. Police who punish, that is, deliberately cause harm to any individual, without immediate necessity, are, properly, removed from authority and punished themselves. On the other side, it is essential that people who *are* given this authority have discretion as to how to use it. Absolutely, discretion can be abused, but making a mistake is not an abuse of discretion. It's inevitable. Police who wait for absolute, incontrovertible proof before making an arrest are failing to take adequate steps to protect the public. Rather, police arrest when they have reason to believe that a crime may have been committed *or may be about to be committed*. Being arrested is not a cause for shame, I've been arrested, and no blame could be assigned to the police, nor, in fact, to the complainant, who had reason to believe that his action was protective itself. He was wrong ... but, again, if we wait for proof, we will, too often, wait too long.

If a sock begins to incorporate *subtle* bias in articles, having been established as a "legitimate" editor, it might take a long time to discover, and even longer to undo the damage. This can happen with registered users as well, the sock issue is only relevant because a common use of socks is harmful; most users have no legitimate reason to create and use a sock, and there are rules for socks. Any sock should not be surprised at being blocked temporarily, and should not take offense at it! It's almost like wearing a mask into a bank! Alright, maybe you do have a reason to be wearing that mask, light harms your skin, or whatever.... it's not illegal to wear a mask, usually, but one who wears a mask should certainly understand that their behavior might be subject to unusual scrutiny.

The current policy now reads that an admin who suspects harmful user action based on confidential evidence should submit it through certain channels and not block. If blocking were punishment or harmful to the one blocked, I'd agree, but it is not. For the protection of all of us and of our project, we all are subject to "detention and search," which is a very common notice in certain public places now. I would agree, though, that such a block should be accompanied by an immediate provision of the confidential evidence as described, for review as soon as possible. I'm very concerned about tying the hands of administrators, who already have a difficult job.

Do some administrators abuse their buttons? Yes. But the remedy there is to propose desysopping those administrators, based on specific allegations of *abuse*, not of *error*, unless a pattern of error can be shown. I'm just an ordinary user, but I've had to deal with an extraordinary number of socks, and it is a huge waste of time, it harms the encyclopedia. And, frankly, if administrators working on the sock problem aren't getting charged frequently with abuse, they aren't working hard enough. Dealing with allegations of administrative abuse is a consensus process feeding the decision of a trusted servant or servants, and it should follow the same rules as all other such processes. If we would block editors for disruptive and incivil discussion on a Talk page, we can and should block them from such on pages considering any administrative process. An administrator may, quite possibly, acting in good faith, nevertheless display an unintended pattern of abuse, based on unrecognized bias. It is not and should not be offensive to claim abuse, but it is abusive to fail to assume good faith unless proof is crystal clear. I'm appalled at what I've read in recent discussions (and in many ANI archives). We should hold editors responsible for proper conduct in *every* discussion. Yes, there might be a lot of blocks! -- but most of them would be quite short, I'm sure, for legitimate editors. We *all* make mistakes, and a block is not a punishment. It's protection. It's the chair of a meeting saying, "Order!" -- and then choosing whom to recognize, i.e., whom to allow to continue talking. (which is only quite temporary, not punitive, and may be focused on only one person who is judged by the chair, immediately, on the spot, and fallibly, to be talking out of turn, and which decision is appealable if two members agree on it, according to standard parliamentary procedure; but anyone who does not follow the reasonably legitimate directions of the chair can be removed from the meeting.)

One more point. It's impossible to totally block the submission of legitimate content. All it takes is *one* user not blocked willing to receive an email from a blocked editor and post it, and the content is placed. But, of course, this user becomes responsible for its appropriateness. All this has actually been worked out in detail, Wikipedia could profit from the study of what has come before in group decision-making process. If some admin cabal -- even the grand panjandrum himself -- tried to block truly legitimate content or discussion, it would create a firestorm like we have not seen, if users realized their power and simply used it. Yes, that would take courage. So do lots of necessary actions in the real world. Wikipedia cannot control direct communication between editors, nor should it attempt to do so. But as long as the administrators are reasonably serving the community, this massive disruption would not happen. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that if user privacy rules were loosen a bit to a saner and more practical level, some of this admin cloak & dagger stuff would be completely unnecessary. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit to "implementation"

I've moved a couple of bits on the "Implementation" section, for clarity. If any of these are a problem, please discuss. I think they're an improvement for clarity and focus.

1. Moved the "education" subsection to its own section just before there. Education is about what you think of before blocking, good faith, etc. It's good principles, but it better maybe to to put that in its own section, and let "implementation" cover just the information needed on actual implementation of proposed blocks.
2. Gave the sentence on IP blocking its own specific subsection. Given sensitivity of IP blocks, a subsection that shows up in the contents, and can describe issues better if needed, seemed much more useful. Also for the same reason, added this to the existing sole sentence: "IP address blocks can affect many users, and IPs can change. Users intending to block an IP address should at a minimum check for usage of that address, and consider duration carefully.".

Hopefully more clear and focussed, and not contentious. There's no other textual edits. But if there is a concern feel free to revert, and discuss here instead :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock

In the unblocking section can we clarify that when an unblock review is requested by the user and performed by an independent administrator (i.e. not one chosen by the user), the reviewing administrator may choose to unblock the user without consulting the blocking admin. This is particularly important for short blocks where communication delays essentially would make a block unreviewable without this exception. Naturally, the reviewing administrator is free to contact the blocking admin if they have doubts about the block. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I think we need to discourage short blocks and instead encourage admins to step in and help calm down the situation. Often edit wars can be stopped by an admin asking editors to revert themselves and then engage in discussion with them on the talk page. It is more time consuming and takes some diplomacy since likely one or more parties will make snarly remarks at you in the beginning.

2. I think admins could make it clear as they make a block if it is one that they need to be consulted on before it is removed or if they are comfortable with another admin undoing the block without discussion. FloNight (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the circumstances of several of my blocks are in evidence of the MatthewHoffman case, though the arbitrators have chosen not to discuss them. I only wish to draw attention as well to how quickly my requests for unblocking also were rejected. —Whig (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, unblock reviews should be independent, and blocks should be properly documented so they can stand on their own without explanation, except in unusual circumstances. Accordingly, an unblock reviewer who is previously uninvolved should be able to unblock without discussion. FloNight, since Sadi Carnot I have made a habit of saying either, "feel free to reverse this block if you choose", or "do not reverse this block without talking to me first", depending on circumstances. I agree, short blocks tend to inflame rather than calm, but people use them all the time, so we need to consider how to handle reviews that will be mooted if discussions are required. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An attempt to discuss with the blocking admin before unblocking is essential. If it fails then an attempt at wider consensus amongst admins should be made. The exception to this would be when there has been a factual misunderstanding or circumstances that lead to the block have changed. 1 != 2 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Previous username blocks

As per discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#RtV_Clarification, I have added a new section: Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Recording_in_the_block_log_after_username_change. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

(Permalink to archived discussion: archive117)

I don't think a brief discussion on a holiday is enough to make a major change to a basic policy. The policy already has a section that says:

• Recording in the block log
• Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating. Bureaucrats occasionally make an exception to provide a link to the prior block log of a user who has undergone a username change.
• Very brief blocks may be used in order to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgment of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, unless the original block has not yet expired (in which case the message may be recorded in the unblocking reason).

Jossi's addition was:

• Recording in the block log after username change
• At times, editors, for different reasons, will cite the right to vanish and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed. If such editors have had an history of disruption recorded in their block logs, short blocks to denote each entry in the user's old account log can be added to the new account to record their past interactions. Such short blocks should provide protection in case the "right to vanish" was based on a genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, by not disclosing the previous username, while at the same time eliminating the possibility of avoiding the scrutiny of the community.
• In these cases, the short blocks should include a "previous account block log" in the block summary.

Those conflict. Let's work out the differences on the talk page. One cpncerion I have about your proposal is that it doesn't set a threshold for identifying the new user with the old name. Sinec block logs can't be cleared, a high threshold should be set. I think that either public checkuser evidence or an admission by the user should be required before their block log is amended. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

These do not conflict. One is designed to avoid using short blocks as harassment of editors. What I am proposing is much simpler, and cannot be abused as the previous user name should not be disclosed in the new user's blocklog. Of course, this applies to cases in which the new account is known to the admin, either by checkuser action, or by self-disclosure. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Amended, and self reverted, so that it can be discussed. Here is the diff] and here is the proposed text:

At times, editors, for different reasons, will cite the right to vanish and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed and asking that their user and talk pages be deleted by an administrator. If such editors have had an history of disruption recorded in their block logs, short blocks to denote each entry in the user's old account log can be added by the administrator extending the courtesy of "right to vanish", to the new account to record their past blocks. Such short blocks should provide protection in case the "right to vanish" was based on a genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, by not disclosing the previous username, while at the same time eliminating the possibility of avoiding the scrutiny of the community.
In these cases, the short blocks should include a "previous account block log" in the block summary.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in that proposed text about requiring the connection between the usernames to be verifiably established. If it's based on confidential information then perhaps it should only be done by an editor with Checkuser privileges, or a bureaucrat. Mistakes could lead to irreparable entries in an innocent user's block log, so this should only be done with great care. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

It is much simpler than that. If a user approaches you as an admin to delete his/her user pages based on RtV because of off-wiki harassment, you will assess and oblige if warranted. But doing that should not be at the expense of transparency, i.e. hiding a past history of disruption. If the proposed wording does not work, please propose an alternative as the proposal itself, I am sure you agree with me, has merit.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if an user with a new account asks to have the user pages of an old account blanked, then at that time the admin, now knowing both account names due to the self-admission of the user, should note the old blocks in the new block log? I don't object to that in principle, but I wonder if it's ever come up. Have there been many occasions when a new account asks for an old account to be blanked? I would have thought that the user would use the old account to ask for the old account pages to be deleted, and so would not establish a connection between the accounts. Or are you saying that user pages of accounts with prior blocks shouldn't be deleted? That can be stated in a single sentence. "Users with prior blocks have no right to vanish and their user pages should not be deleted". If that's the intent then I probably disagree. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if an user with a new account asks to have the user pages of an old account blanked, then at that time the admin, now knowing both account names due to the self-admission of the user, should note the old blocks in the new block log? Yes, that is what I am saying, it has happened.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the connection is only verifiable by that one admin, who presumably can't share the confidential info with anyone. Since this can't be undone, I think it either needs to be verifiable by the community or be performed only by users with Checkuser clearance. In the scenario you've described the checkuser should be able to verify the connection and make the necessary edits to the block log. Here's what I would propose to cover that:

Editors may cite the right to vanish and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed and asking that their user and talk pages be deleted by an administrator. If such editors have been blocked previously then the administrator who has been requested to make the deletion should contact a Checkuser so that the connection between the accounts can be verified. The Checkuser should then add short blocks to the new account to denote each entry in the user's old account log. The short blocks should be described as "previous account block log" in the block summary. Such short blocks should provide protection in case the "right to vanish" was based on a genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, by not disclosing the previous username, while at the same time eliminating the possibility of avoiding the scrutiny of the community.

If it's left to solely admins there could be errors due to overzealous "sleuthing". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That may work, Will. Let's wait and see what others have to say about this before re-adding. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The notation in the block log should probably include the duration of each block, and the checkuser should be careful to note the actual amount of time served, as sometimes blocks are reduced or lifted.

The short blocks should be described in the block summary as "previous account block" and the final duration of the block should be noted. Blocks placed in error and lifted early should not be noted at all.

Reblocks to shorten a block shouldn't be noted separately. When a block has been lifted I suppose they should also make an effort to discover if the block had been made in error, in which case it shouldn't be noted in the new block log. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

This happens all the time at WP:CHU when the block was recent, the block "stuck", and there's no personally-identifying information which needs to be censured. Daniel 04:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

30 day limit on block length

There used to be a provision that admins could block for a maximum period of 30 days; longer blocks required arbcom approval. Has that been repealed? Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall there ever being anything to that effect in any policy. --bainer (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked repeat-vandal IP addresses for 3 months. Bearian (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly the esteemed member refers to the provisions that were removed here and here. See also Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Archive_6#Block_length. Take You There (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

.....which is regarding IPs. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Take You There is a sock of Sarsaparilla per CU. MBisanz ^talk 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Then of course there is the statement at WP:POINT, "Egregious disruption of any kind is blockable by any administrator — for up to one month in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive." Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's a good thing that WP:POINT isn't policy and WP:BLOCK is, because "in the case of repeat offenses that are highly disruptive", I'll be blocking indef, not just one month. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tor nodes

An ongoing discussion is in progress regarding adjusting the blocking policy in reference to TOR nodes. The discussion is here. Regards, M-ercury at 13:18, January 8, 2008

Token Blocks

Would there be support for adding another exception to the prohibition against using blocks to record events in the user's block log? I recently came upon a case where an otherwise productive user was caught sock puppeting with multiple bad hand accounts. One of the edits was so bad it had to be oversighted. Practicing WP:IAR, I placed a one minute block because (1) I didn't feel like prevention was necessary given the circumstances because there was no imminent threat of repetition, but (2) I definitely felt deterrence was necessary in the long run. The token block contained a link to documentation of the incident concerning an edit that outed another editor. This would serve as deterrence against any sort of repetition.

I now recognize that this was improper under current rules, and that I should have placed a longer block. However, I think this practice should be available to administrators. In limited, exceptional cases a token block can serve the valid purpose of deterring future misconduct. Should we explicitly allow token blocks in cases of egregious misconduct, such as when a user makes malicious edits that need to be oversighted, but the editing is not discovered immediately? Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope: what's to stop an administrator from using a one minute block in place of a vandalism warning? Or worse, adding ticks to the block log over trivial borderline actions? User talk pages are perfectly good for deterrent warnings, and have the advantage that an administrator can withdraw the warning if it turns out to be mistaken. That was a controversial block you applied, and rightly so. It even got you blocked for a short time. Large drama quotient, no actual benefit. Durova^Charge! 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you that blocks for notation purposes alone are generally not acceptable, it is important to note that the only drama that occurred here was over the inappropriate block of Jehochman, not his own too-short block of the sockpuppeteer. — Satori Son 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this would not be good. I abhor the practice of putting "notes" in block logs. I accept this only when renaming, but anything beyond that, a block note should be preventative and only when a block is used, not just to note. We do not scarlet letter people's account, even if it is true. Regards, M-ercury at 13:08, January 15, 2008

Next time I will block such a user for two weeks, and there will be no controversy whatsoever. As for me being blocked, that was clearly an inappropriate response, though I sort of enjoyed the experience. I'd always wanted to see what being blocked was like. I agree with the slippery slope argument. If this were implemented, it would have to be for exceptional situations, not ordinary vandalism warnings. On the other hand, if we start trying to specify what's exceptional, there is a problem with instruction creep. Mercury, keep in mind that deterrence is also an acceptable reason to block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To deter is to prevent. There is no difference on context here. But to make perm notes in block logs, is a bit beyond prevention. M-ercury at 13:47, January 15, 2008

A two week block would leave a permanent note, and in this case was warranted. Even an indef would have been within discretion. It seems to me that the real problem is folks using a token block when no block is warranted. Token blocks in lieu of longer blocks seems less problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You would stigmatize an editor. This is problematic. We don't leave warnings in the block log. Is there some more history to this? M-ercury at 13:58, January 15, 2008

I am trying to be abstract because there's no reason to expose the victim to unwanted attention. The puppet master had set up 5 alternate accounts and was using them disruptively. One of the disruptive edits was to out the former identity of a trusted community member (the "victim"). All five socks have been indeffed. The main account had a record of good work, so I thought, "I want to give this person a second chance, but I am very, very concerned about this outing nonsense, and I need to make sure that if it ever happens again, this person is going to be indeffed." Warnings on the talk page disappear into history. In retrospect, I should have just blocked for two weeks and said I was being lenient by not going to indef.

Let's take the above situation and add one more factor. Let's say the egregious conduct happened three months before the puppetmaster was discovered. A block three months later isn't really preventative, but why should this person have a clear block log. They did something wrong, plus they were sneaky.

Let me modify the proposal. "In the event of sock puppetry, a note may be added to the block log of the puppetmaster to identify any blockable wrongdoing done their sock puppets." I think that captures the spirit of what I want. Using sock puppets to evade scrutiny should not be rewarded. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid token blocks. Block log use for leaving notes have been a big issue in the past, best just not to use them that way. There is a functional equivalent that will show in the block log: 1) block the user for a week or indef, but also 2) announce that you will immediately unblock or support unblock for a simple promise of the user not to continue the behavior. This will leave the user unblocked at any time that he wishes to resume working on articles, and still show on the log, and be fully within policy. NoSeptember 14:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of past problems, but I see your point. Yes, the block/unblock routine is a valid tactic, though it is essentially equivalent, but it avoids the camel's nose that Mercury identifies below. Thank you all for this discussion. It has been helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can fix this without adding the letter A to the editors neck. Block the puppet master for howeverlong it takes to prevent a load on sysop time and to prevent damage to the wiki, or either. I really don't think it is a good idea to support this, at this time. I'm sorry, but its camels nose I think, and I hate using those phrases. M-ercury at 14:15, January 15, 2008

For some relevant background:

• earlier discussion here
• parallel discussion at AN

As an example of the kind of things people have suggested doing this for is as a substitute for the "removing warnings" templates after they got deleted. The block log should not be used as an indelible scarlet letter. --bainer (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those threads. From the Template:Wr deleted thread, "If people have not done something to warrant a block, they have a right not to have their block log tainted." I agree completely, but here we have a different situation: somebody has done something definitely blockable, but it was done with a sock puppet account, so the block log has effectively been split. I believe we need to make an exception so that links between block logs can be established. Above, it was recommended that the user be blocked for a significant time, with a note that they can be unblocked liberally to create the same effect. I can live with that constructive solution, but wouldn't it be simpler to say that token blocks may be used to link block logs of misbehaving alternative accounts? Bureaucrats can already do this when users change usernames. Wouldn't this be just another instance of the same thing. Comments? Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We're supposed to make permanent notes in block logs- that's what they're for. Yes, we should not block when there's no legitimate reason for it, but that's a separate issue. Are people seriously suggesting that once a block gets below a certain length, we need to treat it differently? I don't understand this at all. Friday (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an administrator have the discretion to reduce a block to very short length when a longer block is allowed? Why would be want to discourage leniency and second chances? I agree we cannot allow the block log to become a substitute for warnings, which is the issue that motivated this restriction, but have we painted with too broad a brush? I think so.Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem

Start with a quote: I recently wrote an essay on virtual blight. Along with the usual blighters: parasitic marketers, griefers, trolls, and predators, I added a 6th category: elitists. Elitists form cabals and cliques that make other users feel unwelcome. This can negatively affect the growth of an online community.[6] High-minded stuff...except that a mere 11 hours later the same administrator proposes to change policy in order to undermine the longstanding tradition that all Wikipedians' valid warnings have equal value. He's trying to undermine equality by turning the block log into something it isn't: a special warning bulletin readily viewable by anyone, but that only administrators are able to leave messages on. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you are misrepresenting my position. I am not proposing to put warnings in the block log. In fact, I strongly oppose that! I am proposing that block-able wrongdoing committed by alternate accounts can be noted in the block log of the main account. Should users be free to create throw away sock puppets that get blocked for wrongdoing, and then walk away with a clean block log on their main account? I don't think so. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Both editors and administrators often leave warnings for blockable behavior. You propose a new special venue for this, accessible only to administrators. You have no reply to the slippery slope argument and this is almost certain to be unequally applied. If one editor calls another an epithet, that's blockable, but when an administrator insults an editor this is very unlikely to be used. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I am sorry if my debating skills are no match for yours. For the good of the encyclopedia, we should seek consensus rather than engaging in a test of wits. (As the less witted one, you can see why I'd like to avoid that.)

I am talking about a situation where an editor uses an alternate account to purposefully split their block log. See WP:GHBH. One way to prevent that sort of gaming is to note blocks given to alternate accounts in the main account's record, when the situation requires. Only administrators can block, so this does not create any sort of dichotomy or additional avenue for abuse. A block was given to an account which is later discovered to be an abusive sock puppet. Why shouldn't that block be noted in the main account's log? Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about debating skills; it's about common sense. For the good of the encyclopedia, take a harder look at the downside. This proposal has been suggested and rejected before. Any responsible administrator will read an editor's user talk history before applying a block; this proposal discourages them from doing so and devalues warnings that come from non-administrators. And surely you know why some problem behavior isn't noted in block logs: because blocks aren't punitive. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Recording in the block log after sock puppetry is discovered

As with username changes, if a user has received blocks under a bad hand alternate account, those blocks may be noted by a checkuser or administrator in the main account's block log with short blocks. The short blocks should be described as "alternate account block log" in the block summary.

I have added "or administrator" to facilitate RFCU clerks and others being able to assist. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Proposed. This exactly parallels the situation with username changes and right to vanish. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deeply flawed and previously rejected; no new solution has been offered for previous flaws that resulted in rejection. See discussion above. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the links to where this has been proposed before and rejected by the community. Take a look at this: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log after username change. Why shouldn't this be the same situation? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been linked above; aren't you even reading the responses? The way you're pursuing this is very disturbing. Here are the discussions again. Here, AN Durova^Charge! 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. That thread talks about placing warnings. I am talking about effectively merging the block logs of alternative accounts with main accounts, the way we already do with username changes. That thread doesn't mention sock puppetry or alternate accounts. Go ahead, I will let you have the last reply, and then wait for other opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet templates already serve that purpose. Please refrain from sarcasm; if you have one good reason for proposing this that isn't already solved by other means, then I'm willing to hear it; and if you have effective solutions to the serious objections here I'm willing to see them. Each time someone raises an objection you change the subject or make bad faith assumptions, and from your own re-request for links it looks like you aren't reading the replies. Yet you claim to want consensus; how can you achieve that by disparaging whatever disagrees with you? Durova^Charge! 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Jehochman has altered from its original wording:

• Original: An administrator seeks expanded blocking authority to apply short blocks in situations currently handled by warnings and templates.
• Jehochman's version: Should blocks given to sock puppet accounts be noted in the master account's block log with short blocks?

That pretty much sums up the difference (more opinions above). Input is welcome. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do not agree that these situations are currently covered by warnings and templates. I've just changed "Should" to "Can" because this process can be optional. Comments are invited. Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose a clarification.

This page is missleading. Administrator can never block users if those users have enough resources. Administrators only TRY to block users. I've been blocked several times in other wikis and I always continued editing... --Damifb (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we will just have to try to do our best, but no reason to WP:BEANS make a big deal about this. NoSeptember 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's paternalist... I don't believe in good lies --Damifb (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a "policy" page, your tidbit is not policy, but more of a hypothetical. NoSeptember 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not misleading at all, you're just misquoting the page. It actually says "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." "May" already implies it doesn't always work. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clever answer! --Damifb (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to policy

1.1 Although it may sound like a trivial change, policy change suggestions might be better off starting out with small bits to achieve consensus.

current heading: When blocking may not be used
proposed heading: When blocking must not be used

1.2 WP:BLOCKME current language: Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused. There is a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used instead.
proposed language: Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Such requests are to be declined. There is a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used instead.

Archtransit (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a fundamental rule. We do not want to turn Wikipedia into a lawyers' paradise. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm with Jehochman on this one. The changes that you suggested do not seem to do anything to the nature of the policy, but rather only change the wording. Considering that WP:IAR part of the picture, it seems incorrect to say "must" instead of "may", implying that this particular part of the policy supersedes IAR. Same with the second proposed change; the changed wording implies that there is a fixed way of doing things, which again, there is not in every case. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this change is unnecessary. Very few, if any, of our polices should speak in such absolute terms. It is up to the administrators here to carefully and thoughtfully apply this policy, and other community standards, to each unique situation. Such a discretionary authority, and the personal responsibility that come with it, is beneficial for the project. — Satori Son 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Infinite" blocks

Maybe I should rephrase my previous question a little more clearly: What exactly is the purpose of the "infinite" block option that admins have? And when may and should an "infinite" block be used, as opposed to an "indefinite" block? Angel Cupid (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Infinite" should mean "you're out of here forever", while "indefinite" should mean "you're out of here until we decide what to do with you, I guess. But in practice, there's no difference. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration proposal concerning new restrictions on exercise of admin powers

Administrators may be interested to read this discussion in a currently ongoing arbitration. It concerns a proposal from the arbitrators to bar admins active in editing articles relating broadly to Israeli-Palestinian issues from using discretionary powers in the entire topic area - not just an individual article - if they have previously been involved in a content dispute in that topic area. This would seem be a major modification of the existing prohibition on blocking users with whom one is involved in a content dispute (see WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used), in effect setting a different and stricter rule for the topic area under arbitration. A number of admins, including myself, are concerned that this is unworkable, undesirable and would set a bad precedent that could be applied to other disputes. Input from other admins would be welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision#"Uninvolved" administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions is limited to those administrators who seek to enforce the case's sanctions. Given the editing climate of those articles, the Committee seems wise to implement this measure. There is a parallel discussion at WP:AN#Arbitration proposal concerning new restrictions on exercise of admin powers Jehochman ^Talk 09:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The concern is more that it could be used as precedent for other disputed topic areas (I don't exercise admin powers in Israel-Palestine articles but I do in two other sanctioned topic areas, Kosovo and Macedonia). Anyhow, please feel free to discuss the issue further on the arbitration talk page, rather than here! -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Block logs analysis - logging indefinite blocks

I'm going to link this discussion from WP:AN (administrators' noticeboard) and WP:VPP (village pump - policy). Please add links from other places as well if needed.

This is a proposal following on from an AN discussion of [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive123#Escalating_blocks_versus_swift_indefinite_blocks|Escalating blocks versus swift indefinite blocks]. One of the points raised there was: "it would help if it was possible to list indefinite blocks separately from other blocks. That way we really could see if the proportion of indefinite blocks, as compared to other blocks, has increased or decreased over time". An initial analysis was done here (eleven indefinite blocks in one hour). It might be possible to do this through some combination of software changes to allow the existing log to have more filter options, or use categories (though those are less helpful for historical records), but what I propose is to manually list all the indefinite blocks carried out every 24-hour period, and then blank the page, possibly with old page versions being used to point to the list for a particular day. Including the block summary and the blocking admin's name would also be useful. In fact, the layout would be a lot like the archives of Wikipedia:Block log - see Wikipedia:Block log/Archive1. At the same time, it would be useful to analyse Special:Log/block to see how the amount of blocking has varied over time. I know admin blocking stats have been produced in the past, presumably from data from this log, but I don't know if a chronological analysis has ever been done. Ultimately, something like User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI (but for blocks, not images) is what I had in mind. Before I pursue this any further, is anyone vehemently opposed to this? I was going to set up a trial subpage, but a subpage of Wikipedia:Blocking policy didn't feel right, and Wikipedia:Block log is already taken. For now, I've set up User:Carcharoth/Indefinite block log. Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact a bot programmer. It should not be hard to download the entire block log for a day and then spit out a list of the indefinite blocks. You might want to do further filtering to show which blocks are applied to users with very few edits (typically throw-away socks and vandalism-only accounts) versus indef blocks applied to established editors. User:Franamax is very good at this sort of programming. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've pointed Franamax here. I agree that number of edits would be a good metric to use, though that will never be a substitute for actually examining the contribs. Ideally, there would be a way to log unblock requests and denials, but thinking about how to do that makes my head hurt. I think just this will be enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One problem I've thought of... Stuff in the block logs is normally less "visible". Would there be problems with such a page making the logs more visible? Would blanking at the end of each day ease such concerns? Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to help with this. The log data is normally available form the toolserver, where I could use database requests to make nice summaries. But the toolserver database is down for maintenance, so I can't move forward until it is back up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it difficult to query the number of edits an account has. From what I remember, that can be easily done with API. eg. here, and example. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult, this is stored in one of the database tables (where the API takes it from). The database query can be changed to incorporate that information in the output or use it as a filter. Once the database is running, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Maybe CBM has already answered the question.

Getting the block data is a snap, doing the analysis is pretty simple, looking through the blocked user's talk for unblock request/response template edits is doable (though there are some timing issues there). As far as visibility goes, the block log is there for anyone to check right now (to say nothing of the big red thing on the user page :), it's easy enough to just post summary data and hide the detail somewhere, and isn't your purpose to bring some visibility to the issue anyway?

This is easy enough to code up, I'll offer three caveats:

1. My framework only runs on as a standalone Windows program or Mac/Intel/OSX so someone has to actually run the program themselves on a regular basis.

2. I haven't yet breached the edit-Wikipedia-page barrier, I'm happier producing wiki-ready format that can be copy/pasted by a judicious user.

3. Much like the Unabomber, I carve all my own screws. Some of the python and perl guys might be able to do this in 6 lines of code where I would use 600, I don't really do the same thing as the bot-makers, they have lots of easy tools to work specifically with wiki, I make all my stuff up as I go. If you can find a bot-head to jump on it, they may be able to produce results in a day as opposed to a week for me.

That said, this doesn't look too tough, ask around, if no-one else bites in 4-5 days, I'll be happy to do it. Franamax (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can download all the logs, and do historical analysis that way. That link might not work in, say, a month, but you can always download all logs as an SQL database. Graham87 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Be warned that the above file is 353 MB in size. MER-C 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Feh. That must be the smallest download in all of WP. Someday when I can use a corporate connection, I'm gonna actually try one of those monsters. Franamax (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done some analysis of the reasons for about 12,000 indefinite blocks in the last two months, if anyone's interested - User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks. Hut 8.5 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. That's very interesting. Do you think you could possibly add the following?

(a) A search string for "infinite" (a subtly different variant on indefinite)

(b) Some figures for numbers of blocks over the period of time since the block log started (some point in 2004)? Just the number of blocks per month should be enough. Remember to exclude unblocks (does your figure for blocks exclude unblocks?)

(c) Repeating what you did for December and January for the same period in other years? (ie. year-on-year variations)

(d) Repeating what you did for December and January for the other period in the same year? (ie. seasonal variations)

Don't worry if you can't do any of this. Just some ideas. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I counted "infinite" as "indefinite" and unblocks as "other blocks" (which I've now changed). I got this data by copying the block log out of my browser 5000 at a time, and there's a limit to how long ago Special:Log/Block will go (and it isn't anything like enough to do what you are suggesting), so I think someone else ought to have a go. Hut 8.5 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be easy to repeat this every month for the block log for a whole month? ie. in the first week of February, do it for the whole of January, and then carry on from there? I could copy out the block logs if that is the tedious bit? I'm hoping someone will eventually come up with something more automated, and something that includes the number of edits, but this is good for now. I particularly like the figure of 31,600+ blocks for a two(?) month period, with 12,500+ being indefinite. It will be really good to actually have some figures to use next time this comes up. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do this every month for subsequent months, that's not really much of a problem (and copying out the block log data doesn't take too long either). The figure of 31652 is not actually the total number of blocks for December and January since I don't have all the data for January. It would be much easier to do something with the download mentioned above. Hut 8.5 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks as a percentage of total blocks

I've managed to run a similar analysis on the file linked to by Graham87 above - results at User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks 2. It appears from this that the proportion of indef blocks to other blocks has remained fairly constant between 30% and 45% since mid-2005. Hut 8.5 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Like CBM said as soon as yarrow is back up and current Ill get the data for all indef blocks verus non. β^_command 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to do the following: for every account that was indefinitely blocked (that is rather a large number - I make it 212,055 indefinite blocks over around 3 years), get: (a) current block status (ie. are they still indefinitely blocked - ignore cases where they are currently blocked for a definite period after an earlier indefinite block); (b) "number of edits" (if currently indefinitely blocked). And then do a distribution curve for number of indefinite blocks within set blocks of "number of edits" (eg. 0-10, 10-50, 50-100, 100-200, 200-300, and so on). Or however statisticians normally deal with that sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Non consensus blocks: what's the default? Please spell out clearly

Per the indefinite block of user:Piperdown preserved discussion at [7] (I can't figure out how to get the exact link to the section; perhaps somebody will help?) I think we should all take note of the fact that sometimes no consensus is reached on whether or not to unblock a user. However, the question then remains: so what to do in that case? In the absence of consensus, should the verdict be guilty or innocent?

Now, I think that the spirit of the language in WP:BLOCK contains much language to suggest that "community bans" require a consensus to block, not a consensus to unblock. It talks about not a single administrator being willing to unblock, which is language which is not understandable except as complete consensus to leave blocked (i.e., the action is so egregious that not a single admin thinks the block is ambiguous). In cases of ambiguous blocks, the WP:BLOCK policy only requires discussion with the blocking editor-- it does not say some consensus or agreement must be reached, and quite often there is none. The WP:BLOCK policy says that wheelwars are very bad, but then fails to offer guidelines for what to do in cases of "agree to disagree" where a wheelwar is inevitable without some guide. And that guide must address the crucial point: is a person guilty/blocked indefinitely in absence of consensus, or are they innocent/unblocked, in absence of consensus?

Now in the legal system, we know the way it works: as in Twelve Angry Men, one juror holding out can result in no conviction. I think that's the way it should be, and that’s the way "effective community ban" appears to be set up to be. But somehow, it has undergone a certain "creep" to the point that we now have indefinite blocks upheld unless there is complete consensus to UNBLOCK. That's somewhat bass-ackwards, and contrary to the sprit of WP:BLOCK, even though there's no clear statement of it that way.

So I merely propose that this policy page contains a very clear statement that if dispute resolution between administrators fails in cases of an ambiguous and contested block, that the default is then UNBLOCK. Which somebody needs to perform without fear of retribution. Which I think follows the way this policy was written, but is losing ground now, and more honored in the breech than the observance.

Those tempted to reply to me that this actually IS the policy now, won't have any problem with it being stated REALLY clearly, because some administrators obviously haven't gotten the message. And if you disagree that this is, or should be, the policy, here's the place to say why you think so. SBHarris 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The message from ArbCom, as I understand it, is that sysop tools should not be used in a controversial way. That means, if there is no consensus on what to do, do nothing. Members of ArbCom, or others, are invited to provide links to appropriate examples or counter-examples. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that means essentially: If accused by one, you're blocked indefinitely unless there's a consensus that you're not guilty. If so, you should spell this out as a natural consequence, in WP:BLOCK.SBHarris 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And that rarely happens. Consensus works both ways: if the block is unjustified, it will be undone and no-one will redo it. If it is justified, it will stay done. And if it falls in the middle, people will unblock or not as they see fit. If everyone pipes up and says "I'm not comfortable with this block" but no one actually unblocks, well, what people say and what people do don't often match in real life either. Personally, I'm happy with the consensus on the block in question, and note the editors who complain loudly and in many places with a degree of detached interest in what they are doing. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins not in agreement is one of the fast tracks to ArbComm accepting a case. Better than a repeated struggle is an admin filing a case saying "Admin X has blocked. I am willing to unblock." See for example the Arbitrator's acceptance opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered which might or might not have become a case until I, as an admin, said "I would be willing to undo the indefinite block as unsupported by either the claimed foul or the community discussion." GRBerry 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that admins aren't juror but rather trial judges. There is an upcoming proposal to have a formal appeals process of 3 or 5 admin circuits to review and uphold or overturn other admins decisions. Bstone (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV is not harm

I think calling an edit “POV pushing,” and/or using blocking to support one’s own side in an editorial dispute are wrong. I also think politely expressing a point of view does not harm Wikipedia or its editors. I think blocking someone for politely expressing a point of view is illegal. Politely expressing a point of view is not a form of competition, especially when used to give a paragraph neutrality.--Chuck Marean 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a rule against issuing a block in an edit dispute in which a blocking-admin is a part. Alas, it's easy to get around: you simply have another admin do the dirty work. The possible reasons are nebulous and impossible to define or defend against: "disruption," "edit-warring", "POV-pushing," "incivility", "trolling"-- they all add up to "You're new here, we don't like you, you have maybe just an IP address, and we think you need to go away." In some cases you might agree with an unpopular view and (once upon a time) if some other sod has been banned who expressed that view, you can be considered guilty-until-proven-innocent of being a "sockpuppet" for that person, and banned on the basis that you're pretty much like the other unpopular person. This is called the "duck test," and I believe it's named after that Holy Grail Python skit where they intend to duck the witch to see if she floats. If you can't be proven a sock, there's a species of thoughtcrime where you simply agree with a banned user, and this is called being a "meatpuppet." Sometimes it's confused with being a sockpuppet by administrators (wups). If you're a newbie with an unpopular view, if you're not credibly the one (maybe your IP traces to a different country, lucky for you), you can surely be accused of being the other. And so on.

And by the way, all these games are not just confined to administrators. Certain editors have their own favorite administrators they go to, when edit-warring over some WP:LAME thing, and yell "Daddy, HE'S TOUCHING ME!" Sometimes this results in a "time out" in the corner. Sometimes everybody forgets about who's stuck in the corner. Well, so. There's always a new supply of fresh wiki-cannonfodder, I mean enlisted men, ahem, new editors. Not everybody in the world has been bitten on wikipedia yet. There's a new one born every minute. SBHarris 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"I also think politely expressing a point of view does not harm Wikipedia or its editors" Chuck, please see WP:NPOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the talk pages. It is OK to discuss POVs on the talk pages. It is not acceptable to push a POV in an article, or to edit war to push a POV. But in these cases, discussion on the talk page is nearly always preferable to blocking. Blocking is a rather blunt tool that should really only be used as a last resort. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If one calls

for civil disobedience, is gonna be blocked? Because, the thing is, came on, we can still edit while blocked, so, what's the point of all this discussion? --Damifb (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The only page a user can edit while blocked is their own user talk page, so any disruption is kept to one page. If that one page is abused then it can be protected to stop the user editing it. Hut 8.5 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are so naif... I'm blocked in many wikis and still editing all of them...--Damifb (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Principle" findings by the review committee in the MathewHoffman case

I think just about all of the eight "principles" related to blocking recently emphasized by the arbitration committee in this (unbelievably FUBAB'ed case), need to be cited directly (perhaps simply copied over) into this article. I can put them here, if you like. Or see the findings of principle: [8]. What say you all? Case-law gets important when the decision comes from the Supreme Court. That's why the Chief Justice position has to be confirmed by fresh hearing, don't you know. About the only power he has is in choosing who writes the majority opinion, IF he agrees with it. But there a lot of power there, because by doing so, he controls who he/she knows is going to "make" the case-law, and what case-law gets made... SBHarris 02:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh what the heck, here are the eight findings of principle mentioned above

Administrators

1.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 6 to 2 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers

2) New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Blocking policy states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of sock puppets

4) Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Review and discussion of blocks

5) Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself

6) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute

7) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation bias in block reviews

8) Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of unblock requests are wholly without merit, those who choose to review them are expected to carry out an impartial, evidence-based review. Administrators are specifically cautioned to be on the lookout for confirmation bias in the course of a block review.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

SBHarris 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Warnings suggestion

In vandal hunting, I often come across user pages with two or three (or six or eight) "final" warnings saying "you will be blocked". Since the majority of vandal fighters are not admins and cannot actually enact the block (and often can't count on an admin to do it through AIV either as admins have different standards and applications of policy) how about we remove the ability to leave that warning from the non admin accounts. As it stands it appears that we are all just kidding when we say "you will be blocked" and the vandal learns that they can keep going. I'd appreciate any suggestions? Legotech·(t)·(c) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you noticing these warnings on IP talk pages or the talk pages of registered accounts? Hut 8.5 07:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly IPs but I've seen it on registered accounts as well. Legotech·(t)·(c) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There you are then. If an IP address receives a final warning and then a month later starts vandalising again, the chances that it is the same person are slim as most IP addresses are shared or change regularly. It clearly isn't fair to block people because of other people's vandalism. If a registered account does the same thing it's more of a concern, since we can be sure it is the same person. Hut 8.5 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats sort of why I was asking about the warnings wordings. I supposedly different editor comes along and starts vandalizing, so we warn. Again. And they get the "you have new messages" and go look and there are 40 "Final" warnings. The new editor then immediately realizes that the warnings are meaningless and continues to do whatever they want. Legotech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Options

How do you create an account while you are already logged into an account? I have done this before, but I don't know how I did it. Also, the options need to be changed:

1. "Automatically block this user's IP address and any further addresses they try to edit from." Actually, it only affects the address the user is currently using. 2. "Stop user from sending e-mail". Pointless. People can still send e-mail using something such as Hotmail or Outlook. 58.168.209.250 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can create am account here.

Regarding email, the email block does not actually stop people sending email, but it does stop blocked users finding out Wikipedians' email addresses using Special:Emailuser. Hut 8.5 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for remedies - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems

Please review and tweak: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence § t/e 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

Unresolved

 – needs further discussion

The section on "unblocking" has gradually become reworded over time, to the point it doesn't entirely match norms or consensus in an area. I've made a first edit which is to group together and tighten up wording of the times it's almost never allowed and can lead to desysopping: - wheel warring (was already in the policy), unblocking self other than removal of compromised admin account misblock (was already in the policy) and bad-faith unblocking to allow puppetry or reopen an IP that was blocked as a closed proxy. The latter cases -- reopening blocked proxies for abuse, and assisting sockpuppetry -- have been features of summary desysopping cases in the past and are the main (if uncommon) ways that unblocking gets abused. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see something to the effect of:

"Administrators should not decline an unblock request for a block they were involved in."

added to the section. It needs to be called out. Toddst1 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly agree that clarification would be beneficial. This caught me out already (see Q7) no real user was harmed in the production of this example. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hardblock vs softblock

I think that this policy should elaborate more on when a hardblock should be used instead of a softblock. I had an incident today in which I addressed a user for hardblocking accounts for simply having promotional usernames, as I thought that they only deserved a softblock, and often I see accounts with inappropriate names hardblocked or softblocked on a whim without much consistancy. As it is, there is too much subjectivity surrounding the matter. We need some concrete guidelines.--Urban Rose 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Expungement

Someone with a fairly long block history (most of it over a year old) asked me how they should go about petitioning for having the older blocks removed. I had no idea, and I looked through the archives to see if this had come up before without success. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's only done in exceptional circumstances (I think it's only happened once, at the request of the Arbitration Committee) - a developer needs to be found to directly alter the servers. Certainly if the old blocks were justified I doubt it's going to happen. Hut 8.5 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So, it isn't so much a philosophical issue as it is one of practicality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. If the blocks were justified (no matter how long ago it was) then it's clearly not right for an editor to hide their past like this. Even if the blocks weren't justified, it's necessary to have a record of the block and so the usual practice is to block the user for 1 second with a block summary stating the earlier blocks were unjustified. Hut 8.5 07:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I dig that, Hut. I was just suggesting that if a sufficient period of time had passed without incident, that expungement might be considered. A person's past edits as a noob need not haunt them forever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting clarification on Cool-Down Blocks

There are two ways we can tell that a user is "upset": by the nature of their editing patterns which will most likely be disruptive, or by their explicit mention or implicit suggestion in the course of an otherwise civil exchange on a talk page, etc. The current wording of the Cool-Down Block section on the policy page is, I believe, speaking to this latter situation: you should not block users simply because they appear to be upset. However I didn't interpret it this way until after coming to the talk page here; even after re-reading it several times, it still seemed to be talking about the first situation, by saying that users who are clearly disruptive and angry should not be blocked. I do understand now what it's getting at, but there must be some way we can clarify this language, yes? Am I alone in doing a double-take upon reading this for the first time? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier.[9] Perhaps "solely" is intended to be the key to this and that the reason for blocking should never be given as "cool down" but rather the perceived future harm that is supposedly being prevented. I personally don't read this section as saying that angry people must not be blocked. I have noticed that many blocks are made which are outside the policy stated here but the Arbitration Committee (for example) does follow the general approach described. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that discussion, but it seemed nothing was actually resolved and it was almost six months ago, so better to start a new 'thread'. Would something close to the following be acceptable (italics mine to emphasize difference with current version)?

"Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user who is not making disruptive edits should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation."

Is that too wordy? Does it confuse any other issues? Is it worse than what we have now? Thoughts in general? For me, this version reads much more clearly than what we have out there now. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with the Peruvian llama. This is one of the more bizarre and non-intuitive policies as currently written--I'd say the majority of short-term blocks issued to non-vandals are issued to very angry users who have begun to disrupt the project in order to express their outrage. We block these users with the hope that the user will assume a more peaceable demeanor when they return. Without the key phrase that Peruvianllama proposes, this policy contradicts reality. I'm going to boldly make the adjustment--and if any of you revert me I WILL BECOME SO F***ING ANGRY that you might just have to block me until I settle down.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the change is useful. Blocking someone is likely to make them more angry - so your motivation for blocking should never be "to let the person cool off". If their actions merit a block, then block them. If you think that they need a block to cool down, don't block them. Changing the wording turns the issue on its head - the motivation for blocking should never be "to let them cool down". Blocks should be issued on the merits of an editor's actions; the vast majority of us aren't qualified to therapeutic decisions. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the wording you reverted to seems to imply that angry, disruptive editors will only become more angry and more disruptive when they return to editing after their block expires--which I have not observed to be the case. Ther needs to be an indication that an administrator may block editors who are editing out of anger, provided that those edits are disruptive to the project. Perceiving that someone is angry online is hardly the same as diagnosing them with sort of mental condition--when they're pissed off, most editors will let you know. I think the crux of this (rather unnecessary) policy is that you can't block a user merely for expressing displeasure or rage. Can you show me some examples of users being blocked so they can "cool down?"--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with that proposed wording, Peruvianllama. Firstly, disruptive edits are only one broad category of reasons for blocking, so your wording is incomplete from that perspective. Secondly, it's something of a tautology, since the sentence already includes the word "solely".

The prohibition is against using blocks solely to enforce a cool-down period. Obviously many legitimate blocks will have the necessary consequence of an enforced cool-down period, and indeed this is probably the desired outcome. The policy is not saying that angry people can't be blocked if their behaviour is blockable. It's just saying that they shouldn't be blocked solely because they're angry, if their behaviour is not otherwise blockable. --bainer (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When have people been ever blocked solely for being angry? I fail to see the underlying purpose of this confusing policy; I watch many administrators closely and am more critical than most of their actions, but never have I witnessed an attempt by an admin to block an infuriated who editor who was not, by some user's estimation, making harmful edits--I think the much more nuanced and relevant issue is which edits are disruptive and which edits are acceptable--this is much harder to codify in a one-line policy. I do not feel think the intent of WP:BLOCK#CDB is obvious, and I would like to see examples of the actions it seeks to prevent.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the whole point of that policy was that you're not supposed to block people with a reason that they should "cool down", because that sounds incredibly patronising. Pretty much every non-indefinite block on a registered user is a cool-down block in a sense. - Bobet 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The reactions to being indefinitely blocked

Some thoughts on how people react to blocks, prompted by this reason for an indefinite block:

"Until you have read and understood WP:CIVIL and generally understood the ethos of communal consensual editing, and promise to abide by those principles, your presence on the encyclopedia is disruptive and I have therefore removed your editing privileges."

Indefinite blocking is sometimes used in cases where the blocking admin is unsure how long the block should be in place for, or if they think the person being blocked should demonstrate that they have understood why they were blocked, and acknowledge this and say they will change or stop, before being unblocked. I happen to think that this seemingly persuasive "don't unblock unless they apologise/are contrite" approach, unless done very diplomatically, can actually make things escalate and get worse. The reason being that this approach can end up feeling like "do this in order to get unblocked" or, worse, "we are going to force you to grovel and apologise, or we won't unblock you". The key point here is the reaction of the person being blocked and whether or not there were genuine reasons for blocking (there were in this case, but not, in my opinion reasons for an indefinite block).

If you have never been indefinitely blocked yourself, please don't assume that you know what it feels like. Many people react poorly to being blocked indefinitely (or being blocked at all). Sometimes that is a sign of a wider problem, but crucially, sometimes it is not. In these latter cases, we should be very wary of declining an unblock reason because of the reaction the block provoked. By their very nature, because they are often misunderstood as permanent blocks (understandably because sometimes they do end up being de facto permanent blocks), indefinite blocks are more likely to get people angry than definite blocks of a few days or a week. There is a countering argument that indefinite blocks can 'shock' people into acting better in future, but I think any block should be able to perform that function, especially when it is a first block.

Accordingly, I propose that indefinite blocks should not be used in an attempt to change behaviour or force apologies out of people. Such change should be genuine and not forced, and indefinite blocking only escalates situations where short blocks of a definite nature may be more appropriate. I realise that the argument goes that short blocks end up being seen as "punishment" and that indefinite blocks are used if the block admin wants to make sure that there will be no future harm (or rather, that there will be promises of no future harm), but a strongly worded warning from an admin or editor can achieve the same effect, followed by a short block if the behaviour continues. In other words, the warning and short block ends up being a warning shot in an escalating series, rather than jumping straight in with indefinite.

Any thoughts? How does this work in practice? Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case at hand LHvU did add text "Until you have read and understood..." following the block notice, which is at least a partial clue that the block was not definitely indefinite. The problem I see with the block notice itself, especially with indef blocks, is that it gives only one alternative: "if you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest...". This presents itself to the blocked user as the only way out being to say why the block is wrong. Since the blocked user is usually a combative user, this leads to a combative response to the block notice along the lines of "UNBLOCK me now you fascist communist anarchists". There is nothing in the block notice which indicates a possibility of redemption. In the case of an indef block, the notice should (almost) always indicate that indef not= forever and specific changes in behaviour are required; and in the case of any block length, since blocks are preventive, there should always be some other way out, if the user can recognize and intend to modify their bad behaviour then the block should be immediately lifted. The blocked user should always be offered a graceful way out iff they are willing to reflect and make changes. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a rewrite of the block notices might help. Would this be the right place to discuss that? Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am going to disagree with the specifics, although I understand and endorse the main points regarding the use of indef blocks and disruptive editors. Using a block to alter an editors behaviour; when that behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL and causes disruption, then that behaviour provides the reason for the block and thus only a change in that behaviour - or an undertaking to change - is reason for the block to be lifted. If behaviour was the reason for executing the sanction, not addressing the behaviour seems pointless. "You have been rude and you are therefore blocked for a week" appears, to me, to be far more punitive. It seems to be a punishment for past misdemeanours, and without further comment does not seem to address the behaviour that gave raise to the block. "You have been rude, in violation of our principles and policies, and therefore you cannot edit unless you are willing to abide by those rules" seems both to be preventative and provide the context by which a block may be lifted. In my discussion with the reviewing admin I made it very clear that once the "conditions" for unblock were met then it should be actioned immediately. It was not punitive, but a preventative measure. I fully concur with Franamax's comments about the unfriendliness of block templates and the lack of flexibility seemingly available when "contesting" (proving yourself right and the other party wrong) when requesting unblock. Perhaps some thought should be given for allowing "appealing" the duration, on the basis of remodelling behaviour as well as improper application of the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem with that is if the block log is a relatively long list of things. In this case, and I quote: "Disruption: Harassing editors, incivility, abuse of process". It is quite difficult to know where to start when faced with a list like that, with what are effectively three separate reasons for blocking, requiring a response on each point. What is worse is that you don't explain in your block notice what you mean by this. Anyone, a few months later, trying to verify the claims you made in that (permanent) block log may have trouble finding what it was that caused such a stern response. What actually happened here was that your indefinite block turned out to function like an extreme version of a warning, which is fine when people realise that. The trouble is that some people will not realise this, will react badly, and this will be used against them as a reason to maintain the block, and they then leave. Do you understand what I'm saying here? If a stern warning will do, use that instead. If a short block will do, use that instead. And don't use indefinite blocks as a way to force behaviour modification. It is a blunt tool that can have the wrong effect. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed understand your point, but I differ in my interpretation (well, my intention - since that is what it is) in that I am trying to reconcile the need of promoting the future consensual editing of the wikipedia against the disruption that is happening now. Where short term blocks have proven ineffective, and long term blocks are the equivalent of "throwing away the key" for a defined period, I see indefinite tariffs as the most appropriate response. My understanding of Wikipedia:Block#Purpose and goal, especially point 3 and the nutshell, is that blocks can be executed as instruments of behaviour modifiers - and that indef blocks are the best tariff as they can be lifted as soon as a improper behaviour is recognised and admitted, and an undertaking to change given. I see this as entirely consistent with my reading of the policy.

I have given some thought to this matter, and I think I have identified the major area of misunderstanding in the perception of the indef block - the similarities of the indef block template to that of {{subst:uw-block1 & 2}}. As the shorthand for the indef template is {{subst:uw-block3}} it can easily be misunderstood that it is a more severe tariff than those indicated by the other templates. I wonder if there may be an alternative template for notifying indef blocks created; one that indicates that the block remains in place only for as long as the perceived problem remains unaddressed - one that notes that editing privileges are "suspended" indefinitely pending resolution. The unblock review option may be retained - for when the blockee believes that the block of itself was levied improperly - but with a further option where the specific policy violations are admitted and an undertaking given to reform. Where a reviewing sysop sees this in the review request, per AGF they should agree the unblock. Abuse of this option previously should be the only reason for a decline. A template with this option, and in language that is considerably more conciliatory than used in the existing indef block template, may reduce adverse reactions that being "indef'ed" sometimes causes. Naturally, the adoption of such an alternative needs to be further discussed with the community but I think this is the correct venue to make the initial proposal (which this is, for the avoidance of doubt).

Back to the specific block, there was only one reason given for the block - disruption. The examples after the colon in the summary were just that, examples of the disruptive behaviour and not individual reasons for blocking. Again, it is the judgment that an editor can be disruptive (and thus liable for sanction) without acting so improperly in any one area to justify a block for any one instance. It is sometimes the accumulative incidents of minor incivility, occasional harassment, and minor abuse of process (giving vandalism warnings in the matter of content disputes, etc) that taken as a whole can be considered as being disruptive. That is both my view and judgement, and I do realise that I can be fallible not only in both individually, but also at the same time. That is when the opinions and advice of my peers are so valuable.

Against the feelings of the blockee (who may not always be sincere in their outrage) should be the consideration of those who are on the receiving end of the disruption - should editors be discouraged from editing, and end up leaving the community, by actions considered too petty than to attract more than some warnings once in a while? As a sysop fairly active in anti-vandalism I am used to having to explain why my blocks are not "severe enough", as well as having to justify the "harsh" tariffs to the blockee and their supporters. My reaction to the first is that blocks are preventative, and sanctions can be re-introduced as soon as examples of the same policy violations become apparent again, and to the latter that I am always open to having my blocks varied without reference to me. The major realisation is that nobody is going to be happy with all of my judgments all of the time - and that I should continue to try to do the best I am capable of, and to listen and learn and apply.

That is it, I guess. I really look forward to hearing your thoughts regarding promoting a new alternative unblock template, the "indefinite suspension of privileges" option. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This policy, the conflict of interest guideline, and the conflict of interest noticeboard

Over at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#just_a_heads_up.... there appears to be an issue since some users seem to think that this policy disallows discussions of user identities on Wiki even when they are blatant conflicts of interest and when the user names are blatantly connected to the articles in question. A glance at WP:COIN shows that we don't actually run things that way. Should this policy be modified to reflect actual community practice? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

indef blocks and autoblocks

When I put an indefinite block on a vandalism-only account with "auto block IP" turned on, will the IP block expire in a few days? I would hate to be indef blocking IPs than might end up being assigned to a useful editor some day who doesn't know how to request it be removed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It expires in 24 hours (but gets reset every time the autoblock kicks in before expiring). - Bobet 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is okay for me to have another account?

I was at one point a good faith editor with about 1000 edits, but lost my cool and berated another user and was indefinitely blocked for it roughly 6 months ago. I noticed another admin objected, but the block was upheld because of the severe incineration I dished out on the aforementioned user. Honestly, I'm done with wasteful Wikipedia discussions and have just stuck to section rewriting, source adding, typo fixing and the like since then on a new account. I want to have my old deleted sandbox pages transfered over to my new account though, but I'm worred the admin I'm going to ask to do this is just going to be like "lol you were blocked, you can't have this account, now you're blocked again.", which is why I bring this subject up here.

(btw my IP resets upon every sign off so don't bother checking for my previous login.) - 4.154.236.59 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you edit within the constrains of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are welcome to get a new account. Just note that if you disrupt Wikipedia again, or if you edit the same articles as before, your previous block will come to play. You can edit other unrelated articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Death

What happened to the reason saying that accounts of dead users should be indefblocked? Please restore it. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's ever actually been policy, but it gets done regularly when an editor dies and it's been confirmed. Mostly, really, it's done as a mark of respect and to prevent the distasteful possibility of the account password being hijacked - Alison ^❤ 09:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

self-requested block

I came across this page and found the "self-requested block" to be an unusual concept. I am curious as to why it is typically not granted. Can someone elaborate on this please?Dwr12 (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have an answer for this? If there is an official policy against self-blocks, then surely there are some reasons behind it. Dwr12 (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Typically, it's been used by people wanting to "enforce" a wikibreak, since they can't stay off voluntarily. Addicts do as addicts do, and then either try to finagle another admin to remove the block, or, make an alternate account in order to bypass the block. Since the blocks do nothing (and there are tools such as scripts and local configuration changes that can do just as good a job, if not better), the blocks are both useless and potentially disruptive. Hope that helps? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Email block

Per auburnpilot's repeated concerns (on the noticeboards lately, and today, a cross-posted comment on various talk pages), I have amended the email block clause. Although I agree it should not be done preemptively by default, I do think admins should be allowed to use their discretion when it comes to certain (especially vandal-only and abusive-sock) accounts in which email abuse seems extremely likely. Surely, this is better than the all-or-nothing alternative of either disabling an admin's email access to all, or suffering needless abuse. Of course, we can continue using common sense without it being accounted for in the policy, but there are benefits for it being clearly stated therein, I see that. El_C 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what an ass I am for expecting admins to follow policy. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was unexpected. El_C 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite Thebainer to join the discussion before he blanket revert a second time. Certainly, it is not reasonable to allow all disruptive sock, for example, access to one's email account, nor is waiting for them to abuse the email function is comparable to on-wiki activity (talk page protection, etc.). If he wishes, he can emphasize, in the mediawiki function, that blocked users can still use their talk pages. I'm not going to let the next Neo-Nazi access my email just because some editors cannot see beyond an absolutist, all-or-nothing approach. Thanks. El_C 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The email blocking feature is already frequently misused by applying it preemptively. There should be no wording added to the page which encourages preemptive use. Like talk page protection, it should only be used in cases of abuse. Obviously it can be used on socks of a user who has abused the email function before, so that's not a problem. And your spectre-of-Nazism hyperbole is not helpful; abuse of the email function is a minority occurrence and the lines of communication should not be shut down because of overreactions to such. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm for having limited room for discretion. Having no escape clause with respect to vandal-only accounts and abusive socks, who although never abused the email function are extremely likely to do so (if and/or when they use it) is what's unrealistic. Good faith is not a suicide pact.

Secondly, there are, in fact, two others, less intrusive lines of communication: the blocked user's own talk page and the unblock mailing list.

As I mentioned and as you have entirely failed to respond to: maybe we can make the mediawiki block notice better highlight that the blocked user's talk page remains open (this didn't use to be the case), as well as linking to unblock-l. But email is a much more personal thing, admins should be able to use their discretion to shut it down selectively in cases of likely abuse — just as they are entitled to shut it down altogether.

I'm not sure who authored this clause in the policy page once the email block function was added (not that long ago), but obviously, it is seeing very little support in the field, from those who would actually suffer the consequence of this all-or-nothing approach (if they were to follow it).

So let us account for the private nature of email —which is not equal to a page on-wiki or a shared mailing off of it, you are wrong about that unqualified equitation. A statement which is 100 percent inflexible is simply not the way. Admins deserve protection, and peace of mind, too. El_C 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Question

If an admin gets blocked, will the wiki software allow said admin to unblock themself? Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is technically possible, yes. --bainer (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a great we to get desysoped though. _{1 != 2} 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the software also allows blocked admins to block (and unblock) other users while blocked, as well. As noted, though, it is a wonderfully efficient way to lose one's adminship. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

HOW do I block?

I am currently working on an article where there is a lot of disruption, and certain users may have to be blocked. As I am no good at computing (and, as English isn't my first language) I find I am unable to understand anything on the subject of actually blocking a user. How exactly does this work? --Maurice45 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't block a contributor, only administrators can block users and they do this by going to Special:Blockip. If there's disruption on an article page, you can report the problem to the administrators' noticeboard where you concern can be dealt with. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You can't block users - you have to be an administrator to do that. --Hut 8.5 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And please don't add block templates to user talk pages when they aren't blocked - adding the template does nothing. Hut 8.5 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/Blocking proposal

Please see my proposed BLP related blocking policy change at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP.2Fblocking_change. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrators adding blocking templates

I'm curious what the policy/guideline/common-sense practice is regarding non-admin users adding blocking templates. I have a several concerns, the first of which is the major one that brought up this question -

• Adding a block template (i.e. {{indefblock}}) implies a finality that may not exist, such as if an indefinite block is still under consider at WP:AN/WP:AN/I
• Converting a red linked userpage to an indef blocked template seems rather unnecessary
• Non-admin users adding block templates may be seen as unneccessarily provocative, especially if there is a history between the users
• There is a subtle implication that the user is an admin when they are not

Thanks, –xenocidic (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Question, are there a lot of instances where the blocking admin isn't adding the template him/herself? I seem to recall that that was considered a required step. (and required to use the template as well to give the editor the instructions for how to request an unblock). While I'm sure I've neglected it once or twice unintentionally, I don't really see a reason why a non-admin would ever need to add a block template. It should already be there by the blocker. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically it gets added to the talk page, but then the non-admin might come along add {{indefblock}} to the userpage, for example. –xenocidic (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems overkill and unnecessary unless the indef is perhaps also a sock notice. If you know of this happening somewhere, I would tell the non-admin to stop (and actually, I would tell an admin to not bother either), especially if the userpage was a redlink prior. I've un-redlinked a userpage with a block notice before when it was an SSP that was indeffed. I've also "blanked" a few userpages that violated WP:USER and replaced the contents with an indef notice as an explanation for why I blanked it. Am I helping? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I just wanted to confirm that it was indeed appropriate to request a non-admin not add unblock templates even though (it seems) there is no specific guideline that advises against it. –xenocidic (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's redlinked, I agree. If it's not and the blocking admin doesn't leave it (I know of a few admins that don't leave block notices), it should be added. Enigma ^message 16:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)