Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Unnecessary section

Seems to me the section "Altering block options" is obsolete, since it's no longer necessary to unblock to change any aspect of a block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. --Jayron32 17:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Nobody has ever given me a "sofixit" before! (I tend to at least raise the issue before making anything other than utterly trivial changes to policy pages.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Article protection instead of 3RR block

User A violates 3RR. User B files a report on user A. Admin C fully protects the article. Admin D rejects the request by User B that User A be blocked, on the ground that such a block would be punitive given that ~~User A~~ the article has now been protected. And User B is blocked in response to the report of User A. Is this how Wikipedia rules are supposed to operate?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This hypothetical is based on something that really happened.[1] If someone would please comment on the hypothetical then that would be very much appreciated. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User B is not supposed to be blocked in this situation, if I'm correct. If the users are edit warring on multiple related pages, then blocks would be better than article protection. The general argument I see from admins for blocks is that just two edit warrers should not prevent the article from being edited by others.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be useful to put something into the policy about this. Incidentally, User B ended up evading the dubious block, and got banned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We generally try to avoid being so detailed that we remove any flexibility for administrators to utilize their own judgment. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Flaming causa sui (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

And yet some rules are desireable to limit flexibility. For example, WP:Civil very clearly bars your "anal retentive" wlink.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) No, it really doesn't. I'm speaking of fine-tuning and prescribing blocking policy to a level of detail which might cross over the line into obsessiveness. Puppy is done with this particular line of baiting. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is necessary for me to deny your false accusation. The discussion was civil until you arrived, KC, and nothing remotely close to baiting has occurred on my part.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

- I think your exchange here is sort of besides the point. Blocking is a big issue on Wikipedia, since it's the way we kick users off when they're disruptive for other reasons, so it must be governed a little more strictly than things like the protection and deletion policies.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Without addressing the specific incident (which is probably not an appropriate topic for a talk page designated for discussing the policy itself anyway) I don't believe it is useful or desirable for the instructions for admins to be overly detailed and specific. We don't need specific rules for every conceivable situation. Making knee-jerk additions to policy because of one specific incident is the type of bureaucratic thinking that makes Wikipedia overly complicated and less user-friendly. Each incident where an admin is considering a block is taken as an individual case, and that is as it should be. If someone made an error in one specific case, take it up at WP:AN or some other appropriate venue. (And please stop sniping at each other here). Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
If there are no existing rules that might discourage or disallow the scenario I described, then that's what I wanted to know. Thanks. I'm disinclined to bring up the issue at ANI if this was completely within admin discretion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, that there are no rules that prohibit it does not mean that it is "completely within admin discretion". There are all kinds of stupid things that admins could do that aren't explicitly forbidden by rules. causa sui (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Minimum block term for users who have been blocked multiple times

I was looking at a recent case of a user who has been blocked a large number of times still getting very short term blocks. To make sure users are blocked for a sensible duration if a user has been blocked more than 3 times without being unblocked over the past year then any further block should be at least a week in length. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ecX2) Although I understand the concept, each block is still separate based on merits/requirements. Blocks are not punishment, they're preventative. They're typically also escalating in nature. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that in reality the block terms don't escalate in nature. TreasuryTag is still getting extremely short duration blocks even though he has a massive block log. MickMacNee generally only got very short blocks before being blocked indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bwilkins - block durations are set as the minimum period the admin judges necessary to stop the disruption. While the duration should escalate sharply if the editor keeps being disruptive (especially in the same way or soon after the last block has expired), I don't think that a mandated minimum would be helpful. In individual cases where editors are given inappropriately short blocks, you can ask for this to be reviewed by other admins at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Agree with Bwilkins. As I stated at WP:AN, mandatory sentences are a bad idea. They add another level of WP:CREEP and take away discretion from the administrator putting the block. Not to mention that they create the extra burden of checking and analysing the block log. There also is plenty of potential for abuse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose principals are worth following so next time I see an inappropriately short block I'll make sure to contact you guys to get the block length extended. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I want to support the idea that mandatory sentencing is a bad idea (which is why I think 3RR is bad policy - or at least it should have a discrtionary element). On the other hand, if you want to introduce it as a strong guideline I still don't think it's a great idea - admins should have more discretion like that and community standards will evolve how they will. Egg Centric 12:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets see whether this principled stance works in reality. If I notice a user doing the same behaviour over and over and still getting a short block I'm going to contact you guys. Going for the principled approach is a good way to do it if it works. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What you're better off asking is more to do with the escalation process. It is often held that if block #1 is for 3RR (24hrs), and the next block is for NPA, it's 24hrs again, but the next 3RR would be escalated to 48hrs - but only if it happens fairly close to the first one. So, some people hold that the block only escalates if it's for the same offence. This means that in theory, someone could get about 12 x 24hr blocks, but realistically, the whole concept of disruption eventually kicks in. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can think of a good proposal along those lines I'm all ears. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A principle imparted to me by Uncle G that I do use on occasion, is an escalating block structure of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. I use it where repeated small blocks have been ineffective, and usually for either repeatedly displaying either the same offence (particularly socking - once is a misunderstanding, twice shows a need for caution, after that....) or different offences at the same article or set of articles. And I warn the editor before I block them for the first time that once they embark on this course of disruption, and have hit my radar, they are committed to it. Haven't had to use it often,wouldn't swear that it always works. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that time-limited blocks, of whatever length, should be deprecated. Because blocks are preventative rather than punitive, they should last for exactly as long as they are needed to prevent trouble, which is normally until the blocked user convinces us that they understand what the problem is and won't repeat it. It is unlikely that this will coincidentally happen at the exact moment the block is scheduled to expire. Time-limited blocks, especially short ones, provide an incentive to simply wait them out rather than to come to terms with why one's behavior is deemed inappropriate by others. And discussions about what sort of misconduct is "worth" how long a block are indicative of an unhelpful punitive mindset, in which the "punishment" must fit the "crime", rather than a preventative one - not coincidentally do we often hear the term "time served" in block discussions, which reflects a thinking rooted in criminal procedure. On these grounds, I suggest that we shift to applying indefinite blocks by default - except perhaps for routine 24h blocks of first-time edit-warriors, which serve as a sort of yellow card. But at the same time we must stop thinking of indefinite blocks as infinite blocks, i.e., the equivalent of a death sentence. They should be understood as temporary measures that should be easily lifted as soon as we are convinced that the problem is resolved, and should only rarely (with persistent repeat offenders) last infinitely because no admin can be convinced to lift the block. Sandstein 17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but a massive break with established practice, and with significant risks for abuse. Who is going to do all the argumentation and evaluation to lift the blocks? Note that the blocking admin is not usually in the best position to have a calm and reasonable discussion with the blocked editor. I don't think this is practicable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two reasons I think time limited blocks should be standard. Having indefinite as the standard adds a lot of strain on the admins who will be charged with many more unblock requests. Having the blocks expire after a time is much easier. Second, I don't want a situation where blocked users need to go through a humiliating round of apologies in order to be let back. In most cases, the short block has sent a clear enough message for the editor to "get it". Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think Elen's principle seems about right. The issue with applying indefinite block for first time offences is that they force people to lose face over relatively minor infractions which they are probably happy to not do again without any need to push - I'm sure there are plenty of users who get their first block and stop behaving badly.
With regards to using indefinite blocks for the third offence or whatever - at that point they probably do have to show they can behave - and while fairly extreme its got to be healthier than letting people get 24 hours blocks until Arbcom blocks them indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As a practice, it's often a good idea to escalate block duration if shorter blocks are ineffective. Eraserhead is right that some disruptive editors don't mind continually reoffending and "doing the time" is worth it to them if the blocks are never longer than 48 hours. On the other hand, enforcing mandatory sentencing is a bad idea. We're not going to go around trouting admins for using their judgment and deciding not to escalate block length due to context and specific circumstances. If you see a disruptive editor who is not reforming due to ineffective block durations, consider watching their contributions and blocking them yourself next time. That way, the responsibility is on your judgment (which is subject to review) and not a bureaucratic rule that you can pass the buck to ("hey, my hands are tied"). Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for policy amendments

I was wondering whether it is possible to request amendments to this policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs)

There's no central authority in control of the policy, so there is nowhere to submit such a request. :-) You can actually edit the policy yourself! But it is a good idea to propose changes here and see what other people think before making them, especially if they might be controversial. What did you have in mind? causa sui (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he's already tried that in WP:ANI, unsuccessfully to the point of being blocked for disruption. He'll have to actually understand a few simple policies before trying to tackle changing this one. Here's hoping he actually reads over the next 31hrs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Self-unblocking

Someone has just edited (diff) to permit unblocking one's own account "in cases of noncontroversial self-blocks". Perhaps this has consensus. The policy already allows self-unblocking in rare unspecified circumstances. I was once in a big argument with an admin (and others) who, realising they were were in the wrong, very honourably selfblocked for 24 hours. Was this noncontroversial? Yes, because someone else might well have blocked them otherwise. No, because deliberate self-blocking is controversial. Anyway, they should not then have gone ahead and self-unblocked (and in this case they did not and they stayed blocked). Views? Thincat (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidents such as you describe are quite rare and probably do not need to be detailed at all in the policy, when an admin blocks themselves it is usually an accident. Admins are generally free to overturn their own actions if they later believe them to be flawed, I don't see why blocking yourself, which is a pretty silly thing to do in the first place, should be an exception. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't thinking things like this should be covered in the policy statement. What I was meaning to suggest is that in "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable: ... to unblock one's own account (except in cases of noncontroversial self-blocks)" that either the part in () which has just been added should be removed again; or "noncontroversial" should be changed to "accidental". Thincat (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with Beeblebrox. The important points here are (1) avoid instruction creep and (2) admins are generally given leave to reverse their own sysop actions when they change their minds. causa sui (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Do blocks and bans even work anymore?

Wikipedia functions by identifying users on the basis of usernames and IP addresses. That is fine when you have someone with a large desktop computer locked into a home or office setting with lots of heavy machinery and wires.

But modern technology has changed all of that. Now, almost everyone has laptops, notebooks, smartphones, and iPads, and they can be moved around just as easily as a pad of paper between hotspots and other wifi connections all within a short drive or walk of one's residence.

The so-called "mobile editor" is not a problem when it comes to good faith editing. But if one's intention is to be disruptive, they can get away with murder and commit just about anything without the act being traceable.

The IP address is different with each wifi connection, so one could do all different things in different locations, with no known connection. One can easily sign up for as many accounts as they want just to be disruptive. Yes this violates policy, but how can it possibly be stopped?

Most of the vandals I have come across are using either IPs or new accounts. But it is very likely they have done it before just a stone's throw from where they are. This especially could be the case in an urban area where there are coffee shops at every corner, apartments and offices with unsecured signals, and in some places, public wifi sources. Not to mention, smartphones that use 3G signals can change IP addresses and ranges every few minutes. Sebwite (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocks and bans still work even with these ultra-dynamic IPs, the reason being that we use things called range-blocks. If a phone is vandalizing from addresses from 229.96.8.0 to 229.96.8.255, for instance, we would block 229.96.8.0/24, and boom, all the mobile devices there are blocked. If IPs are still too wide for that, we semi-protect articles.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP range block works if one stays in one location (home, office, etc.) and resets their modem or something like that. This will keep on pulling up an IP from the same range. But when you bring a wifi-enabled device, such as a laptop, notebook, tablet computer, or wifi-enabled smartphone into the range of many wifi-connections, each wifi connection in a different area has a totally different IP address. It is therefore possible to go around to different coffee shops, libraries, or even piggyback a lot and get connected with quite a large variety of IP addresses, all within a short distance. Sebwite (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the situation you describe is possible, but is likely employed by a fairly small percentage of Wikipedia vandals and trolls. Account blocking is still extremely useful in preventing much of the disruptive editing here. — Satori Son 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And if that isn't effective, we can use semi-protection.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, on Talk:Roman influence in Caucasian Albania two banned users were having a dispute because yet another banned user had moved the page. Socks are caught, but too late sometimes. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocking as punishment

NO CHANGE:

There is no consensus to remove the statement that blocks should not be used as punishment against users. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Per a discussion on WP:AN/I, Eraserhead1 (talk · contribs) has been bold and updated this policy to reflect the reality of our blocking policy.

Theoretically, our blocking policy was meant to prevent damage to the project and not to punish users. But in reality, users are sometimes blocked as a punishment. Sometimes these blocks are overturned and sometimes they are not. I think we should be more consistent on the issue and enforce the policy one way or the other.

I'd like to hear people's ideas about blocking as a punishment as official policy. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 19:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

To be clear while I have removed the statement saying that blocking shouldn't be about punishment I haven't added anything positively suggesting it should be used for that - and the other conditions are still in place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to accept punishment as a valid purpose of blocking, at least to the extent it is used as a deterrent. Really this is what actual practice already does with the system of escalating blocks. There is no reason to believe that a 24 hour edit warring block will really teach the blocked user why edit warring is bad, and even less reason to think that the 48 hour block when they resume edit warring will do so. Instead what such blocks do is punish the user for breaking the rule, which then deters future breaches of the rule by threat of escalating punishment. Similarly, users are sometimes blocked for edit warring hours after they have stopped, but once they have stopped, the immediate need to protect Wikipedia is gone; but such a block does help deter future edit warring, even after the block expires. The biggest problem with punitive blocks is when they are disassociated in time from the conduct that triggered them, but we can deal with that by still requiring that a punitive block be contemporaneous with the blame worthy conduct it is punishing. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Specific changes that should be made: In the lead, change "not to punish users." to "not to retaliate against users." and under purposes and goals, change the subheader from "Blocks should not be punitive" to "Blocks should not be retaliatory". I think, when combined with the edit Eraserhead1 already made, this would bring the blocking policy in line with how it is actually used. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Appears quite reasonable. After reading some threads at WP:AE, this seems to be common practice actually. So, I support the proposed change with Monty845's amendment. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Skeptical: just because people kill each other shouldn't make murder legal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think this is really a legitimate comparison. Punishment does not mean an eye for an eye. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  - It's an example of "we do it anyways, so why forbid it?" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    - There are many significantly tamer examples - such as speeding on the motorway - that large numbers of people actually do ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk>
      - True enough. But we don't abolish speed limits, do we? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:52, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I've always viewed edit warring blocks as punitive if they occur long after reverting stops (unless the article has been protected - if the reverting does stop). As I mentioned in my essay here, when a newbie is blocked for edit warring, it's one of the worst cases of WP:BITE. Then again, many punishments in real life are designed to be preventative as well (a serial killer can't go on with killing if he/she is put in maximum security, for instance), so it's pretty double-edged: Blocks are both preventative and punitive in many respects. Also, I don't get why we should block sockmasters purely for sockpuppetry (often happens for new sockmasters) - that appears to be purely punitive.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- That — is not punitive. It's to prevent the creation of more socks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
  - I don't see how. A sockpuppet usually gets autoblocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
    - That would require indefinite autoblocks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
      - Their IP gets autoblocked and then no accounts can be made. I'm sure though that other accounts can get autoblocked too, as far as I know.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        How could blocking a user indefinitely for first-time sockpuppeting be anything other than a (extremely harsh) punishment? Chances are they won't create more socks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        My point. Autoblock usually takes care of the initial frustration a user might get. A block on the sockmaster account should come only after maybe 3 or 4 more instances of socking.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        
        It's not a punishment, as it doesn't mean "for eternity". Every sockmaster should be blocked indefinitely upon first offense until they give a statement that they won't sock again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        Even temporary blocks (especially edit warring blocks) can be punitive.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        Well, just say you won't do it again and you get unblocked. You break that promise, you're out. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        Since a block here is not preventative, I don't see why such a punishment should be made. In fact, I personally think these blocks induce further socking via frustration.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
        
        Well... yeah. So no blocks for socking. Just ban them. Then again.. you can say that about any block. SO never block anybody. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
(Note: Discussion added to CD.) Swarm 22:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Punishment should never be the reason for a block. Ever. Of course, a block that lasts a second longer than necessary to prevent harm to the project is by definition a punishment, and there's nothing wrong with us playing it a few hours or days on the safe side there (or even considerably longer if it's a legitimate Arbcom matter).
But if we're codifying "punishment" as a factor when determining the length of the block, we need to simultaneously tighten up on the level of involvement an admin can have when doing so. It's one thing for someone stretching the definition of WP:UNINVOLVED to apply a short term block for gross incivility or 3RR, quite another for them to decide that the recipient should be punished. —WFC— 23:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
The problem with your line of thinking is that when an admin uses escalating blocks to punish someone, they are preventing harm to the project, not just for the duration of the block. The punishment, and the threat of future punishment acts as a deterrent, which hopefully stops the person being punished from harming the project in the future. That we pretend our deterrence blocks are not punishments is not logically consistent. All the changes are doing/would do is call a spade a spade. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

The purpose of a block should always be to prevent further disruption, not as punishment. No blocks should be made if:

The user has stopped doing whatever they were doing. This especially applies to WP:AN/3RR, where users are often blocked long after they have stopped edit warring.
The user has realized the error of their ways and promised to stop. If they keep going blocking is obviously a good idea, but if they say that they won't there is very little harm in giving them a chance.

I see far too many blocks across Wikimedia being made not to prevent further abuse, but rather to punish people who have done it at one point. As I mentioned above, a particular hot spot for this is in regards to 3RR. When dealing with edit warriors, I really think that more emphasis should be put on telling users what they are doing wrong and how to do it right, not just giving cooldown blocks. Some cases require such blocks, and are good in that they are actually preventing further disruption. But I often see admins blocking users for edit warring after the incident has been resolved, and that really needs to stop. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Block lengths IMO should be set to roughly (within an order of magnitude) the timescale of the disruption that led to the block being enacted (but only very rarely be less than 24/31 hours). For vandalism (or whatever) over a periof of a few hours, one day is justified to protect the encyclopedia. When the same bad behaviour recurs after the block expires, the timescale expands to include the whole period of disruption, and this is the rationale behind escalating blocks - not escalating punishment, but an escalating need for a preventive sanction duration, as prior events have shown the need for further protective action. Where the bad behaviour has already been occurring over weeks or months before an admin examines it, a shorter initial block is a form of mercy or "heads-up", but that doesn't invalidate the concept that if you have shown yourself capable of being disruptive for 5 days, it's not unreasonable to prevent your editing for the next 5 days - and if after 10 days you do the same thing, a reasonable conclusion is that you may do the same thing in the next 10 days. No block should ever be a punishment. Franamax (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
More-specific wording: What sorts of blocks have been done, which go beyond protecting Wikipedia? Keep "don't block in order to punish", and amend the policy to list some specific kinds of blocks that we don't want to see, which have actually occurred. For example, "Don't block a user for past behavior if the incident is past and the user is not currently making damaging edits," "Don't block a user for behavior outside of Wikipedia, such as criticizing Wikipedia," "In the block notification, don't say 'We're doing this to teach you a lesson,' 'This hurts you more than it does us,' or 'Someday you will thank us,'" and (seriously, this time) "Don't make sarcastic or insulting remarks in the block notification." —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Effectiveness? Does anyone know if punitive measures are effective in a situation like this, or how often they provoke even worse behavior? I don't really know, but I'd encourage finding something out about that before writing a policy that encourages admins to engage in punitive measures. People tend to view expressly or blatantly punitive measures as acts of aggression; that's a whole new area of responsibility for WP to get into. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
We punish people all the time. It's also nice to say we don't, and have a guideline to point to when we do. Not sure what would be gained by changing things. To be bluntly honest. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Once I was dealing with a person who had created a sock account so they could evade a block. This maneuver was detected, they admitted the problem, and then said that sanctioning them for block evasion would not be correct, since the problem was now over and any block would be punitive. If we believed this editor, WP:Sockpuppet investigations would need to work very differently. We would give no blocks for evasion. It is unclear how we would control block evasion under that scenario. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a prison. We're not here to punish people. We cannot sanction punitive blocks, nor should we outright forbid them. This creates a grey area, but things would be very boring if there were clear-cut rules for everything. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Looks like we need a new item in WP:NOT. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose Let me go back to the very earliest revision of the blocking policy. Yep. It's right there. And I don't think I could say it better. Our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and blocks are not a method of punishment, they're simply a tool to help build that encyclopedia. Administrators are not cops. They're not juries. They're not judges. They're janitors. Simple mop-wielders who sometimes need to lock a door to keep the building safe. The day administrators have the explicit power to punish others, I think we will have lost our way as encyclopedists, and I for one would never recognize such an allowance as constructive to the encyclopedia. Swarm 03:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Well put Swarm. I concur entirely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
About edit warring blocks issued after the edit war is over: these are still preventative. The idea is to prevent you from doing it again, not just during the period you are blocked, but ever again. Look at it this way: if you find that your dog has taken a poop on the floor, you may rub his nose in it, hit him on the nose with a newspaper, etc. Is this because you want to hurt your dog emotionally and physically, or is it because you want him to understand that he shouldn't poop in the house? Whether you catch him in the act or find it an hour later, you still need to get the message to the dog. Edit warriors generally know they are not supposed to edit war. They get all worked up and do it anyway. They get blocked. They do it again, they get blocked longer. They keep it up, we throw them out. Edit warring is disruptive, non-constructive behavior that is always the wrong thing to do. That is what the blocks are for.

As to the issue of whether blocks actually cause sockpuppeteers to do it more: that is their problem. Socking is generally the act of an stubborn, close minded person who has decided that we are too stupid to detect their deception. Due to the Dunning-Kruger effect this is usually not the case and we catch them fairly easily. If, when caught, they decide to do it again, they are just showing how unimaginative and unwilling to work cooperatively they are, not exposing some flaw in our blocking policy. I remember one case of a user who was crying about how they couldn't get a break, that nobody trusted them and that they were blocked for socking over forty times. Gee, you broke a rule forty times and now we don't trust you to follow it? The smart sockpuppeteers, which we all know are around, don't get caught because they don't engage in disruptive behjavior. If they don't keep doing the thing that got their first account blocked, we don't care if they sock. I don't anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with your first part here. We're talking about issues that have been settled hours or days ago, and you want to block someone for that? That's just plain stupid and vengeful and wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
You and Beeblebrox might disagree on that point, but surely you can both agree that that the solution to this "punitive blocking" problem (if you see it as one) is not to abolish the clause in blocking policy that's supposed to prevent that. Swarm 04:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure, that's my whole point. It must remain in there, otherwise we're gonna see all sorts of weird reasons for blocking someone... the meaning of "punitive" can be expanded into infinity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Why are we suppose to use the same tool we use against vandals and sockpuppets for punishment? In my opinion, the very idea of it is absurd. WikiPuppies! (bark) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Amend A block is a punishment and so it doesn't make much sense to say otherwise. Instead of saying "Blocks should not be used ... as punishment against users" it might be better as "Blocks should not be used ... as retribution for past deeds". The key word here is retribution which means "Punishment for bad conduct, criminal actions, etc., typically considered in terms of redress or repaying a debt to society; the avenging of wrong deeds, etc." In other words, blocks shouldn't be a matter of settling a score; they should be forward-looking. Warden (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- Which is exactly the change I made. No addition was made saying blocks should positively be used for punishment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
It's a fact that blocks are sometimes issued punitively. However, endorsing this in any way – much less enshrining it in policy – is a monumentally bad idea. Our goal in blocking accounts and IPs must be the protection of the site, not the punishment of the users who threaten to harm it. Anything – including removing the explicit denunciation of punitive blocks – that weakens this focus threatens to turn the mop more into a billy club than it already is. 28bytes (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose for now. Wikipedia is volunteer-driven not obligatory. Focus efforts on removing adminship from abusive admins. Marcus Qwertyus 08:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment—There's a logistic problem: it's difficult to distinguish between punitive and preventative blocks. But does this work against admins? It's hard for an aggrieved blockee to argue that a block was solely punitive; a block can be defended by a counterargument that there is at least a preventative component. (ArbCom sets a very bad example by taking up to five months to grope its way to decisions in the more complex cases, then issuing bans and blocks that could not possibly be construed as protective, since the parties have often been allowed to continue at least partially with the problematic behaviour at issue right through these filibustering cases.
So I wonder why the punitive bit needs to be removed. Rather than just removing the clause that blocks should not be punitive, it should be replaced with policy that is more nuanced—spelled out. And I'd want to see another updating of the blocking policy at the same time, if supporting this: that where long-standing Wikipedians breach policy, strong attempts should be made to change their behaviour and/or to apologise where they've been rude or unfair to fellow editors and the like. We have almost non-existent mediation on en.WP, and admins need to be prepared to shoulder more of the burden; and why not, since it can be very satisfying to settle a bad situation. Blocking rarely fixes problem behaviour by established editors, whereas it can be the only sane weapon against vandals and sociopathic newbies. A lot of damage is done by a few trigger-happy admins who block or threaten to block established users, who are usually dedicated volunteers. Seen the stats on regular editor numbers on the en.WP? They're headed south. Let's do things smarter? $Tony (talk)$ 08:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with this change. For the first time, I am starting to believe "abusive admin" point of view. If we follow the philosophy that adminship is just a tool to prevent harm to the encyclopedia, then surely blocks should only be used to prevent harm. Administrators are trusted with the tool to stop the harm, just as rollbackers are trusted with a tool to label vandalism quickly. If we start looking at punishment, we are making the role a big deal - individual administrators become judge, jury and executioner. That is wholly at odds with my perception of the encyclopedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose this or any other measure that gives administrators more power, until we have a properly functional community desysopping/impeachment mechanism.—S Marshall T/C 10:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose As others have said, punitive blocks do not help with encyclopedia building. We have enough meta activities as it is. A preventative block would often inevitably end up being punitive to an extent, but care should be taken so that blocks are designed to prevent further damage, and not to punish the offender. wctaiwan (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment what is the point of "blocks"? They are so easy to avoid if the user intends to be destructive. If not block has no purpose. If someone is gaming the system, do not hesitate to block but if the user is doing something meaningful here and admits mistake and promises not to continue the conduct identified as disruptive, there is no reason for him or her to wait out the block which at that point becomes unneeded bureaucracy. Blocking should never be a form of punishment as wikipedia does not have a penal system. We are here to write an encyclopedia not experiment in online version of law and order. I agree that clarification is needed in policy and feel the proposed change is the polar opposite of the message we want to convey. -- A Certain White Cat ^chi? 11:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Wikipedia is a volunteer encyclopedia. It is not a video game, or a simulation of government, or of parenting, or a way to improve contributors' character. We editors are all assumed to be equal contributors to a volunteer project. If we can't contribute constructively we get blocked, but not to improve our characters, just to protect the encyclopedia. Editing is not a reward to be taken away, it is a contribution freely made. We don't have to accept edits if we don't like the contribution, but we don't reject them as an attempt to punish someone. We're an encyclopedia, folks. --GRuban (talk) 13:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment Actually, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia... according to Wikipedia anyway. Stephenjh (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
?? How do you reconcile that statement with what it says at Wikipedia? - David Biddulph (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Either I read it incorrectly, or´I read another page, I was surprised too. If I find that Wiki page I'll post it. ATB. Stephenjh (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This is an interesting philosophical debate into the nature of punishment. We block to prevent current and future disruption of Wikipedia. If someone's behaviour has been shown to be disruptive and dishonest or devious, or they have been gaming the system - for example by reverting four times, then stopping, and doing this again on a separate occasion, then a block placed even a few days after the behaviour has ceased would be aiming to reduce future disruption of Wikipedia. I think what people are unhappy about is not the use of a block in those circumstances, but a block which is purely retribution or mechanical. That is, a block given when a new or otherwise decent user has reverted four times by mistake or out of ignorance. As the word "punishment" conveys both retribution and deterrence/prevention, perhaps we might avoid misunderstanding if we didn't use the word punishment, but replaced it with "retribution". As it stands, punishment blocks are legitimate, if we see punishment as aiming to prevent future disruption. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- That's a unique way of looking at "punishment"... punishment that is not retribution or revenge... There is no such thing. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  - If you are saying that deterrence doesn't count as punishment, the policy should make it clear that deterrence is a valid purpose for a block. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    - If you (or someone) can convince me that it does deter, then that can be added as a reason. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 16:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
      - Commenting on Seb's comment, the "punishment is not retribution or revenge" is not unique at all. In Norwegian criminal law for instance, the sole purpose of punishment, philosophically at least, is deterrence: Individual deterrence to the person being punished so that he realizes what happens to him when he breaks the law, and collective deterrence so that the population as a whole will see those consequences. Retribution is not an "official" reason to punish criminals. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A problem with punitive blocking is that it can be used for retribution against those with whom one disagrees. Indeed, as S Marshall correctly points out above, the official sanctioning of purely punitive blocks will inevitably lead to a greater demand for compensating processes to make it easier to desysop administrators. At the same time, particularly in the context of "vested contributors", I think that there is an increasingly apparent case to be made that blocks can be preventative in the long run, even if they are not preventing something that would have happened in the next few minutes. I think there's a difficult distinction that must be made, between blocks whose only purpose is to express the community's disapproval of something (a bad idea), and blocks based upon a demonstrated ongoing pattern of disruptive editing, and designed to prevent that disruption from continuing in the future, even if the disruption might not be imminent (an idea that increasingly might be worth considering). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree 110% with Tony here. User Eraserhead1 was (sorta) right to have finally addressed the disingenuous assertion that Wikipedia only blocks to protect and not to punish.
But let's not lose track of the fact that “punishment” is a corrective action with the express purpose of changing future behavior. The only difference between Wikipedia’s classic meaning of “blocking to protect” and “blocking to punish” is one of immediacy. In other words, the community has succumbed to ‘group-think’ and has lost track of the distinction between what “punishment” broadly and truly means and how it is distinct from “retribution”, which is what Wikipedia truly does not met out blocks for.
Far too many chronically disruptive editors have gamed the system by engaging in 3RR violations and when taken to ANI, they attempt to game the blocking system by writing “OK. I’ll stay away from this article for a while.” Thus, they try to pull the rug out from under some pissed-off admin in hopes that some uninvolved admin will swoop in with Buddhist karma and write “He agreed to stay away… we’re not here to punish… M’Kay?” Greg L (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - This policy is already made clear. All sanctions on Wikipedia are about trust and distrust. Blocking people for punishment the hell is a terrible idea. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose - current policy on blocks is just fine. If admins want punitive blocks, they ought to have special (maybe Arbcon) dispensation for it and not have it as of right. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment While I don't support the change, its true. We do block editors as punishment, all the time, and contrary to this policy. We should either accept this and write it into the policy or change our blocking practices. Them From Space 23:17, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose. Punishment and deterrence are not exactly the same thing. Deterrence is prevention of future harm. Punishment in and of itself and separated from deterrence is just something that people do to feel happy (e.g., feel that the world is just, relieve tension, feel in control, etc.). Punishment can deter and often does, but there is not a one-to-one correspondence. You can deter without punishing (e.g. offer bribes, or convince the person that his behavior will not make him happy) and you can punish without deterring (e.g., anonymously slash a person's tires). I would be OK with language saying that blocks can be used to deter. But removing he prohibition on just flat-out punishing people? Let's think this through. It is true that people do this and will continue to do so (who doesn't like to feel happy?) regardless of what we say. And it's true that it is helpful to the project for people who are committed and involved (which describes admins as a class) to feel happy. It's also true that the net happiness quotient of a blocker/blockee interaction is probably negative (that is, the person blocked feels gains more unhappiness than the blocking person gains in happiness); see WP:HURTS. However, if the blocking person is an important contributor and the blocked person is just some drive-by mook, then it's not clear that this is necessarily a net negative for the project. I guess what I would say is that just removing the material regarding punishment is sort of a half-way lukewarm measure that leaves things unclear, and we should either 1) leave it as is or 2) replace it with material to the effect "It is OK sometimes to block a person just to make yourself feel better, as long as you don't overdo it" or something. All in all, I prefer option #1. Herostratus (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with most of what Colonel Warden says here (yes really!). I believe the usual interpretation of the "not punishment" phrase is that blocks are not issued as retribution for misdeeds because someone "deserves" it. However blocks do have a dual deterrence/prevention function. In addition to disabling the editing privelege (thus preventing the editor from making more bad edits), the possibility of being blocked also serves as a deterrence to that user, and other users, not to engage in disruptive activity. When we warn vandals that they may be blocked if they continue, we clearly look upon blocks as a negative sanction. (Whether this sanction is a "punishment" is a matter of definition.) I think it's OK to continue saying "Blocks are not punishment" as long as we recognize that this rule doesn't prevent blocks from being used as a deterrant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Bad idea. Really bad idea. By allowing it, it gives administrators powers that they shouldn't have; administrators are not supposed to do things unilaterally, they're janitors. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A proposal to elaborate

The proper way to address what Eraserhead1 is trying to do is to write Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption as well as the intentional undermining of a collegial collaborative writing environment (which is yet another form of disruption). Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption by experienced editors who intentionally take it over the line and exhibit contrition only when they get into trouble for it, such as when they are taken to ANI. Greg L (talk) 16:17, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the issue I'm trying to address and that is well worded. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I have no problem with your rewriting our blocking policy so Wikipedia acknowledges reality and embraces the true and full concept of “punishment” (to change behavior); blocking properly protects against current as well as future disruption. I think it helps to point out that “punishment” is distinct from “retribution.” Greg L (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I think we're probably going to need to have a second discussion on this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
There are other corpuscular beings caught in linear time whose opinions matter? If you say so… Greg L (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Punishment always includes retribution and revenge; that's in the definition. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Webster’s is a definition and is the one that best describes the motivations underlying judicial punishment. The broader definition merely describes “punishment” as the act of punishing; as it ought to. Parents—at least loving, good ones—punish their children merely to change their behavior; there is no “retribution” aspect to it. Let’s not get hung up on definitions; Wikipedia has long punished chronically non-compliant experienced editors with blocks as a means of correcting their behavior. It works too. It’s time to stop being politically correct beyond all comprehension and embrace the “P”-word for how it is really used around here. My above green xt-text makes it clear enough… and you’ll be pleased to hear, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb, doesn’t use the “P-word”. Greg L (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Parents punishing their children is a nice example of successful punishment. -- Eraserhead1<talk> 18:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It never works, so it's a wrong example. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Nono, citation needed from you here. Show me an example where a father beats the crap out of his child two weeks after the supposed offense. That father goes to jail. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what punishment means. Child abuse is not proportional to the offence and is unacceptable behaviour. Giving a child a detention is punishing them, as is sending them to their room for being naughty. Punishments like these are generally given contemporaneously to the offence too.

While you may well be able to point at evidence which shows that the death penalty isn't an effective deterrent I don't believe you will find the same applies to sending a child to their room or giving a child a detention. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, Bessie! Wind in that rhetoric. A week's block for an edit warrior who comes off a 24hr block and gets stuck straight back in is not the same as beating the crap out of your child. You don't work with children, do you (genuine question - current theoretical thinking does seem to be that children are never made aware of the consequences of their actions in case it upsets them) Sometimes people grow up with no idea of the concept of consequences - if you do this, that will happen. However, I suspect the approach that says "OK, you trashed the kitchen, but then you disappeared off to your mates' house for the evening, so I'm not going to do or say anything now that you've come home, because you've obviously stopped" isn't really a goer in most households.Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
No, of course not. The appropriate response is "Clean the kitchen". I don't understand how "Go to your room" is going to clean up the mess. And if you repeatedly trash the kitchen, the response is "You're not allowed to enter the kitchen again, ever." So see my response below: people who have a long block-log are obviously those where your punishment-theory doesn't work. They need to be banned or topic-banned. That's a solution without punishment. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
What about if the child is 6? You can't reasonably trust a six year old to clean the kitchen properly. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(err... what 6-year-old disappears with his mates overnight? :)....) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

They can still trash the kitchen. That it doesn't meet the whole analogy doesn't mean the line of person responsibility to clean up the kitchen is realistic. To fit with the analogy someone might have already cleaned the kitchen up as living in a house with a messy kitchen might be worse than cleaning it up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I do like Greg L's rewording. "I should not be blocked for something I did yesterday" is plainly an absurd position when the person did whatever it was repeatedly over the last two weeks, and only didn't do it today because they were at their sister's wedding. Someone who goes on a vandalism spree at midnight on Christmas Eve shouldn't have a free pass because no-one notices it until Boxing day afternoon. Also, if there is no deterrence aspect, one would have only two periods available for blocking - a half hour or so, equivalent to the 'kick' on a chatroom, and indefinite, until the person agrees not to do it again. Plainly "if you do this again you will be blocked for a week" is ascribing a penalty to the action, but equally plainly it has a deterrent effect on some people. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree: there should only be two options — until apology and promise not to do it again, followed by eternity. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
The more I think about this, the worse an idea openly calling a block "punishment" seems. The only circumstances where explicitly stating "punishment" would improve on what we have is where there is a long term pattern of disruption, block threat (occasionally resulting in a short term block), lying low for a while and repeating.
Rather that add another legitimate reason grill even the squeaky-est of RfA candidates (and thus cut the number of active admins even faster) I suggest we come up with a more effective way of dealing with that problem. —WFC— 19:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- So what's your view on Greg L's proposal just above? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  - Several years of watching ANI has convinced me that requiring apologies here in order to get are usually meaningless. The only people who actually honestly apologize are the ones who make errors and can be convinced of it, and this rarely proceeds as far as a block, unless some admin gets trigger-happy--which indeed happens far to often, but usually such a block is quickly reverted. The people who are actually gaming the system--the people blocks are meant to deter, are either too stubborn to admit they were wrong, or perfectly willing to be hypocrites. Requiring apologies privileges the hypocrites. A forced apology is not worth the non-paper it's written on. The only way to see if someone intends to follow the rules is to given them a chance, and watch them. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I support Greg L's proposal for clarification as a good if not better alternative to just removing the "not be used [...] as punishment" part. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You can only deter or punish an editor when he/she wants to contribute to wikipedia. Once their intentions change for whatever reason to disrupting wikipedia, all you can do is try and limit the damage. Remember that it's wikipedia that's in the weaker position, unlike a burglar who is punished when caught, these people can keep trying with impunity and wikipedia's only option is minimizing the damage. Stubborn personalities can hold grudges forever. Let's not make screwing wikipedia their mission in life by making it personal with "punishments" or demanding apologies. DS Belgium (talk) 10:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Sure, blocks are used punitively. But that doesn't make them a good thing. If anything, we should add some clarifying language in the policy about when it is appropriate to remove an indefinite block - that is, when an indefinite block has inappropriately moved from being preventative to being punitive. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia obviously punishes people—WP:CSD#G5

I have seen articles with no great problems deleted just because of that. That is in fact worse than blocking some account for saying naughty words. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, that's just enforcement of the ban. The point of the ban is that they can't contribute. The reasoning behind enacting the ban is what we're discussing here. --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The point of the ban is that they can't contribute because the ban is a punishment. If the block wasn't a punishment and the creation wasn't disruptive then it would be accepted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You are both so very wrong. Indeed, when banned user socks are detected, if they have a talk page already I usually replace it with {{bannedmeansbanned}} which succinctly explains why their edits, regardless of their quality, are not welcome. I get the feeling a lot of folks here haven't worked or hung out in bars a lot. It's the same when you 86 somebody. They may come back now and again all sober and contrite and promise they will behave, or ask that they be let in just once because it is their friend's birthday or whatever. Then you have to explain to them that you can only skip out on your tab and/or pick fights with the fellow bar patrons so many times before it no longer matters how much money you have spent there in the past or how much you promise to behave. They've proven already they can't behave, so letting them back in "just this once" will only encourage them. It's not about punishment, it's about ending disruption. Being locked up is a punishment. Being thrown out is not. There is a difference and if all this talk hasn't helped you see what it is I don't know what will.. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

So is sending a child out of class not a punishment? But giving them a detention is? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Sending a child out of class is intended to prevent the disruption that was being caused so that class can continue. Detention should be used for restorative justice - it used to be used to have the student clean brushes, beneficial things for everyone else in the school. Detention should not be used as punishment either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason you get people to clean paint brushes is that its fucking boring, not because it produces a marginal benefit. With regards to throwing them out of class yes you do prevent them from being disruptive, but it also embarrasses the individual. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The intent is not to bore; the result, however, is hours of mind-numbing boredom. The intent of a block is not to punish, but might also cause hours of mind-numbing boredom (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

What about schools which make the child write lines or just sit in silence at detention? There even more clearly the intent is to punish the individual. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that's a bastardization of the intent of detention for the most part. The other aspect of what you suggest is "you wasted an hour of the class's time, now we'll waste an hour of yours"; that's restorative (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's an eye for an eye. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please explain in 100 words or less how deleting Lower Trajan's Wall has improved Wikipedia. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Being locked up is a punishment. Being thrown out is not." No actually, what you are supporting is: spanking is punishment, but execution followed by burning of all the books you've written is not punishment! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

(←) :I actually agree that you can enforce a ban (i.e. block the user) without deleting a constructive article created by the ban-evader. You have to remember that our goal is to build an encyclopedia, and that we shouldn't delete good parts of that encyclopedia because of some procedural reason. However, such deletions are not punitive. This issue, while a legitimate one, has nothing to do with the concept of "punishment". Swarm 21:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The analogies here are block/ban = suspension/expulsion. If an editor is using socks, then they aren’t blocked for a week; they are banned. That is akin to a permanent expulsion, which isn’t a “punishment” intended to correct behavior; they are protective so all the other students can get an education without disruption. Unless a block is for an unusually long period of time (six months or more), they are punishments intended to reform behavior and give the rest of the community a respite to work without disruption. Greg L (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
- But if they produce (clearly) good work and that is removed that isn't giving the community a respite to work without disruption - as they are disrupted to remove the content. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  - I agree. I think that sort of thing came about after some editors produced controversial content and were getting away with it for a period of time before finally being banned. So then some townsfolk with pitchforks and torches alight went and burned down the guy’s disease-infested barn and crops and killed his farm animals. Still other editors do good work but are too abrasive and need to be expelled to keep peace. It would be cutting off our noses to spite our faces if we deleted what appears to be objectively good articles. This is all a separate issue from what is on the table: being up front and honest with ourselves about why we dish out blocks on problem editors after they say “Oopsy, did I push the nerd’s face into his lunch again?” Greg L (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  - (ec) No. I fully support bans, there should be more of them. A ban is not a punishment ("we want to teach you a lesson here"), it means "you lied to us, we cannot take you for your word when you say you won't disrupt anymore. Therefore, you need to to stay out." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  - (edit conflict)However, if we keep such pages created by banned users who know they can evade their ban and continue to contribute without anything to stop them, then wouldn't the ban be completely useless? Then why is said user banned and blocked in the first place? –MuZemike 22:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Deleting good content in hopes that will help prevent disruptive editors from coming back is lousy policy. A better alternative is to put a hat statement for admins on the article’s talk page that the article is a no-B.S. zone and there should be no assumption of good faith for *new* editors who seem to accidentally given wedgies to everyone who transgresses in their hallway. Now…
      This seems to be a bit tangential to what Eraserhead1 was trying to address, which I would characterize as being honest and open about attitude-modifying “punishment”. I should think his edit would have been less controversial had he dolled up the language with “corrective punishment” or something similar. (*sigh*) But here we are. How do others feel about my xt-green text proposal, above? Does that address the issue to everyone’s satisfaction? Greg L (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The hyperbole is getting a bit thick in here. Comparing being banned from a website to an execution, a book burning, and a lynching shows a gross overestimation of what it means to be banned from here and is insulting to actual victims of such things. Another point that seems to have been missed is that we don't remove contribs users made before they were banned, it is only edits made while evading the ban that are revertable on sight without regard for their merit. I don't want to beat up on someone who isn't here to defend themselves, but Ottava Rima (talk · contribs) comes to mind. By all accounts an excellent content editor who was an asset in many areas of the project. Unfortunately his personality made it extremely difficult to get along with him and he was extremely stubborn with regard to changing his mind once he had decided he was right about something. So, he got banned and we are now deprived of his contributions and, conversely, spared much drama and fighting that accomplished nothing. Take a look at his block log. The behavioral problems, in the end, after a whole lot of discussion and admins blocking and unblocking him 15 times or so, outweighed the contributions, and so he was shown the door. Any edits he would make with a sock (no evidence he has, just speaking hypothetically) would be reverted. Not because we hate him or wish him harm, but because he is not allowed to be editing here, and there are proper channels for requesting the lifting of a ban. Otherwise, it's not a ban. However, a careful read of the policy on banning tells us that "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm of the opinion that the explicit clause that "blocks should not be punitive" should not be dolled up, modified or altered in any way. Swarm 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Did anyone propose that? Here is Eraserhead1’s edit. Punishment does not equal punitive any more than sending a child to his room for lying in school is being punitive. A number of editors have written here that “punishment” in the sense of correcting future behavior is a just objective. And I’ve proposed wording that doesn’t use the dreaded “Punish” word. Greg L (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
G5 is not a "must" situation, it's a "may" situation. Edits by banned users can stay at the discretion of non-banned editors, but you need a damn good reason for doing so. I'm pretty sure that anyone but the most stringent rules lawyer would keep content added by a banned user that is both policy conformant and consensus-conformant (apart from breaking the banning policy). For example, the user ScienceApologist was banned for disruptive editing on issues regarding skepticism, but ArbCom allowed four editors (including myself) to edit the article Optics on his behalf in spite of the ban. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:36, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Corrective punishment"

I got a bit bold and made my own edit to this bone of contention. I think this modification should clarify the point that “punishment” (which Eraserhead1 was trying to delete and was reverted on) is not intended to be punitive but is for the purpose of correcting behavior. Greg L (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit says exactly the opposite :) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

My edit was precisely as I described it above, which was clear enough. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No. It said "Should not be used — as corrective punishment". That's obviously not what you meant. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but it was clear only to yourself, it seems. "Blocks should not be used: [...] as corrective punishment to users" differs from "Blocks should not be used: [...] as punishment against users" how? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it. I don't think that "corrective punishment" is a term of known meaning, and I don't see the distinction between that and plain punishment; see correction. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Very well. Have fun. Bye. Greg L (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion is not productive

Although this thread originated from good-faith, legitimate concerns, I find this whole debate to be unproductive, an exercise in false dichotomies, and a distraction from better uses of editors' time. I think there is general agreement that a block should never be imposed merely as a punishment. That is, an administrator should only block an editor if he or she believes the block will serve the best interests of the encyclopedia and the community, whether by immediately preventing undesirable activity and/or by deterring future undesirable activity. I do not see this as "punishment" in the commonly accepted meaning of the word, but I also think that debating whether it is or it isn't is purely a matter of semantics.

The best outcome here is probably to leave the page as it was. The second-best outcome would be to drop any mention of "punishment" from the page altogether—that is, not to mention the possibility of "punitive" blocks at all, whether to endorse them or to condemn them. But in my view, perhaps the least useful outcome would be to spend a lot of time on another week or two of this overly theoretical and, as I said, largely semantic discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Largely in agreement, but I think your view can be fairly concisely summarized in the policy by clarifying Blocks should not be used: [...] as punishment against users to Blocks should not be used: [...] merely as punishment for users' past disruption [maybe find a better word] when there's no likelihood of its reoccurrence. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing the word punishment is what I did with the original edit. The only reason there is a theoretical discussion is that there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the word punishment means. If we can't agree what the word punishment means then we shouldn't use it in our policy at all. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can't see a situation where an admin who wants to punish a user will be deterred by the word "merely". Even as is, there are too many admins who believe that any punishment, even for a misdeed that happened a long time ago, is a deterrent against future recurrence. --GRuban (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If there are a number of admins who do that complain about them. Not being able to have an honest policy due to admin abuse is a huge issue. Not having clear policies means that a new user can't come in an read the rules and follow them and not get in trouble - that's really bad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Brad's remarks at the top of this section. I don't see any point in continuing this and will not be commenting further on it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree too, and I think this discussion needs to be speedily closed. Would you mind signing my guestbook? -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with Brad's and Beeb's comments. I don't think there is much point in continuing this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kudpung (talk • contribs) 03:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Addition of Greg L's text

(←) I agree also that the discussion is unproductive, and I really think the addition should be reverted. I don't know the history but it smacks of "Someone did something bad that I didn't like, so I'm going to add a blanket statement to policy that forbids it." Policy is supposed to help guide good-faith editors who want to learn from the body of experience and wisdom we've developed over ten years of writing this encylopedia, not act as a indiscriminate repository of codes and laws that we made up in response to specific situations. This doesn't fit the bill. causa sui (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Which addition are you referring to? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume he meant this, which I find inappropriate as well. The situation described is too specific, and such a block would already be covered under "preventing disruption" anyway. wctaiwan (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to that change (which has its own section) why the hell did no-one object when it was open for discussion above? Its the most positively agreed with point on this talk page all year - if not before - and I wouldn't have added it if there was a single objection. Additionally plenty more people who actually read through the discussion clearly didn't object as this discussion is very popular.

And while Greg L's comment may be a "specific circumstance" its the circumstance that leads to ARBCOM cases and huge amounts of AN/ANI discussion so its well worth mentioning specifically. Reducing the likelihood of doctoral thesis length discussions on "specific circumstance" editors is definitely a good thing.

Personally I think doctoral thesis length discussions are really bad - but to prevent them you need to be super clear in policy.

I don't know if you've ever followed any of the more complex discussions on the project - things like WP:POVTITLE - regularly get twisted to match whichever side of the discussion the person is on - and POVTITLE is much much clearer than the blocking policy. For example the abortion case (at least a doctoral thesis length discussion) would probably have been completely avoided if "significant majority" in POVTITLE had a percentage attached. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you point out a serious problem, and it's a problem we both want to see resolved. I think our difference may be over the best way of going at it. I'll share some thoughts I've been having on this, if you don't mind:

The problem with factionalism (I want my side in this content dispute to win) is that it leads people to all sorts of distortions. That they are twisting the meaning of policy to support their favored conclusion is a symptom of the underlying problem - the instinct toward ownership of articles, and seeing Wikipedia as a battlefield. I've fallen into this trap in the past myself. But I'd strongly urge you not to see rewriting policy as the solution, as if the most clear and explicit proscriptions will prevent it. We can't prevent it, because the wording of policy is not the problem - the factionalism is. Someone in that mindset will find a way to Wikilawyer their case no matter what you put in policy, and good-faith editors who just want to learn about the best way to do things will be confronted with a labyrinth of legalese as we continually expand our code laws and exceptions to account for every possibility. (The WP:CSD policy is an example of this phenomenon. Imagine a world where all our policies looked like that. Chilling, isn't it?)

I think we ought to handle what I'm calling "factionalism" with firmness, compassion, and a heavy dose of common sense that is targeted toward the best solution for every situation; solutions that resolve disputes and preserve our community atmosphere (and the mood of the editors in it). I really, really know that you are acting in good faith. I can't stress that enough. But I worry that expanding policy like this is a slippery slope toward policy as policing, and policy as a substitute for judgment and common sense. I hope that helps. Regards, causa sui (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that factionalism is very bad, and you are also right that factionalism is more solvable with regards to this policy as nationalism and real world disputes don't generally apply here, I also agree that avoiding factionalism and coming up with a reasonable neutral compromise is also a good idea and when you can come up with a reasonable neutral compromise then its extremely effective - and we should try harder to do this.

It is also true that some people are always keen to wiki-lawyer stuff, but actually if the policy is clear and well defined you are likely to be able to convince almost everyone to at least abstain from the discussion - if only because most people don't like losing face.

If this policy had clearer principles - even just to give some indication in a coherent form as to how to deal with persistent troublemakers then it would be vastly improved - as that would give a fair and neutral structure to propose in these cases as a starting point - and I think the text I added from Greg is a start towards that.

Lets not forget that this latest treasury tag discussion (which led to this) alone goes to 7800 words and covers 17 pages - I'm sure we've between us written more text on treasury tag than we have on Chinese culture (14706 words according to the DYK check) - and that's scary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Recording in the block log after username change

My impression is that the tile of that section is misleading. I think the "normal" process to rename a user is Wikipedia:Changing username (mentioned at WP:UNC), not WP:Clean start. But the section title reads as if it's talking about the former not the latter. Perhaps change it to Recording in the block log after a "clean start"? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock conditions

In an effort to make this policy clearer I see there is no current mention of unblock conditions. Thus I propose to add the following: Sometimes when a user has been blocked multiple times a set of specific conditions is set for them to follow as a condition of their unblock. These should be linked from their user talk page while they are in affect. Additionally administrators should take them into account when considering blocking users who are subject to unblock conditions.. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Cart before the horse, too prescriptive, etc. causa sui (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "the horse" in this case? And if it's "too prescriptive" why does ANI get so much discussion. User conduct isn't that big an issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand a little more how are people going to be able to be bipartisan (your stated goal above) without something concrete to rely on? If everything has to be built on first principles each time then there needs to be a lot of discussion just to get off the ground and agreeing something sensible is much harder. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Adding wording on Mediation

When are we going to see at least encouragement in this policy for admins to negotiate a bit harder with established editors in question to avoid blocking in the first place? Mediation is a joke on en.WP; admins—at least more of them than currently is the case—need to be prepared to take this role more seriously. $Tony (talk)$ 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right that improving mediation is well worth doing as well. A 24 hour block (or longer if you aren't popular - depending on the feeling of the blocking admin) that may or may not get overturned at ANI with enough discussion is not the solution to all problems. I agree that earlier mediation is one tool we should use more. However we will need to go both ways. We are far more likely to be able to do more mediation if there is less conservatism towards any policy changes.

If we wasted less time discussing problematic users on ANI with clearer and more prescriptive policy then we could spend the huge amount of time saved with more early mentoring. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The word mediation isn't even mentioned in the policy. Often, aggrieved parties are happy with an apology, and I see instances where the admin doesn't even suggest this. Apologising first time up by an editor who "doesn't really mean it" has a symbolic meaning, and in some cases will have a longer educative effect on the apologising editor (knowing the community expects more functional behaviour). Often it won't work, but it's high time the policy cited the option, as an encouragement for admins to step in and make peace where they see it's feasible.

Tony (talk)

09:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you propose new wording including the word mediation I will, in principle, support it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Spun mediation section off into its own section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

When will we see encouragement for for admins to negotiate a bit harder with established editors to avoid blocking? Good heavens, Tony.. when the most prominent admins apply the principle to themselves, possibly? I never meant to bring up this done-to-death example again, but when I see the way you put it.. would you like to relate your general point to this admin's block of this user in 2009? (Arbcom case here, here and here.) AFAIK, the admin insists to this day that it was a proper and well-applied block, nor has any member of the then arbcom contradicted him in public (though compare of course the ArbCom Leaks links above). Discussing marginal "wording" changes in a policy while ignoring the big elephants dancing in the room may be a harmless pursuit, but I don't think it's a useful one. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
- If making small changes is discouraged on principle then we can't make big changes. I don't know anything about Jimbo's block of you in 2009, but my interpretation of the current blocking policy is that basically anything is within policy (unless you are more popular than the blocking admin in which case very little is within policy). The only realistic way that will change is if we are able to make small but continued improvements without people complaining about them.
- Rewriting the entire policy from scratch sounds great but as it wouldn't be harmless you'd have to have a massive discussion and the chances of getting agreement is basically zero. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
  - I support all of the posts thus far in this thread. Bish, yes, the small might seem like fiddling while Rome burns, but the devil's in the detail and the larger-scale (and harder to gain consensus for) changes. If people support an insertion of this type, we could toss around some wording. I'm time-stressed in RL right at the moment, but this is important enough to deal with while the topic is hot. Tony (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Why is it hot? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a short mention encouraging sensitivity, something like this, would be okay: "Blocking a user often has negative consequences on editor morale and may contribute to Wikipedia's poor editor retention.[cite] Prior to blocking, consider that diplomatic solutions such as mediation may resolve disruption without the harsh and alienating connotations of a block." causa sui (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds good - though I'd lose the bit on editor retention unless you can cite it. Be bold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That's actually not very good advice. Being bold is a great idea when improving an article. As is indicated in the notice at the top of this very page, it is not a good idea when making changes to one of our most critical policies. Substantive changes should have consensus before they are made. I know that isn't the easiest thing to do, but it the smart thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll wait for more people to weigh in before making changes. There are clearly several interested parties and it would be good to have them sign off before implementing any changes. causa sui (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see this particular change as having any impact beyond making the policy wordier. It is already enshrined in policy that admins are expected to proceed with using their tools only when they are confident that using them is the proper course of action. A good admin will never block a user, or take any other administrative action, unless they are sure. If they aren't sure, they will open a discussion. If they are pretty sure, they might do it and then open a discussion. A bad admin will do whatever the hell they want. Asking them to be more sensitive isn't going to fix that. I would add that it seems somewhat contrary to WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:COMPETENCE. While those are essays and not policies, they both have broad based support, NOTTHERAPY in particular is generally treated as a de facto policy. Sometimes we have to block people knowing full well that it is going to make them very upset. Sometimes you suspect they may be mentally ill, or senile, or developmentally disabled, or good-old-fashioned stupid to the point where they honestly cannot see the problem with their editing. Blocking them is really no fun, but sometimes it is what has to be done. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are to have a policy that people can rely on in discussions then we are clearly going to need to make the policy clearer - and therefore undoubtably wordier and more deterministic.

As you can see from the above discussion there is little agreement on what the word "punishment" means - a lot of people think it means retribution and others such as myself disagree - saying that something is covered in other policies (and an essay which you consider a de-facto policy, if you went through the formal steps to make it a policy at least some people will disagree) isn't going to deliver good results for the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is disagreement, and that is ~~probably~~ definitely a good thing, because it means everyone is critically engaging on the issue using their own best judgment, and not slavishly following orders carved into policy. The edit I proposed above tried to carry on in the tradition of policy being a guidebook, not a lawbook. But I tend to agree with Beeblebrox that it would be better to say nothing than add what I suggested. I know you think it ought to be more like a lawbook but that is not a majority view. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if people just use their "best judgement" and you give them no serious guidelines is that you land up with indefinite blocks for first time offences and people getting 24 hour blocks for their 33rd offences and all sorts of other nonsense. Some of our best contributors have fallen down on the wrong side of this stuff and had to leave the project permanently because of it - which is hardly good practice.

You land up in a situation where non-drama lovers find it basically impossible to complain about a block (as basically nothing is explicitly against policy) and drama lovers being able to complain about any block (as basically nothing is explicitly acceptable as per policy). This is what leads to ANI having 724 pages of archives and damages the project hugely.

More determinism doesn't mean we say "first time edit warriors must be blocked for 24 hours if they make more than three reverts" it means saying something like "for first time blockable offences people should generally be blocked for less than a week unless there are particularly unusual circumstances" or even less than that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And with regards to the majority view in the discussion on punishment there is almost universal opposition - and while that change would follow actual practice (which is why I like it) that change would actually make the policy more up to the admins best judgement and be less deterministic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

cross posting for block-related discussion at Wt:CHU

Just opened a thread there regarding renaming of users with long block logs. Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Could we/should we do something different with repeatedly blocked users? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Converted to a formal RFC [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And... cancelled. Never mind, these are not the droids you are looking for, move along... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are meted out... re Greg L's text

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption as well as the intentional undermining of a collegial collaborative writing environment (which is yet another form of disruption). Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption by experienced editors who intentionally take it over the line and exhibit contrition only when they get into trouble for it, such as when they are taken to a noticeboard.. [3]

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption as well as the intentional undermining of a collegial collaborative writing environment. Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption by experienced editors who intentionally take it over the line and exhibit contrition only when they get into trouble for it, such as when they are taken to a noticeboard. [4]

I'm not sure why this level of detail belongs in the beginning of the policy. I propose:

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption. Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption. [5]

Am I missing something on why the self-described bold edit has been restored almost in its entirety?

If the additional detail belongs in this policy at all, it belongs later in the article, likely in "Common rationales for blocks." --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well calling the original edit bold wasn't really correct on my part, my apologies, there was unanimous support from people who mentioned it in the above discussion on the blocking possible at the time the content was originally added.

With regards to why the change should be included is because it makes the policy clearer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a closed discussion that says no consensus, and comments specifically about removing the material. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above was closed on the 26 October whereas the original text I "boldly" added was done on the 18 October, and it is quite reasonable to presume that the closure applies to the original idea which was clearly soundly objected to. The objections in the above discussion to my addition only came after the content had been added.

The point at which the content was added on the 18 October was after the discussion had been declared "over" by an arbitrator and other users, so given the second wording was unanimously supported and had its own section it seemed perfectly reasonable to add it.

On Hans Adler's talk page I proposed some smaller changes to this wording than you have made which I felt were non-controversial and kept the edit to make the content less wordy and even between the two of us we weren't able to agree on something. How making the policy less clear is deemed reasonable - when even a tiny number of editors cannot agree about the meaning of relatively small changes is beyond me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And here is a link to the original discussion about the content I "boldly" added on 18 October. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Not much discussion on it, but at least I understand the claim of some consensus.

"If the additional detail belongs in this policy at all, it belongs later in the article, likely in "Common rationales for blocks." Am I overlooking some discussion on the need for the minutia? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with Ronz (and I missed this original discussion). There is some WP:TALKEDABOUTIT going on here. The quoted passage is very wordy. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)With regards to the first claim, it had significantly greater support than any other change made to the policy this year - very little stuff gets a lot of discussion unfortunately.
- I think moving the content to "Common rationales for blocks" would be sensible - it is legitimate to say that it is wordy. And the content would still be present for additional clarity if needed in a given discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So, we've agreed to my proposal, as long as the other information in included in the "Common rationales for blocks" section? --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think its definitely worth merging the two paragraphs at the top of the Purpose and goals section once this is done as there is a fair bit of obvious duplicate content with your version with the older sentence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have not followed this page, and am missing the background, however...

Instead of:

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption.

how about:

Blocks are used to protect the project from disruption, not as retribution.

I'm trying to thing of another way of expressing "editors who refuse to stop disrupting". Ultimately, we don't care whether an editor refuses anything—it's the disruption that needs to stop, and we know that it has stopped when (a) a sufficient period of disruption-free editing has occurred, or (b) the editor has stated they will not continue the behavior (they don't have to agree that it was "disruption", they just need to provide a plausible statement that they understand that other editors do not want the situation repeated, and they agree to not repeat it. What is this sentence trying to say anyway? Is the point that an admin can issue an immediate block without warning, if disruption is ongoing? Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like that. But I'm happy to do the first thing first and then this new proposal second. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this Bold removal of this content is unacceptable - especially after all the criticism of bold edits. If you guys want to remove the content and not just move it, all the people who originally commented in support (and opposition) should be contacted at the very least or the discussion should be listed on WP:CENT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion (in which I did not originally participate), I see no clear consensus to implement it in the first place, and renewed opposition now that more voices have weighed in. There definitely is not consensus in favor of this text, which was introduced recently, and we tend to favor the status quo in policy. So I would suggest that adding it, not removing it, is the bold edit. causa sui (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Policy good enough as it is?

I would opine that not much gets talked about because the policy is good enough as it is. causa sui (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the policy was truly "good enough as it is" then it would be quoted frequently in discussions like the one on treasury tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would require a second condition - that people thought the purpose of the policy is to resolve disputes. The lack of citations is evidence not that there is something wrong with the policy, but that that is not a majority view. causa sui (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If its purpose isn't to provide a basis for solving disputes what is it for? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I should think it would be obvious that its purpose is to provide basic guidance to admins on when it is and is not appropriate to block a user. Emphasis on basic as it is not possible to anticipate every possible situation, which is why we have WP:IAR. Disputing a block is outlined at WP:UNBLOCK, and dispute resolution is at WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So if we were discussing whether a block of a given user was appropriate which policy/guideline would you say should be quoted to backup ones arguments? WP:UNBLOCK is basically an FAQ of the unblock process - it doesn't cover anything about whether a block is appropriate in a given set of circumstances. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is, you don't always have a pre-written policy which covers in detail every possible situation. There are an infinite number of reasons why it would be necessary to block a person, and in starting a finite list of examples, we will necessarily come across a specific situation at some time in the future where an existing concrete list of reasons will be inadequate to block someone who really needs to be blocked. The simplest, broadest guidance is best here "Blocks are given to stop ongoing disruption or to prevent future disruption." Period. Once we start defining the terms in exhaustive detail, we make the policy less and less useful because we start to exclude situations which we do not anticipate, but which will inevitably arise. --Jayron32 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it isn't practical cover every possible situation. But it should be reasonable to expect that I should be able to use points from policy to argue in favour of certain things with regards to user conduct. No policy on Wikipedia covers every corner case, but it is definitely possible - when discussing article titles for example - to backup arguments with the policy. In comparison when you have a user conduct issue there is little reference to policy.

WP:IAR means that if the policy doesn't cover some specific case where it would be useful then you can use that instead - but a significant majority of the time it shouldn't be necessary to invoke it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And to reply to a point I missed, if a policy succeeds in providing guidance about whether it is appropriate or not to block a user it should basically by definition be possible to quote it in a discussion about that said block to justify it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, is user A being disruptive now? Does it appear to a reasonable person that user A intends to continue the disruption? Would a block stop user A from being disruptive, and would other less severe methods be similarly ineffectual? If the answer to all three is "yes", then a block may be appropriate. The current policy is sufficient to cover all of that. --Jayron32 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue, which is clear from following any of the discussions on ANI is that people don't agree about those points. Your "reasonable person" doesn't exist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I really know you're editing in good faith here. Really... but we are somewhere in between WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, which is WP:DEADHORSE. There are only so many ways different people can explain this, and we definitely can't camp out the talk page to voice daily opposition to every possible suggestion for how to make policy more prescriptive. causa sui (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
- The only reason this is a continued issue is because you guys haven't yet managed to present any serious counter-argument to my points. I've bought up a reasonable number of examples to backup my point and you guys have bought very little to the table beyond blindly asserting that the current policy works fine.
- If you guys can't make more than 1-2 points before backing out of the discussion consistently you should be reconsidering your position. Compared to any other discussion on this project the amount of back and forth here is significantly lower than WP:DEADHORSE territory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that if you keep proposing, and indeed making, changes to this policy that eventually something will stick. Nobody but you sees the need for the majority of changes you have proposed. Perhaps it is you who should rethink their position. Blocks are always going to cause controversy, that's just the way things go. No amount of tweaking the policy wording is goiung to stop disagreement about specific blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you are never going to be able to eliminate all controversy. That is an impossible goal for any policy. But you could at least have a useful framework that can be used in discussions - and that clearly isn't currently the case. If there isn't a framework that can be used in discussions what's the point of having a policy at all?

Additionally it is also not obvious that a significant percentage of the community is happy with the current policy - plenty of other people have suggested changes.

Finally I haven't "continued to make" changes to the policy - the only positive change I have made recently was in response to a significantly larger bold change made by another user. I am also perfectly willing to change my mind on things if logical evidence is presented. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The framework is a) is the person being disruptive and b) will the block stop the disruption. If people disagree about either of these points in a specific case, there is nothing you can add to the policy to make the disagreement evaporate. People do not disagree about when to block, they disagree about whether a person is ultimately helpful or harmful to the project. That is the core disagreement. If some random person is blocked, and if someone disagrees, they generally feel the person is a net benefit and not a net harm to the project. THAT is the source of disagreement, not about what "offenses" merit what "penalties". Just about whether a person's behavior is harmful or not, and whether a block is a response which will stop that behavior. There is nothing extra you can write on this policy which will provide any clarity because you are getting at people's opinions about another person's behavior as it relates to building the encyclopedia. There's nothing in the policy which can give guidance on that. When a popular but polarizing figure is blocked, it will always generate controversy because people will have differing opinions about whether the block helps or hurts the 'pedia. That's not a policy issue, it is a human nature issue, and you can't change human nature with additional policy guidance. The guidance is perfectly sufficient because it makes clear that blocking exists as a last resort to protect the project when other methods don't work. If people disagree that a block is necessary, no change to this page will make that go away. --Jayron32 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. With regards to your first statement if people disagree about which title is the most appropriate there is nothing you can do to make the disagreement evaporate either - but by having a coherent policy at WP:AT you make it so that less disputes reach that stage of people being unable to decide which article title is the most appropriate.

With the article titles policy and a case like Burma vs Myanmar people have gathered data showing the usages by different sources - and certainly I am convinced that its roughly equal between the two names and so are at least some of the other more neutral participants in that discussion. You would be unable to do the same thing for user conduct in even a simple case - and Burma vs Myanmar isn't a simple naming case by any means.

We could easily add minimum block terms for peoples 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th blocks and maximum block terms for people's first and second blocks to make sure blocks are handed down vaguely consistently and that blocks don't go straight to indefinite where that isn't necessary.

We could make it clearer what "last resort" means to make it less likely that blocks will be handed out inappropriately.

We could add greater focus on mediation and treating first time blocks as a learning opportunity rather than going straight to indefinite blocks.

We could improve the rules around unblocking so that things like this Arbcom case become less likely. Hopefully Arbcom will go and make some policy with regards to that case by fiat (and they basically have no choice but to do that if the case is going to achieve anything), but it would be far healthier if the community was able to come up with something sensible without arbcom having to come up with all the ideas.

Ultimately by having a clearer policy you make the easy cases easier. If you leave a few difficult borderline cases to need large amounts of discussion, ultimately it doesn't matter as if its a borderline case it doesn't matter which way it goes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, what's the whole point of your non-sequitur here? This is the page for discussing changes to the Blocking policy, you spend the bulk of your comment discussing disputes over article titles. That's an entirely unrelated issue, and I fail to see how bringing it up is relevent in any way. Perhaps you could clarify? --Jayron32 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I provided a whole bunch of suggestions on what we could do to improve the policy. The article titles policy is merely bought up as an example of a policy that manages to be functional. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is your are making the dreaded "apples to oranges" comparison. The article titles policy is largely about style issues: how to make decisions between what are ultimately arbitrary choices; wikipedia needs some policy for deciding all sorts of ultimately arbitrary style issues: How to use commas, how to organize the subsections of an article, how to properly format a title etc. etc. Those issues are served well by highly detailed policies. The deal is this policy doesn't deal with style issues, it deals with behavior. And behavior is ultimately in the eye of beholders: no matter what line we draw it comes down to the opinions of observers to decide if the line was crossed by a user. You simply cannot legislate this sort of thing. Where it is quite easy to devise a detailed policy for formatting an article title, it is another thing to influence the opinions of people over the behavior of others. It will always come down to what people subjectively feel about a person's behavior. Some stuff is obvious, bright-line behaviors, things like WP:vandalism and WP:3RR and the really blatant stuff. But when a user is displaying subtly antisocial, incivil, or otherwise showing a longterm pattern of "not playing well with others", then there is no actual policy guidance to decide when a block is necessary. Ultimately, it will come down to a community discussion and consensus over such issues, and those discussions require subjective opinions of the community members regarding the behavior of the user in question. No matter what additional guidance you provide here, it will still require the community to decide whether the behavior of the subject is "bad enough" for a block, and as such providing too much guidance is actually countermanded by the core principle of the blocking policy: guidance starts to look more and more like a list of offenses for which one can be punished, and as such, isn't what blocking is supposed to be for. --Jayron32 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To counter the obvious counter-argument, that this change would be WP:CREEP I don't see that at all as it would make the policy significantly more useful. If we were to follow Jayron32 argument that the policy should just provide a few basic ideas which admins have to interpret broadly and that all discussions that are remotely controversial will just go to ANI anyway I'd have thought we could achieve that with vastly less than 4500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of WP:DEADHORSE is that it is appropriate to terminate a discussion not when we have 100% agreement, but when it's obvious that a proposal has been rejected. Your suggestion that you will stop making proposals when you have been given "logical reasons" reads like a declaration that you intend to discuss this ad absurdum until you are convinced, and when others decline to discuss it with you, you interpret their silence as consent. This amounts to little more than filibustering. Consensus can change but I doubt the utility of continuing to ride this merry go round until it actually does. causa sui (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking silence as consent is perfectly reasonable if the person you are discussing with bows out after the first comment. That clearly doesn't apply indefinitely.

Asking you guys to present a better quality argument is perfectly reasonable as it might well cause me to change my mind. If you guys don't have any better arguments to present and aren't going to change your minds then you are right there is no point in continuing the discussion. I actually thought Jayron32's argument was fairly strong, even though I disagree with it at this stage - its obviously something that has to be taken into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Silence = consent when drafting policy is also a minority view. You can take my future silence on it as my lack of consent for revising that consensus. ;) causa sui (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

IDHT by a blocked user

Meta's got a discussion going from a blocked user who makes the following claims:

He didn't actually commit the violation named in the block log (he was indef'd for socking), so the block is invalid/doesn't count/can be ignored.
It's perfectly okay for him to keep editing as an IP despite the block, because his IP address isn't "an account".

It might be worth expanding the section on block evasion to explain the concept so that even this user will be able to understand it. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. If Wikipedia is not therapy, policy most definitely isn't. I'm always wary of the practice of writing policy with the worst troublemakers in mind, instead of the good-faith new users who just want to learn and understand how we do things around here and why. I know where you're coming from but extensive experience in this area has left me utterly pessimistic about reforming bad behavior by bad editors through wording changes in policy. causa sui (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

All we need to show that person (the blocked user) is WP:GAME or a Meta version of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unblock template - user friendly?

I've started at discussion at WP:AN#Unblock template - user friendly? but perhaps I should have started it here. This template is hard for users - new and old - to use given the problems I've seen with it and my problems in fixing them. Any suggestions as to how to fix it? EyeSerene's made one suggestion but I don't know if it's feasible. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to make off-enwiki behavior unsanctionable

It has been made in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

reverted edits

It's customary on policy pages to discuss changes on the associated talk page and gain consensus, per WP:BRD. Nobody Ent 02:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of (and some large) changes to this policy today. I saw a couple comments on the talk page - but not directly related to these changes. Could somebody give me the cliff notes version of what's happening? Was there an RfC or something I missed? — Ched : ? 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked to me like mostly copy editing (rearranging sections). Nobody Ent 02:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

While the changes may look large at first sight, each individual change is small. The way the diffs show may give the impression that some changes are large, but they are not. Just read the edit summaries to see what happened. I could have done the changes in fewer edits, but I did one error and I intentionally made a restructuration gradually to ease reviewing. Otherwise, it would have been preferable to do the work in fewer edits. --Chealer (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment: Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

Hello, all; an RFC has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool to seek input regarding the implementation of the Unblock Ticket Request System as a replacement for the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org mailing list. Comments from all users, especially those who have experience in reviewing blocks, would be greatly appreciated. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Block evasion=socking?

Isn't block evasion, by its definition, socking?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. An IP resetting his IP to avoid a block or a user logging into an alternate, unblocked account isn't socking, but it is block evasion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't that constitute the use of multiple accounts to evade sanctions, which is part of socking?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion to change/add wording to the Block policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

No consensus - While there seems to be a want for better text about this, this has been open for over 4 months, and there is still no consensus on what the final version of the text should be. So closing this now. No prejudice against immediately starting a new proposal with new/modified text. - jc37 00:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Inspired in part by a discussion at WP:AN, which was in part inspired by a comment Newyorkbrad made here. I am proposing the following change to the blocking policy:

"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. In the case of community discussions regarding a block, the status quo is defined as "unblocked". For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion)."

The rationale behind this is simple: it removes the "first mover" advantage to blocking first and then starting a discussion. It shouldn't matter whether the discussion precedes the block or the block precedes the discussion, there needs to be a consensus that an editor needs to be blocked in order to be blocked. Blocking first and then seeking a discussion should not get a different result than starting the discussion before the block. We should be clear also that administrators who block someone and whose block is later undone by community consensus are not automatically at fault or wrong, but if the community is not behind a block, a person should not be blocked.

Feel free to discuss this below, make any suggested changes, etc. etc. In light of recent events, and in light of Newyorkbrads well thought out explanation of the conundrum, a change of this sort is really needed. Thoughts? Ideas? Support? Oppose? --Jayron32 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

As nominator --Jayron32 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblocked is a reasonable default. The most important aspect is eliminating first/second mover nonsense; community action should not be the result of accidents of timing. Nobody Ent 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Specifying any default for the "status quo" is more reasonable in my view than the almost chaotic outcome these "no consensus" discussions typically have. I would like to see additional mention of the length of the block, rather than just the binary yes/no outcome of "no consensus" discussions, but this proposal is a good first step. I have one lingering concern over this default, namely that editors with many wikifriends are officially unblockable now via "normal" blocks. (These may be good content contributors who are regularly rowdy, or they may be POV pushers with similar wikifriends.) I estimate that AE blocks, topic bans, RfC/Us, and Arbitration are going to be used more often if this proposal passes. This is not necessarily a bad development though. Perhaps it's a transition towards less cowboy wikijustice. Finally, I note that for quite some years now ArbCom has advanced the view that blocks are a remedy of last resort for long term contributors, even if there's staunch opposition to that view around these parts [6]. (ArbCom has repeated that view in their latest PD here and here). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If there is no strong consensus in support of a block, it should not exist. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Especially for long term and indef. — Ched : ? 15:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
In general I think we need some changes in this area. However I think #Montanabw is a much better wording and that there are some legitimate issues raised by the opposers with the current wording. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It is my understanding that first moves are akin to WP:FAITACCOMPLI, hence a block is not status quo. This is consistent with all other WP's decision processes (absent ARBCOM or Office Actions which transcend the community's self-governance). Like any other process at WP, we err on the side of freedom of action. A prohibition at WP falls unless there is consensus to retain it - no consensus means there is no consensus to prohibit something - not just that there is no consensus to change something that once may have had consensus; the prohibition is gone because no consensus supports it any more. An attempted deletion at WP, failing to achieve consensus means the item stays. Hence, all policies, practices, guidelines, and consensuses that prohibit any activity or mandate (whether suggestive or more arm-twisting) compliance retain their force only so long as consensus can be shown to retain the same. For example, we went through a whole rigamarole over whether to link dates in articles - which got decided by ARBCOM. Had it been decided not from "above" but by consensus to prohibit such links; we can always test whether such consensus still exists, and in its absence, the prohibition is removed because the status quo ante a consensus which no longer exists was no prohibition. It's similar to how XFDs handled; it matters not whether the thing was or wasn't deleted; if there's no consensus to delete it, we retain it (as the lesser prohibition). Blocking is a (technology enforced) editing prohibition. And it, like any other may be reversed absent consensus to retain it. The status quo is not relevant in any material sense. We make rules against ourselves, but these remain only so long as we choose to retain them; self-perpetuating rules makes us a WP:BUREAUCRACY and invites WP:WIKILAWYERING. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
There is a really important point here that I would like to draw out and reexpress: the relationship between freedom of action and a default state. We allow deletion of articles, because the default state is that they should not be deleted. Ironically, the very fact that articles should not, in general, be deleted, provides some freedom of action in deleting them, because such actions can be challenged and undone relatively easily. If we want admins to have a similar freedom of action to block editors (and I think we do), then we only truly provide that freedom if there is a default state of unblocked. The only question, in my mind, is how we return to the default state when there is no consensus. If, for short blocks, we just let them expire, then for longer ones, it seems to me that the most natural thing is to commute them into short blocks. Geometry guy 22:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I was once blocked for 10 seconds. Can anyone provide a rational explanation for what that was meant to achieve? Or why that admin is still an admin? Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

'No consensus' usually means 'no change' on Wikipedia, and we should stick to that principle with blocks. Additionally, I think this change is likely to encourage wheel warring: admin A blocks, admin B unblocks claiming 'no consensus for block', admin A reblocks claiming 'there is a consensus', etc. (I realise that can and does happen already, but any wording in policy which tells admins to overturn each other's actions will encourage it.) Finally, this is going to cause problems with requests for unblocks. Currently, when a long-term blocked user requests to be unblocked, their request is only granted if there is a rough consensus in support. Under this proposal, if there is no consensus as to whether they should be unblocked, presumably 'default to unblock' would apply. I think that's a bad route to go down: overturning a block should require consensus, not the lack of it. Robofish (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As an afterthought, I would support this policy specifically for indefinite blocks, though. I don't think an indefinite block should be imposed where there isn't consensus for it. But for normal blocks, I think the best approach to a lack of consensus is simply to let the block expire. Robofish (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Robofish. The proposal would enshrine the second-mover advantage, encourages wheel-warring and provides effective immunity to blocks for anyone with a certain number of friends who show up at ANI. This would make policy enforcement even more arbitrary, ochlocratic and dependent on social dynamics. Admins should normally defer to decisions made by colleagues, and overturning blocks should normally need community consensus. But I'm open to discussing rule-based, transparent methods to resolve disagreements about controversial blocks, e.g., referral to a panel of three or five uninvolved admins. Sandstein 14:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The "friends who show up" issue can be handled the same way that it is in AFD, by tagging such accounts with the {{spa}} tag and allowing the admin who closes the unblock discussion to make a "strength of argument" determination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Such a panel already exists. It's called ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I am persuaded by the opposes. I would feel better about the post-block consensus discussions if all commenters were impartial going in. But that seldom seems (or, too often does not seem) the case. They are either involved, or they seem previously partial for or against the User or Administrator. Crowd sourcing has its pitfalls. All blocks should be good blocks (especially for the less popular user). All administrators should exercise good judgment (or be removed). Process and policy should advance these as the defaults. The community should trust its admins to do the right thing, the first time. Of course, appeal should be allowed but not to a stacked deck, either for or against. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No. This would enshrine the concept of wheel-warring and encourage undoing of the status quo based on subjective interpretations of "consensus", which is often declared based on the first few interested parties to show up on ANI. A more useful offering would be that in cases of no consensus on indef blocks, the discussion is spun out into a full RfC on "should this user be blocked, and for what duration", formatted as an RFC/U, running the full length of 30 days and closed by two or three uninvolved admins at the end of that. Yes, it's bureaucratic and drags out, but at least it avoids the issue of "first person to call 'consensus!' or 'no consensus!' gets to do what they want" and allows for full community discussion and the avoidance of the blocked party's best friend or worst enemy being the one to decide whether there's a consensus to do anything. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
So shorter blocks would just time out, I'm inferring? Would the indef'd editor be unblocked to participate in the RFC/U while banned from editing elsewhere? Nobody Ent 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose they would. A full RFC wouldn't be useful for a 24-hour or weeklong block, at any rate, due to time constraints. If we wanted to, I would say my idea could be stripped down to bare bones of "block discussion threads must run for a minimum of 24 hours and must be closed by two or more admins in agreement over the result." The main issue, as I see it in these contentious block/unblock threads is hasty calling of consensus or lack thereof, often by an involved, or at least non-impartial, party. The right answer isn't to default to either block or unblock, it's to make sure the threads are run cleanly so that an individual consensus can be built in each case. At least, that's mho. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The idea to move to a RfC/U in such cases has already been rejected on WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, but it doesn't make this proposal any more acceptable an alternative in my mind. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Pretty much any block of an established editor is going to be controversial, and this kind of policy change would just add to more chaos. I'm also uncomfortable with the suggestion that there are that many bad blocks, that this kind of change would even be needed. The solutions, IMHO, are not to change policy to allow blocks to be easily reversed, but to get rid of admins who are making bad blocks. So if an admin blocks, and then there is a clear and substantial consensus that the block was bad, and this seems to be happening on a repeated basis, the community should consider removing that admin's bit. --El on ka 17:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
In your analogy then this policy change will make no difference as if all admin blocks are good then they will have a consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The policy change is not needed, and if it were implemented, it would make a difference because it would cause more "revolving door" blocks, more chaos on ANI, and more wasted time all around. --El on ka 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Consensus requires debate and discussion, and such can ebb and flow - not least as different participants turn up. If like AFD these discussions were normally left to run for 7 days then it would be more reasonable to default to unblock. But in a debate that can be ended at any moment it makes it too easy to unblock if it can be done the first time the argument ebbs to the point where one could argue there was not quite consensus to maintain the block. Ϣere SpielChequers 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
? Montanabw's wording below addresses these concerns. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Addresses but doesn't resolve to my satisfaction. Keeping the debate going for seven days to see if you can get a bare majority sounds to me like a recipe for even more drama than we now have. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so, people will probably start to care less after seven days, so I doubt there will be as much drama as an immediate unblock. We wait for seven days for move requests and AfD's and that seems to work pretty well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. We should have faith in initial blocking Admins. competence and decision making although more comprehensive rationale for blocks should be documented. Giving certain editors who have a posse of friends or a friendly Admin. in their pocket even more scope to evade blocks is no good thing. Leaky Caldron 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So, some admins are corrupt by being willing to unblock their friends, but the cabal of "initial blocking Admins" is pristine with no possible biases? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes and No respectively. Nevertheless, I do trust the vast majority of Admins. to block appropriately most of the time. A lot of the noise about inappropriate blocks to certain editors is just that, noise. I do not recognise the cabal to which you refer. Individual cases of indisputably incorrect behaviour should of course be dealt with. Leaky Caldron 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mu

This proposal was initiated in response to this ANI discussion which was inspired by a conundrum raised by NYB. Far from addressing the problem, this discussion illustrates it. The "default to unblock" position is reasonable, as is the "no consensus means no change" position. Rather than arguing a point here, I encourage editors to engage with opposing views. For example, this proposal is evidently not intended to encourage wheel-warring, as nobody wants that. For another example, if indefinite blocks require special treatment, how about really long blocks? Please do not ask me alone, as I already made my proposal at WT:AN, and it still looks pretty good to me. However, please do read and reflect on the basis for views contrary to your own, and look for a better solution. And if, on reflection, you are open minded about dialog and possible solutions, the merits of diverse views, feel free to say "mu", as I do, rather than "support" or "oppose". Geometry guy 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not really getting the "Mu" meme but I support any protocol which eliminates first mover/second mover or the "quickest" (or second quickest?) admins' decision from having precedence over everyone else's. It's definitely reasonable to split blocks into short term and long term categories -- if consensus is sketchy there's not harm in having an editor clock out a short term block, but editor's should not be indeffed unless there's a clear consensus to do so. Nobody Ent 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

question Is there any expected time frame for this RfC? Meaning, 7 days? 30 days? The reason I ask is that my time on wiki is spotty, and will be for the next couple weeks; but I do want to throw my 2-cents in. At first blush, I'm inclined to support for many reasons, but agree that the couple opposes do have valid points. I'd like time to review and research a bit before committing a definitive support. (or oppose). — Ched : ? 18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As long as it needs... --Jayron32 18:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

As per previous similar proposals on AN, this one also has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. I suggest early closure, because it's already proving to be a waste of time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Calm your liver. If it passes it passes, if it fails it fails, but its been open 20 hours and 8 people have commented. I wouldn't call 8 people "the community". Give it a few days. Seriously. If you don't like it, vote oppose and get it over with. But don't feel the need to prevent other people from discussing proposals you don't personally like. --Jayron32 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind concern for my health. I've already !voted support in case you didn't notice. Based on the preliminary discussion, I just don't think this going to have the necessary support to make a policy change. The WP:V 1st sentence change was rejected even though the !vote was 2:1 in favor. Good luck. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd also say that in general avoiding immediate commentary one way or another is the wisest course of action - that avoids any possibility of losing face if one want's to change their mind. Giving people a chance to think about this properly is probably sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd also mention that we are into the weekend now and I can easily imagine that many editors do less editing during that time due to items they may want to engage in in their real lives. And yep - WP:V is indeed a very tough audience. (also - thank you Jayron32 for a very well designed proposal.) — Ched : ? 22:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I see a need, perhaps for three different things here. 1) A default status in general when, AFTER DISCUSSION, there is no consensus - i.e. if no consensus, then unblocked is the default. In principle, I like that and support the need for a default standard. BUT there is also 2) Blocks used on people actively and currently being quite disruptive -- vandals or real mean-spirited, attacking sorts. These need to not be subject to wheel-warring and unblocked too hastily, as sometimes the disruption starts right up again. It's good to give these sorts of things a few days to sort themselves out, give everyone time to weigh in, and be sure that the "consensus" reached is a real one and not simply a dogpile in one direction or another. BUT 3) Then we have the long term blocks, which usually are for users with a lot of experience but also a lot of baggage -- not the immediate vandal-type abusers who need (and deserve) fast, firm short blocks (which often reform those sorts quickly or they leave quickly). These longer term discussions are probably are the most in need of the default concept, that, summed up, may mean that if there are 10,000 supporters on one side and 10,001 opposes on the other that after two weeks of yammering around and around with no clear consensus in either direction, just everyone repeating themselves, the default is unblock. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems very sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  I also see a lot of sense in these comments. Geometry guy 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  Sounds good to me, but it's going to be tricky to word it as policy. How exactly would you describe the difference between situation 1 (where the user should be unblocked) and situation 2 (where they shouldn't)? Something like 'where there is no consensus on whether a block is appropriate, the user should be unblocked, except when they are likely to disrupt Wikipedia'? That seems a bit like begging the question, particularly if the question of whether they will disrupt Wikipedia is the very matter there was no consensus about... Robofish (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I still feel like this is a solution in search of a problem. Further rules (even soft cultural ones) should arise when there is a need. Can we please list some blocks that were perceived as problematic? Not discussing the blocks themselvs, please, just listing them so that we can see if they are worth discussing. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

See WP:AN and WP:ANI. It's a rare day where there isn't a thread on one or both of those noticeboards asking for a review of a block; if there isn't one today, check the archives. You'll find thousands of such discussions. --Jayron32 01:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

More rules won't stop bad judgment. If a block needs to be discussed, don't do it. Blocking is a last resort, to be used only when other options won't work, and when it is obvious that the block is correct. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, Jayron, that's a non-response. 1) The simple presence of threads asking for review of a block would not indicate that there was a problem with first-mover's advantage. 2) The burden of proof is typically on the person making the claim. If you say that this is an issue, it's best if you don't just wave your hands and say "look there!" Particularly if there are thousands than it's no burden for you to provide an example. 3)There's nothing I see on ANI or AN right now that falls under "first mover." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I can pull up one right now, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement started over exactly this issue, and is exactly the kind of block that results in contentiousness. Indeed, many of these sorts of blocks end up at ArbCom eventually, which only shows that the community has not, as yet, devised a way to deal with them equitably. See also this case which was declined titled "Unblocks and enabling". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling is yet another one. There are many such ArbCom cases and ANI threads where the community doesn't show the ability to be able to decide how to handle when a long-term, polarizing editor is blocked. The idea behind this is that, when there is no consensus to block, a person should not be blocked. Period. It would head-off a lot of problems which clearly exist. I understand that you oppose this idea, Aaron Brenneman, and I would feel fine with you voting oppose, but I find it troublesome that you seek to short-circuit the discussion by refusing to acknowledge an open problem. --Jayron32 04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

To be fair it is possible that, like me, he is thinking about how he will comment before committing to !voting one way or another.

I have to say I do prefer Montanabw's wording as it addresses the actual issue without affecting anything wider. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think his wording is great as well. This discussion is intended to be a starting point, and not an end, and I certainly don't have any attachment to my wording or to the final result of the discussion per se, but it is important that we have the discussion as a community, given the obvious problem. I'm most concerned with resolution, not necessarily any particular resolution, excepting solving the problem in a way that works. --Jayron32 14:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, please consider how the tone of your response affects the way debate continues. That aside, if we only have two examples, do we really think that this is a problem worth discussion? Further, I am able to disagree with you that there's a problem (which I have not, please note, done) without it being somehow disruptive to the discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

One of those examples led to over 100 people commenting on an Arbcom request - its clearly a problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's handwaving. How any of those "over 100" commenting raised the issue of first mover? What is the "it" that is clearly a problem? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The case is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 01:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I also like Montanabw's views. I think she says things well. — Ched : ? 04:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Hypotheticals

How would the examples given above have been different if the "no consensus on blocking means unblocked" guideline had been in place? For the civility case, are we talking about Hawkeye's block? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Thumperward's. And here's the problem: a principle that "no consensus on blocking means unblocked" would have added further support to John's unblock, because there was certainly no consensus for the block. However, the very process of undoing another admin's action, while the issue remains a bone of contention, can itself be disruptive, as it turned out to be in this case. This is one reason I proposed shortening no consensus blocks, rather than simply undoing them. Geometry guy 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Another ongoing example is Wikipedia:ANI#On-wiki_harrassment.2C_POV_editing.2C_and_off-wiki_attacks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it really better to have to argue about whether to block or unblock her, rather than having a definitive answer one way or another?

While there are some technical issues with the unblock its fairly clear Arbcom is looking at them, and I'm not sure the unblock per-say is that problematic, especially given the person it affects seems to have been happy to give another chance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Analogies with deletion

Has anyone considered the irony of having very detailed processes in place to delete articles (including discussions being open for 7 days), but to revoke an editors' access to wikipedia requires one blocking admin and "no-consensus" at ANI? We should propose to re-write the deletion policy so that the first admin to delete it gains first-mover advantage, and require undeletions to go through ANI/AN. 204.50.172.132 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about this, and I think we need to be more discriminating. It's true that AfDs last as long you say they do, but we also have WP:CSD. Even in the sanctions arena, we already have a distinction like that. Bans of all kinds (topic, interaction and even site ban) normally require community consensus (or ArbCom decision), except in WP:AE "free fire zones" (I mean WP:Discretionary sanctions). There is an obvious philosophical disagreement between those wanting the entire Wikipedia to be a free fire zone for admins, and those who think long-term content contributors should be shown more deference. ArbCom has inclined more towards the latter lately. I think a practical step towards mitigating this conflict would be to detail some types of "infractions" for which AE-type (first-mover advantage, "speedy") blocks can be imposed. And also detail other types that would require AfD-type consensus to be established first (disallowing first-mover advantage), making the decision making process for those similar to that for bans. For instance, WP:close paraphrasing would probably fit in the latter category. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In general, ASCIIIn2BMe / MontanaBMW's ideas are good. The most difficult situation might be Montana's #2 which an editor under discussion is continuing with questionable behavior while the discussion is ongoing.

The Afd is false analogy -- articles are inanimate passive things; editors are people who actively change the encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

With regards arguing the false analogy fallacy, the expectation is not that two items are completely alike, but rather they share enough qualities that we can draw inferences from one item to another. For articles that do not assert notability there is speedy deletion, and for people who are immediately disrupting the encyclopedia - there are immediate blocks for disruption/vandalism accounts. For established articles where the notability is asserted, there is a discussion that occurs prior to action being taken. If a user is not actively disrupting the encyclopedia, there is no reason for a block until consensus can be reached. However, I don't think the solution is to block users when discussion can still occur, and rely on ANI to bring forward a consensus where it clearly isn't structured appropriately for it. 204.50.15.4 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Arguably, articles are more valuable than editors to Wikipedia. Articles are our core content: getting rid of an article directly affects the Wikipedia product in a way that getting rid of an editor doesn't (not directly, anyway), which is why it usually requires consensus in a discussion over at least several days. To put it another way, articles are essential to Wikipedia; editors are disposable. (This may sound like a somewhat extreme philosophy, but when you think about it it's a fair description of how Wikipedia works.) Robofish (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, a recent essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you, argues the same point. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Rebutted by an even more recent essay Zeroth law of Wikipedia. Short version: who writes the articles? Nobody Ent 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I've addressed this issue in my !vote. WP has no rules but two: (1) those imposed by office actions (laws) and by ARBCOM and (2) those which the community's consensus puts upon ourselves. Leaving (1) to the side, since methinks nothing can change it, we're left with our own rules. The overriding rule is freedom of action (we default to unblock, keep articles, non-compliance with BS stuff) unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. And whatever rule is adopted (be it by block or deletion or some policy/guideline etc.) it remains binding only so long as the consensus to keep it remains. We know consensus can change. WP:CCC. This is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY where you need 2/3 to override a veto or some such mess. A rule than cannot demonstrate a current consensus is no rule at all; nothing is kept in place solely because someone got there first. Article titles are moved around (the first author's title - even if it had consensus at the time - may not be where it ends up); categories come and go (the first editor's organizational ideas - even if they had consensus at the time - may not be retained); many of the various policies and guidelines, etc., were established without much discussion or evidence of consensus (especially as they are freely editable and it's hard to be bound to a contract which is altered after you've signed); and finally, blocking. The blocking policy is just one among many of WP's policies - no more magical and mystical than any other. So, we should default to unblocked. But, from a practical point of view, most blocks are not very controversial; and I expect few will be overturned by a lack of consensus - especially, if the blocked party continues the behavior that got them blocked after unblocking - we should at least make the words match the reality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Updated proposal

In order to address the valid concerns expressed regarding hasty decisions I propose the following modification:

"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion). If a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking ~~nor an administrator unblocking in response to an unblock request~~."

With regards to the unblock the intent to to allow a legitimately blocked editor who posts a good unblock request -- "Yes I understand I screwed up, I won't do that anymore" to get unblocked. If this is reasonable, then I'd suggest the next step would be to strike through the original proposal, notify all previous participants and revote. Nobody Ent 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I think you need to specify that if a block is being discussed on a noticeboard, unblock requests must be put on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. If ANI is heatedly discussing a block of user:Foo, admin Bar should not swoop in and make a one-person decision as to whether to block or unblock Foo - a discussion is ongoing, and it's no single admin's place to supplant the outcome of community discussion with a unilateral opinion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One condition in the unblocking section is "a commitment to change is given." Are you suggesting modifying this, only allowing unblock with consent of blocking admin, or something else that I'm just not getting?

Would that imply a burden for an admin reviewing an unblock request to do a search on noticeboard(s) before applying an unblock? Nobody Ent 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I think (and this is more or less just taking shape in my mind as we discuss it, so feel free to ask more questions if they occur to you) I'm suggesting that we draw a line in the unblocking policy between uncontentious blocks - which can easily be reviewed via template by a single admin, and unblocks granted if a commitment to change, etc is given - and contentious blocks - blocks that are the subject of ongoing discussion, blocks where the blocking admin opposes an unblock, etc, where a unilateral unblock, via template or via just happening upon it, should not be granted due to the possibility that it would be in defiance of community discussion. This should, ideally, call for no little or no more effort on the part of the unblock-reviewing admin than usual, because a user whose block is being discussed on AN or ANI would have an AN/ANI notice on their talk page - the reviewing admin, who can already reasonably be expected to survey the contents of the user's talk, would then see that and be aware that the block is being discussed. Similarly, if the blocking admin opposes unblock or wants the user to make further concessions before unblock, that will often be found on the blocked user's talk page. Yes, this isn't perfect, and it's not unexpected that an admin might miss that discussion is ongoing, but my expectation is that if an admin unblocks and then discovered that the community is reviewing whether an unblock is warranted, the unblocker would restore the block on the basis of "oops, potential for community consensus trumps my own thoughts on this issue; it's inappropriate to short-circuit that process".

In short, if the community is on the case, the community has dibs on deciding the block's fate; no admin ought to step in before that and single-handedly moot the community's discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense as far as my second point -- as I never personally block/unblock my understanding is somewhat abstract. I guess the expectation that given a reasonable "commitment to change" consensus would likely shift pretty quickly to unblock. I've struck the last phrase from the proposal. Nobody Ent 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(indent) Same objection as before - How have we shown that this is enough of a problem to require more instruction creep, more layers of complexity, more opportunities for disruptive Gnomic-like discussions? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you paid attention to the recent civility case at Arbcom? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And it's been pointed to several times in quite vague terms. I haven't looked in a few days, but it's closed now so if "first mover" was important, it'd be somewhere in the principles or findings of fact at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision, right? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

In a declined arbcom case the committee told us explicitly the ball is in the community's court, suggesting as one alternative a "community led Rfc" Nobody Ent 10:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The current policy results in Black swan events; while relatively rare, they consume significant wikiresources. It will be too late once the next event occurs, as comments are then interpreted as biased towards/against the editor and admins in question. It is best to strike while the iron is cold. Nobody Ent 12:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Only one committee member supported the "balls in court" thing, though, am I correct in that? (Two opposed two abstained.) And the second link you've provided is the civility case prior to rename, correct? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your answer to the question. I'll try to rephrase: In your edit to this page of 01:39, 22 February 2012, you explicitly pointed out the Civility_enforcement case as an example of why this change was required. Is that still your opinion? How do you reconcile that with the fact that (unless I'm missing something) nothing on first-mover's made it into the final product? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

If this policy or equivalent was in effect, John doesn't do the unblock which leads to Hawkeye7 not doing the reblock and it's possible the issue could have been resolved without an ArbCom case. Nobody Ent 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Relisting

"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion). If a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking."

Support

Hopefully allows us to move forward while addressing concerns previously raised. Nobody Ent 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

I find this more palatable than it was in its initial form, but I still can't side with defaulting to unblocking due to the ease with which "no consensus" can be gamed by a few people overwhelming a thread with heated commentary, or friends-of-blockee piling in to protect them. I could support "if a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking" as a stand-alone change to the policy, but I can't support the rest of the content proposed here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

So, assuming we adopt this proposal, what's preventing an admin from blocking someone every 24hrs while this "no consensus" situation exists? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's covered by existing practices Nobody Ent 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was tempted to reply that it doesn't apply to admins. Seriously, if your fix for a policy flaw in a hotheaded area is a change that requires common sense in order to avoid abuse, then we're better off with no change at all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely support the simplest change as suggested User:Fluffernutter. I think there is value in making the most conservative change first, and I think this change should resolve the worst of the current behaviour which is clearly extremely swift unblocking after a very short time. Even if the 24 hours isn't followed strictly 16 hours or so is still probably enough. I think this change should solve 80% of the problems which led to this being discussed, and further changes can be done later if necessary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this contravenes current policy at WP:CONSENSUS: "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." I'm going to leave a note there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Not really. WP:Consensus merely gives some simple examples of what other policies and guidelines say to do if there is no consensus. WP:Consensus does not establish what the correct response should be. If this policy changes, then WP:Consensus will be updated to match it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I've deactivated the RfC tag because the listing has expired. [7] [8]. Clar voter fatigue at this point, so this should be tabled as "no consensus for anything". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unjustified rollback

User:Eraserhead1 and User:Nobody Ent both did a rollback losing several changes today in 479561842 and 479582181, both unjustified. The former was misguided and I reverted it, however I didn't revert the latter for now. The edit summary refers to here, but there is no justification here. I asked the editor to justify on his talk page. Unless a justification would come, it needs to be reverted too. --Chealer (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chealer, my justification is that you seemed to make a very large change that was difficult to see what was going on. Please can you make your changes more slowly so we can use the diff tools effectively to see what's happening.

I took a diff of your changes and I couldn't see what had changed in a timely fashion.

You can't just edit war over policy, and all I'm asking is for you to make the changes more slowly - as I said in my edit summary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I also think it was poor form that you only gave me three minutes in the middle of the night to respond to your talk page request. I should have been given at least 24 hours, if not 48. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick perusal of the policy on the use of rollback does not show me that as one of the valid uses of the tool. Maybe I'm missing something at 5AM. I can understand undoing such an edit, but not rollback (oh, and I agree - attempting to discuss an issue means actual discussion, not a driveby-then-off-to-see-admins) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." Nobody Ent 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. Slowing edition so that it can be checked is not a request. This was meant to explain how changes can be "checked plausibly". What you probably want is to check each change individually by using the "prev" links on [9]. If you consider that as implausible, then ask for more detailed edit summaries of the specific changes you find hard to analyze. --Chealer (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1, please see Slowing edition so that it can be checked. --Chealer (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a look. I agree with your structural changes. I'm not sure about your other changes. I want some time to think about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done the first set of structural changes. I'll go and do the rest in a couple of days unless there are any objections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I do not believe "slow down so that I can check them" is a good reason for rollback. I endorse the series-of-small-changes approach taken here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Reminder (per Aaron):

Rollback may be used:

To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
To revert edits in your own user space
To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page...

I would urge anyone who is using the rollback feature to brush up on the Wikipedia:Rollback feature guideline. I'd hate to see anyone get in trouble or lose that ability over a simple misunderstanding. Peace — Ched : ? 18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning depends on context -- the preface to the above list clearly says "it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected." Then, after list, the guideline notes: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.

As the edits in question all had a reasonable edit summary, the rollback prohibition clearly is not applicable. Nobody Ent 22:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you around enough to know you know what's going on Nobody - wasn't questioning anyone - just saw the "Rollback" post - thought I'd mention it so a newer user or something didn't get their butts in a bind. Carry on ... (In other words, Ched didn't take the time to research anything. :)) — Ched : ? 23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe "slow down so that I can check them" is a good reason for reversion of any kind. Once the person is finished, I go back and you review their edits. There's no problem with the wrong version being on the page while I'm looking. What is proposed as acceptable (reverts any edits "you" have not yet approved) is not how it's meant to work. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The top of this page clearly states: "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page." I don't mind Chealer being bold -- I'm frequently bold myself, but Eraserhead was entirely correct to revert the edits if there was any doubt as to consensus. Nobody Ent 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll continue to disagree, I'm afraid. If one says "I read and checked this, and I don't think it has consensus" that is clearly acceptable. But to say "I'm reverting because I don't have time to read and approve these edits" is not acceptable. I'm stepping away from the horse now. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm staggered that anyone would think differently. Beggars belief really. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And as for the more general question about rollback, it's surely got to be the most useless bauble in the history of baubles. Nobody needs it, it's just an "I gave it and I can take it away" attempt at control. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That could be misinterpreted, but the context makes it pretty clear that this is talking about policy changes, not about simple restructuring or rewording: "The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow.". I clarified the template anyway. --Chealer (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we couldn't check your rewording as you made a whole bunch of changes all at the same time. In a few days - once everyone has got used to the new layout and we know there aren't any issues with that, you can start making your content changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Don't include me in your "we". If you (singular) don't know how or don't have time to step through a set of diffs, just step aside and let someone else do it. Did you really think you were the only one able to prevent the total collapse of the encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is still the issue that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to revert the changes individually. Wikipedia's diff algorithm is quite poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what you just said at all. The point of making lots of small changes is that it makes it easier to revert out bits? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, you used rollback inappropriately and your request that changes only be made the way you want them to be made is not reasonable. You made a mistake, numerous users have tried to explain it to you. So please, stop tap dancing around the obvious, own up to it and move on, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my later comments, it wasn't acceptable and was bringing up points that were unreasonable, it was possible to check the diffs - and something in the end I did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are they punishments?

Are blocks punishments? --NoObsceneUsernames (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, but sometimes are. causa sui (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Query

Under "Setting block options" the policy says: prevent account creation will prevent accounts from being created by the account. How can an account create another account? Does it mean will prevent accounts from being created on the blocked IP address? Victor Yus (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Some people may be reluctant to provide too much information to this query per WP:BEANS; but I'll say this much. If you look at WP:SOCK you'll notice that we've had a need in the past to address issues where an editor is acting in an unacceptable manner, they were blocked, and they simply stated editing under a different name to carry on that same unacceptable behavior. The technical aspect of "prevent account creation" is simply a measure used to [at least attempt to] prevent this from happening. I'm not sure that fully answers your question, but I hope it explains the concept and the WP:BEANS non-answer. — Ched : ? 13:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So is my original interpretation (that it means will prevent accounts from being created on the blocked IP address) basically correct? In combination with the following sentence, which implies that the "blocked IP address" is the last IP used by the blocked account (if it's an account rather than an IP that's being blocked), provided "autoblock" is not unchecked? (I don't really need to know; I've just seen "account creation blocked" on certain block log entries, and have been trying to work out what it might mean - without doing the experiment of getting myself blocked to find out.)--Victor Yus (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your question .. yes. Sorry for the delay - I hadn't checked back here. — Ched : ? 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, accounts can create other accounts via Special:UserLogin/signup. The "account creation block" prevents this. It is normally only disabled when the username is inappropriate (e.g. a spammy username) so that the user can create an account with a more appropriate username. The autoblock prevents other users from editing from the IP, and it also prevents further account creation from that IP. Hope this helps. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but is there any difference of consequence between "an account creating an account" and that user first logging out and then creating the new account? Victor Yus (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Big problem. Please help.

Hello. This might not be the correct place to post this but I am lost. I have basic knowledge around Wikipedia's administrative pages and I find reaching someone to solve a problem is confusing, fruitless and time consuming. I have been a wikipedia user for years. I am a Syrian citizen and I live in Syria, and most of my contributions to Wikipedia are about minor articles regarding my country. Now, my government has been blocking wikimedia for years now and thus we can't view Wikipedia properly because all images and illustrations are messed up. That is why we all use anonymizers to bypass this problem. When we do this, we are always banned from editing as collateral damage. Right now, I am using my original IP address to write this and believe me it is not pleasant. I have contacted an admin whose blocks I often encounter and he/she seems to be busy these days. My appreciation for his/her concern stands true regardless. Please, I need this problem fixed. Check my IP address and confirm that I am connecting from Syria. Why can't an admin unblock a username? Too complicated? (not being sarcastic here as I am not knowledgeable in that matter).

Thank you and I apologize if I misplaced this post. I just really REALLY want a solution for this. REMcrazy (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Egg Centri c 21:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I also will respond to the talkpage soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Link

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello.

I am proposing the addition of a link to Block (Internet) in the lead paragraph on the bolded word. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

done Penyulap ☏ 06:48, 17 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Unblocking bot accounts

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

As I think everyone here knows, consensus is not a vote. And further that policy/guidelines (with some exceptions) are to be based upon common practice, and not the other way round. So in closing this, I need to weigh both this discussion, as well as broader common practice/policy/guidelines.

With that in mind (as (re-)affirmed in the discussions below):

Common practice has been that bot owners have unblocked their blocked bot "if" it can be presumed that the block was simply due to a technical error, which is now presumably fixed.
A bot owner should not be unblocking their bot for any other reason.

The problem with the common practice for opposers to that common practice is it relies (in their opinion) too much on presumption.

Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Other_important_information already states:

"If there are any specific recommendations or circumstances that a reviewing administrator would need to know, or that may help to avoid administrator disputes upon review of a block, the blocking administrator should consider including this information in the block notice. For example: [...] Suggested conditions for an unblock."

A bot owner thinking of unblocking their now-presumably-fixed bot would be "a reviewing administrator".

So this is already in policy. Someone blocking a malfunctioning bot should inform the bot owner when blocking that this was the reason for the block.

Therefore, that would seem to remove the majority of the opposing comments.

So with all that in mind, there seems to be most support for some version of: "Administrators should not unblock their own account(s), including bots, without permission from the blocking administrator."

(Essentially one of Hammersmith's proposals, but changing "must never" to "should not", per opposition comments.)

- jc37 00:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Policy regarding the unblocking of bots is unclear. RfC asks to clarify the policy, amending Wikipedia:Blocking policy and MediaWiki:Unblockiptext. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Since 2008 there has been a message on MediaWiki:Unblockiptext that admin bot owners should not unblock their own bots. The matter has come up during Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich Farmbrough/Proposed decision, and it turns out that some admin bot owners have ignored that message. It is felt that a mediawiki message does not have the force of a policy, though it is also pointed out that the message has been in place since 2008 unchallenged. As the message makes sense, and it would avoid potential conflict if the message were adhered to, it is suggested that "including bot accounts" is added to the "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable" statement as follows:

"Unblocking will almost never be acceptable: ... to unblock one's own account including bot accounts"

Comments? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the change, but sometimes the blocking admins says "I've blocked it because it's crazy, unblock whenever you fix it," which is a different circumstance. MBisanz ^talk 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

When my admin bot got blocked, I added a request for unblock. Otherwise it's a conflict of interest. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, I'm just wondering how we can account for lazy blockers who trust that admin-operators won't re-start it until they've fixed the problem. MBisanz ^talk 23:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"...except with the explicit consent of the blocking admin"? T. Canens (talk) 23:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me, I'm just trying to avoid situations like what Carl describes below. MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Some change to that effect would be fine with me, as long as the WP:NOTBURO "...except with the explicit consent of the blocking admin" clause is included for use in uncontroversial cases. Anomie ⚔ 01:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I am an admin and I run several bots. One was blocked by MBisanz in Dec 2008 because the password could be discovered. He blocked the bot and emailed me, I fixed the problem and unblocked the bot. I don't think he expected anything else. On the other hand, if someone blocks a bot and the operator unblocks it without the permission of the blocking admin, that's a different story. I think that the permission of the blocking admin, which is usually clear from the block message, is the deciding factor. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Admins should be allowed to unblock their own bots if the module(s) generating the problem edits have been repaired or disabled. Otherwise, we'll have pointless unblock requests sitting in the queue for hours before another admin finds it and removes it. The admin himself isn't blocked—otherwise admins could not unblock themselves if blocked by mistake! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

For what little my opinion here is worth I also agree that the devil is in the details. Most of the time the bots are blocked for something simple that's easily fixed. Once that problem is fixed, with or without consent of the blocking admin, it seems reasonable to unblock it. Aside from that I personally think that the policy is fine doesn't need to be changed as a knee jerk reaction to a single incident scenario. Its been in place since 2008 and only now after 4 years has it come into question about 1 editor. I don't think that really qualifies as enough to need to clarify a message with clear intent. Kumioko (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, speaking from a programmer's standpoint... sometimes the only way to know if the bot works is... to run the bot and stand ready with a kill switch if it screws things up. --Rs chen 7754 04:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

An outside opinion... We would all hope that admins are able to act rationally in such situations without a plethora of bureaucratic rules to negotiate their way through. I would change the MediaWiki message and leave the policy as it is. Victor Yus (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is just a simple mistake that makes a bot task go wrong for some reason then I think the admin should be allowed to unblock and fix the problem as soon as possible. Why should we wait? If an admin directly abuses his/her bot(s) both the bot account and the admin account should be blocked. In most cases the admin would know if it was ok to unblock. But if the blocking admin think that we are somewhere in "the grey area" and it is not clear if the bot task was intented or a mistake then the blocking admin could leave a message telling "Please do not unblock the bot yourself untill the matter has been discussed". --MGA73 (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree. For me, there's a difference between stopping a bot that's obviously malfunctioning (editing logged out, inserting a typo), and blocking a bot that's doing something more contentious - maybe there's been a discussion about whether it should or shouldn't do X, and the discussion hasn't concluded or went the other way. In the first instance, as long as the owner is fixing it, allowing them to restart to carry out tests wouldn't be a problem. If they restart without fixing, and the bot gets stopped again, then that's into the problem area as well. In those latter cases, bot owner really needs to ensure that someone else unblocks - either blocking admin, another member of BAG, or with discussion somewhere. Continuing to run a faulty bot should be grounds for blocking the owner as well I think. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be self-evident that the restriction on unblocking oneself is also going to apply to an admin's bot accounts, non-admin sock accounts and anything similar. However, it will do no harm to spell this out. There have been more cases than "a single incident scenario" of admins controversially unblocking their own bots and not understanding this is a problem. The case of Yobot springs to mind, which was routinely unblocked when the owner disagreed with the block, and it took several ANI threads before that behaviour was stopped. I agree that an uncontroversial self-unblock after a bug fix is probably ok, but I would not be in favour of sanctioning this in policy. It should be entirely at the self-unblockers own risk to judge that the blocking admin will not object. Otherwise, what is the problem with waiting for an unblock request to be approved? The system is pretty slick and ubuearocratic and "sitting in the queue for hours" hardly seems like a major disaster to me. Spinning Spark 10:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Presume there's some more general principle applicable here, which might somewhere be spelt out in policy or guidelines, but anyway I would expect administrators to follow it more or less intuitively: if you have personal involvement in a matter, then you can take uncontroversial administrative actions in that matter, but should leave anything that might be controversial to someone else. (Where by uncontroversial we mean what would be uncontroversial if another admin did it.) That would be somewhat parallel to the advice given to editors who have an outside WP:Conflict of interest in some matter of encyclopedia content. If that uber-rule were generally understood and adhered to, then we wouldn't need micro-rules for every particular situation like this that may come up. And if someone shows a persistent inability to distinguish between controversial and uncontroversial actions, then it would probably be better for that person to be relieved of the burden of administratorship. Victor Yus (talk) 10:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

SpinningSpark, do you know if that was why the extra message was added to the editnotice? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It appears it was added by User:X! when he unblocked his own bot following this thread and this BRFA. Presumably he realized it was an omission given the action he was performing at the time. MBisanz ^talk 13:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That is actually very funny. "I'll just do this then create a rule against it - don't want mere mortals doing it." - a statement that echoes down the history of Wikipedia and the human race. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC).

I would suggest the following alternative language: Unblocking will almost never be acceptable:...to unblock one's bot account when the block is the result of a dispute over whether the bot should be allowed to operate. With a footnote: In cases where the block was the result of an error that has been corrected, or where the block was clearly only an objection to a specific bot task and the task has been discontinued, the bot may be unblocked by its owner or any admin. An admin should be careful to err on the side of not self unblocking if there is a reasonable likelyhood that someone will object to the unblock. I think that would be consistent with generally accepted practice, while making it clear that when there is a dispute over the bots future operation, self-unblocking is not allowed. Monty₈₄₅ 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. --Rs chen 7754 19:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Mmm, yes. But, I think the verbiage could be reduced or bullet pointed to demonstrate cases or something. Anyway, a straw poll on the resulting language might be useful too. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Works for me. Anomie ⚔ 00:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looks good, though I agree it could be more terse. Also, likelihood*. — madman 01:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- I can't disagree with the content, but must formally record an objection on grounds of instruction creep (though on Wikipedia that battle seems to have been lost rather disastrously a long time ago). Victor Yus (talk) 06:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- At first sight, that's a massive change with the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences. Do you really intend it to be that sweeping? It seemingly turns bot-owners into super-users to whom the usual rules don't apply. Is this what you meant? Roger Davies ^talk 07:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- Sounds okay to me, hopefully the admins don't find it too long to bother to read. Hazard-SJ ✈ 04:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think this is good. It seems pretty straightforward to distinguish between cases where the operator fully agrees with and has addressed the reasons for the block and cases where the operator disagrees with and has not addressed the reasons for the block. The latter requires some discussion/etc, but with the former it should be fine for the operator to unblock and test. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How about a nice simple "Unblocking your own account will almost never be acceptable.... Admin bot owners should not unblock their own bot unless they have the permission of the blocking admin (which may have been given at the time of the block) or another admin, or approval to restart the bot following a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." Unless the bot is putting out a fire in the server room, it can wait the small amount of time it would take to attract the attention of another admin, or for the typical four lines of discussion at a board ("looks like Mauvebot is doing X, I've blocked it." "Mauveowner here - sorry bout that, faulty code at line 146." "Botexpert here - you need to add...." "Mauveowner here - added. Can I unblock to test" "Iluvbots here - go ahead") Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In my new role as the resident hippy anarchist, I'd have to say that this is even worse (from the instruction creep point of view) than the previous proposal. Not only does it add extra words to read about something that ought to be obvious from general principles, but it actualy does instruct people to go through a pointless bureaucratic step in certain situations. It may be that it won't take much time, and I know it applies only to administrators who maybe enjoy this sort of thing, but it still seems to be a step against the brilliant Wikipedia ethos that you can go ahead and perform actions that are obviously right without having to ask permission or otherwise jump hoops. Victor Yus (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Following on the heels of Elen, noting that the server room isn't burning down if a bot isn't working, I have something very simple:

Administrators must never unblock their own account(s), including bots, without permission from the blocking administrator.

Tada. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I support that. There is no need to write reams on corner cases. If it is not abundantly uncontroversial then don't do it. Spinning Spark 13:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- But never does not even make allowance for "abundantly uncontroversial". That kind of rule will see people get jumped on for doing something perfectly harmless and actually beneficial, which as I say, is horribly contrary to Wikipedia ethos. Victor Yus (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  - That is what WP:IAR is for: it means we don't have to have endless instruction creep with ever more detailed and complex rules. But ok, we could say "almost never" which would encompass other corner cases such as admininstrators going rogue and blocking every other admin. Spinning Spark 14:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, admins largely don't have freedom to use the tools however they like, no matter how abundantly uncontroversial their action seems. Rather, the community by and large favours having tool use tightly constrained. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but this is perhaps because such matters are only ever discussed in the context of someone having done something controversial, as a result of which rules are formulated which would have "forbidden" the controversial thing, without thought as to the side effects - the forbidding of otherwise uncontroversial things (which then become controversial just as a result of the rule). Anyway, very well, if there has to be more bureaucratic regulation and control on Wikipedia, let it be the admins who suffer - just as long as it doesn't lead to an increased culture of rule-making to oppress ordinary editors, who already have to contend with far too many instructions, often incomprehensible. Victor Yus (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Victor is correct (except that in this case it was uncontroversial-with-permission unblocks form years back that triggered the discussion) - we actually do want administrators to block vandals, edit protected pages, delete and recover stuff and change page protection. Otherwise we wouldn't have given them the ability. "However they like" is loaded language, certainly we want them to do good things and not do bad things, but getting all precious about admin actions builds the myth of "Admin is a big deal" - which is another thing that disheartens the community. Rich Farmbrough, 18:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC).

Oppose "noting that the server room isn't burning down if a bot isn't working" - simply not true. Nowadays we rely on bots to clerk pages like WP:AIV and WP:DYK. When we had the SOPA blackout in January, we had to make sure that all the bots shut down gracefully so that they would be back when we returned the next day. --Rs chen 7754 18:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt an unblock request would last for a day. Failing that, a post by the owner to WP:AN I am sure would be quickly resolved. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
- In my experience, AN/ANI posts by the blocking admin/bot operator do indeed resolve such issues almost immediately. — madman 03:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose - I am ok with Elen's language or similar language, but language that required invoking IAR to unblock in uncontrovertial situations is not appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I was perhaps unwise to mention IAR here, and I am sure that was not the intended meaning by Hammersoft who proposed the wording. I am fine with "without permission from the blocking admin" as an absolute rule. Spinning Spark 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Although I support changing the language of the policy to indicate that someon should not unblock their bot, it should be noted that the Arbcom already changed it by determining that it was innapropriate for Rich F to use his admin rights to unblock his bot and to use that as the primary resaon that Rich F's admin rights should be revoked. So really this discussion is rather mute since the decision has already been made. Kumioko (talk) 17:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The arbitration committee has no power to change or create policy. Their decision on Rich Farnborough was based on their interpretation of existing policy. This in no way restricts the ability of the community to amend policy as they see fit. Spinning Spark 18:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose—If the bot owner has fixed everything the blocker complained about, there doesn't seem to be any reason not to unblock and test. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion (following close)

That was some of the bizarrest logic I've ever seen. (To be more specific, it seems to assume that "should consider..." means "must and always will...".) Victor Yus (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have hard rules. So while we strongly suggest things, we rarely "mandate".

That said, presumably a block of a malfunctioning bot is an indefinite one. And afaik, common practice is that when blocking any account indefinitely, an admin either makes it clear why indef, or notes the criteria for unblocking (or both).

However, I do note that this does not seem to be directly noted in the blocking policy (except somewhat in the section I noted in the close).

As it's fairly common practice, I presume it could be boldly noted in the policy. But I think I'll wait to add it til others have seen these comments, in case anyone has concerns or suggestions. - jc37 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But even if it is common practice, we shouldn't phrase our instructions to potential unblockers on the unspoken assumption that it definitely will have been done. (Particularly when some people seem treat those latter instructions as the prescriptive type that people might be "punished" for breaching.) I would have thought that when blocking a bot, which can make many edits a minute, speed would be of the essence, so the blocking admin might well not want to spend time spelling out all the conditions - and in any case probably has better things to do than type out the obvious. Victor Yus (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems only common sense. If I found a bot that needed to be stopped, I'd stop it, then look at conditions, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was taking it for granted as "common sense" (as you note), but afaik, typically when blocking any account, the button is pushed, and then the reasons for it (and the criteria for unblocking) would be noted (if they weren't already made clear).

Blocking being preventative not punitive, etc etc.

Though of course, notes, warnings, and other such things often happen before "hitting the button".

Besides all this, this obviously does not preclude review of the block by another "reviewing admin". Even if the blocking admin neglects to leave such info following a block, there's nothing stopping the bot owner from placing an unblock template request (or emailing, etc.) This discussion was specifically focused on the situation where admin bot owners unblock their own bot, as well as the question of common practice of unblocking their own bot when they felt that whatever was causing it to "malfunction", was repaired.

I suppose the shortest way to describe the consensus gleaned from the discussion might be that there was clear consensus that an admin bot owner, may only unblock their own bot if: a.) it was malfunctioning and is now repaired, but b.) only if the blocking admin established that as unblocking criteria. There was fairly clear consensus that "presuming" this to be true was inappropriate.

There were a few that expressed the concern that a blocking admin may be (let's say) "neglectful" to provide this. But that simply did not have consensus to over-ride the concerns about "presumption".

Incidentally, I'm treating this thread as a "request for clarification of a close". And am responding in that light. - jc37 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. More people, if anything, seem to be of the view that one can make the commonsense presumption that if the reason for a block was a malfunction, then repair of the malfunction is a ground to remove the block without further bureaucratic time-wasting, and regardless of whether the blocking admin spent the time to spell out this (usually obvious) fact. Victor Yus (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

innocent prisoner's dilemma

In cases where significant doubts regarding the innocence or guilt of an editor exist in the community, forcing the editor to make admissions of guilt as a prerequisite to unblocking could punish innocent editors, or reward guilty ones in an innocent prisoner's dilemma.

I suggest this addition to policy, as I don't think wiki-justice is perfect.

_{disclaimer: I wrote the article.} Penyulap ☏ 10:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an editor be forced to do anything, so there is no need to add that suggestion to the policy. In particular, it is not a good idea to link to an article that introduces a range of concepts that are unrelated to the policy. A proposal along the above lines should be raised at WP:VPR with some examples showing that extending the policy is necessary (as opposed to covering a theoretical possibility). What would be desirable is that an editor seeking an unblock should provide an outline showing an understanding of the problem, and a plausible explanation of how future problems would be avoided. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is significant doubt, then that is cause for an agf unblock. But what are the circumstances in which significant doubt could arise? For a registered account, there can be no doubt that the account actually made the edits in question. It is open to the blocked editor to make a case that their edits were not, in fact, disruptive. This does not require any admission of guilt and will result in an unblock if the argument is accepted. If the blocked editor claims they did not make the edits because their little brother/friend/cat did it, then I am afraid the reaction would be to extend the block to indefinite as a compromised account. On the other hand, if it is the view of the reviewing admin that the editor is indeed being disruptive, as Johnuniq says, a believable assurance that it won't happen again is needed before unblocking. The only plausible circumstance the "I didn't do it" defence makes any sense at all is for IP editors either on a shared IP or WP:DUCK blocks of dynamic IP ranges. In the majority of cases this defence is merely trolling. Good faith editors caught in this kind of block using school or library computers should be strongly urged to open an account. The point Penyulap seems to be missing is that blocks are not meant to punish anyone but rather to protect the encyclopedia. While we do our very best to limit collateral damage to good faith editors, this is not a good enough reason for an unblock where we believe the damage would continue once unblocked - unless the collateral damage is extensive such as a too wide rangeblock. Spinning Spark 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that in reality blocks of registered users are very frequently intended as a punishment for some ill-defined "disruption" or other, a concept idiosyncratically defined by each individual administrator to suit the purpose; to believe otherwise displays an unbelievable degree of naivety. "Disruption" so far as Wikipedia is concerned quite simply means "an opinion I don't agree with". Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you may possibly be right, but the problem you describe is not being addressed by this proposal and is not a solution for it. As I said, "significant doubt" should simply result in an unblock. Whether or not there is significant doubt is a matter of judgement. If the reviewing admin believes there is significant doubt it would be utterly perverse to demand an admission of guilt first. Do we have any examples of that happening? As far as I am concerned, unblocking will happen when the blocked editor credibly undertakes not to continue with the actions that got them blocked, regardless of whether or not they "admit" to those actions being "wrong". Spinning Spark 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But that makes no sense if the blockee considers they've done nothing wrong, and is exactly what the prisoner's dilemma is addressing: "I agree to say whatever it is that you want me to say so that I can be unblocked". Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I frequently see blocked editors argue that the block is unfair, even though they have been made aware of the policy the are breaching. What they are really arguing is that the policy is unfair. They may be right, and I don't require them to agree that it is fair, just that they will not continue to breach it until such time as they, or someone else, can get it changed. This is an entirely different issue to admins blocking for non-policy reasons. Making a policy aimed at admins who don't take any notice of policy does not strike me as a solution that is likely to work, nor is it the problem that is being addressed by the proposal. Spinning Spark 18:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But you're failing to address a key issue here; how is "disruption" to be measured, and by whom? The blocking administrator, who in many cases is simply saying "I don't agree with this, and if you don't stop I'll block you"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. Nobody Ent 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since when was policy an end in itself? causa sui (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, policy is not an end in itself, but administrators have no authority to make up policy themselves, most especially blocking policy. To answer Malleus' point, this policy page gives details of what is to be considered disruption. If you think that needs tightening, by all means make a suggestion, but your point seems to be that some admins are going to ignore it anyway so it would seem the problem you are bringing here, if it really exists, is not going to be solved on this policy page. Spinning Spark 10:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Should a blocked user be forced to take sides when a dispute has broken out over the original block, rather than examining the original block on it's own. Would removal of the block pending further bad behaviour by the banned editor be a better standard of proof than punishing integrity by creating the dilemma. Excluding requirements of admission in disputed cases and examining further behaviour on it's own would solve the problem, but appeals do not always succeed in a manner that is 'perfect'. Penyulap ☏ 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As explained above, no one is forced to do anything. No, we should not remove blocks simply to see if the user repeats the problem. The reason we have many problematic users is that their first couple of blocks were removed too quickly, without due reason for the unblock. If a blocked editor does not provide a convincing request for an unblock (see outline by SpinningSpark above), they should go to another website until the block expires. Unblocks where the user has not expressed any understanding of the problem only encourage a belief that the user was fully correct all along, and that they should repeat their behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Force is exactly what the discussion is about, I'm wondering if you want to investigate the issue in detail this time. Penyulap ☏ 12:30, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, this is all about Rich Farmborough, who was banned from using AWB, used AWB and got caught out, and is now facing the consequences. That's the fact, everything else is a ridiculous smokescreen. The guy has even put his hands up and said he's done it, and apologised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's hard to argue with that logic, except that Rich is not claiming to be innocent, or likely to, and then there is the appeals process, and Rich is cool with making apologies as am I. I don't think it applies to him so much as actual innocent editors in general who may be blocked by mistake. I don't want to address any single incident, if that were the case I would tailor my strategy to the case in hand rather than taking the sometimes longer route of adjusting policy, and then gaining retrospective application of it. I wish to clarify if we are comfortable working under the assumption that all blocks are correct and justified in all cases, and as a result, we should ask blocked editors appealing the block that they make admissions, which, if they are innocent, would amount to lies. Such a policy filters out honest people, keeping them out of wikipedia whilst rewarding the editors who are happy to lie to us, by welcoming them back to the project.

Also, although I can see the future, and maybe I just forgot that I foresaw Rich getting banned, in the future, at the time that I edited the policy page, I figure you may be mistaken where you are saying "No, this is all about Rich Farmborough".

Obviously, something brought the flaws in the policy to my attention, (there is no button to click that says 'fix this policy' omg, I have to make one for my talkpage, what a laugh !) The matter that alerted me is the block appeal here I made for someone who quite a few editors thought was innocent of any wrongdoing. In fact, I think a few suggested he was doing a good thing. That block appeal is no secret, I mention and link to the page and article which I was quite surprised did not exist on english wikipedia, so rather than write some essay I figure do something more useful by documenting the concept itself, and link to that. I mentioned that I was looking at the possible flaws of unblocking policy and guidelines, and I also linked to the article I wrote, you can find both links here.

You've been here on wikipedia longer than I have Elen, so do you think it is more useful if I illustrate the concept using an essay or an article ? Maybe as an article, people won't consider it properly, as they have an ingrained mindset that the concepts they should apply exist only in the wikipedia world, and not the real one. I see ‎SarekOfVulcan has nominated the article for deletion as soapboxing, I invite you to comment on that discussion as a critic. Penyulap ☏ 14:38, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, so this comes from your desire to support an editor who was blocked for throwing rude epithets at Japanese editors. Nice one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the bit where you provided a diff to where Histiographer was asked to admit guilt. Spinning Spark 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Spinningspark,... there is no diff given as this has only an incidental, if any at all, relation to that case. This is about the future effects of a possibly flawed policy.

Elen,...Not at all. That case has basically closed and it was thoroughly examined. It did however raise interesting questions, for example there were editors who suggest that the banned editor was guilty, as you seem to have noticed, and there were other editors who made comments such as this

..looks to me like someone ... attempting attempting to show empathy, ... the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.
I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted?
I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. ...a block is not warranted here, a warning is.
[the banned editor was giving] Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary.
A week would have been defensible, not three months
..looks...more like a user tired of edit wars who is giving out good advice to fellow Koreans.
I would be inclined to view his remarks as basically meaning "Don't let the Japanese trolls get you down". The parenthetical remark literally means "Don't throw bait"

The user was banned in the end, however it does raise interesting questions, the obvious question is, what if, in future, someone was innocent ? naturally there is the superficial response 'nobody is innocent, everyone banned is guilty' idea, the logic of which is questionable. The more mature consideration is to accept the fact that mistakes do occur, or at the least, are possible. That being the case, would demanding an admission be in effect filtering out the hypothetical 'innocent editors' who cannot lie, whilst rewarding and welcoming those editors who are most willing to lie, and do it convincingly.

So, is it a good idea to have a policy which, hypothetically or not, filters out the good editors, and is more inclined to collect the people who are unwelcome in the community ? Penyulap ☏ 16:46, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but blocked editors are not required to admit guilt. Historiographer is not banned and will be able to edit again once the block expires. No one is maintaining that mistakes never get made, that is why there is an appeals process. Historiographer is able to use that process at any time. Spinning Spark 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not maintain a prison system. Nobody Ent 23:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Exile.

Change your socks and climb back over the wall. Climb ? well, it's a walk, or a gentle stroll really. Why can't I get Chief Wiggum out of my head here ? I thought Indonesian prisons were lenient by comparison, but then again, if wikipedia ran a prison, HA! Still, it is the same concept, exile. Pointless to make it 'indef' too, should be like 5 years or something, so we can get back the ones who do mature. Penyulap ☏ 06:18, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I wished I'd seen this when the discussion was still active - I agree we have some problems that are captured in the innocent prisoner's dilemma article. We may not be operating a prison system, but we take actions that remind me of it. I added an item to my to-do list, to work on an essay opposing indef blocks (with technical exceptions), the motivation was very much in line with the thinking that we have adopted a prison mentality.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Consistency in Blocks addition

Propose adding the following under the Purpose and goals section (that section is near the top of the article):

While each situation is different, editors should be able to have a reasonable expectation of the response to a given breach of Wikipedia protocol. Inconsistent blocks for similar behavior lead to editor and administrator confusion and resentment, which can affect the long-term morale of an editor. The rationale for the block duration and scope should be consistent with the action and consistent with the expectations of other administrators and editors for the given situation. If in doubt, ask your fellow editors or administrators for advice.

I'm a fan of admin discretion, but I'm not a fan of unfair application of rules. In addition, some blocks seem to exceed the necessary scale to be 'preventative' and seem to cross into the threshold of 'punative', which is supposed to be avoided.

In addition, this frequently stated rule of thumb about a doubling cube approach to defining new blocks seems to have a veneer of objectivity, but seems to ignore the block policy requirement that blocks be 'preventative', with blocks frequently exponentially increasing, not based on a rational connection to the offense, but based on a false premise that exponential increase of blocks is somehow in line with prevention rather than simply punishing a user out of proportion to the actual offense.

I would suggest that certain actions have a suggested block length, and that administrators work together on some framework of standard and consistent and fair block lengths and communicate these clearly to one another, as well as to regular editors. As always, administrator discretion should still be at work, but administrators should have a clear reason for departing from a pre-established block, ban, protection, or 'other' guideline.

I believe that this kind of approach to discipline and corrective action will lead to a more positive environment for editors and admins alike, since it will be a much more objective and standards-based approach than having each admin be his or her own guide for whatever is reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if consensus will develop to adopt such guidelines, but I think that the guidelines need to come first. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu some of these ideas may not exist in policy but do in practice. The doubling cube rule of thumb is usually only applied when there are persistent problems (of the same kind or that spill over from broadly, the same conflict). There are almost defined block times with regard to 3RR (24 multiples) except in the case of recidivism. Violations of WP:OUTING or WP:NLT are indefinite.
Being a sysop requires as much competence as it does discretion we don't always get it right and when we don't it gets corrected quickly (furthermore we test how competent a user is at RFA).
For me, again while this is well intentioned it makes a core mistake - codifying blocks into mandatory lengths makes them punitive (a defied punishment for a defined action), leaving them at the sysop's discretion doesn't - a sysop will always lift a block once the user accepts that they erred and agrees to abide by wp:5. This practice takes time to learn (after that's why we have advice for new admins) but it doesn't need to be codified beyond what is already written into policy.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in a number of posts in recent days about WP:BLOCK and the rest of policy, many posters imply that everything should be here - it shouldn't. Each policy has its own wording on what measures to take in the case of violation: eg. on WP:NLT, users breaking the policy "will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved" (ie an indefinite block).
The only instances in which a block is not preventative is when it is to enforce a ban or if it's mandated by ArbCom rulings (ie ArbCom blocks or Enforcement) these are as the big red box on WP:ARE says: "designed to be coercive" (see WP:AEBLOCK for more info). Blocks (not AEBLOCKs) that exceed the normal rubric are always overturned and can always be queried at AN. Further policy on policy about policy is only instruction creep--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The pic is from Alan's talkpage, and it is by far and away the essentialist focal point of the project. Policy pages exist for new editors to follow, not to serve the luxury of the admins or established editors. Using them as a concealed control will all end in tears. Penyulap ☏ 20:09, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you've already had warning to stop casting aspersions and abusing the talk space. You're crossing the line here. Nobody is concealing anything - it's time for you to take a step back and drop the stick--Cailil ^talk 02:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What I see from your comment is your looking at the proposal from an admin perspective, the assumption they should know everything and so on, nobody is suggesting that there needs to be more policy just for the admins, you may be right there, but does that address the the issue being raised ? What I can see is the proposal is to help all editors, not just the admins, so I suggest you could re-read the proposal and see how it would help the regular non-admin editors, because you don't seem to have addressed that at all. Penyulap ☏ 04:05, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)