User:Oxymoron83/Blocking

This is an essay; it contains the opinion of one Wikipedia contributor. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.

Block duration for vandalism

The duration of blocks applied due to vandalism is completely different for IPs and registered users. All the below implies that they vandalized after a final warning. This is not a fixed pattern, it only mentions some things to consider additional to WP:BLOCK.

IP

As the whois for the net type often gives imprecise or false results, it is better to rely on the contributions to determine if this is a dynamic, shared static or non-shared (at least in relation to Wikipedia) static IP-Address. When in doubt or you don't know, ever assume a prior mentioned group. The longer the edit history is, the better the result of your consideration. An IP should only be classified as non-shared static if they have contributed continuously for at least 2 months.

You may roughly look at the following:

• density of the edits (both of recent edits and long-time)
• density of vandalism edits (both of recent edits and long-time)
• did they start vandalizing directly after a block expired
• acute vandalism (typically dynamic IPs, static IPs when they appear first-time)
• chronic vandalism (mostly static school or company IPs)

Dynamic IP addresses

The severity of the vandalism here is less important in determining the block length. The recency of the final warning is the most important thing to consider if to block at all, and should preferably have been issued during the past 10 hours.

A suitable block length ranges form 1 to 31 hours. 8 to 12 hours are a good compromise to apply a sufficient block without collateral damage (most daily routines are roughly subdivided in 8 hours at school/job, 8 hours at home, 8 hours to sleep).

Shared static IP

Typically some edits are constructive, some are vandalism. That's why it is important to check some older (non-recent) contributions made by this IP being able to differentiate from a non-shared static IP. Shared IPs where nearly all edits are vandalism (but possibly from different persons) can be treated like non-shared static IPs. If an IP that has one session of vandalism, was blocked for this (as possible dynamic IP) and continues vandalizing directly (up to 32 hours) after this block expired, this indicates a static IP (more than 2 days of block length are suitable here).

The recency of the final warning is important to consider, preferably issued during the past 24 hours.

If the IP edits only every some months, issuing a short block every time is suitable. The higher the density of vandalism edits is, the longer the block. The more constructive contributions are in-between, the shorter the block. Doubling the last block length or choosing the next longer from the preset block lengths is suitably for IPs with recurring vandalism; {{anonblock}} is an applicable block reason. One year is normally the maximum length an IP should be blocked.

Non-shared static IP

When referring to the contributions on classifying to this group, you asses how shared that IP is in relation to Wikipedia, Bear in mind that this might be a shared static IP where only one person edits Wikipedia now, but other persons using it can find out about Wikipedia and want to contribute constructively in the future. Also long-time static IPs change sometimes or the person using it can switch the provider. The severity of the vandalism is important in determining the block length here.

The recency of the final warning is the lesser important here, but one should be issued during the past 10 days. Doubling the last block length or choosing the next longer from the preset block lengths is suitably for IPs with recurring vandalism, one year is normally the maximum length an IP should be blocked.

Registered users

Registered accounts where all edits are vandalism and who vandalize after a final warning should be indefinitely blocked. A medium length block in such cases could enable the autoconfirmed status for them, what worsens the situation. The recency of the final warning can be construed most widely, as the particular account should be used by a single person only.

If the edits look like unconstructive good-faith edits, and they are warning-resistant in their behavior, a very short block (15 minutes to 3 hours) can avert damage, give them some time to read the corresponding policy pages without bigger discouragement. This requires that they are pointed to these pages per a personal message including links at their talk page.