Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 16

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

10
11
12
13
14
15
Archive 16
17
18
19
20
21

Blocked talk

If you are blocked are you aloud to discuss the block? Parker1297 23:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Usually, on your talk page. If this right is abused, or for sock puppets of users who are known to abuse the right, we will typically disable the right of the user to edit his/her own talk page - either by modifying the block, or by protecting the talk page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Good to go?

This was one of two policy pages where it didn't seem to me that the last version of August had consensus, but judging from the edit history and the talk page, it looks like the current version is good to go, does that sound right? - Dank (push to talk) 18:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Temporary unblocking to respond at ANI

One issue that arises quite regularly is that blocked users cannot respond to a current WP:ANI thread about them. In some cases, transclusion has been used as a clumsy and confusing way of allowing them to participate. An alternative would be temporarily unblocking the user, on the understanding that the only page they may edit (other than their user talk page, obviously) is ANI - i.e. they'd be banned from editing any page other than ANI and would be severely sanctioned if they breached that, for any reason whatever. And if/when the ANI thread concludes, the block can be re-instated as appropriate. Is there a particular reason why this approach is not (to my knowledge) current practice? I don't want to imply it should be applied automatically or even on request in every instance, but it seems like a useful option. (In some instances it might also reduce the risk of wheel-warring.) Rd232 ^talk 08:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

So no-one has an opinion on this? No-one's going to object if I boldly add it to policy, under a new subsection of Unblocking, "temporary circumstances unblocks"? Rd232 ^talk 08:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an intelligent applciation of a Wikipedia:Discretionary sanction, instead of the blunt block or not-block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Easier than fussing about with onlyinclude transclusions. I know some folks were temporarily unblocked to participate in a recent ArbCom case. –xeno^talk 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Well then I've added a paragraph describing this. Rd232 ^talk 20:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users

A valid point, but is it really true? Are there no punitive blocks on this project? In that case, particularly when it comes to long duration blocks (several days and longer), if a user promise to behave better (and doesn't have a history of making such false promises), shouldn't they be granted an automatic unblock? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 05:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request are handled on a case-by-case basis, if a user can convince an admin that they understand why they were blocked and won't repeat the same behavior they get unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy

I propose a paragraph titled: "Administrator's abuses of power in the blocking policy", with the porpose to protect inexpert users transparently.

These are my hypotheses of study of abuses (not errors):

Commit an abuse an administrator who block an user as sockpuppet for the reason by which his requests to a checkuser bave been declined
Commit a more serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet without requesting checkuser investigation
Commit a more serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet without motivation
Commit an extremely serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet only to persecute a legitimate opinion (opinion warring or opinion wreck).

Please: share this porpose of protection of inexpert users and wikipedia social transparency and conlaborate on adding and correcting what necessary to formulate e good list.
Thanks. --Mashra (talk) 20:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

See here. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 21:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You realize of course, that this is still the English Wikipedia, and has no authority to tell the Italian Wikipedia or it's admins what to do? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, no questions here about language helps comparison or concrete cases. Only abstractions of rules commonly recognizable to conlaborate on the list, thanks. --Mashra (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but as an editor with lest than a hundred edits here, are you sure you are in a position to know what problems exist here? Forgive my bluntness, but the way your current list is written it is rather hard to follow, some of the points are rather unclear. There is a project here Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator that is investigating and discussing the role of administrators, as well as how to deal with any admins who may be acting in a way not consistent with what is expected of an admin, you might want to discuss this over there. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser is not required to prove sockpuppetry. Checks may even be declined if the sockpuppetry is obvious just from behavioral evidence. Mr.Z-man 02:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then, apparently, I would be considered one of the most abusive administrators on Wikipedia. Not bad for someone who has been an admin for only 2 months. MuZemike 03:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to enlighten the discussion. A user -- make that an Italian user writing in English -- identifies an alleged problem involving admin procedure and one of the admins jokes about it. "Silly user, you don't know what you're talking about." Not bad for someone who has been an admin for only 2 months and is evidently still basking in his/her newfound omnipotence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptacle (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Listen here. Mashra, with his limited understanding of English, knew I wasn't serious. You, with full command of the English language, thought I was. MuZemike 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Listen here. The point was that you were joking about what was a serious suggestion/inquiry. It appeared to me that the guy/gal is getting the brushoff, and then you interjected with the humorous observation that you are an admin. "You have a suggestion or problem? Blar har har, I'm an admin!"Receptacle (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ciao Beeblebrox, ciao Mr.Z-man, ciao MuZemike. Certainly your conlaboration can remove mistakes on my list. I'm italian and I love english gentleness. Also I appreciate MuZemike humor. --Mashra (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Amending list (Administrator's abuses in the blocking policy)

Please amend this list with hypotheses to discuss. Attainability depend on conlaborative work.

Commit an abuse an administrator who block an user as sockpuppet for the reason by which his requests to a checkuser bave been declined
Commit a more serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet without requesting checkuser investigation
Commit a more serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet without motivation
Commit an extremely serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet only to persecute a legitimate opinion (opinion warring or opinion wreck).

Discussion

OBJECT: Administrator's errors and abuses in the blocking policy

Please stay on the topics. About the amending list of abuses, conlaborate on adding, deleting and amending points. Making your suggestions with an alternative list, you facilitate discussion. Many thanks to your gentleness. --Mashra (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

There is an administrator or expert user ready to write the amending list ? --Mashra (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(after 24 hours) wrote. --Mashra (talk) 15:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Commit an abuse an administrator who block an user as sockpuppet for the reason by which his requests to a checkuser bave been declined
- There are many reasons in which a CheckUser request is declined, all of which follow Wikipedia's CheckUser policy and the Wikimedia Foundation's Privacy Policy. One of those reasons is if there is clear behavioral evidence such that running a CheckUser would come to the same conclusion of sock puppetry; we have a fancy term for this here called the duck test.
Commit a more serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet without requesting checkuser investigation
- Again, per my response to #1, if the user is clearly a sock puppet, then that user may be blocked without the need of submitting an WP:SPI case or requesting CheckUser. This happens many, many times on WP:ANI and is common practice, as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
Commit a more serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet without motivation
- I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "without motivation". Do you mean blocking someone as a sock without a known sockmaster?
Commit an extremely serious abuse an administrator who block the first time an user as sockpuppet only to persecute a legitimate opinion (opinion warring or opinion wreck).
- Yes, that would be a problem, especially if the blocking admin is involved (example: being involved in articles involving The Troubles or in the Arab-Israeli conflict). I'm sure such cases which you refer to have been dealt with by ArbCom and will probably continue to be.

I think the thing you're (I'd contend that you're not the only one.) not understanding is that CheckUser is not the be-all and end-all for sock puppetry cases. Contrary to popular belief, CheckUsers do not have magic fairy wands that make sock puppets go away when waved at. As far as sock puppetry is concerned, CheckUser is only supposed to be used when behavioral evidence is not clear, to sweep for other sock puppets, or to make other blocks on IPs which cannot be divulged to us per the WMF's privacy policy.

Having slaved over at WP:SPI for about four months now, I can say with experience that most of the cases out there do not necessitate a CheckUser and simply needs an observant administrator to look at the behavioral evidence and issue blocks if needed. As with the Arbitration Committee, CheckUser should ideally only be used if the other tools the community has been given has failed. MuZemike 19:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of vandalism only accounts and IPs is far too slow and lenient.

Users who only vandalise (have no record of ever doing anything positive on WP) are repeatedly warned and maybe blocked for a day or two. Then some time passes - maybe a month - then whole process starts over as if that person is an entirely innocent new user. I would like to see a dicussion of changing this policy to be much less lenient to long term persistent vandals. By that I mean a permanent irreversible block (like a "death sentence") be used much more and sooner. Sometimes I really wish I could inflict actual physical pain on these assholes! Roger (talk) 21:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Almost all IP addresses are periodically re-assigned, and we are required to assume good faith until bad faith is clearly demonstrated. If you are really getting that angry about it, you need to chill out, maybe take a break or something. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From my POV bad faith is totally proven by the second act of vandalism. I have seen many users that have done nothing but vandalism for YEARS!!! but still the worst that happens is a block for a few days - does permanent banning even exist on WP? We need a little Sharia law here. The more I think about it the more my opinion is swinging towards entirely doing away with IP editors - if you want to edit WP you MUST register - its not like it costs money! Roger (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

If an account has done nothing but vandalize then I block it on sight indefinitely. People don't need to be told that replacing a page with "poop ahaha" is not appropriate. More often than not these vandalism only accounts are the nth incarnation of the same person. Policy allows blocking vandalism only accounts indefinitely without warning, though some admins seem to prefer a full set of warnings. IPs are rarely static to one person so long blocks on them are more likely to harm innocent people while the original vandal continues on another IP, I tend to block those for 13 hours(long enough for the person to go to bed).

Inflicting physical pain is right out. We are only a website after all, no need to resort to hurting people. ^Chillum 22:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should prune some of the more than 300 pages on my watchlist. That might help keep me off the Reichstag roof. The trouble with the whole warnings cycle is that in many cases it gets repeated on a monthly basis without ever reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Also as an ordinary contributor (not an admin) I find it a huge PITA to post warnings to vandals' talk pages. There should be a much simpler procedure than having to first look at the current "state of play" on the vandals talk page, then search for an apropriate warning template , then return to the vandal's talk page, then post the warning template, and then and then and then.... Perhaps make it a check box or something similar to the "minor edit" one that would identify the edit as a revert vandalism and automagically apply the next level of warning (or block) to the vandal's talk page. I'm pretty sure only a small fraction of revert vandalisms result in a warning/block being applied against the vandal. OK this is enough - its my birthday today and I'm off to bed! Roger (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you - we ought to be making vandalism-fighting as simple and efficient as possible. I don't think I've ever left a vandal a warning - this seems a totally pointless thing to do. If I've noticed a serial vandal then I've reported it to AIV, to get their edits rolled back and the account/IP blocked (if there's vandalism currently going on, then someone will normally block them without fussing about warnings). I've proposed in the past that we make the WP:Rollback function the main tool for reverting vandalism (i.e. make sure as many people as possible have it and use it). Then some clever devs would be able to write routines that spot patterns and probably identify vandals (and report them to admins for possible blocking) just on the basis of their having been rolled back a couple of times.--Kotniski (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Most IPs that get multiple vandalism blocks are shared IPs - schools, libraries, wifi hotspots - the person vandalizing one day may be a different person than the one vandalizing the next. There may also be good users who use it. Registered accounts are another issue. These should not be getting short blocks for blatant vandalism as its always going to be the same person. If you have examples of cases with registered users, please point them out. Mr.Z-man 17:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"I don't think I've ever left a vandal a warning - this seems a totally pointless thing to do." No, it does have a point, especially with IP users. It creates a clear record of vandalism in their talk page history, making it easier for admins to evaluate when it is time to block. You want it to be faster and happen sooner, leave the appropriate warnings. Most vandal fighters use WP:TWINKLE or WP:HUGGLE, which making adding the warnings extremely simple. It also leaves the vandal no rock to hide under, they can't claim they didn't know what they were doing was wrong. Of course, you don't actually need someone to tell you that replacing an encyclopedia article with the word "poop" repeated a thousand times is wrong, but it's good to have all our ducks in a row on these things. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but it means I waste more of my time giving the warning, which isn't worth it when I know that most vandalism is one-off; and the admin might waste more of his/her time checking the talk page history (especially if warnings have been removed). I don't know how much of this is automated already in various ways, but if a simple one-click tool (rollback) was available to all editors as "the" way of reverting vandalism, then we could have much more efficient automated tools to identify, warn and report the repeat vandals, and no need to have good editors wasting their time doing those things.--Kotniski (talk) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I also skip the warning a lot of the time. This is just a theory of mine, but I think that it actually encourages some vandals. If you just quietly revert their vandalism without fanfare they might decide to just move on. –xeno^talk 20:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many cases of users making vandalic edits, but after a warning they stop. If it's possible to get the user to stop by himself, so much the better, so we should always try. Blocking is the last resort for when no other system works. And messages can work sometimes because vandals may have the wrong idea that "nobody will realize" the things they do. The message corrects them: there is people that notice their actions, and fast. The less daring ones, or the ones vandalizing "for fun" but with the idea of making constructive edits sometime later, are likely to stop.

By the way, if there is a certain page you need to see very frequently (such as a noticeboard for telling things, or a message template for placing it at a user's talk page without typing it), you should link them at your own user page. No matter in which part of Wikipedia you are, your user page will always be close at hand: move the browser to the top, open it in a new tab, and that's it, there's the needed link. MBelgrano (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

policy out of step with practice?

new discussion opened at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism#policy out of step with practice?. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC)