Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Blocking a mentor

Growth Team have a feature which allows users to sign up as "mentors", for one-on-one support for (half of) new editors.

Sometimes, the mentor gets blocked. Could a bit be added to the blocking policy to check Special:ManageMentors when blocking an established user, and update their mentorship status accordingly? This will prevent new editors being assigned to them.

This seems not contentious, but may not be commonplace enough to warrant a line in policy. Folly Mox (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it'd be better to have a script or bot do it. Admins already have to juggle a lot of things when blocking someone. – Joe (talk) 05:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Please name the bot User:Dementor. Levivich (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Joe that this should fall in the "nice to do" rather than "must do" for an admin and that a script (including twinkle) and/or Bot feels like a better solution. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Adding guidance on Special Circumstances Blocks

Based on Arbcom's announcement regarding "private information" and associated blocks, this page should be updated to include information on how Checkusers can make blocks based off of private information. If there's no objection, I'm planning on adding a sentence to the WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE section in a few days so this is clearly documented. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Add section on permitted activity while blocked

I was going to respond to an indeffed user's comment on their Talk page in order to inform them that their planned activity going forward while blocked is not permitted by policy, and that they were restricted to using their Talk page to appealing their block, or asking questions that would clarify conditions of their block or preparing an appeal, and I came here to find the section to link that would back me up on that, but I couldn't find it on this page. I'm sure I've seen many admins say something to that effect, even threatening removal of TPA if they don't comply, but is this mere convention, or did I just miss it?

Here is the user comment from Grandmaster Huon (talk · contribs):^[noping]

Thus I am no longer interested in substantially editing and now desire to take the role of a consultant and coordinator in this project within my talk page.

User GH also named Oshwah in that edit, so echoing that here with a ping.

My main concern now, is not so much how to respond to GH (although someone should) but rather whether I just imagined the whole thing about permitted activity while blocked. Either way, I would like to propose a new section 7 for the policy page, to be named "Permitted activity while blocked" which would cover the general conditions of what a blocked user with TPA may/should and should not be doing on their TP.

I realize this will vary according to the severity, circumstances, and so on, but some general guidance could be placed there, and in particular, should clarify my OP question about whether they are permitted to do anything clearly unrelated to their block. (Note that GH's stated "new role" could be viewed as other than proxying, to the extent that 'consultant' means they are not initiating or requesting anybody to do anything, and just waiting for people to come to him with questions, and doling out advice, or "coordinating" project activity. I don't see any reading of the current text at WP:PROXYING that would rule out that role.) Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been brainstorming this, and here are some of the things that I think are convention in this regard, as 'permitted' (it should maybe also have a 'not permitted' section):

== Permitted activity while blocked ==

Here are the ways a blocked user may legitimately use their Talk page while blocked:

• Respond to questions asked of them by an admin.
• Ask relevant questions about the conditions of their block.
• Prepare an WP:APPEAL of their block, and add it to the page.
• Ask relevant questions about how to appeal their block.
• Ask an admin or someone else to post replies to questions or comments directed to them (or about them?) at an ANI thread (or other boards?) about them (or about others, if they are mentioned?) on their behalf.
• Respond (in a limited fashion?) to valid notices placed on their page unrelated to their block ('Thanks, sorry I can't respond at the Afd page right now, but...')

Still thinking... Mathglot (talk) 21:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You know the problem with lists in policies is that people take them literally, and you'll get some enthusiastic user requesting dozens of unnecessary, often wasteful, TPA revocations for something you've never considered. It would be better, if you're to pursue this, to keep it entirely general with perhaps only a few mood words setting guidance for admins. I do sympathise with the original problem here, though I also think it's probably going to go nowhere. How do you consult if you're blocked? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's always some game-playing nit-picker looking for some tiny loophole, but nothing will ever stop them no matter what one does or doesn't say, it's in their nature (said the scorpion). I think rather it's about what is best as a whole, and whether it's worth avoiding adding a list just to try and avoid the annoying game players, at the expense of the legitimately confused blocked editors who have nothing to go on because they've never been blocked before and came here and found nothing.

Also, one other thing: the list could include a warning that violations will be dealt with by admins, and annoying nit-pickers may find a new kind of boomerang smacking them if they intervene, and they'd best butt out, or find themselves reading the list as it applies to them, personally.

Found one more possible item for the list:

• Create a new section on their Talk page, to respond briefly to a ping at a remote page, in order to politely inform the pinging user that they cannot respond right now due to the block (or pinging them from a new comment in their existing block section).

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"Total ban" in lead

Please see a related discussion at WT:BAN#"Total" ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Add a section about block length

There should be a section that shows how long you can be blocked for certain violations. RowanJ LP (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Duration of blocks is extensively covered in the article. --Yamla (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Use of user talk page while blocked

At Wikipedia:Administrative action review#Indefinite TPA revocation for “proxying while blocked” (permalink) there was discussion about what it is acceptable for a blocked user to post on their user talk page. Many people state it should only be for querying, clarifying or appealing the block, admins have revoked talk page access to enforce this, although it was pointed out that the does not appear in policy - some opining that a bit of leeway should be given, others that almost anything should go. Indeed policy is currently largely silent on the matter:

Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own user talk page (and hence, the ability for them to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring. The protection policy has further details in cases where other users are repeatedly causing disruption to the user talk pages of blocked users.

Based on the linked AARV discussion I think it would be beneficial to expand on this so it more closely matches actual practice. My first draft of an alternative is presented below for discussion (not voting). Green text is unchanged, underlined text is new, unmkarked text has had minor rephrasing but is unchanged in meaning:

Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own user talk page (and hence, the ability for them to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked without a specific reason.

The purpose of allowing a blocked user to edit their talk page is primarily to allow them to query, appeal or seek clarification regarding their block. Limited use of the talk page for other purposes may be tolerated, especially for productive comments shortly after a block is made, but this is not a right and access may be removed by an administrator at their discretion.

Talk page access should be disabled if the user abuses that access, which includes but is not limited to:

• Posting serious threats and/or accusations
• Posting material that (attempts) to out other editors or other material that needs to be oversighted
• Posting material that violates the biographies of living people policy
• Spamming
• Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests
• Continuing (or attempting to conitinue) disputes, discussions and/or other behaviour that led to their block
• Extensive and/or prolonged use of the page for purposes unrelated to discussing or appealing their block.

Editors whose talk page access has been removed can appeal via the Unblock Ticket Request System.

The protection policy has further details in cases where other usersIncluding sock puppets of blocked users. are repeatedly causing disruption to the user talk pages of blocked users.

I don't intend the list in the "should be disabled" section to bind admins but rather to be guidance around which discretion can be exercised. I'm not sure that comes across in the wording but I've not thought of anything better. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Notifying the participants of the AARV discussion @XMcan, Doug Weller, Pppery, Licks-rocks, Pawnkingthree, Black Kite, TarnishedPath, Yamla, Dennis Brown, Serial Number 54129, Bishonen, Levivich, Isaacl, NebY, Newimpartial, KoA, North8000, Queen of Hearts, ActivelyDisinterested, Awesome Aasim, Extraordinary Writ, Phil Bridger, and Joyous!: and @Firefangledfeathers: who expressed a desire to contribute to this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I do not think this is liberal enough, to be honest. Right now, there isn't any limit to what they can use the talk page for and over 99% of the time, it hasn't even been questioned. If they are breaking some policy, then sure, remove the talk page access, but there are cases where someone is blocked for a week or two, and it is actually helpful that they can discuss with others. Removing the ability to have reasonable discussions (which might include civil discussion as to why the block was wrong) is more like punishment. It also looks like circling the wagons. And that is the rub: Refusing to allow reasonable discussions that aren't directly related to an unblock is punishment, not preventative. It is entirely reasonable for an editor to disagree with the block and be willing to wait it out. Many blocks are "borderline", some admin would have blocked, others would not have. This isolates them further from the community, which isn't conducive to encouraging better behavior next time. The best example I can give happened during my RFA. Kiefer.Wolfowitz was blocked for disruption while opposing my candidacy. Some wanted to block TPA, but I insisted on keeping it, and instead I went to his talk page and engaged him, building a bridge where they were trying to burn one. I ended up unblocking him myself, probably one of my first acts as admin: unblocking the person who was disruptive when opposing me at RFA. We both gained respect for each other. I think we need to be able to try to engage people, let them vent a little, start a discussion that might not be directly related to getting unblocked, and bring people back in the fold when we can. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Example: While we don't want proxy editing, if another editor comes and ask questions about an article they were editing (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DUE, etc) then I don't have any issue with the discussion. If the blocked editor belongs to a Project and someone asks their opinion of a proposal, again, I don't see the issue. Sometimes other editors might come and explain why their edits were edit warring even while they didn't pass 3RR. We are trying to prevent disruption, not spank them. We want them to realize the mistake, and understand that after the block is over, we want them to edit, just avoiding the errors that got them blocked. It isn't personal. I don't think we can list all the "okay" actions, we have to use judgement, and if anything, plainly spell out that Wiki related discussions (short of proxy) are ok. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think it might matter why someone was blocked. If they were blocked for being disruptive, then we want to separate them from that topic area, and short term blocks are different to indefinite blocks. This is why I've tried to express everything in terms of discretion because every situation is different, but why are editors particularly soliciting the opinions of people who have been blocked? Mainly my thinking is that if you've been blocked it's for a reason - if you are a productive presence then you should be able to successfully appeal your block (possibly converting it to a partial block or topic ban if disruption is limited to a particular area) so you don't need other editors to proxy for you. If problems got the point where you had to be blocked then obviously we don't want you to edit, or at least not in the manner you were - the block was necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopaedia you were causing (and if it wasn't you should appeal the block). Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  This is why I think it's best left to the discretion of admin, but at the same time saying tpa is not limited to just unblock requests. If someone's blocked for spamming and has 12 edits then obviously that is a different kind of block that a long-time editor who got into an edit war that is otherwise productive. We are better off as an encyclopedia if we err on the side of being lenient. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 21:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• This is certainly one of the better interpretations and proposals I've seen, however, I'm a bit troubled by the construction of 'solely'. Perhaps a better alternative would be something like 'principally' or even, probably my preference with this formulation, removing the qualifier entirely. As Dennis has pointed out and this proposal somewhat acknowledges, there's so many other things that talk pages can be legitimately used for. As a minor point, I wonder if this will properly fit in the current location for block options (I've always seen this a somewhat technical how-to part of the policy). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm not especially attached to "solely" - either "principally" or nothing would work but I prefer the former I think. Currently this section functions as all of how, when and why to remove TPA. I'm not opposed to splitting but obviously we'd need to decide where to split it to and add links between them (and decide which the WP:TPA shortcut should point to, but that's a minor point). Thryduulf (talk) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  How about "primarily"? I'm not overly attached to any specific wording here. --Yamla (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I like that (though leaving it out entirely is also growing on me). I've replaced 'solely' with 'primarily' in the proposal above. You two don't seem too attached to the wording here; I think it changes the entire flavour of the proposal. 'solely' is one of those definitive words that people will take too literally, with outcomes that I think we all want to avoid. As for the rest of it, I'm neither for or against moving forward at this time. I should admit that I added the words "abuse of the talk page" to the policy in the first place. It's remained for 15 years and I kinda like it for various reasons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Agree wholeheartedly with Dennis. IMO, policy shouldn't say merely that use for other purposes may be tolerated (through the grace of admins). It's important that users know what to expect, and also that they don't feel they have to wait on how an admin feels. I like the original version altogether. It certainly matches my own practice. If we want to add a list of the kinds of abuse that are likely to lead to talkpage access being revoked, that's all right by me (except for the last item on the list, "Extensive and/or prolonged use of the page for purposes unrelated to discussing or appealing their block"; please skip that). And it's very proper, if so, to keep Thryduulf's formula "includes but is not limited to"; you never know when somebody will come up with some novel kind of abuse, so there should certainly be admin discretion on that score. Bishonen | tålk 12:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC).

  Regarding "extensive and/or prolonged use of the page...". I strongly feel that shouldn't be allowed - if you're using the talk page to constructively improve the encyclopaedia then you should be unblocked so you can do it directly - so use the talk page to appeal the block. If your use of the talk page is not constructively improving the encyclopaedia and not related to your block, then you're being disruptive and/or using Wikipedia as a forum and you need to stop or be stopped. Thryduulf (talk) 16:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Policy already covers that without any changes. It boils down to this, are we removing TPA too frequently or not frequently enough? I would argue that if anything, we're removing it too frequently. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Structurally, it would seem that the three general reasons for blocking TPA would be:
  1. If the reason for the main block is (also) relevant to talk pages and they repeated the offense there.
  2. If the TP activity is used to evade the intent of the non-TP main block.
  3. Things that nobody is allowed to do on a talk page anyway. Why reinvent the wheel by trying to repeat those rules here?

Maybe we should just clarify the above. The OP idea includes new prohibitions which are none of the above. For example, "making their case" (for reading by other editors) regarding their block. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Support the general approach here. Thanks, Thryduulf, for bringing this up. I strongly believe the default should be to leave talk page access enabled and nothing here suggests otherwise. It's unusual for TPA to be revoked for limited-duration blocks, revocation is almost always only used for indefinite blocks (and only rarely, there). I believe it is generally inappropriate for an indefinitely blocked user to use their talk page for anything other than getting unblocked, and in particular for asking others to proxy edit on their behalf. They are blocked indefinitely to prevent them editing Wikipedia, I don't think they should try to side-step that by having others edit on their behalf. "Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests" is also a significant problem, with people making unblock request after unblock request after unblock request, exhausting the pool of unblock reviewers and showing no insight into why they were blocked. --Yamla (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support in principle as a good idea and a codification of already expected community norms. Awesome Aasim 13:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose in principle for the reasons stated by Dennis, Bish and N8k above. Generally I disagree with the principle that TP should only be used to appeal a block. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the text to specify some additional things that aren't allowed, but both the spirit and letter of the proposed changes go too far. Levivich (talk) 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Support the general approach but those who oppose have made some useful points. Note I was the admin involved in the recent XRV where my decision to remove TPA from Sennalen was supported. I find myself a bit confused by the comments above as it appears that some opposers support some of the suggestions and some of the supporters don't support them all. Thus Levivich says that some of the text perhaps should specify some things that aren't allowed, and I think that would help both blocked editors and Admins.

For instance, I see no argument about "and typically should not be checked without a specific reason."

We need to differentiate between indeffed/banned editors I think. Banned should mean banned, ie not able to use their talk page for anything but an appeal. Editors with short blocks should be given more lenience and I certainly do. Ranting is probably ok so long as it doesn't include personal attacks. BLP violations certainly are not nor is doxxing. We should discuss the list below the heading "Talk page access should be disabled if the user abuses that access, which includes but is not limited to:"

Without being much more specific I don't see how anyone is going to be able to close this discussion with some agreement to some specific proposals. Doug Weller talk 15:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

We recently had a very long RfC broken up into I don't remember how many proposals. Would that help? Doug Weller talk 16:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I find myself a bit confused by the comments above as it appears that some opposers support some of the suggestions and some of the supporters don't support them all. this is why I explicitly said My first draft of an alternative is presented below for discussion (not voting). and I'm slightly disappointed at the bolded comments. A line-by-line (or similar) RFC may be helpful, but it's too soon at the moment - the discussion hasn't been open 12 hours yet and those who've commented so far may or may not find their opinions align with a clear consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Barring the obvious (abuse, etc, as mentioned above), most things should (and often do) get met with leniency up to a certain point. I wouldn't want to see a restrictive list of "you can say X, you can't say Y" (and I don't believe this proposal is suggesting that), but perhaps it's worth nothing that strictish management of a blocked user's talk page normally helps them to "stop digging a hole"? Being told to stop and "take a break" instead of responding while things are raw benefits everyone, though I'm unsure if that angle could ever be reflected in what you're suggesting. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 16:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• I don't have a lot of time to participate further, but I did notice the AARV discussion and watchlisted this page so I could say one thing. I very much disagree that talk page use for a blocked user should be limited to dealing with the block itself. I also disagree that removal of access for anything besides clarifying the block, requesting an unblock, etc. has been our ongoing practice. My experience has been that if there's no actual disruption or continuation of blockable behavior, removing talk page access seldom happens. As long as this provision that it can only be related to the block doesn't get added to the policy, I'm OK, but my preference would be to not try to list all the specific things you can do on your talk page while blocked, and all the specific things you can't, and instead just say talk page access can be removed for ongoing disruption or continued violation of policy, mostly to avoid instruction creep.--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  That sums it up nicely. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests

• "Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests" is one of the additions proposed. I mentioned above that I very much like this. I frequently see people making five or ten or even more unblock requests. We don't have enough unblock reviewers for a unique reviewer to look at that many requests. Without trying to get specific about the wording, I believe users should be entitled to three reviews plus one every six months on the low end, assuming they aren't being particularly abusive. I think any more than five, though, is simply pointless. Keeping in mind the limited number of unblock reviewers at any given time, what do others think about this? (I'm hoping the subheading focuses discussion and allows uninterested people to skip sections, but am happy to take feedback if the subheading is actually disruptive.) --Yamla (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think putting a number on it will be helpful - if someone makes three quick unblock requests that get declined, then takes a fortnight off to reflect and then comes back with a much better request we should evaluate that sincerely and shouldn't penalise them if they very nearly but not quite "get it". If we do adopt this wording, then guidance on what counts as "excessive" or "frivolous" is probably something we should have somewhere but I think somewhere like Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks might be a better place for it than here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Excellent points. --Yamla (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'd support adding "posting excessive and/or frivolous unblock requests" to WP:TPA. It's not a bad idea to signal that to blocked users, e.g. that they shouldn't just expect to make an unlimited number of {unblock}'s, that they should "make them count." Levivich (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  I am not opposed since that's the actual practice, although I'm not sure it needs to be stated explicitly. Farmer Brown - 2¢ (alt: Dennis Brown) 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)