Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Discussion before unblocking not always needed

I hesitate to even post this because it seems lately every time I initiate one of these threads it goes off in some direction I never intended, but here we go anyway: Currently some of the blocking templates say that you should not lift a block without discussing with the blocking admin first, and this policy page says it is "strongly discouraged" to undo a block without discussion, I think this is somewhat out of step with current practice. In some cases, such as username-only blocks, there is no need whatsoever to discuss. If the user agrees to change their name, and that was the only reason for the block, there's nothing to discuss. In many other cases where the user demonstrates that they understand why they were blocked and are will avoid the problematic behavior in the future, making them sit there and remain blocked more or less for the sake of process seems unneeded. Of course in more complicated or controversial cases discussion is still needed, but I think we should soften the language up to indicate that it is not always necessary and in practice is often not done. Blocking templates based on checkuser evidence should retain the stipulation that you should discuss with a CU before lifting the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a small change to the policy page [1], and will begin reviewing the templates. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree and have undone this. The proposed language is inconsistent with longstanding policy and practice, and also with WP:ADMIN#Reversing another admin's action, which says: "except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." As a matter of collegial courtesy, and also to prevent the circumvention of sanctions through admin-shopping, discussion should be obligatory in all but the most exceptional circumstances.  Sandstein  22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You got to at least concede the point about username-only blocks. If the username is the only reason for the block, and the user agrees to change it to something that does not violate policy, what is the point of having a discussion? It's process for the sake of process in such a case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't oppose a clarification for this particular case.  Sandstein  22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the all to often failure to consult and gain agreement with the blocking admin and failing that to seek consensus for the unblock is one our more significant problems. In situations where someone has clearly made a good faith error, or when the situation has significantly changed I agree that admins should just be able to unblock(ie a user retracts a legal threat, or requests a rename to something more appropriate). What I don't think should be allowed is one admin interpreting policy differently and then just undoing another admins block. I think we can loosen up the wording regarding unambiguous errors and changed circumstances while making more clear the prohibition against undoing a block merely because you disagree with it. The requirement of communication with the blocking admin or the gaining of a larger consensus is particularly important when the admin who wishes to unblock is not in possession of all of the facts. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Entirely agreed.  Sandstein  23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

proposal made by block evading sock user

Propose new section for WP:INDEF I would like to propose a new section for INDEF blocked Users, the proposed name is WP:Parole. The goal? To offer a system similar to the common law Parole system where indef blocked Users e.g Users that cannot edit there talk page can have minimal privileges to prove wether or not they can be 'reintroduced' into the wikipeida community. Good idea, bad idea or something in the middle? P.S I may not be online untill tomorrow so if this becomes a talking point please be patient if you expect a reply from me. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I take it this discussion has failed to get of the ground by the looks of things. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia:Mentorship and Wikipedia:Standard offer exist as essays, there's the unblock request template and the {{2ndchance}} template mentioned in the block review section, and, when the user cannot edit their talk page, they also have the option of emailing the blocking admin, another admin, or Arbcom. I don't really see what else you can offer. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC) No User:zzuuzz there is not. I guess you are right. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

essay

Just knocked together an essay about a certain type of unblock request. Any feedback appreciated. See WP:ROPE. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Quickly Blocking and Unblocking Users

I've noticed that there is a page at Special:Block that allows you to quickly block users, but there is no Special:Unblock page for quickly unblocking users. Sonic120 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if there is a question in there anywhere, but it is quite easy for an admin to unblock someone. The technical part of it, that is, sometimes making the decision takes a bit of time but actually doing the unblock only takes a few seconds. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Special:BlockList?action=unblock Gurch (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Added "Special:Unblock" to MediaWiki as an alias for the above link in r64389. There will be a delay of between three and six months before the change takes effect on Wikipedia. Gurch (talk) 15:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I gotta tell you, I still totally don't understand the point. What is the goal here exactly? Unblocking is exactly as easy as blocking. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

He requested the existence of a Special:Unblock page, so I added one. (It simply redirects to Special:BlockList?action=unblock, but redirecting special pages require code changes to MediaWiki, so it wasn't happening any other way.) Gurch (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Somebody asked for it, so you added it without considering if it served any legitimate purpose? Well, I'm less confused now since that's pretty much what it looked like to me anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a pretty non-controversial (and ultimately worthwhile) change. To be honest I was about to make a smartass remark along the lines of "omg - a change to mediawiki without teeth being pulled, dozens of editors ragequitting, a decree from teh GodKing??!!" –xeno^talk 20:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's still time (several months, if the current release schedule is any guide). One benefit of the change when it does go live is that any "unblock" links in templates can be internal ([[Special:Unblock/Xeno|unblock]]) rather than external ([{{fullurl:Special:BlockList/Xeno|action=unblock}} unblock]). It also makes things quicker for those accustomed to editing URLs directly or typing things in the search box to get where they want to be. Gurch (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

What Sonic120 means is: to block a user, simply go to Special:Block to block a user, but unblocking takes a little bit longer because to unblock, you need to go to Special:Log/block, and then click the "unblock" link above the log entries. Keyboard mouse (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Civility blocks

The policy currently states that, under the heading of "disruption", "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia."... i.e. users may be blocked for "persistent gross incivility;"

I propose that this be amended, by adding at the end of that list (after "persistently violating policies or guidelines")

Established users should not normally be blocked for mere civility by an administrator acting alone; such decisions are too frequently highly contentious. Instead blocks which may be merited for patterns of incivility amounting to disruption should be proposed at an appropriate dispute resolution venue. It will generally be expected that prior methods of dispute resolution such as WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U will have been employed before the community is willing to support such a block.

Related policies might not also need amending, if this is agreed. (One of the issues with civility enforcement is the grey line between WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; merging might possibly be helpful.) Rd232 ^talk 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. In practice, such blocks are only contentious when applied to the relatively few vested contributors who are habitually incivil. We ought not to enshrine in policy this systemic failure of our community to deal with disruption. Compare also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Proposed decision#Vested contributors: "Strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content."  Sandstein  22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that's why I said "Established users" - it's here that problems seem to arise when such blocks aren't discussed beforehand. (Though arbitrariness in relation to civility enforcement seems a more general problem, it's only established users who have the clout and determination to raise a stink.) In any case, these problems come up often enough that any suggestions for improvement should be worth discussing. Rd232 ^talk 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Sandstein. That a few problem editors are teflon-coated and can get away with wanton abuse of anyone they dislike, is no reason to do away with the few tools we have to prevent descending into complete anarchy. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how requiring prior discussion is such an issue. By definition, "persistent incivility amounting to disruption" is - for established users at least - a gradual process, and blocks for it typically have a "straw that broke the camel's back" character. This makes them contentious even when merited, which makes people not use them when they should, which allows people to get away with murder. More clearly laying out a WQA -> RFCU -> civility block discussion path should be helpful in combating civility, not merely in combating drama around civility blocks. Basically, civility enforcement is currently broken - do you have a better idea to fix it? Rd232 ^talk 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that there is no way to make a 24-hour block stick on a well-known editor with valuable contributions. If such an editor were to receive and serve even one civility block, their behavior would be extremely likely to change; because that does not happen, the behavior does not change. If the editor were taken to WQA or whatever, their supporters would overwhelm the stodgy "tolerated incivility will damage the project" messages, and people would start saying "let's close this now; waste of time; people shouldn't be so sensitive". With the current system, there will inevitably be an admin who reverses a civility block, and that provides those wanting to enforce reasonable civility with a herculean task. I suppose it's unachievable, but something like the following might help: agree on a new arrangement whereby an admin can issue a warning to a user (with no more than one warning per four-hour period to allow some cooling off); a second warning could then be given; on a third incident the user can be 24-hour blocked with a template that declares that [according to some new consensus] no unblock can occur except by arbcom or a strong consensus at ANI. The warnings are live for three months, and are kept alive by another warning. An admin who abuses the warning system would be discussed at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed change. Sandstein is exactly correct. We should not enshrine a few manifest failures of the community to deal with incivility into policy. Nsk92 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• No, no, a thousand times no. We want people to go forth and use their reason. If someone makes a mistake, follow dispute resolution. Rules cannot be a substitute for dialogue. causa sui (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• No. This is absolutely not the right way to resolve the experienced but abusive user block/unblock blowups. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• The current wording is adequate because the approach works with 99% of editors. Most people draw upon a limited reservoir of very blunt expressions when they mean to be rude. Usually a civility block has the effect of persuading the editor to join the majority of the community with civility. Exceptions exist where this approach fails because the skills and talents that yield really innovative rudeness are closely related to the skills and talents that yield superlative article writing. Many of Wikipedia's best content contributors are very polite people; those who choose not to be polite can generate types of incivility which are alternately maddening or witty (depending on one's perspective) and which are basically unblockable. The existence of exceptions is not sufficient reason to change policy; it is reason to exercise rational discretion and decide which problems are better to address through dispute resolution. Durova⁴¹² 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions?

Why do these responses make me feel like people didn't read beyond the first sentence of the proposed text? The problem is, as stated, that currently patterns of incivility are handled in an ad hoc way, which makes enforcement unpredictable and ineffective. If you don't like the prescription to use dispute resolution (to help establish a pattern) and pre-block community discussion (to establish if the pattern is agreed to amount to disruption), what do you suggest? The status quo is the best we can manage? Rd232 ^talk 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I did read the entire text of the proposal, and I just don't agree with it. Admins should have the unfettered power to block users for substantial incivility (whether particularly egregious individual instances or for patterns of incivility). Requiring "dispute resolution" in incivility cases is like telling a bullying victim to "discuss their differences" with a bully. There is nothing that currently prevents anyone from opening an AN/I thread about a particular user in cases of sustained incivility or any other pattern of disruptive behaviour. However, changing the language of the policy to require dispute resolution in cases of sustained incivility is will needlessly hamstrung admins dealing with disruptive behaviour. Established editor or not, editors involved in gross incivility should be blockable on sight. Yes, some of these blocks may be contentious, but this is better than giving "established editors" the appearance of a license to be incivil. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For my part, I also read the proposal, but the exact content isn't much an issue for me. The problem is what I read to be a creepy approach to problem solving. I want administrators to be able to use their common sense and judgment in the field, and I want people to talk it out in cases where there is disagreement about an individual case. I don't want rules to be a substitute for dialogue in any case whatsoever. People ought to figure out what to do on a case-by-case basis with policy informing their decisions, not dictating them.

But perhaps even more importantly, this is not a good way to draft policy. Policy should reflect what is already being done. Ad-hoc discussions by whoever might be watching this policy talk page is not the way to effect these kinds of prescriptive rules. --causa sui (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what do you suggest? I was hoping at least for a little debate about the problem the proposal seeks to address. In my view, generally the civility blocks that stick on established users are those that have sufficient prior dispute resolution and established patterns of incivility to back them up, along with substantial community agreement. That suggests to me a policy conclusion to discourage bad practice. The wording was intended not to disable civility blocks by individual admins, but to discourage them; hence qualifiers like "normally" and hedging like "generally expected". This could be tweaked of course, but I think the principle is sound. Nobody is talking about giving a "license to be incivil" - quite the opposite. The repeated and public failure to make civility enforcement stick encourages people to think they can get away with murder (and generally they can). As I alluded to above, changing the blocking policy in this way ought to be accompanied by some attempt to make dispute resolution on civility clearer and more effective. Part of the reason it hasn't been is because in principle simple blocking is supposed to be enforcement enough; but since it rarely is enough in practice, something ought to change. Rd232 ^talk 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. If anything, the language of the policy should be made stronger not weaker. Incivility is a big problem, particularly when coming from "established users" since such incivility, when left unchecked or when tolerated and de facto condoned, drives away other established users and newbies and in general makes productive discussion impossible. Chronic incivility by established users is a form of bullying and it should be treated as such. The real issue here is that in a few particularly bad cases a chronically incivil established users is protected by a group of admin friends who are willing to wheel-war and to lift the civility blocks whenever such blocks are imposed . However, the solution cannot and should not be to codify instances of such irresponsible admin behaviour into policy. On the contrary, the policy needs to be very clear that gross incivility, whether by newbies or by established users, is completely unacceptable and can lead to a block. Whenever a particular admin lifts a justified civility block for his/her pal, the admin should be reminded of the policy and, if necessary, the case should be referred to arbcom. Some admins will still continue the irresponsible practice of protecting their friends from civility blocks, but they should not be able to hide behind policy. Both the status quo and strengthening the policy language are better than the change that you propose. Nsk92 (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, propose something concrete that makes it "stronger". I'm not trying to make it weaker. Rd232 ^talk 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is my proposal: drop the word "persistent" from "persistent gross incivility" in "Disruption" section. Nsk92 (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since "gross incivility" is nowhere defined (including in WP:CIVIL, which the words link to in the block policy), that will only make the enforcement problem worse. But it does point to the possibility that the definitional issue is at the heart of the problem: what exactly is "gross incivility"? Cultural and personal standards vary widely, and it can depend heavily on context. I doubt we can get a definition written down (well we could try, but I doubt it would be workable), which is why it makes sense to me to have some form of prior discussion about alleged (gross) incivility to establish whether it's blockworthy. Of course we all know "easy" examples of blockworthy profanity and personal attacks ("easy" especially if from a non-established editor...) - but there's a vast grey area which is hard. Rd232 ^talk 09:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're going somewhat off course. By and large, the problem is not figuring out what people object to in the way of incivility. By and large, the problem is that some people are given passes by parts of the community, on the basis of their contributions. There is also some valid question as to whether a shorter than average limit is applied to people felt to be consistent troublemakers with regards to civility, and to whether enforcement is consistently enough applied to make the policy stick across the board. But those are not issues of not knowing incivility when we see it. They undermine enforcement efforts but don't confuse the issue of what civility is or isn't.

Some people disagree with the evolved community standard, and sometimes individual admins call it wrong, but neither of those changes that we do have a workable standard now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

We actually have begun resolving this by the simple if slow expedient of these people causing sufficient admin headache that they get taken to Arbcom for a permaban.

Reality is that apparently we both have sufficient disagreement in the community to stymie effective per-incident admin responses, and yet enough to generate successful arbcom cases against those same users. This seems like it should be wrong - but it's working out that way.

The problem with your approach is that (as I see it) it's attempting to insert an intermediate step which will *both* stymie per-incident admin responses and to some degree interfere with when we'd normally initiate an arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Admins are the problem

Extended content

The real problem is that highly uncivil, belligerent, and aggressive behavior by admins. The expression of frustrations by common editors isn't a big deal at all. They are human. It's the regular abuses of policies to go after and antagonize that is corrosive. For example Sandstein just made a false accusation on an arbitration report page and Georgewilliamherbert regularly targets editors he doesn't care for, but when an admin calls a good faith editor a "drama loving troll" he doesn't say or do anything about it. An environment that is so political and hypocritical will always engender resentment and frustration. But if the community moves to encourage respect and collegial cooperation instead, and weeds out the corrupt and dishonest hypocrites, then progress can be made. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) With all due respect, you are one administrator "close" vote from being banned from Wikipedia for the next 12 months. No administrator has voted against either remedy. Your opinion has been noted repeatedly, but the community disagrees. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC) The community or the arbitration committee? The hearing you cite was directed by Coren who I have called out in the past for his inappropriate bullying of a good faith editor. If he had any integrity he would have recused, and if the Arbcom body had even a shred of credibility they would have chosen someone else to direct the hearing. But that he actually led the Arbcon hearing speaks volumes about how political this place has become. And you Georgewilliamherbert and others who use the civility policy to go after those they disagree with should not be tolerated. Your behavior is very damaging to the encyclopedia building effort and I hope you will consider changing your ways going forward. One need only review the panic among admins in their opposition to a deadminship procedure to understand that there needs to be a means of review available to the community. No credible enforcement body can be trusted to review itself, let alone the gaggle of politicians leading on this site. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, a community that will not police itself will self-destruct. You object to this, and to yourself having been found to be one of the problem users being policed. I get that. But that's reality. Your behavior has caused your peers to reach the point of forcing you to leave the project. I would note for you and the record - I had nothing to do with the Arbcom case. You have continued to take potshots at me over the last couple of months, while I have been leaving you completely alone. Your doing so is part of why you're about to be banned for a year (not with me, but with me and dozens of others). I may not be able to change your mind on this being fair or reasonable, but I would like to request that you reflect on your lack of support in the User RFC and the Arbcom case. People who behave reasonably towards others aren't treated so unanimously, either in RFCs or Arbcom. You have done this to yourself. Come 2011, if you chose to rejoin the project, perhaps you can do so in a manner which is constructive both for content and your relationships with other users. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Your comments are completely off-topic and consist largely of smeary personal attacks, exactly the kind of thing that admins can get away with, but that would be removed and/ or sanctioned if they came from editors. I support the community policing itself and I respect community consensus. It is you and your fellow admins as a group who fear consensus and are fighting against an open and honest recall procedure. I am all for transparency and fair play. Like the community at large I reject abusive civility enforcement that is antagonistic, punitive, and used to go after editors whose views are disagreed with, yet you keep pushing for this kind of perversion that contorts what civility means. Please respect community consensus. Many of the good faith editors here work on article content rather than bureaucracy, but they've weighed in repeatedly on these issues and you need to stop disrespecting their view and rejecting consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC) This thread seems to have wandered away from an open discussion of blocking policy to a fight between the two of you. I'm quite certain that you both know better, please take your personal feud elsewhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyright blocks

Hi. I've raised a question about copyright blocks, the appropriate venue for requesting & the number of warnings required at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Copyright blocks. Feedback would be most welcome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not Being able to view Special:AbuseLog While Blocked

When a user is blocked, they also cannot view Special:AbuseLog. Is there a block setting that allows them to view Special:AbuseLog while blocked or one that allows them to edit their own user page while blocked? Keyboard mouse (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC).

No, I don't know of any setting that does either of those things. MBisanz ^talk 02:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a reason we would want to do that anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocking a user that Contributes on Multiple IPs

If you block a user that contributes on multiple IPs, and you block them, enabling "autoblock" or "prevent account creation", how does the block know which IP address to affect? Keyboard mouse (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the last IP used by them as well as others they try to edit from. Isabel25 (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Unwritten rule regarding a limit to number of unblock requests should be stricken from the unwritten code

There is apparently an unwritten rule among those who patrol CAT:RFU that after a third unsuccessful unblock request, the talk page access is revoked - regardless of if the unblock requests are "disruptive". I'm of the opinion that this should not be a "rule" - unwritten or otherwise - and this should be discouraged. Revoking talk page access should be reserved for actual disruption. Thoughts? –xeno^talk 19:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it, but I don't generally patrol CAT:RFU. Having said that, I have to agree with you. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, there's no "three strikes and you're out" on talk pages, there is (or there should be) a cautious "have we understood the issues fully?" approach. Discourage the unwritten code, and per the instructions, and block from editing talk page only those who are deliberately using them for disruptive purposes. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When the effect is disruptive, the intent does not matter. Daniel Case (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive non-argument equates to "disruptive editing". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm missing something there. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well let me expand. The original request for comments here was to discuss whether "after a third unsuccessful unblock request, the talk page access is revoked" was reasonable. I said no, we should listen and understand the circumstances, you said that you've had to deal with folks repetitively saying nothing new. The point is that I believe I'm right and I believe you're right too. No need to pander to "non-argument". Besides, when I tried to post that comment, I had a gazillion (or four) edit conflicts, it probably missed the point... Ultimately, it's up to us admins to determine what is "disruptive" and if, as your example states, a user is continually spouting non-argument, it's disruptive. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

My interpretation of the custom is that this should be applied primarily to a user who keeps basically using the same argument after it's been rejected, since after three it's essentially admin shopping, even if they are polite and civil. I would also apply it to any requests made within some ridiculously short time span of a short block (three in the first 15 minutes of an hourlong block, for instance).

I don't apply it when one of the declines was procedural (i.e., wrong template used for request) or when it's the first request in a long time during a long block.

As I have told more than a few people whose requests were used up, it's essentially a way to waste administrators' time and keep us from reviewing other requests which might have some merit. If you would like to restore talk page access from someone it's been removed from, go ahead. As long as you or other admins who feel this way about it commit to being the ones who will review all the requests which basically boil down to "Pretty please? Pretty please with sugar on top?" for the 51st time. Daniel Case (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm against a "3 strikes" rule. Each case should be taken on its merits. Some will get their talk page access revoked after 1 unblock request, others may need to take more than three attempts before they demonstrate that they fully understand the reasons behind the block. If an editor is showing that they are understanding some of the reasons, but not all, then they should be pointed towards what they are missing and allowed to make further requests. Mjroots (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone's fourth request is appropriately penitent, I wouldn't deny it simply for being a fourth request, and certainly wouldn't cut them off. Daniel Case (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's my thought on the matter [2]. Caden ^cool 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

When the user keeps making the same "somebody made me do it" or similar argument, there's no point in continuing on with it, be it 3 or 4 or 14 times (I've seen them go to 4 and that's about it). I would concur with Daniel Case's thinking on this: If an admin decides someone has been unfairly prevented from entering any more unblock requests, and subsequently restores the user's ability to edit his talk page, then it's that admin's responsibility to monitor the user's talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

3 strikes and no one is going to listen to your unblock requests, but that's no reason to revoke talk page access. There is no need for it until they rise to behavior that would independently justify what is essentially a punitive response.--Tznkai (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's no need for it except for the fact that CAT:RFU will show the open request and then report as backlogged if there are more than ten at a time. Simply boycotting a user's repetitive fourth request isn't, IMO, an adequate resolution, unless it becomes somehow possible to append notations to the pages listed at the category listing, at the very least, how many times they've requested unblock during the current unblock.

I don't consider it necessarily punitive (my tone on many such denials notwithstanding); rather it's a necessarily arbitrary compromise to ensure the most efficient use of administrative time (especially when I want to do, y'know, actual editing). Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there should be no written or unwritten rule that limits the number of unblock requests and that talk page access should not be revoked unless there is actual disruption. As a general rule, we need to be able to communicate with users that misunderstand policy and that is not possible if we revoke editing privileges on the one place that they can edit. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As someone who semi-regularly checks the RFU page, I don't recall encountering a three-strikes rule being practiced (and don't practice/agree with it myself). In any case, it seems that most of the people here agree that any sort of hard limit is a bad idea. TNXMan 19:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rules aren't necessarily unwritten, its just that there isn't a threshold number. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is a useful; when the unblock requests become repetitive; i.e. when the blocked user keeps making the same arguement over and over in successive requests, its time to disable talkpage access. WP:PARENT is also useful; after some time, it becomes apparent that the blocked user is simply shopping for a sympathetic admin, trying over and over to get an admin who will unblock them after prior admins have refused. Again, no number on this. But these are perfectly sufficient guidelines on how to deal with multiple unblock requests. Per WP:BEANS and WP:CREEP, there does not need to be a numerical maximum or minimum to the number of unblock requests. Every situation is different, and admins should be trusted to use their good judgement. There is a WP:BASC for a reason, if admins have acted inapprorpiately in ending unblock requests prematurely, the blocked user can always request help from them. I always direct users to BASC when I protect their talk page, and I fully expect that if I have acted inappropriately, the BASC will overturn my actions. It has not happened much (maybe once or twice), but the BASC has occiasionally overturned a talk page protection I have done, or unblocked a user I have declined myself to unblock. No big deal. Its not a competition, and I don't "lose" if someone gets unblocked when I declined an unblock request. --Jayron32 20:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Jayron has a good point here: revoking talk page access does not cut off requests for unblock, it just cuts off public requests. In addition to BASC, users have the option of the unblock list or emailing the admin directly (I get those, as I'm sure most other active admins do, primarily from people who want to promote their company and don't realize the issue is with their username, even when it's right there in the template). Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a very insightful observation. But I do think that many folks think of a "3-strike rule"... it is very popular American English usage... don't really know about international usage.- Sinneed 20:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I think those who abuse their unblock requests should not be able to disrupt simply by making many requests. To me, it sounds like the unwritten rule is being stated backwards, and that the way it is done is:

• Unproductive unblock requests are generally allowed at least 3 times, barring other talk-page behaviour problems.

I wonder if it might be good to have an only-warning-template that an admin might apply after the 3rd (edit to add), or the 10th if the user seems to be really trying but just...not...getting...it, explaining that multiple unblock requests are disruptive (delaying service to other editors who also depend on the admins to be able to work), and suggesting the editor review the previous 3 unblock declines and addressing all issues raised in them before issuing another request. I already see a template that says that quite courteously on some blocked-user talk pages but without the only-warning bit.- Sinneed 20:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• • No, that's wrong too. We shouldn't set a minimum; there are times (rare as though they may be) when one might need to revoke talk page access after one unblock request, or even set it from the initial block. We shouldn't hamstring admins ability to respond to unusual situations, nor should be give highly disruptive editors a free pass because they found some technical loophole that means we have to allow their disruption for a certain amount of time. Admins can be trusted to make good judgements. If one admin can't, contact ArbCom or start an WP:ANI thread, and explain why that admin cannot. --Jayron32 20:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps we should state that simply that continuing to make the same argument can eventually lead to the talk page being closed for the duration of the block, without giving a limit. We might also want to address another beef of mine: users who, unsatisified with the nonresponse to an open request, post a new one (we have another unwritten rule that only one request can be considered at a time. And, while we're at it, remind them that they shouldn't use the template simply to respond to a question or decline without making a new argument for unblock.

Actually, I have long wanted to add these to GAB, where they'd fit better (and which has had an effect on how people request, I think). Daniel Case (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• As a regular unblock reviewer, I can tell you I do this very much on a case-by-case basis. As has been said, sometimes one is enough, other times it's a slow process of getting the blocked user to understand why they were blocked, I have seen users post as many as five before they seemed to actually comprehend the situation. Maybe some language to make it clear that this is for persons abusing the unblock template, or making repeated requests that fail to address the reasons for their block, but please no hard and fast rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought the point of us being elected to admin by the community was they, to a certain extent, trusted our judgement. In these cases, some of which are certainly subjective, we should be allowed latitude to work out what's best for our editors and for Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't visualize a time when that would not fall under "... barring other talk-page behaviour problems." or possibly "... barring other behaviour problems."

"start an WP:ANI thread" - what? Blocked users who do this are then blocked for socking... or am I having some kind of brain melt? (and completely off-topic: I am so glad I am not the only human left who spells it "judgement".)

I agree about the judgement bit... and thus the "generally". wp:IAR - we are all trusted to do smart things to make WP a better encyclopedia, whatever the guidelines, rules, policies, essays, and discussions reaching consensus. Admins more so.- Sinneed 20:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you missed the point entirely. Admins need to be trusted to do their job. If an admin isn't doing his job right, there are adequate means by which to remedy that. But you can't start with the premise that admins aren't competant to decide when to use their tools, and then expect the admins to be effective in doing their job. Admins are by defintion trustworthy and highly competant editors. And qualifying phrases are always meaningless when placed next to numbers. If you tell editors they get to use the unblock template three times, then by golly their going to use it three times, even if just to get in some really obnoxious insults. It doesn't matter that you say "barring other talk-page behaviour problems" or other such qualifying statements. Once the number "3" is in print, that is the mandatory standard, in the minds of most people. That's part of the problem with 3RR. Editors, by default, think 3RR means "I can revert as much as I want, as long as I don't cross the 3RR bright line". As soon as a number exists, that is the mandatory standard. It doesn;t matter how much we explain "No, you can still be blocked for edit warring for less than that", the number is the only thing that matters. Same here. As soon as you set a number, you can forget about the expectation that admins will be able to use judgement. The number removes the judgement. --Jayron32 20:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So what's the point in having this then? Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, DC, that actually lends more credibility to Jayron's argument: 3RR is a hard tripwire... anyone breaking it gets a break, in my reading, even if only a 1-minute formality.- Sinneed 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As it happened, I hadn't read Jayron's note closely enough and didn't see where he discussed 3RR. Never mind. I was merely responding to the idea that numbers remove judgement. I accept the point, but there are two counterpoints: one, that if you relied solely on judgements of individual administrators as to how many of something is too many, you'd have the chaos some users and former users regularly accuse of having; and two, isn't it just as possible that, for that exact reason, administrators have come to these numbers as an unwritten guideline through the process of consensus? Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Jayron, I am sorry, but I suspect I have not been clear. I agree with almost everything you say. However "Once the number "3" is in print, 'that is the mandatory standard', in the minds of most people." is a problem for those people, not for the admin doing the job. "The number removes the judgement." - can't agree at all. wp:IAR, wp:pillars...are very clear about this, as I read them: In a very real sense it is *all judgement*, with the level of trust running up hill from user to admin to community-at-large (wp:RfC, wp:RfCU, wp:ANI, etc.) to arbcom.- Sinneed 21:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Every single invocation of IAR is generally met with some level of objection. You can't say its a widely accepted principle. Shall I direct you to the petition now running seeking to strip IAR of any meaningful power, vis-a-vis admins? Whenever it is invoked with regard to admin actions, IAR generates automatic objections; generally from the usual suspects who are sit in wait for any sign of something they can label "admin abuse" just so they can pounce. --Jayron32 22:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

"Every single invocation of IAR is generally met with some level of objection." - not so. I will disagree with you on "You can't say its a widely accepted principle"... that concerns me, since it is one of the pillars.- Sinneed 14:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Tell that to these people. --Jayron32 16:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't want to single anyone out, but here is the first time I came across this. –xeno^talk 20:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me state for the record that I did not come up with this rule myself; I had seen it referred to by other unblock reviewers when I started reviewing unblocks a couple of years ago.

I grant that at that time, there was no "revoke talk page access" check box on Special:BlockUser. An admin who wanted to do this had to go to the page-protection dialog, figure out what time the block expired somehow and get it (roughly) into the expiration field, then (optionally for others, but I always did this) put the right protection notice on the talk page. It took a little more doing, and gave you more chances to reconsider and back out, then the current system does. So, I'm open to discussion on the point that our software has become more advanced and perhaps that bears some reconsideration of our customs in allowing and disallowing talk page access by blocked users. Daniel Case (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

As a regular unblock reviewer also, I agree with Jayron32 above. I will normally terminate talk page access once a user's unblock requests become disruptive, which is not necessarily after the third request. Disruption may include making repeated frivolous or abusive requests. I do not think any change to policy is needed.  Sandstein  21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This whole discussion makes me think we're talking about something entirely different, but no matter. We shouldn't have explicit instructions such as, "Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou shalt cut off their talkpage access". In other words, as a somewhat-regular RFU patroller, I always try to use common sense because pretty much every case is different. —DoRD (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it's become customary because, by the time a user has had three requests declined, it's hugely likely that no one is going to unblock her, and further requests will just be a waste of everyone's time. I don't always disable the talk page on the fourth request, but I do if my review of the talk page and contributions indicates that (a) the user's contributions were such that she will never find someone to unblock her (WP:COMPETENCE issues, mostly, and blatant vandals), or (b) the user is saying the same thing in every unblock request, and ignoring the reviewers' responses. I've shut down talk pages on the first request before (that would be the recent one who accompanied the request for unblock with a giant photograph of a clitoris), and I've left them open after way more than three requests (when they're using the templates to have a discussion that seems to be going somewhere). Human judgement is necessary, and most admins I've seen tend to err on the side of leaving the page open to edits until it's very very clear that no further useful discussion is going to happen on them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't review unblock requests very often, but I tend to align with FisherQueen's reasoning, although probably more along the lines of Sandstein's practice. Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I would add that if I do revoke talk page access, in most cases I make sure I give them ArbCom's email address as their final route of appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Proposed addition [3]: There is no limit to the number of unblock requests that a user may issue. However, disruptive use of the unblock template may prompt an administrator to remove the blocked user's ability to edit their talk page. In this case, a block may still be appealed by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org or contacting the ban appeals subcommittee. Tweak as desired. –xeno^talk 15:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I like Xeno's proposed addition. It's fair and makes sense. Caden ^cool 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How about "not a specified numerical limit" rather than "no limit"?- Sinneed 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I liked Daniel Case's idea of adding wording to WP:GAB, either in addition or as an alternative.- Sinneed 15:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that after three times of asking essentially the same thing it's disruptive. This is different than 3 unblock requests - for instance - imagine a block for edit warring - Unblock 1: I was right! Denied - you don't get it. Unblock 2: I won't edit war again! Denied - not good enough. Unblock 3: I won't edit the article in question for the duration of the block! Denied - you need to not edit war. Unblock 4: I won't edit the article in question for the duration of the block and I will restrict myself to 0rr on the article for a month. Accepted! This is a legitmate use of the unblock template, and is not disruptive. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Based on the suggestion made to me by one admin when I was blocked, unblock requests shouldn't be made until after the block has expired. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a diff of that suggestion? It sounds like you misinterpreted what the admin asked of you, I'd like to see exactly what that admin said... --Jayron32 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right, partially because I wouldn't think that we want users in good standing to wait for an autoblock to expire naturally. Wouldn't the unblock request be unnecessary after the block expired? —Ost (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like somebody was playing a joke on Duncan. Like when some Republicans were trying to convince Democratic voters to go to the polls on November 5, 2008, to distribute the crowds. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a serious suggestion - that I should have waited for the block to expire and then go to ANI instead of using the unblock template.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

Again, we are going on your characterization of the admins comments here. Is there any way you can link to a diff of the actual comment made by the admin, in context with the block, so that we can all judge what was going on. It would make it much easier to judge for ourselves what the admin said and what they may have meant if we could just see their actual comment... --Jayron32 20:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

He is misrepresenting what was said at User_talk:DuncanHill/Archives/2009/November#Unblock_request. Hipocrite (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. What the admin said was that he was denying your unblock request, AND that if DuncanHill wanted to receive additional input on the dispute, he should start a thread at ANI. The request to go to ANI was unrelated to the block, except in a very tangental way. What the admin was doing was telling you the block was merited, he wouldn't unblock, but was also recommending you bring up further issues at ANI rather than at your own talk page. --Jayron32 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)That's a little different than requesting an unblock after the block expired with a similar sentiment, but I can see why that conversation was memorable. —Ost (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes strictly speaking what I was advised was that 1) I'm not meant to request unblock, and 2) Thatcher is allowed to libel my mother. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what was said at all. Inventing your own interpretation of the words stated on your talk page, as cited above, isn't a great idea. --Jayron32 21:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

But an admin like Thatcher using his tools to block someone he is disagreeing with (, and then deliberately and publically libelling my mpother is obviously a great idea. I was advised not to request unblock, and given the utterly useless advice to take an expired block to ANI. One of the amins who denied unblock lied about what I had posted. Sometimes multiple unblock requests are the result of the stupidity and unfamiliarity with the English language of random admins. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

1) If you are going to make accusations that Thatcher libeled your mother, you are going to have to provide diffs which show it. You can't just make statements like that and not back it up. 2) If you are going to say that the admin who declined your unblock request lied, you are going to have to say which statement they made was a lie, and then show another diff which shows it to be a lie. 3) Calling other editors stupid is a personal attack, even if you call them stupid as a group, rather than one at a time. Please don't do that. --Jayron32 21:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. @Duncan, you're not the only victim and Thatcher is not the only admin who has abused his tools in order to silence an opponent. I've seen many innocent (victims) editors who have been wrongfully silenced by questionable blocks. I've seen many innocents denied unblock requests due to sheer laziness (just like Doug used to say) and due to lack of human compassion on the admin's part. One of the worst abusive blocks I have ever seen on wikipedia was just recently, when admin Nick-D blocked a single editor 5 times! Yes 5 times so that Nick's biased POV won out. Thank God he was reported on AN and the innocent editor was unblocked after the community decided that Nick's blocks were "bad". There are many more like Nick-D and Thatcher but nothing is ever done about it. Why? Why are some admins who abuse their tools never held accountable for their actions? @Jayron, you want Duncan to give you diffs so that you can judge what he says? Why not do your homework and find those diffs. Why should Duncan do your job? You're an admin right? If you want the diffs then go and find them. We are not going to do your job. One thing that Doug used to always say about most admins, was that they were "lazy" and to be quite honest he's right about that. There are good admins such as Xeno, Black Kite, AniMate and a few others but they are rare in my opinion. Caden ^cool 23:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Duncan made the accusation, so he needs to provide the evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

That's nonsense Bugs. Jayron needs to do his homework and stop expecting others to do it for him. If he wants those diffs then it's his job to find them. Caden ^cool 00:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Suppose you were taken to court, and then you were told to find the evidence to prove yourself guilty. That's what you're saying Jayron needs to do, and that is nonsense. If someone makes an accusation, they have to back it with diffs, or it's garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're wandering further and further away from the intended purpose of this conversation, which was to discuss revoking talk page access for abuse of the unblock template. Since this three hour long block six months ago did not involve revocation of talk page access or even a suggestion or threat that it might be revoked it seems rather irrelevant to the topic at hand. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The only time an editor should be denied access to a talk page is if that editor is being disruptive or is engaging in vandalism. We at the same time need to be careful when deciding when an editor is being disruptive or just opinionated. the only annoying problem would be the occasional impatient editor asking Am I unblocked yet ?, Am I unblocked yet ?, huh ? huh ? Mlpearc MESSAGE 15:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno about that ... I revoked access this morning for someone who pasted 27 unblock requests in a row, none of which contained any information ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Test case

User talk:Me10122. User is a checkuser-confirmed sock. They have just posted their third almost-identically worded unblock request. They have essentially ignored the previous declines. (disclosure: I declined their first request) Is it time to cut them off and tell them to email arbcom to appeal further? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Bwilkins declined it and revoked talkpage editing, and since he hasn't commented above so might not be aware of the discussion, I left him a note about this and the above. —DoRD (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think I already cut them off. Although, I did change their block to only 5 years, and removed talkpage access in order to give them some time to age accordingly enough that they wished to read/participate/edit in a more grown up manner. Typically, I reserve it for abuse. 3 identical unblock requests showed a lack of anything remotely related to reading WP:GAB or even caring. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a good example of why this tends to happen after three requests. The first one is often declined because the user failed to read GAB or even the block notice. So we decline but leave open the opportunity to try a few more times. I think in this case it's pretty clear the user was a sock, or else why would they have asked in their first ever edit that they not be blocked as one? Yet we gave them three chances to explain this in a satisfactory way, and they did not. In such an obvious case, an argument could be made to revoke after even one request, but this user was given more than adequate opportunity to make their case. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How about this one? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Open Proxies

Why aren't open proxies allowed to edit Wikipedia? Keyboard mouse (talk) 23:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Problem with the way username-only blocks on promotional accounts are being handled

previous discussion of this issue

I think we have a serious problem here. Again and again lately I am seeing users get blocked for their usernames, and they get a template that says Your username is the only reason for this block. You are welcome to choose a new username (emphasis not added). So they come up with a new name, only to find they still can't get unblocked because there actually is another reason they were blocked, which is that they have an obvious WP:COI problem. So, the reviewing admin has to sit there and ask them "what would you edit if we unblocked you?" and "have you reviewed our policy on editing with a conflict of interest." I think this is terribly unfair to the user, who has been told very directly that their username is the only problem. It's also unfair to the reviewing admin, who has two choices: let a user who more than likely intends to spam Wikipedia back in the door, or pepper them with questions to make sure they understand things that the blocking admin should have explained to them in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Thats why we have {{spamusernameblock}}, IMO. Typically I would use {{softerblock}} on someone with an account like User:Macysdepartmentstore if so far all they have edited are articles on insects and their userpage to tell us they are named Mary and like dogs, and use spamusernameblock on User:Macysdepartmentstore if their first edits are external links to Macys. Syrthiss (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC) That's exactly what I don't get about it, we have a perfectly good template that explains both problems, but it's not getting used in many cases. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC) {{uw-ublock}} is designed for a user to change username via WP:CHU. {{uw-softerblock}} is designed for a user to simply create a new account without regard to previous edits on another account. –MuZemike 19:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Uh huh, and what about users who have a username that represents a company, and they edit the page of that company, and someone blocks them and says that their username is the only reason. Pending unblock request from a user who you blocked that fits this situation exactly: User talk:Sungevity. I'm really not in favor of being soft on obvious spammers, and the fact that this is happening again and again would tend to indicate that I'm not the only one who sees it that way. If they have a spam username and are making spam edits, the hard block and thorough explanation of why is the better option. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Even the representative of a company can add descriptive information about their notable products, and it is better that we have the information than that we do not. If they add improperly promotional material or articles about non notable products, then that material can be removed. There is often no clear distinction between what is promotional and what is informative--but it is well established that an article about a product is not necessarily promotional. Blocks as purely-promotional when the material added is reasonable like these discourage people from adding valuable information. Of course, when people persist in actual spamming (such as adding excessivbe links, or advertising material, we certainly should block as only promotional, but not without warning unless the material is flagrantly & outrageously improper DGG ( talk ) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC) I agree. It's great if we have a company representative who can tell us what are actually the company's most relevant products, because we will almost always get that wrong as they often include many low-visibility ones such as spare parts for certain machines that went out of production in the 1970s or some obscure chemical used in the production of PVC. Hans Adler 19:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Then what is the way out of this situation described above? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC) Hans, your statement can read either as a support for DGG's statement or as a sarcastic response. Which one did you intend? :) In general, I am very much against a representative of a company telling us their most relevant products because often they fail to reference to any reliable source other than PR press releases (if they reference at all). In many cases I would think their relevant products are actually reflected in sources external to the company, and could be added without conflict of interest by making a note of them on the talkpage of the article and letting another editor confirm-and-add. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC) I was absolutely serious, but my use of the word "representative" was misleading. What I meant is someone competent from the company editing Wikipedia and helping us to interpret the sources competently. If I happen to know that my employer makes most of its money with a product that is almost unknown, then I am likely to replace "XYZ Widget Ltd is a manufacturer of toy widgets" by "XYZ Widget Ltd is the leading manufacturer of model widgets used in climate modelling and is best known for its line of toy widgets." Then another editor may get a bit suspicious of hype, fail to find a source for "leading" (even though it's true), and the final version may be: "XYZ Widget Ltd is a manufacturer of model widgets for climate modelling but is best known for its line of toy widgets." It's really important for us to distinguish honest, constructive editing of this type from spamming and promotion of products. Hans Adler 09:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC) We have procedures for IPs to request articles. If we let these role accounts do the work, then what is the point of WP:COI or WP:AUTO? Every "marketing"/"public information"/"press office" type insists that they are not spamming us, but providing valuable information that must be in the Wiki! Their profession is such that they are no longer competent (by and large) to distinguish between actual information and the most shameless of plugs; they are incapable of maintaining WP:NPOV. I just blocked a role account with a shameless spamusername that existed solely to insert articles about the company's product; the guy has sent me e-mail plaintively asking why he can't be unblocked so that he can continue to insert articles about his company's products; and DGG (an admittedly fine editor, one I'm proud to work with) feels I should unblock the account for a CHU because some of the products are possibly notable and the spammer brought them to our attention???? --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment

• I don't feel like we've resolved this issue, so I am asking for more input in order to help form a cogent consensus on this matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• To summarize:
• There is an ongoing, daily issue wherein new users are being blocked with a message that says their username is the only problem with their account, only to find when they offer to change their username that the reviewing admin feels they have also engaged in spamming
• Generally, we are encouraged to block for the bigger problem if there is more than one, spamming seems to be more of a serious issue than a promotional username
• Should we simply unblock these users when they agree to change their names since they were told their username was the only problem?
• Should we instead ask them a series of questions to insure they understand our policies on WP:SPAM and WP:COI?
• Should we attempt to educate admins on the nature of this problem in order to reduce it's occurrence?
• Or is it not really that big of a deal after all?

19:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note that there is a previous discussion directly above the RFC header which has been collapsed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The {{Uw-spamublock}} template has the appropriate wording regarding appealing the block and dealing with the promotional username. If there has been a mistake and an admin has mistaken a person for a spammer, the issue should be dealt with up front rather than with confusion over the reason for the block. Abductive (reasoning) 03:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Unblock per WP:ROPE, unless it's clear cut. Gigs (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment – Normally if someone requests a username change for a username-only block, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and unblock, assuming that they will change the username; alternatively, if there are major edits to talk about, simply direct them to create a new account, hoping that the second one also doesn't violate username policy. I'm guessing people still disagree about the practice of blocking accounts that represent the company, organization, etc. with no sign of individual accountability for them, despite that it is against the WMF policy to operate such accounts without the Foundation's approval. –MuZemike 18:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why a block + new name is needed. Surely it's easier to ask them to choose a rename instead:

Welcome to Wikipedia. While you are welcome to edit, your present username appears unsuitable and you need to choose another. We have a policy against usernames that may be misleading, disruptive, or could appear to represent a group, organization or website. The account has been blocked temporarily to prevent this. If you request an unblock giving a username that is acceptable but not in use, your account will be renamed and you will be unblocked and able to continue editing. Please use {{unblock|Please rename me to "NEWNAME" and unblock my account}} to request an unblock, or {{unblock|YOUR REASON}} if you believe your username does meet our username policy. You can check if a proposed rename name is in use here. Last, if your name appears to represent a group, organization or website, please read our guideline on Conflict of Interest and take care to edit appropriately. Ask for help if you need it! Thank you.

A username rename block at the start of editing will not usually be a long term problem. Editors' conduct tends to count much more than poor choice of initial name. So I'd suggest simply telling them to propose a rename, then rename and unblock. Any further behavioral issue can be handled when they edit. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just so we're clear here, the particular scenario under discussion is a new user who is using a name which obviously represents a company or other organization, and that user has made promotional edits to pages related to that organization, but they are sent a block notice that only mentions the username issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Use a variant on a normal template with | coi=yes and some suitable extra text, maybe? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• I have long since thought this process was poor. No one should be blocked without a warning. If a username is spammy, ask them to change their username, tell them how to ask, and give them the responsibility to demonstrate responsibility. Block only if they continue despite the wanring(s). The current method blocks, which is a shocking thing the first time, which, with the instructions of the template, encourages the spammer to become a sockpuppeteer, thus discouraging the newcomer from genuinely joining the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

  I disagree. The burned hand teaches best. Someone from XYZ Inc who makes an account XYZ Inc and makes a page XYZ Inc that extols the virtues of XYZ Inc and only has external links to XYZINC.COM as their first action instead of taking time to read our guidelines needs to be pulled up short. At best, they realize that maybe they can contribute to an article about XYZ Inc in a non-COI way... ask for an unblock or create a new account... and contribute. At worst, they do as you say and start socking to continue spamming. In that second case, if it is obvious spam they'll end up blocked again with a {{spamblock}} instead and maybe get a blacklist for their site to boot. Syrthiss (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree back. More than once, I found a blocked username, blocked for being a promotional username for a company. It was blocked, and there was no unblock request. The template block message suggested going to a non-spammy username (it suggested the spammer start socking). Sure enough, he did. The spam was cleverer the second time. What this does is teaches spammers what spam doesn't work, thus how to be better spammer, and with each hiccup, there is no record linking the earlier clumsy spamming accounts to the maturing spamming accounts. The process is contrary to the spirit of one editor, one account. I tried tracking, with a view to documenting, but it was hopeless, with spotted accounts simply abandoned, and renamed accounts so difficult to connect to previous account names. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, when spamming is not a serious issue but could become one, I use User:Moonriddengirl/Name as a block notice on blocking promotional usernames. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • That's an example of what I call poor practice. Encouraging users to create a new account in the first instance of encountering a problem with an admin is to teach the newcomers the concept of socking. If the user can be unblocked for 24 hours on request, why not let the user edit for another 24 hours on condition that he request Wikipedia:Changing username#Simple? We should always suggest to newcomers that preserving their contribution history (not socking, leads to WP:Copyrights issues) is the thing to do. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
    • That's an example of standard practice. My template is based on Template:Uw-ublock, as it says, and that's the reason why the pull-down menu at WP:UAA includes the "softblock" which permits new account creation. (The difference between my message and that template, of course, being that my message broaches the topic of COI editing.) I imagine that one reason for not automatically bestowing a 24-hour grace period is that it requires at least twice the efforts from admins or Wikipedians. I don't know the stats for people who request unblocking to change their username, but I would be surprised if they were not quite a bit lower than the number of people blocked via WP:UAA every day. And what of the user who returns 24 1/2 hours after the notice? Or two weeks? It seems like generating busywork for Wikipedians. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is standard practice, and I come here thinking there were thoughts to change standard practice. I note that you are working with an implied premise that it is an administrator who firsts notices a spammy username in action. I think current practice is for non-admins to ignore such things because an admin will deal with it. If there were a template along the lines "Your username appears too spammy. Please request a change of username, or explain why this one is suitable. If you continue without responding, you are likely to be blocked", then any editor could make the first step. Instead of "busywork", I see an opportunity to start a conversation with a newcomer. Also, I think that a spammy username can be viewed as an honest declaration of a COI, which is something we can work with. If only more editors declared their COI? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
        • • Perhaps there are thoughts to change standard practice, but the question here initially concerned individuals who were blocked for usernames (a "no fault" block) when they were also spamming (a different situation). I advocate informing everyone blocked for using a promotional username of COI policies. The current block template does not mention COI, and they may be understandably confused on creating the new account to find that they are still not allowed to control their articles. If non-admins ignored these names, we wouldn't get the backlogs at WP:UAA that we do. I don't know the ratio of names blocked directly to names reported by non-admins, but the numbers of the latter seem plenty high. We also have names reported by a very active bot. I've considered the fact that COI usernames at least put intention on the table, but they have other effects as well. They imply an authority to other editors who are not familiar with WP:COI (User:JoeNewcomer may argue a point of verifiability with User:RandomGuy, but figure that User:TrademarkedName knows what he's doing). And they subtly promote the entity for which they are named every time they edit. If User:TimeWarnerCable engages in frequent conversation at ANI, it's like plastering the place with billboards. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
            • "Advocate informing everyone blocked for using a promotional username of COI policies". agree
            • "COI usernames at least put intention on the table, but they have other effects as well". agree. Whether blocked immediately or something, they should change their usernames.
            • RE: Individuals who both have a spammy username and are spamming. They should receive a message about both. Only when they ignore warnings should they be blocked. Unless the spamming is so bad that you just can't AGF. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are many who see Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising or self-promotion (for lack of a better word), ignoring whatever we say (e.g. in the article wizard) about how Wikipedia is not for advertising or editing in conflict of interest. Yes, the current system to control newly-registered spammers (immediately blocking promotional usernames that have edited) is inadequate, since some spammers will just request a rename or create a second account to continue the spamming or COI editing. It makes sense that spammers should not be allowed or encouraged to create another account (i.e. engage in sockpuppetry). Therefore, I propose:

• Adopting a policy that forbids blocking registered users with the intent of allowing them to create sockpuppets
• If a user's first contribution(s) is spam or editing in apparent COI, delete the spam or revert the edits if appropriate
  • Inform the user of Wikipedia's applicable policies and provide alternatives to spamming (e.g. writing requested articles or adding a listing to an online business directory such as Yellowikis)
• If the user resubmits the spam a second time or continues to edit in COI, block the user, not allowing sockpuppetry or a username change to avoid such block

The best way to handle username blocks would be to make it easier to rename an account properly and promptly rather than resorting to sockpuppetry, even if it means allowing all administrators to rename accounts rather than just bureaucrats. Users should be allowed to post rename requests on their talk pages so that no temporary unblocking is necessary. PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree that it would be very handy to permit rename request on their talk pages (brilliant idea, actually), but they aren't engaging in sockpuppetry unless we create a policy to disallow it. We permit people to abandon one account and start another unless the user is under a cloud; while a name block is (obviously) a block, it doesn't imply any kind of cloud unless the behavior is also problematic. Not everybody who uses a company name or group name actually is intending to violate COI. We do, after all, still allow people to edit articles related to their organizations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the whole "encouraging sockpuppetry" thing is a red herring. Sock accounts are by definition intended to deceive. If we say "you can't use that username pick another one" then they are not being deceptive when they do just that, they are being co-operative. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

If, however, the user is blocked for spamming and then creates a third account, that is sockpuppetry. The "slippery slope" (well, if I was allowed to create a second account, I can create a third) is what many object to. PleaseStand ^(talk) 19:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I've long found our way of handling user names named after a company or organisation a little counterproductive. If someone registers an account named after their company or organisation, this actually aids transparency in a way, and may often be done quite innocently. It is at least honest; in a way I prefer that to someone from a PR department registering as "Green Lightning" or something like that.

• I would suggest that people who have openly declared with their user name that they are editing on behalf of an organisation should not have being blocked as their first experience of Wikipedia, but be asked to kindly rename their account, with an explanation why (this of course includes the fact that users may call themselves User:IBM while not having any real-life connection to IBM at all).
• The old account name should be made a redirect to the new account name, with the contributions history transferred to the new account. The admin should help them do that. It aids transparency.
• Any spamming should be addressed separately from the user name issue, but again should be done in a friendly way first, with a link to COI policy, V, RS etc. That way you build understanding and get buy-in and good-will, rather than resentment and efforts to circumvent a seemingly draconian system that may leave many of those concerned feeling they have been treated unfairly.

Remember, if the system feels overly harsh to the novice editor out there – so they feel righteous in thinking "What an asshole that Wikipedia admin was" – they will have no qualms of conscience about trying to circumvent the system that this admin represents. It's bad psychology: they feel that we are in the wrong, and they are in the right. The whole dynamic starts out on the wrong foot, and in the end it creates more work for us later. We should assume good faith first. --JN466 13:45, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just think ... my initials are BMW, and my sig used to say BMW. My bot is named after a BMW series. But, I'm not related to the car company. I don't think I've even edited BMW-related articles. "Ian Broderick Mendez" may indeed register "IBM" ... "Franklyn Brownrigg-Indus" may register "FBI" ... and so on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. IBM was a bad example. But if someone registers as User:XYAidFoundation or User:FredSmithCongressionalCampaign, then we have no way of knowing if the users are in fact related to any corresponding real-life entities. If they make controversial edits, this reflects badly on their namesakes; unjustifiedly so if the user is unrelated to them. Hence they should rename their accounts. --JN466 16:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, proper renames aid transparency because they are logged, while sockpuppets are not. Promotional usernames, to an extent, do not actually harm the project; spamming and COI editing do, therefore we should not block based on the username but rather on spamming/COI behavior. The importance of promotional usernames is that they provide some limited evidence that the user came to Wikipedia to spam or edit in COI. My main current concern is that we need a way to identify potential spammers and COI editors and react promptly to problematic contributions. If it were possible to flag their edits for additional scrutiny, we would be less inclined to immediately block the accounts to try to prevent another spam/COI edit from slipping by. PleaseStand ^(talk) 17:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Consensus can change, but the last RfC of a year ago found opposition to ending the blocking of promotional usernames. (See Wikipedia talk:Username policy/Blatant Promotion RfC) This would suggest to me that there may be some strong feelings on the subject. Not sure if that's where this is headed, but in case so I wanted to suggest that before we consider such actions in this RfC, we would probably want to craft a more on-topic statement above, as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines currently lists as the topic of this conversation "I don't feel like we've resolved this issue, so I am asking for more input in order to help form a cogent consensus on this matter", which is a bit vague. :) Also, I think for a policy change that major we'd want to notify the people who watch the policy at WT:UN and probably WP:VPP. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Also note DGG's comment above, in the collapsed section. Some editors who openly include their company name in their user name do make useful edits. --JN466 10:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I seem to be having trouble getting folks to understand that the purpose of this RFC is to discuss users who have a username that identifies them as representing an organization and have made promotional edits to a page related to that organization, only to be blocked only for their username. That one specific circumstance, which repeats on a daily basis, is the issue this RFC is supposed to be discussing, not users who make good contributions with a bad username. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll go back to your original question series; my reply is germane but probably not expansive enough. :) I believe that every block notice for a promotional username should include information about COI. That's why I include it as my standard practice. Personally, I rarely hardblock, even if a contributor's edits have been slightly spammy, but that may be because I'm working at WP:UAA, and contributors are asked to list spam problems elsewhere. I may just not be seeing the hardcore spammers. I will not block a user as a spammer if a user's edits would only have inspired a warning from me were the user's name not promotional. If I encountered an unblock request for a rename from a promotional username that I thought had crossed the spam line, I would at least advise them of the COI issue. I hadn't considered it before, but perhaps it would be appropriate to remove the unblock request, leave a note explaining WP:COI and advising them to replace the unblock notice after they've read the policies. If the spam was truly egregious, I might decline to block at all. But, note, that in either of these cases we are actually better off if the requested name change goes through. That way, their history of spam - and your warnings about it - will follow them. Even if you just grant the unblock request with a note about COI, that note will be on their new user talk page after the rename and in their user history. If you see promotional edits that may not cross the line of egregious, you might just presume that the blocking administrator did not find them egregious. If you see something you consider egregious in that case, you probably should talk to the blocking admin to remind them that the worse offense takes precedence. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The spammy edits and the necessary renaming of the account should be considered two different issues and handled separately. What Moonriddengirl says above strikes me as a sound rationale: "I will not block a user as a spammer if a user's edits would only have inspired a warning from me were the user's name not promotional." I see no point in punishing users for having used a company name in their user name, treating them more harshly than they would have been treated if they had been named User:Green Lightning or whatever. Blocking the user name as a punishment for spammy edits really fails on two counts -- (1) the user does not understand what the real problem is, thinking instead that the issue is the user name, and (2) it is unnecessarily harsh if another user would not have had his account blocked for the same edits. Hope this addresses the issue you are concerned about more clearly. --JN466 03:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I think your point is so obvious that there is little to say. Users who have a username that identifies them as representing an organization and have made promotional edits to a page related to that organization, when blocked, should be blocked we explicit reference to all contributing reasons. To leave out one of the reasons is to imply that that one reasons is not a blockable offense. Agree with Moonriddengirl that linking to WP:COI is a very good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad somebody else finds it obvious, because it is apparently less than obvious to some admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming they would be able to while blocked, one could link to the signup form to allow them to make their new account. This would also leave a log record to help track/link the old name to the new name, similar to the ACC accounts I have created. Not sure how useful/practical it would be, just a thought. ^Avicenna_sis tb? @ 21:39, 3 Tamuz 5770 / 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Questionable change to policy

Added 27 feb 2010: If a user is blocked indefinitely, he or she is considered a banned user until an administrator unblocks the user.

I can't find any discussion of this. I think it needs discussing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree that there is a strong distinction between a block and a ban. The most obvious instance I can think of is usernames that are soft indef blocked. Those users are most certainly not banned and are even encouraged to get a new name. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is directly contrary to policy, and the next sentence contained a more nuanced and accurate description, so I've removed that sentence. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought that change had been reversed some time ago - they were making some odd policy additions. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocking sockpuppets

Instead of blocking sockpuppets forever, maybe we should block them for about 1-5 years because the sockpuppeteer would have learned their lesson after such a long time. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The actual sock puppets must be blocked and remain blocked by definition. The sock puppeteer can appeal their block in the usual manner at any time. It's a flawed assumtion to think everyone learns their lesson, prisons are full of repeat offenders. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.94.158.203, 6 June 2010

 Not done

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

{{editsemiprotected}}

I am going to change

• autoblock will prevent contributors from contributing on the IP address that the blocked user was using, and should typically be disabled when blocking unapproved or malfunctioning bots (so as not to block the bot's operator), though it should be enabled when blocking malicious bots. (This feature is enabled by default.)
• prevent account creation will prevent accounts from being created by the account; if autoblock is enabled, it will also prevent accounts from being created on the IP address that the blocked user was using. It should typically be disabled when blocking accounts with inappropriate names (to allow the user to create an account with an appropriate name), though it should be enabled when blocking bad-faith names (for example, clear attacks on other users) or vandalism-only accounts.
• block e-mail will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature (still, in instances when an admin feels email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion). When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the unblock-en-l mailing list) through which he can discuss the block.

to

• autoblock will prevent contributors from contributing on the IP address that the blocked user was using for 24 hours from when the user was blocked, and should typically be disabled when blocking unapproved or malfunctioning bots (so as not to block the bot's operator), though it should be enabled when blocking malicious bots. (This feature is enabled by default.)
• prevent account creation will prevent accounts from being created by the user for the duration of the block. It should typically be disabled when blocking accounts with inappropriate names (to allow the user to create an account with an appropriate name), though it should be enabled when blocking bad-faith names (for example, clear attacks on other users) or vandalism-only accounts.
• block e-mail will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature though it should be used by default when blocking bad-faith usernames. (still, in instances when an admin feels email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion). When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the unblock-en-l mailing list) through which he can discuss the block.

71.94.158.203 (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I've not seen any discussion or WP:CONSENSUS to make these changes, and it's not all correct either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is correct because autoblock will suspend the ability for editing to occur on that IP address, prevent account creation prevents the user from creating accounts for the duration of the block, and block e-mail should be used by default when blocking bad-faith usernames to prevent the user from sending e-mail. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 19:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done If you would like to discuss those changes we can do that, but as BWilkins said they are not supported by consensus at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that the user is trying to specify wheter an option affects them: for 24 hours/for the duration of the block. Isabel25 (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I will assume that the IP editor wished to generate discussion, here we are:

First proposal discussion

“ autoblock will prevent contributors from contributing on the IP address that the blocked user was using for 24 hours from when the user was blocked, and should typically be disabled when blocking unapproved or malfunctioning bots (so as not to block the bot's operator), though it should be enabled when blocking malicious bots. (This feature is enabled by default.) ”

• Comment: This is the addition of "for 24 hours from when the user was first blocked". What purpose would this serve, other than to permit the vandal/their sock/the person who needs to properly be unblocked to file a WP:UNC to come back 24 hours later, unscathed, and able to continue their pattern of editing - thus requiring additional administrator action to track down the problems, fix them, and re-block again. Unnecessary addition. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It will be good even though it will encourage vandals to resume vandalizing because it tells that if you are autoblocked, you are only autoblocked for 24 hours from when the user was blocked. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Second proposal discussion

“ prevent account creation will prevent accounts from being created by the user for the duration of the block. It should typically be disabled when blocking accounts with inappropriate names (to allow the user to create an account with an appropriate name), though it should be enabled when blocking bad-faith names (for example, clear attacks on other users) or vandalism-only accounts. ”

• Comment: This seems to add a complexity change the meaning related to autoblock being enabled. Unnecessary addition removal . (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How does it make it more difficult to understand? It is more clear because it says that it will disable the user from creating accounts for the duration of the block. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Third proposal discussion

“ block e-mail will disable the user from accessing Special:Emailuser for the duration of the block. This option should not be used by default when blocking an account, but rather it should only be used in cases of abuse of the "email this user" feature though it should be used by default when blocking bad-faith usernames. (still, in instances when an admin feels email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion). When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the unblock-en-l mailing list) through which he can discuss the block. ”

• Comment: This merely adds though it should be used by default when blocking bad-faith usernames - this is already covered in the "admin discretion" phrase already. Unnecessary addition. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Clarification on policy: Should administrators supply diffs when blocking?

"Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason which indicates why a user was blocked." In general, should administrators provide diffs to demonstrate the behavior that has led to the block? I think they should. How else are editors to know what specific edits led to the block. Better to show diffs which illustrate someone being UNCIVIL then to simply assert that an editor has violated WP:CIVIL. Does "specific block reason" cover that? If not, should the phrasing be changed to "specific block reason (including relevant diffs)"? David.Kane (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Providing diffs is actually counterproductive in serial sockpuppeteer blocks (such as those for JI Hawkins and Brucejenner) as it leads them to alter their modus operandi. For other blocks not related to socking, I can get behind this, provided the diff link does not exceed 255 characters (the limit for a block rationale). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 02:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose adding that text, as the existing wording already demands a specific reason and diffs often form a part of that anyway. Making diffs mandatory, however, adds an unnecessary additional layer of paperwork to the process, slowing it down and possibly giving vandals an "out". Other editors are always free to ask for diffs if they feel the stated reason is unclear. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• As with so many other things, this should be decided on a case-by-case basis and not codified in a new unnecessary rule. If a diff is required to understand the reason for the block, fine, but that is often not the case. If the user requests unblock and neither the blocked user not the reviewing admin can understand why the user is blocked, then obviously the blocking admin did a poor job of explaining themselves, diffs or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:51, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Second that. Usually a quick review of the edit history unearths reasons for the block ... in fact, sometimes you find reasons beyond those given by the blocking admin. If you can't understand what's going on, that's what {{unblock on hold}} is about. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Child protection

Due to long discussion at WP:Pedophilia (a page which has recently been unilaterally declared a policy by a small group, with the attendant drama which such a move must inevitably cause), it seems that there is a general practice of immediately blocking people for "self-declaring as pedophiles" as well as for advocating sexual relationships with children or attempting to use Wikipedia to pursue such. (That page also explains how such blocks should be made.) In order to avoid creating a new policy page for this spefici issue, I've proposed that this information be moved to this page - probably somewhere around the "Protection" section. What do people here think? (In fact I think I might just boldly add the information - if intending to revert, please consider that Jimbo and ArbCom members have made it clear that this is indeed what actually happens and is de facto policy.)--Kotniski (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have it here rather than on its own page. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nice and tidy here - hopefully the dramafest won't follow it.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

@Hobit (who just edited on the policy page) - perhaps use 'inappropriate' again? Or is it too weaselly?--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-identification

Without intending to start any "drama", I still have a serious problem with the "self-identification" clause. There's no clear indication of what that means, raising the serious spectre of someone being blocked for inadvertently letting slip a phrasing that implies pedophiliac tendencies, whether accurate or not. As it reads right now, someone could, in the course of validly discussing pedophilia-related articles, accidentally use the first-person, and be immediately and permanently blocked without discussion. Surely I'm not the only one who sees a problem with that?

The wording also fails to define the term, leaving open the question of whether ephebophiliacs are covered by this policy or not.

-- Powers ^T 12:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a fair point, and can probably be traced back to a 2006 case where a userbox declared that the user was a pedophile/supported the legalization of pedophilia.[4] This would violate community consensus, but would not involve legal and medical debates that are beyond the scope of policy. As the saying goes, comment on content, not the contributor.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that is a potential risk, albeit a small one. Self-identification on Wikipedia is essentially viewed as disruptive - why would you want to say it if you didn't want to start trouble, which it is pretty much bound to do. I do have sympathy with varying age of consent issues, but the current Arbcom members who have commented in earlier discussions have shown common sense here. Most 'self identification' is by posting at other sites, in a way which removes any doubt as to whether we are looking at ateenage couple or someone proposing to have sex with a six year old. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But why let the policy be open to such judgment calls? Obviously, the ArbCom has a significant level of trust with the community, but this is maintained primarily because they keep transparent as much of their proceedings as possible. With these blocks, there is very little transparency, if any, and simply trusting them to do "the right thing" sits poorly (especially given the moral panic that engendered the policy in the first place). I really think that we need some clarification from those who imposed this policy on us as to whether (just as an example) someone can be blocked for saying, on another site, that they find a 14-year-old starlet attractive. Powers ^T 17:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection#This_is_policy. As Jimbo points out, the reason for handing the matter over to ArbCom is to prevent unnecessary witch hunts and lawsuits. Like all Wikipedia policies, WP:BLOCK is intended to be interpreted with common sense, and it is unlikely that anyone would face a permanent block for a Romeo and Juliet violation.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

But unlike other policies, actions taken under this one are not subject to community review. As such, it's reasonable to expect it to be much better defined than other policies. Powers ^T 18:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Community review is fine for most policies and decisions, but public discussions about whether User:John Doe has pedophile tendencies could easily snowball into a witch hunt, a lawsuit or both. The wording of the policy could be tweaked, but the basic principle could not. This has to be a matter for ArbCom.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Please try to focus on the point I'm actually making, rather than assuming I'm rehashing the argument from recent days. As I stated, actions taken under this policy (not "supposed policy") are not subject to community review (not "should be subject to community review"). As such (a phrase used to indicate acceptance of the previous statement as true), it's reasonable to expect it to be very well and carefully defined. The fact that the "basic principle" cannot be "tweaked" is irrelevant to the question of whether or not the policy as handed down from on-high is clear and unambiguous. Powers ^T 19:06, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not a member of ArbCom and cannot comment on how it would go about handling an allegation that a user had pedophile tendencies. Is there any way that you would like the policy/wording on this issue to be modified?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes; I would like it modified to clearly define the terms in use and the parameters under which this power will be wielded. Powers ^T 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, tough one. We are already arguing about what "inappropriate" means at Wikipedia_talk:Child_protection#inappropriate.3F.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:45, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Powers, I see what your concerns are. However, sometimes you just have to go with Rule 37[5] It is for either umpire to decide whether any obstruction or distraction is wilful or not. He shall consult the other umpire if he has any doubt. Only casuistry can determine whether a particular incident is sinister, legal but tasteless, a grey area where no action will be taken (two married 16 year olds in Bradford, perfectly legal even if the State of Florida would have a hissy), or a huge misunderstanding (no, actually they are characters in a novel). Wikipedia isn't a court of law - if the policy is followed, all we are talking about is stopping people using the site.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

... Something we generally take extremely seriously, even when full transparency is available. When transparency is not possible, I hardly think I'm alone in wanting to know what the bounds are. Someone caught inadvertently in this net faces a nightmare scenario attempting to redeem his good (user)name. And in any case, I don't think it's unreasonable to at least expect the terms being used in a policy-by-fiat to be defined. People have blocked under this policy for some time -- there must be some criteria in use to determine when to block and when not to. Whether a particular pitch was inside the strike zone or not is up to the umpire's judgment, but the strike zone is still well defined in the rulebook. Powers ^T 00:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's fair enough. Looking at how it has been deployed in the past, recent "self-identified" targets seem all to be people identified by an off-site agency (eg Wikisposure). Wikisposure focuses on identifying individuals who are members of paedophile forums (Boylove etc) - it then tries to track them forward through other websites, and also backwards to name, address etc, and reports of any prosecutions. Probably to avoid the same kind of problems you are discussing, it focuses on those attracted to youngsters well under the age of consent - around 12 years old seems to be their cutoff point, as I couldn't see any entries on people who were solely interested in 14year olds and above. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think we have ever blocked someone for supporting an adjustment to the age of consent within the parameter spread found in Europe (the lowest age in any European country is 14 for girls), supporting equalisation of age for gay and straight sex acts (there was quite a campaign for that in the UK in 1996-7). I'm not aware of any recent accidental outings, but past comments from past Arbs suggests that they are well aware that there is a spread of ages of consent, and they do look at whether something is legal in the person's home country. Most of Europe has lower ages of consent than most of the US, so it is not uncommon to find Europeans raising eyebrows on the subject. In the intense debate around Roman Polanski, no-one was blocked for arguing that Polanski should not be described as a paedophile, or not be described as a child-molester, although several people were blocked for being generally disruptive. All of which does seem to show a level of common sense.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

But without clearly defined terms, conditions, and limits, there's no way to ensure that that will continue. (And who knows how many blocks have been made under this policy, anyway; we simply don't know how many unreasonable blocks have been made because they're not traceable.) Powers ^T 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So what do you want it to say?Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Self-identification" is likely to be taken as meaning the advocating or pursuing of relationships that are a) illegal in most jurisdictions and b) fall well outside the range of a Romeo and Juliet defence. Most Wikipedians are not legal and medical experts, and common sense would have to be used in blocking policy.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, ideally, I'd prefer not to have the policy at all. But given that the policy is in place and immutable, it should make sure that it's clear and that it doesn't use vaguely defined words like "pedophilia". I can't suggest specific wording because I don't know what the actual policy is. Powers ^T 18:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the actual policy. Jimbo saith "and lo, anyone who sef-identifieth as a paedophile, he shall be blocked forever."Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

And so we come back around to my original post: "There's no clear indication of what that means." Powers ^T 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo has been asked for clarification on his talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No clarification is needed. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we do not need to formulate rules that would cover all possible eventualities. If a user accidentally says something (or if their kid brother thinks it would be hilarious to type silly stuff while the editor is out of the room), the user may end up blocked. However, they can email arbcom and appeal. They just need to explain the circumstances, and point out that they do not have any kind of history of pedophilia advocacy. They would then be unblocked. Or, perhaps an injustice would occur and a rogue admin handling the appeal might maintain the block. Such injustice could occur to someone who appears to be a vandal or sockpuppet right now (if the kid brother put enough nonsense on the user's talk page, talk would also be blocked). There won't be a perfect organization any time soon; fortunately this is a website and we do not get to actually lock people up, so relying on good faith volunteers to handle appeals is adequate, and as good as it gets. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo was asked for his views here, because there has been a whole day of debate on this important issue with no sign of a consensus. Also, it has started to resemble a typical Wikipedia "round in circles" debate.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the policy being clear but, as I seem to keep saying, our consensus here is irrelevant. Editors who have concerns about the content and substance of the policy should address their concerns directly to Jimbo, Sue Gardner, ARBCOM, or the WMF. Allowing these discussions to continue endlessly here is not helpful - opinions are not being heard by the people who are able to alter the policy, and these discussions have become a vehicle for complete speculation about what ARBCOM would or wouldn't do in a given situation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

While I would love to alter the policy, that's not what I'm asking for here. I'm asking that our description of the policy be explicit about what behavior is disallowed, and that includes making sure that all of the terms used are clearly defined. "Pedophile" is not a well-defined term, as it can have a number of different meanings. Powers ^T 15:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with your viewpoint, but the only people who can give you an informed reply to your concerns may not be reading this page (and if they are, they are apparently not offering a response). The only thing you are likely to get here is more speculation and personal opinion. My suggestion is that you direct your questions to the appropriate people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This section needs a warning

This section needs a warning that it is not subject to community consensus, and the policy itself may not be amended or deleted. It was placed here on the basis that 'it is what it is' (as Kotniski outlines above), but the rest of the page may be substantially amended or even deleted entirely if the community consensus changes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree, since the userbox wheel war over this was one of the most divisive episodes in Wikipedia's history. Let's not put a smile on our critics' faces.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to prevail upon Jimbo and the board to formally adopt and publish some kind of site-wide policy about this (i.e. not specific to English Wikipedia)? It seems a bit daft to decree rules designed to protect children, but only those who speak English. --Kotniski (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to ask Jimbo about this on his talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 15:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Should warnings be a prerequisite to blocking in the case of established editors?

Consider this line: "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking." I heartily agree that warnings should not be a prerequisite for blocking in general. There are too many vandals, especially from IP addresses, that need to be quickly blocked. But I think that the standard should be different for "established editors," where the exact meaning of "established" is left to the the discretion of any admin. I think that, before an admin blocks as established user, she ought to warn him. If he, in the admin's judgment, continues the objectionable editing, then, by all means block him. But a warning (again, only for established editors, those who, say, have been editing at Wikipedia more than a year and for more than 1,000 edits) would need to come first.

Before I suggest specific language, I would be curious about other opinions. (And, although this idea has come from both recent and long past experience on my part, I don't think that the specifics of my case, and those I have witnessed, are important.) The main cost, obviously, is that it makes blocking established editors more of a hassle for admins. But is that a bad thing? I think blocking established users happens (sometimes) too quickly, that some admins block without looking closely at the case. Again, this is perfectly appropriate in the case of new users. But established users, because of their long association with Wikipedia, deserve some deference. Moreover, many times a warning will be enough. The less that admins are forced to use blocks, the better. Comments? David.Kane (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is reason to believe that a user should be aware that their behavior would get them blocked, and they commited that behavior anyways, they should get the expected result. If a user has been blocked for edit warring on multiple occasions, they have been warned. Also, with established editors, it is best to engage in a conversation rather than a warning. Let users know their behavior is a problem without placing them in a defensive position. "Hey, I noticed you are doing XXXX. I don't think that's a good idea, and here's why..." is much better than substing a template on their talk page. Warnings should never be a requirement; admins can decline to block without warnings, but they should not be forced to decline a block in the absense of warnings. Admins are assumed to have a high level of competance and discernment, and should be able to read the situation enough to decide if and when a block is needed. --Jayron32 03:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Also, with established editors, it is best to engage in a conversation rather than a warning." I agree. My concern is wit admins who decline to do so. If there was a policy in place, which required any contact from the would-be blocking admin --- whether that was a warning or a conversation or anything else --- then the admin would have to do what she ought to be doing anyway.

"Admins are assumed to have a high level of competance and discernment" Well, that is obviously not true 100% of the time, is it? Again, it seems that we both agree that an admin ought not to block an established editor out of the blue. Given that, what is the cost for making it a requirement? We are just requiring admins to do what they ought to do anyway.

"reason to believe that a user should be aware that their behavior would get them blocked" Isn't that awful hazy? Is the reason that another editor complained about the behavior? Or similar behavior? Yesterday or last year or three years ago? And the phrase "their behavior" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. Many editors, even established ones, don't think that hey are, say, being "disruptive" even though any admin might, in good faith, think so. Why wouldn't a good admin --- not one interested in punishing bad behavior --- seek a warning/conversation before blocking.

Thanks for your comments. David.Kane (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some background to the issue of the recent blocking of David Kane can be seen at ANI617. In particular, notice the Stop this section at the end where the admin who recently blocked David Kane wrote "Anyone not already under a 1RR restriction in Race and Intelligence issues should consider yourself under one now" (that is sufficient warning). And here is an even longer, earlier discussion which showed plenty of editors who were ready to support a topic ban of various SPA editors from the race and intelligence pages. The case is now at arbcom. Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No warning and no prior contact by the blocking admin need to be required. Imposing such a requirement would just be an extra layer of unnecessary bureaucratic creep. The distinction between an "established" and "non-established" user is often rather ambiguous. Plus there are many SPA users who often are somewhere in between. More importantly, there are loads of cases where a particular editor has had a long record of warnings, blocks, and problematic editing preceding a given block, where there have been numerous prior warnings by admins and other users. In such a case there is no reason for the blocking admin to issue a new warning or to engage in a new discussion (even if the admin has had no contacts with the user in question before) before issuing a block. Nsk92 (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking account creation for dynamic addresses

I just blocked a dynamic IP address which has, as far as I checked, only done vandalism in 18 months, and I kept "account creation blocked" checked. Now I'm wondering: What if at some time some honest person gets that IP address assigned, what will they have to do in order to edit? Will they get a helpful message? — Sebastian 23:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They will see this screen, with {{anonblock}} (fully transcluded) or whatever your summary was in the field where $2 is now. NW (Talk) 23:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Alternate Accounts

There appears to be a situation not covered in the policy. Specifically, when a user is blocked, should his/her alternate accounts and/or bots also be blocked? —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Would probably depend on the circumstances surrounding the block. –xeno^talk 17:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see were something like a cooling-off block wouldn't necessarily require all-around blocking. Still, it might not be a bad idea to think about documenting when to and when not to. I'll openly admit that I'm bringing this up in response to a concern on another wiki where we use Wikipedia policy as a fallback when we don't have a specific policy of our own. But I figure that if we're having the issue of someone bringing up whether or not blocking alternate accounts violates policy, it's only a matter of time before someone here does so as well. —RobinHood70 ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Template:Schoolblock

Minor edits to the above template are proposed at Template talk:Schoolblock. --Bsherr (talk) 03:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

deleting sources and promoting bias

this user User:ElComandanteChe has been very active in promoting bias and propaganda by deleting sources and references such as Rawabi and Taybeh, please take an action against this user. Thanks--213.6.11.49 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No WP:CANVASsing. There is already a WP:ANI about it (and especially your actions there too!). DMacks (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible amendment

There have been a number of contentious unblocks at AN/I, where an administrator unblocked without consultation with the blocking admin or any advance notice while the matter was being discussed at AN/I. After some brief discussion at WT:CIVILITY (all over the map here!) a possible amendment to address this issue:

Administrators are urged to consult with each other, and with others as necessary. As Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, one's own opinions should not override ongoing community discussion. Accordingly, it is wheel warring to undo a block without consultation with the blocking administrator, or else posting to the blocking administrator's talk page and waiting one hour, unless the administrator has stated he has no problem with his block being undone. If there is an ongoing discussion of the block at AN/I, the block may be undone if consensus is achieved. Absent that consensus, it is wheel warring for an administrator to unblock the user unless one hour's notice is given both at the AN/I thread and the blocking administrator's talk page. While it is possible there could be emergency conditions which justify an immediate unblock, it is for the unblocking administrator to justify his conduct under those circumstances. An unblock for "unambiguous error" is limited to cases where the blocking administrator clearly meant to take another action than the one he did; it is not to be done to reverse a judgment call, such as whether a comment is sufficiently uncivil to justify a block.

All that is being sought is to slow down the "cowboy admin" process a bit, by requiring a short wait before a unilateral unblock. Those so minded can sit hands over their eyes for an hour and then proceed with the unblock. If there is a flood of "bad block" comments to the thread, the hour need not be waited. It's fair to all, whether the blocked user is an admin or no, and the safety valve is the standard appeal to ArbCom. Not seeking an up/down vote right now, just to see if there it seems generally a good idea, move forward in a more formal way, and of course, some refinement to the language would not be a bad idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We used to have something like that in the policy, but it seems to have been watered down a little. So yes, I would support your suggestion. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We formerly had an entire section which was removed, I don't know when - I would have certainly discussed it with the remover had I seen it - which read as:

• link

If you disagree with a block

If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discussing the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended. Blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of injustice, and because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's contributions what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin if they are available.

Exceptions to this would be where an unambiguous error has been made (not a judgment call) and the blocking admin is not online: for example, if a user was blocked for 3RR, but there were clearly only three reverts. If the blocking admin is not available, you should notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and possibly a note to WP:AN/I.

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not bad, but a little more teeth in it wouldn't hurt. Talk of WP:WHEEL scares admins. I ought to know. I wonder how that section came to be removed?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Here: [6]. –xeno^talk 20:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) :Ok, after some dif digging: In April 2007, it was removed completely as part of a huge rewrite.[7] Does anyone feel it would be helpful to go digging back in the talk page history for Apr 2007 to see if there was any discussion, or do you all simply want to move forward? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's move forward. It's pointless to worry about what happened three years ago. We can simply note the fact in discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, in starting with the old verbiage, I don't care for the "example" because EW can be for less than 3RR - one does not need a "bright line". I'm fine with the firt para; I'm perfectly open to more teeth but prefer concise rather than verbose. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that myself. I agree.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

After three years, I don't think that the discussion would properly represent current consensus. You can probably save yourself the effort... (iow, what Wehwalt said, now that I've actually caught up...) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Let me state this: it's one thing to respond to an unblock request, WP:AGF, and unblock based on what you see. It's a 180 degree different to unilaterally state "bad block, I'm undoing it" after either a) seeing the block, or b) having the block referred to WP:ANI. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you feel its important and common enough to specify this in the section? how would you suggest we do so, if so? thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Tentative suggestion, though it does not address the issue of how this would interact with regular unblock requests on talk pages and on the unblock mailing list:

Do not unblock without first attempting to discuss the issue with the blocking admin and waiting a reasonable time for a response. If the blocking admin is not available, or if he or she does not agree to an unblock, take the issue to AN/I and wait for consensus to develop. Exceptions are where the block is an unambiguous error. Admins are strongly discouraged from issuing unblocks in situations where they could be perceived as too involved—for example by unblocking "wikifriends."

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, that could be the second paragraph of the amendment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that there's a fundamental inconsistency between (a) do not unblock without discussion because it's a form of wheel-warring and (b) if you want an unblock post this tag, or email this list, and any passing admin will attend to it. The policy has never dealt with that disconnect. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Argh, let's not say "wikifriends" -- that opens up argument on what constitutes a WF.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree inconsistency could be a problem if poorly phrased; but unblocking is not wheel warring. Only reblocking is wheel warring. Agree also no on WF. I'd prefer to start with para 1 above and work forward from that. We would have "If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discussing the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended. Blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of injustice, and because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's contributions what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin if they are available.". Add second para on exceptions or not? Add sentence on avoiding Wheel wars, with link to WP:WW? Trim or modify sentence 3 to include unblock requests? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC):

Unblock is an exception from wheel warring. This amendment would require bells and whistles to invoke that exception under some circumstances, if not, it's reverting an admin action in a way not allowed, which is wheel warring.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

When the unblock happens before the blocked user even logs back on to find out they're blocked, never mind make the unblock request, we have problems. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Reversing another admin's block isn't really wheel warring. If the blocking admin came along and re-instated the block, that certainly would be. And there may be some circumstances where the block is not an error per se, but is directly contrary to policy. Of course we should all be aware of the spirit of the wheel warring policy more than the letter, but there may be exceptions that are nonetheless not "unambiguous errors." Also, if a user is told "your username is the only reason for this block" and they propose a more acceptable username there is no need at all for discussion, that should be noted as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That is why we are having discussions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Right, and that is why I commented here. I don't see the point of this remark. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

"Reversing another admin's block isn't wheel warring" "That's why we're having discussions" -- in other words, in some cases it's possible that it should be considered wheel warring, and that's why we're talking about it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should mention wheel-warring because it opens a can of worms. It's enough to say don't unblock without discussion or against consensus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Wheel warring is definitely a term that can put a chill on a conversation. I don't think it is wise to try and formulate a policy that is overly specific in detail regarding when a block should and should not be reversed. That will just lead to wiki-lawyering. We should keep the language broad and try to express the idea behind it rather than specifics. (except for the username thing which is an obvious exception). Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion 2:

Unless a block is an unambiguous error, do not unblock without first attempting to discuss the issue with the blocking admin and waiting a reasonable time for a response. If the blocking admin is not available, or if he or she does not agree to an unblock, take the issue to AN/I and wait for consensus to develop, unless you are sure that an unblock would not be contentious. This applies to all admins considering an unblock, including admins responding to unblock requests on talk pages and on the unblock mailing list.

SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It's OK if we put somewhere in there "A judgment call, such as a civility block, is not an "unambiguous error" unless there is a mistake of identity; you must consult under those circumstances."

And perhaps also add "Administrators are reminded that an unblock is a limited exception to WP:WHEEL, which forbids undoing another administrator's actions under many circumstances. To get the benefit of that exception, you must follow the procedures here."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it an exception? I am far from clear that this has ever been established to be the case. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The standard definition of wheelwarring would be a block, an unblock, and a reblock, without consensus. The third move would be the wheelwar. I disagree with that definition myself, but that's the one most people use. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed; that is the definition I use and have always seen used by ArbCom. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge/concise (suggestion 3)

Unless a block is an unambiguous error, do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discuss the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment or does not agree to an unblock, a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended. Because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's contributions what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin if they are available."

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I think we need to define "unambiguous error" or else expand on it a bit, otherwise I think we are right back where we started.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping it broad; if you're wondering if its unambiguous, then its not unambiguous is it? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

How about (suggestion 4)

Do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discussing the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable or does not agree to an unblock, then, if you still feel the editor should be unblocked, start an AN/I thread and wait for at least some feedback from the community. Keep in mind that it is difficult to discern an ongoing problem from the blocked user's recent contributions; it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult with the blocking administrator.

I took out the "unambiguous error clause". I think that if a clear error is pointed out to an admin, he'll reverse himself, if not it is ten minute's work at AN/I to get people laughing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You're going to have to address the issue of uncontentious unblocks being granted after blockees post an unblock notice or contact the unblock mailing list. The whole point of these is for uninvolved admins to decide whether to unblock. They aren't going to want to jump through hoops every time. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer keeping the error clause; in addition to SV's reasoning above, it prevents wikilawyers from insisting on an ANI discussion in cases where the blocking admin is unavailable, no matter how clear the error, for example.

Not happy with the phrase "and wait for at least some feedback from the community" - this seems strained to me. :What about (5):

Unless a block is an unambiguous error, do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discuss the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment or does not agree to an unblock, a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended if you still feel an unblock is appropriate. Keep in mind that it can be difficult to discern an ongoing problem from the blocked user's recent contributions; it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin if they are available."

KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That's the same exception that unblocking admins are driving trucks through right now. Can we either rephrase or else add the "judgment call" language?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I recall the instance I believe which lead to the "watering down" of the restriction on undoing an admin's block; it was the consequences of Jimbo's desysopping of ZScout370's reversion of one of Jimbo's sanctions (and, please, let us not rake over that matter) and the review of WP:WHEEL that followed - it should be in the history, although it may have been a separate sub-page. As I recall, it was determined that admins should not be exempt from WP:BRD as effects nearly every other page on WP. The right to return to the status quo, which is the basis of WP:BRD, was considered binding upon admin's actions also - on the basis that admin's enjoyed no greater privileges than other editors. All the above discussion is fine, but a consensus far greater than one on a page largely inhabited by a few admins needs to be found; perhaps the AN board and possibly a wider advertisment. Easing admin actions from out of the umbrella that is WP:BRD needs a community consensus (and, yes, I know how impossible that has been in recent years, but that does not give raise to having it done by the agreement of a few voices on one page.) As for actions being undone, if the revert was wrong then consensus will determine it so - if the action is wrong, there needs to be the ability to stop the damage done quickly, and the current wording of WP:WHEEL allows that to happen. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you enlighten us with a link to a discussion which led to the elimination of the language discussed above?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, it might take a bit of digging so bear with me... LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And here it is... except my memory is (per the usual) not as good as it might be - it appears that there was a consensus between only a few editors (including SV) for a stricter interpretation so to make admin reverses more onerous, which I supported! It should be noted that that consensus was subsequently over-ridden, per comments at the RfC, and that there were a couple of subsequent further attempts to stiffen up the wording - and yet here we are again. With regard to how the wording was originally changed, this is commented upon and linked to fairly early in the RfC; I will let the interested parties here review that instance. It is strange how my current support of the ability to undo admin actions, and only the reverting of that being a wheel war, lead me to believe I had always supported that position, when the reverse was true. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking#Block reviews

Ok, I freely admit I'm blind, I missed this completely on my earlier scan of the page. I suggest everyone working on this take a moment and read the verbiage contained in Block reviews. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I was saying (repeatedly) we need stronger language.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Puppy is slow, but puppy is there now, thanks for your patience. I'm on the same page now, sorry for any earlier confuddlement on my part. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 22:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• I really don't like the idea of making this a black-and-white situation. Reviewing blocks is a lot more complicated than reviewing speedy deletion nominations because we are reviewing behavior as opposed to content. Additionally, there are some admins who have made it clear that they do not mind being overturned as long as they are informed of it, and I have encountered at least one admin who simply does not respond to inquiries about possibly overturning past blocks. In such cases should we still go through the motions just for the sake of process, leaving a user blocked while we wait for a response that we know is not coming? And please, please don't try to define "unambiguous error." Anyone who would argue over the definition of a perfectly clear statement like that is just trying to game the system, we shouldn't make it easier for them to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Blast that darkness. Any lighting proposals?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Again the exact meaning of your remark escapes me. Are you suggesting that i have only negative things to say? Beeblebrox (talk) 03:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, suggesting you make a counterproposal if you don't like this one.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, as long as there are admins who make cowboy blocks, there's a need for admins to make cowboy unblocks. Of the two, I am far more likely to desysop an admin who makes a poorly reasoned block than one who makes a comparatively undiscussed unblock. Risker (talk) 04:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
  • No, two wrongs don't make it right. And cowboy arbitrators willing to issue sanctions without basis are also a problem. Let's drop the cowboy thing, please, and focus on substance. It is wrong to unblock when there is neither an unblock request nor a discussion and agreement with the blocking admin. Policy should say that. Jehochman ^Talk 07:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Or consensus that it was a bad block (at ANI) or a block that was unambiguously what the blocking admin would consider an error (wrong button, wrong user, hacked account, etc.). Risker, if there is a cowboy block, ANI should rapidly overturn it. Here's the key question as far as I'm concerned. If someone does something that 25% of the admin core thinks is blockable and 75% don't then should there be a block? I'd say no. If 75% think is blockable and 25% don't? I'd say yes. In that regard the current policy is better. But consider the case when someone is clearly behaving poorly (90%+ agree) but 50% think the behavior doesn't rise to a blockable level. IMO the right answer is to have the user request an unblock, promising to improve in the area everyone agrees there *is* a problem. If the user continues down the same path it is likely that more folks will agree there is a problem. If the user addresses the issue, everyone wins. I think the problem is having an admin overturn a block because _they_ think it was a bad block (maybe in that <10% group). The user doesn't address the behavioral problem and we are back to square one with a sense that some users can get away with anything. Hobit (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

And of course the only options are to leave block standing or to undo it and do nothing else. It's just that black-and-white. It's why after, undoing the bad block which prompted this discussion, I did nothing else. Didn't say anything to the blocked user, in fact exonerated them of any wrongdoing and told them to keep going as before, didn't propose other measures to handle the issue, and declared a willingness to wheelwar against any admins reblocking even if there was a community consensus for a block. Well that's just the kind of cowboy admin I am! Best amend policy to keep me in check. Rd232 ^talk 09:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, Rd232, your unblock was not a correction of an "unambiguous error", as civility is necessarily subjective, and it was not the first such block, though possibly the first by you. We have an ongoing problem that a user is blocked for incivility, and along comes a admin (usually not entirely disassociated from the user) and immediately unblocks without consultation or discussion. What I am trying to do is force discussion before the fait accompli of an unblock.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Some administrators are not thinking twice before imposing a block (which suggests we may need to force discusson before the block, if anything). In other words, I see no reason to support an approach that promotes bureaucracy at the expense of good contributions from an editor. See also my comments about blocks below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Reality check

1. For the most part, properly formatted requests for unblock are handled just fine by "passing admins".
2. This unblock may or may not involve putting the unblock on hold to discuss the issues with the blocking admin. This is standard procedure in some cases, where needed
3. Some unblock requests are raised by someone other than the blockee at WP:AN or WP:ANI. In the case of an ANI/AN review, perhaps we need a new template that the block is on hold pending review at that forum. It could also be referred to by another admin as a "potential bad block".
4. The overall question here is If a block is at AN/ANI for review, it should not be undone until consensus is reached? ... in other words, do we release on bail or not? If to re-implement a block is WP:WHEEL, but putting it on hold simply delays a possible unblock, well, we have no time limits here...
5. As such, is should an AN/ANI review be a "hold" on action? Yes.

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and would be happy with a statement that was limited to circumstances such as that. As long as the unblocking admin, if he discovered post facto that there was an AN/I discussion already going on, he should reblock and engage in the discussion. Frankly, I think we could move ahead with a final proposal without too much more discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I don't see anything resembling a consensus here, and if we are actually going to change the blocking policy, an action that could have wide-ranging effects on literally thousands of users and every admin, at the very least this discussion should be noted at WP:CENT. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for consensus in order to have a vote. i think there needs to be considerable support in order to put it up to a vote. Whether there is consensus there or not remains to be seen. Consensus is needed to pass, of course. Feel free to note the discussion where you feel is appropriate, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Refined suggestion

Here's the sort of language we should refine, perhaps:

Do not unblock without first attempting to contact the blocking admin and discussing the matter. If the blocking admin is unavailable or does not agree to an unblock, then, if you still feel the editor should be unblocked, start an AN/I thread and engage in a discussion. If the matter was already being discussed at AN/I, you should await development of a consensus before taking any action. Keep in mind that it is difficult to discern an ongoing problem from the blocked user's recent contributions; it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult with the blocking administrator and others of your colleagues. However, if you are certain that an unblock would be noncontroversial with the blocking admin and other admins, you may unblock without these formalities, though if you then find out you are mistaken, you should reinstate the block pending discussions.

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I would remove the bit about it being uncontroversial with the blocking admin, just other admins. Per AGF we should assume that the blocking admin thought that they were fully within policy, and is otherwise not stupid - and as such will find an unblock controversial. Per ABF, if a blocking admin is violating policy or they are stupid then they will consider it controversial that they have been spotted. I suggest that it is only exceptionally that a blocking admin will find an unblock controversial, and that the uncontroversial aspect should be left to the other uninvolved admins? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'd say it's definitely possible for an unblock to be uncontroversial. I've seen a few of things that looked like really blatant vandalism -- until I checked the sources. If I goof on a block like that and am not around to fix it, I would be grateful for someone to unblock as soon as they notice it. I think a situation like this caused me to add this note to my user page a year ago, but I don't remember the exact circumstances.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible, yes, but common? Not so much as to be written into the language, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it's more common than you think. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is acceptable. It leaves the unblock for NC or continue block for NC unclear which I think is acceptable. Hobit (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Good grief. Except if an editor is causing a serious amount of harm that is likely to persist absent any other measure (eg; vandalism, 9RR, grossly serious harassment or outing attempts or personal attacks which do not stop, etc), there is absolutely no reason to be so wound up by your actions being overturned or modified (or being asked to do either). By placing a block, that doesn't mean your interpretation of policy becomes how everyone else interprets it or your review into a situation becomes the same as what everyone else sees or that nothing changes in the circumstances. Yes, it's a matter of courtesy that admins will try to discuss something with you, particularly if they might be unaware of something that you are aware of or vice versa. However, I've seen plenty of administrators (be it deliberately or otherwise) staying out of view after they've made an action and then by the time they respond, they remain territorial without seeing common sense, and by the time another admin decides to unblock or by the time the Community gets up to speed, the damage is already done. That's more harmful than an admin getting upset that their action did not 'stick' or that the every formality of a Community discussion was not complete.
• Most established editors improve the project in some way - whether some people admit it or not. Of course, some may also be doing harm, but that doesn't mean that blocking should be used; it is certainly not the only option. Dispute resolution is more suited for a lot of those situations. It's more than probable that more useful measures can emerge from there than losing the useful contributions from that contributor altogether. The only exception I'd say where dispute resolution actually isn't the most ideal option is where tendentious editing occurs - because of the sheer amount of time it takes to make the case, and the amount of wikilawyering/soapboxing that goes on. Unfortunately, when established administrators misuse the term 'tendentious', then we have a problem where the project is condemned to go through the whole cycle in order to impose the inevitable outcome.
• On another point, a block review isn't just for the sake of the sanctioned editor; administrators who don't pay attention to what is being said to them (via words or actions) are likely to get themselves into trouble at some point. If admins are not being collaborative and flatly refuse to have their actions modified/overturned, then it seems to me that the Community will need to limit the circumstances in which admins can block; that is, such an option will be necessary if admins are not getting the message and are still being unhelpfully territorial over their actions (or actions they have a tendency to agree with). That would a real pity because I'd like to think that the majority of administrators are NOT quite so unhelpful. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

As a non-administrator, I have been watching this conversation and mulling it over. My initial thoughts were to agree with Beeblebrox, that is, BRD should apply to blocks like any other action. After thinking about it more, I think we have to consider the damage that might cause not to the encyclopedia, but the editor who is blocked. If someone is blocked, then unblocked, then blocked again after discussion, I believe this will be a more frustrating and confusing situation for the person blocked. The uninitiated generally imagine that Wikipedia administration is far more monolithic than it really is. To them, it will appear arbitrary and chaotic to be repeatedly blocked. I think the focus should be less on the feelings of the blocking administrator, and more on the image that we are projecting. I'm not sure what all the answers are, but those are my thoughts. Gigs (talk) 07:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the image that would be projected by refusing to lift a block because blocking admin would become unhappy is far worse than if an editor was unblocked, and only reblocked after it's become clear that blocking is the only option left. In other words, blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective. Even when reversed, blocks that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Proposal

The recent problem was that discussion was ongoing, but an admin unblocked unilaterally. Many (most?) blocks can be unblocked fairly easily and drama-free, for example if the user apologizes. The issue is that discussion was hijacked by a cowboy admin. therefore, I propose the following language:

If a block is being actively discussed on WP:AN/I or another appropriate forum, and a consensus does not yet exist, administrators should not unblock the editor in question without agreement from the blocking administrator.

This should hopefully solve the problems without being too draconian. The Wordsmith^Communicate 15:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Purpose

For some reason, when this wording was boldly implemented from the local consensus here, the very meaning was omitted despite receiving an equal level of support. I've put that in, and restructured the wording as recent incidents indicate that a handful of administrators are not paying attention to the green box. The way that blocks have been used to disparage other users is squarely within the same meaning so that's also been added. In regards to the "where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern", it's obviously not possible for an admin to know unless those circumstances are reviewable so that has been specified. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been wholesale reverting by two admins who have been tagteaming (and incidentally were among that handful of administrators referred to) - unless they prefer the wording to be kept more broad as to what is required of admins, particularly if this later advances to the final resort of dispute resolution, I'm really not seeing anything that would remotely justify this sort of reverting technique. Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

lol edit war Gurch (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, what a disgusting spectacle from users who have all been here long enough to know better. Hash it out here gentlemen, or you may become more familiar with the workings of the blocking policy than you would like. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a bureaucrat misuses rollback, and makes no effort to discuss a thing, and I'm expected to read his mind. What a pleasure...not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm, why the drama? So far I'm seeing only Ncmvocalist trying to make wholesale changes to an important policy without discussion, and being reverted thrice by three other people. Please understand: if others disagree with you, that does not mean that they are "tag-teaming", it simply means that contrary to what you might have expected, your opinion does not match general consensus. Why don't you calm down and explain us what exactly you would like to change and why? Implementing perceived consensus from a discussion from 2007 isn't really a compelling reason, you know.  Sandstein  06:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• This part of policy was implemented after a discussion in 2007 (I've linked to above) where the exact meaning was discussed and enjoyed unanimous support; that was the policy which the Community endorsed. However, when it was enacted into policy, it inadvertantly misses the exact meaning that it was attempting to clarify, causing some level of confusion for a few administrators.
• These admins have specifically included Sandstein and SarekOfVulcan, as they have made or endorsed a series of poor blocks which were subsequently overturned on behalf of the Community. That is, the personal interpretation of blocking policy by these 2 admins was not considered to be the general consensus of the Community; the meaning that was discussed in 2007 is.
• When I attempted to enact this consensus, Sandstein, SarekOfVulcan, and a bureaucrat have continued to engage in improper conduct that suggests they are intent on continuing to breach the spirit of this policy in the version that is endorsed by the larger Community; through their actions, they are attempting to define admin policies to mean something different to that which the Community endorses. They are tag-team edit-warring and tendentiously refusing to provide a substantive basis for their reversions (this sort of wikilawyering is unacceptable, as are the attempts to stonewall when a discussion already gave a full go ahead to enacting the meaning of this policy). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please can someone clarify, to those of us who know nothing about the alleged "series of poor blocks", what the substance of this disagreement is? (If it's about whether blocks should be used as a punishment, then it already says in the first line of the policy that they shouldn't.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm. (i) Ncmvocalist's change [8] is more about clarity than substance; the only substantive change I see is dropping a block purpose of " Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated." The significance of this line isn't clear, and probably depends on how people choose to interpret it. (ii) a discussion from 2007 between 3 users is hardly the Community View. (iii) Improper use of rollback aside, more WP:AGF is required, and less edit warring, and more use of the talk page. What exactly is the objection to this change? Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I initially reverted this change because its scope and reason are not clear to me without a talk page explanation, and because a change of that much policy text should really not occur until after a discussion:

"Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time. ... Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Substantive changes)

It may well be that this is not more than a restatement of current practice, but the somewhat excited statements of Ncmvocalist above lead me to believe that he intends the change to have a more substantive effect. Consequently I'd appreciate it if Ncmvocalist would explain to us the individual elements of his proposed change one by one, so that we may understand what they mean, and to point us to the incidents he believes indicate admin confusion about the current policy. But certainly one editor's interpretation of a discussion among three people in 2007 has absolutely zero weight as a basis to make changes to policy at this time.  Sandstein  17:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I have two objections. The procedural one is that NCMVocalist is using a 2007 discussion as a basic for current policy, even though there was just a lengthy discussion about rewriting the policy in which he participated. The substantive one is that the change puts undue weight on not blocking. Under Purposes and Goals, he deals with the reasons not to block in more detail than the reasons to block -- which comes down to preventing disruption. If there's no prevention, there's no reason to block, and we don't need lots of detail on what cases are not preventing disruption. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The part of policy as we know it came about from a discussion of 4 editors in 2007, and given that the bit it was trying to clarify was inadvertantly missed in the version that was finally posted to the policy page, there is no good reason to hide this out of view. So far, the objection seems to be Wikipedia:I just don't like it - much like the key part of the request for arbitration that the both of you are lobbying for.

I also don't see how undue weight is being placed on the section (unless we count removing the superfluous or redundent sentences). The policy as it stands intends to draw specific attention to when not to impose blocks and what is trying to be accomplished through such blocks; that's why that section came to exist as we can see from that discussion (and seems to be evident to most other experienced users). As blocking policy grows with time, the green box fails to draw enough attention to these points, and arguably, if it is an important note, this should be made at the outset to clarify the difference between punitive blocks and preventative blocks rather than as an after-thought. At the end of the day, most users who use this policy are users who are blocking, but even more importantly, users who have been blocked. It is important that they understand this difference early on rather than skip the message - and that too because the blocking admins don't like attention being drawn to it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I must say I'm not seeing any convincing objections to Ncm's changes, except for the removal of the line which Rd232 draws attention to (was that deliberate? is there a reason for it?) Other than that, it seems perfectly reasonable to give more or less equal weight to reasons not to block as to reasons to block.--Kotniski (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd removed that line because it seems to be superfluous/redundent; users would wonder why the underlying purpose/goal from that line isn't covered in the broader formulation of "deterring". Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are too many items in that list (currently four - one preventing, one deterring and two encouraging). I would reduce it to three or even just two - the main one of prevention, and the subsidiary one of indicating that certain breaches of community norms will not be tolerated. --Kotniski (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

So, seeing as page protection is due to expire today, are there any remaining substantial objections to Ncm's proposed change?--Kotniski (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems this is ready to change? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - related discussion

There is a discussion on the G5 deletion criteria going on at Criteria for speedy deletion - Is G5 a "must"?. As it relates to both the banning policy and the blocking policy I had suggested taking discussions on potential changes to those polices there (here), but as it had not been done yet consider this a courtesy notice to those editors who do not visit Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion often. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Reducing ownership of administrative actions

In watching discussions about administrators reversing the blocks of other administrators, I am struck by a very strong sense of ownership and emotional investment in administrative actions. I don't think this contributes to a collegial atmosphere, or helps us to build an encyclopedia. With this in mind, I'd like to propose some significant changes to the policy and culture surrounding administrator actions. I'm bringing this up here because I'd like to get some feedback and (dare I hope) support before bringing it to a venue like WP:VP. Although these ideas could apply to almost any administrative action, I'm going to phrase them narrowly in terms of blocking policy.

Trying to anticipate some objections:

A bad block can be reversed by a consensus at WP:ANI

That tends to take a long time, and generates a lot of drama. A blocked user cannot instigate an ANI thread directly, or participate in it effectively. The faster and more quietly a bad block can be reversed, then the less the damage to the blocked user, and to the reputations of all involved.

A bad unblock can lead to more damage to the encyclopedia

This is true, but bad unblocks should be rarer than bad blocks and the additional rope should clarify for all concerned whether the block was a good one. If it's clear that the user should be blocked, then there should be no difficulty in finding a third admin to reblock. If the user changes their ways, then the block has served its purpose.

It will lead to wheel-warring

Perhaps, but because each step must be performed by a previously uninvolved admin, a wheel war can only continue by drawing in an ever-widening circle of admins. The process should slow quickly, and will tend to settle on the majority admin view.

It will confuse blocked users

It's true that being blocked, unblocked, and then reblocked may confuse the user. Many users seem to be very confused at being blocked at all. Perhaps the "unblocked" template could contain some clarifying text. Reblocking will be an exceptional outcome.

It will lead to bad feeling between admins

I seek a culture change whereby blocking becomes a collaborative process, and admins welcome assistance in correcting any lapses in judgement. I'm sure there will be times when admins feel hurt or betrayed at having their blocks reversed. If this happens continually to the same admin, it will be at the hands of many different admins, and they should consider whether their judgement lies outside of admin consensus. Admin decisions will become more consistent and more objective.

It would interfere with ArbCom sanctions and community bans

The principles above apply only to unilateral blocks under the normal blocking policy.

We'll run out of admins permitted to respond

If an editor has been blocked by a large fraction of the body of admins, then they're probably due for a response greater than another temporary block. Similar, if an admin has had blocks reversed by a large fraction of the body of admins, then a response beyond another unblock is probably required.

Bovlb (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think that this is a good idea. Current admin policy says: "Administrators are expected to have good judgment, and are presumed to have considered carefully any actions or decisions they carry out as administrators. Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." Your proposal, on the other hand, would have us proceed from the assumption that a decision to block is normally bad or ill-considered, since it can unilaterally be overturned by any admin, but that a decision to unblock is normally correct and well-considered, since it cannot be reverted (under your proposal) without wheel-warring. I see no reason for this assumption. Any admin decision, whether to block or to unblock, has the potential to be good or bad, poorly or well considered, supported or unsupported by consensus. There is therefore no reason to make block decisions even more easier to revert than unblock decisions, and we should stick to not undoing any admin decision without good cause, as per current admin policy.  Sandstein  07:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  • • Frankly, I am not at all surprised that you respond in this way, but it is still remarkable that you managed to be the first to respond. As you say, admins are expected to have good judgement, and they are presumed to have "considered carefully [...]". You yourself are perhaps the best example for the problem with this expectation and presumption. Hans Adler 22:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It already can't be reverted without being wheel-warring. The proposal is set up (though it doesn't explicitly say so) that it's not wheelwarring to undo/redo a block if the admin doing so hadn't blocked/unblocked in relation to that block before. Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, my proposal makes block and unblocking more symmetrical than they are now. Allowing any admin to undo or redo a block does not come from a presumption that either blocks or unblocks are normally bad, merely that they may not always be good or, if good, remain so. The current system, whereby unblocking is discouraged and delayed, actually places less trust in admins and makes it much easier to block than to unblock. Bovlb (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps the key point here is point 4. If admins making contentious or non-obvious blocks made more of an effort to explain them to the blocked user and therefore also to any reviewing admins, it would be all round helpful. This is not to say each block requires an essay full of diffs, but often even contentious blocks are accompanied with little or no explanation, which may not only make it harder for the editor to understand and accept the decision, but of course also for others to review. It will be noted that unblocking ought to involve discussion with the blocking admin, but that isn't always possible or advisable. Finally, knowing that they'll be writing an explanation may deter admins from making snap judgements and then walking away. Rd232 ^talk 09:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• It looks to me like what this proposal is really about is not trusting admins to make the decision to block. This is why we have admins in the first place, they are supposed to be persons who have demonstrated that they do have the necessary policy knowledge and judgement to know when to block and when not to. The other flawed assumption implied here is that there are more bad blocks than good. The fact is the vast majority of unblocks are not done because the blocking admin made an error but rather because the blocked user has indicated that they understand why they were blocked and will avoid the problematic behavior in the future. Forcing each block to be a collaborative decision will slow things down and make them more contentious, not less. Also no provision is made for noticeboards such as WP:AIV, WP:UAA, and WP:AN3. Most of the time these reports do not require in depth analysis, either the user did the thing they were reported for or they didn't. We don't need a committee to decide these cases, we already have policies that are based on community consensus. If a particualr admin is making a lot of blocks that are overturned as being unjustified then we need to deal with that admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the proposal really relates to your comments. It doesn't affect standard stuff, it affects contentious stuff. Rd232 ^talk 23:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I can't see how these comments relate to the proposal either. Currently, once an admin has made a block, then no other admin is trusted to unblock; under the proposal, all admins are trusted to unblock, so admins are actually trusted more. Blocking becomes collaborative through a series of unilateral administrative actions, not by prior consultation as is now required for unblocking. The procedure for blocking remains unchanged, except for slightly strengthening the requirements for block notification (point 4) and non-involvement (point 5). It's unblocking and re-blocking that are most changed, by becoming more streamlined. There is absolutely no committee in this proposal. Could I ask you to reread it, and see if maybe we're talking at cross-purposes? Thanks, Bovlb (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, then maybe you would care to expand on this statement: "I seek a culture change whereby blocking becomes a collaborative process." Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this goes back to the issue that if adminship is not a big deal, then peers should be trusted to unblock in the same way that they are trusted to block in the first place. At least in the latter scenario, if they unblock and they prove disruptive, they can reblock or if they refuse to reblock, someone else can after consensus (or have I misread??). All I can say is that lately, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in the current setup for obtaining an unblock when it's needed than there is for a block. Bovlb may not even be aware that at least part of his proposal would help resolve a dispute before it turned into a certified dispute next year...on the other hand, he might just be a bit of a genius. ;) In the meantime, seeing you protected this page earlier, I'd appreciate it if you looked at the previous section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an excellent proposal, and would do much to reduce conflict and bad feeling against admins. DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DuncanHill; it also helps enforce the adminship is not a big deal part as I said above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: "I seek a culture change whereby blocking becomes a collaborative process." Ah, I see how that remark might be confusing. What I meant was that because admins can work together on the same decision (Should this user be blocked?) in a series of unilateral actions with communication on the side as required, there is an emergent wiki-style collaboration that parallels the way editors can collaborate on the wording of an article. I don't see reversals becoming much more common under this proposal, merely much swifter. In the unlikely event that a chain of block/unblock actions grows long, I'd expect to see a lot of on-the-side discussion between admins. Bovlb (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are often made with more information than has been posted. An admin who only sees the unblock request may not have all of the facts, or even a neutral account of the issues which led to the block. I'd strongly oppose any suggestion that an admin should unblock an editor, except in the simplest cases, without making an effort to consult with the blocking admin. Also, if the blocks are for routine causes, like 3RR, then I don't see a problem with an admin blocking the same editor more than once. Finally, what's the exact definition of an "established editor"?   Will Beback  talk  01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you read #4 Will - "If a block is based on special information that might not be obvious to a reviewing admin, then the blocking admin is responsible for indicating that in the original block message or notice". What's the exact definition of a "newbie"? What's the exact definition of an "in-betweener"? Do admins not at all turn their minds to these questions? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

There are so many things that might go into a decision to block someone that it's not always easy or helpful to list them. If an admin can retain ownership of a block (as it were) simply by making a request to be consulted before an unblock, then this policy change really only applies to very straightforward blocks. As for the definition of "newbie" or "in-betweener", which policies use those terms?   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well how do you expect others to review a block if you're not ready to list them? That just doesn't add up. The problem with requesting consulation before an unblock is when they happen to be unavailable at the critical time. Do your homework in advance and provide your reasoning and all is well. If you miss something, then he's unblocked...big deal...blockee wasn't going to necessarily respond to that issue if he doesn't know you were looking at that. And as for newbie, I thought there was don't bite the newbie policy or whatever. Even ArbCom said the thing about warnings and education, particularly for newbies prior to imposing discretionary sanctions in authorized areas...surely you were participating in some capacity during that discussion at the TM clarification request? Ncmvocalist (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem unreasonable for us to be expected to articulate our reasons for making a block. Doing so helps the blockee to formulate an appeal, and helps other admins to review it. I did not propose that all relevant evidence be listed, merely that its existence be indicated. It's already blocking policy for us to do this for checkuser information. The reviewing admin must then use their own judgement as to whether and how to seek out such evidence.

"established contributor" was intentionally vague, but was intended to cover the case of an editor that has a track record of significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia yet has major behavioural issues. Such editors sometimes need to be blocked, but it is better all round if it's not always the same admin doing the blocking. Bovlb (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think vague terms are helpful in contentious policies.

Most blocks are for obvious reasons - vandalism or 3RR. But some are a bit trickier. Let's say I block someone for personal attacks. Do I need to list every PA they've made, for the convenience of a potential unblocking admin? And then there's the matter of sock puppets, where the block may involve evidence that shouldn't be made public.

What is the real problem this is addressing? Can someone point out three situations where this policy would have helped?   Will Beback  talk  02:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. This isn't a policy document. It's a first draft of a proposal to change policy. I wanted to present the idea in broad brush strokes, so I think some vagueness may be permitted at this stage. I know it isn't perfect. That's why I asked for comments.

I agree that for most blocks the reason is very obvious. Those don't tend to be the controversial cases, although it isn't always obvious in advance whether a block will turn out to be controversial. I don't think anyone would expect you to detail all of the supporting evidence when you make a block, but if the evidence is unobvious then either the block message or the block notification should point in its general direction. The blocking policy already says that "the blocking administrator should consider including ... information or evidence that may not be obvious, may not be fully appreciated, or may otherwise be relevant." My proposal strengthens that slightly to allow a reviewing admin to assume that all relevant evidence is either reasonably obvious or has been drawn to their attention. This lightens the reviewing admin's burden a little. Dealing with confidential evidence is also already covered in existing blocking policy and I don't propose to change it.

I deliberately did not assemble a list of specific examples of where this policy change would have helped, because of the sheer intensity of the the drama caused by controversial blocks. I don't want this discussion to be diverted into a relitigation of such issues. Notwithstanding, here are a couple of generic examples:

• I do a lot of "unblock patrol" and have participated in negotiating a number of unblocks although I am rarely the one to hit the "unblock" button. While I have no complaint against the relevant other admins, I have felt some frustration at not feeling empowered by blocking policy to resolve issues more expeditiously. Blocking admins cannot be expected to remain online indefinitely after a block. There is often new information that comes to light, or there is a breakthrough in understanding with the user. It seems to me that we lose a lot of initially-confused but potentially-productive new editors just from a swift block and slow unblock.
• Reading block-related threads in places like WP:ANI, I often have the sense that much of the drama and bad feeling comes from the difficulty of separating the issue of the specific block from the history and emotional investment of the blocking admin. For misbehaving editors who are well-regarded in some quarters, my hope is that the case against them will be more clear cut and objective if dealt with by a succession of different administrators. If the case is not clear cut, then the damage to the editor and the community is minimised by the swiftest possible resolution. Either way, no admin should "own" the fate of that editor just because they were quickest to block them, and a greater collaboration between admins should produce a better result for all concerned.

I had understood that there was a widespread dissatisfaction among both admins and other editors at how controversial blocks are currently handled, but I appreciate your position if you disagree. Bovlb (talk) 06:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

If this is a widespread problem, can anyone point to three cases (or even two) where this proposal would have made a positive difference?   Will Beback  talk  10:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Given my restriction that they be drama-free, it will take a little time to prepare a list of good examples, but here's one from 2008. New user Reidweaver (talk · contribs) made a series of edits to a single article that were continually reverted by a bot. The bot left talkpage messages that did not clearly explain the specific problem with the edits. The user was then blocked indefinitely as a vandalism-only account with no human warning and no block notification. The initial unblock request was declined, but I gave it a second review, and determined that the edits were made in good faith and hence not vandalism. After waiting 12 hours for the blocking admin to respond, I unilaterally unblocked the user, a total block of 19 hours. The user went on to make some positive contributions to the article and its talk page, but didn't stick around for long, and never went outside that single purpose. The current blocking policy discourages such an unblock, and arguably forbids it. I cannot prove that a swifter unblock would have left the user with more enthusiasm for sticking with Wikipedia. Bovlb (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to push too hard on this - I'm not active in patrolling the unblock requests so others may know better how best to sort this out. I presume that repeatedly blocking socks of a banned editor would not be a problem. We're only talking about blocking non-banned editors. Also, some of these principles could not apply to blocks made under AE authority. Those blocks may only be undone according to their appeal process.

Let's look at some scenarios.

• Fictional User:G is an established editor. He makes personal attacks. A block results, followed by an unblock. Those admins are now ineligible to block or unblock that account again.
• Fictional user:H is a banned editor. A sock is identified and blocked. The blocking admin would still be eligible to block future socks accounts.
• Fictional user:J violates an ArbCom-imposed probation on a topic and is blocked. No admin may unblock that editor unilaterally.

Are those correct?   Will Beback  talk  12:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much, yes. Point #5 as written only applies to blocking, so it would not stop the admin who unblocked User:G from subsequently blocking them. Perhaps point #5 should be extended to discourage repeated unblocking (or any repetition of block log events) of the same user.

I don't think that detected socks should gain any protection under the "same editor" provision of point #5 (perhaps it should read "same user account"), but it would be murkier if the user weren't banned and they had declared alternative accounts that an admin judged to be in violation of sock policy.

I said above that this proposal does not apply to blocks related to community bans or ArbCom sanctions. I'd like to modify that by saying that points 2 & 3 definitely do not apply in such cases, but points 1, 4, 5 & 6 could. Bovlb (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

For that last point, why should 6 apply? The same disputes come up repeatedly at AE, and if there's a consensus to block then I don't see why it would matter if the admin had blocked that account previously. The pool of admins active on AE isn't unlimited. Regarding User:G, I think there'd need to be a symmetry of restrictions on repeated blocking and unblocking. Otherwise problematic editors who have admins friends would be effectively unblockable.   Will Beback  talk  20:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant #5 and I take your point regarding AE. (I am not very active at AE, so I defer to the experience of others.) I tried to limit my proposal to apply only to actions based on a unilateral judgement, not on actions arising from consensus. My last point regarding ArbCom was in reference to the fact that some ArbCom sanctions allow any administrator to use unilateral discretion in the first instance. (I don't know how often that is invoked in practice.) Having said that, I hope you would agree that determining consensus often requires an element of judgement. Either way, I would argue that it increases the credibility of the process and reduces the exposure of individual admins if the admin actors can rotate as much as circumstances allow. I deliberately phrased #5 and #6 as general rules ("should avoid") rather than bright-line distinctions ("must not", automatic ArbCom) and, yes that is another case of deliberate vagueness. As broad principles, they should apply everywhere, but I concede there are circumstances when they would have to be ignored. Perhaps my explanations suffer from a conflation between my ambitious wiki-philosophy and the specific, narrow proposal I am making here.

"there'd need to be a symmetry of restrictions on repeated blocking and unblocking" That was my intention. Clearly my original phrasing did not capture it. Bovlb (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I meant #5, thanks. Maybe a line that says these do not apply to blocks performed under ArbCom (or community) imposed sanctions would cover it. Another point - these are now described as "principles". That doesn't seem concrete enough if these are really meant to be followed. Are these just suggestions or ideals, or are they actual policies that need to be followed?   Will Beback  talk  22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

You've got me there; my description does lack concreteness. My desired outcome here is to enact certain specific policy changes, mainly to WP:BLOCK and WP:INVOLVED. I described those changes in terms of general principles rather than specific diffs because I did not feel competent to come up with the details without seeking some feedback first. I can see how that might have been the cause of some confusion. If there is enough feedback to pin down the proposal, and enough support to encourage us, then we can rewrite it for a more trafficked venue (e.g. WP:VP). I'm trying to tread carefully, and not rush things.

At the risk of distracting from my own proposal, I'll note that these principles could also be adopted unilaterally by any admin. By declaring an adherence to points #1-4, an admin empowers other admins to revert their admin actions without prior consultation. Points #5 & 6 restrict an admin's own behaviour and can therefore be followed unilaterally without announcement, although there may be some social benefit to declaring them too. I have held this unilateral policy myself for about three years now (focussing on points #1-3). I even created a user box, which I see a couple of other admins have also transcluded, and made a first draft of an essay. I mention this because it illustrates my personal views on Wikipedia adminship, and not because it is specifically relevant to the proposal at hand. Bovlb (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Another thought about how this would work in practice: let's say I block a user, then think better of it and unblock her. Does that wipe the slate clean, or would I be ineligible to bock (or unblock) the user again?   Will Beback  talk  00:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Points 1-4 seem basically sound, but I don't agree at all with point 5. I frequently give copyright infringers a brief block in the hopes that this will catch their attention. If it doesn't, I give them longer or indefinite blocks. I imagine the admins who work WP:3RR see some of the same people return, and certainly the admins who work WP:SPI do. Having to find different admins to block somebody seems like a waste of resources when the block is uncontroversial. (It's only been a couple of months since a one-block rule was proposed here.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm. Thanks for the link; I missed that discussion. I have a great respect for your work on copyright infringement. From the points you make in that discussion and the feedback above, I am forced to conclude that point #5 is flawed as written. But I also see additional support for my view that WP:INVOLVED is failing to help us as much as it should. I'm going to have to think harder about this. Do you have any suggestions for how INVOLVED could be improved without incurring the costs you outline? Bovlb (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Good question. :) Yes, INVOLVED has some serious problems. There was a lot of conversation about it at this thread beginning in October and running through early November. I don't know if anything was implemented from that; a couple of big copyright issues popped up, and I lost track of the conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks for that link also. That thread ends with the proposal to expand WP:INVOLVED into a standalone essay that remains in user space and hasn't been changed in a couple of weeks. One key point that's fairly consistent across all the versions proposed in that thread is to keep the exception that administrative action does not make an administrator involved. (A strong contrast with my point #5.) Instead, the two forms of involvement discussed are: disputes over content; and having "expressed opinions about [Wikipedian] persons or situations involved in the dispute."
      • It's all rather unfortunate. Administrators cannot and should not be like real-life judges, holding themselves apart and having rules against communicating or expressing opinions. In general, administrators should also be content producers, not least because the experiences that come with that will help them in their administrator role. Administrators should also be encouraged to play a role in dispute resolution before it gets to the block-hammer stage, and that requires them to express opinions about the dispute and its participants.
      • Only a small fraction of blocks (and unblocks) turn out to be contentious, but those that do cause a lot of disruption and damage the community. In some cases, the admin anticipates that the block will be contentious and brings it to ANI themselves. In many other cases that have been in the limelight, it is hard to believe that the blocking admin did not anticipate contention. What if we had a rule like "Consult other admins before non-urgent contentious blocks" or "Seek review after making a block that might be seen as contentious"? It might help in some cases, but not all. And we don't want to stultify ourselves into an inability to deal with any problem user beyond a simple vandal. Admins need the ability to make unilateral judgements, but should exercise common sense about when to consult.
      • The main thrust of my proposal (points #1-4) turns the review of unblock requests into a proper, independent review, whereas now it's more like a perverse way to pass a message to the admin who "owns" the block. If any passing admin is fully empowered to correct mistakes or negotiate an unblock, that alone may be enough to cut out much of the drama. Perhaps I'm trying too hard, but I wanted to head off some of the ways in which that change might lead to more drama of a different sort. Because points #1-4 lower the threshold for reversing a block, they also create opportunities to re-block, which is why I included point #5. Although such re-blocking would be rare, there would be a strong suggestion of bias. I don't want an admin to own the fate of an editor simply by being most willing to block them. Similarly, by removing the requirement to seek permission before reversing an admin's action, they increase the possibility of creating acrimony between specific admins, which is why I included point #6. I am no longer confident that it's even possible to turn points #5 and 6 into bright-line rules that are strong enough to be useful yet weak enough not to be harmful. Perhaps the best way to move forward here would be to relegate points #5 and #6 to the status of "advice to administrators" and focus on points #1-4. Bovlb (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I like 1-4. :) Anything that makes us more even-handed and cooperative with one another is a good thing.

And I think consulting other admins is a good idea. Before jettisoning points 5-6, maybe we can come up with something. (That said, I'm off for the US Thanksgiving Holiday in a few hours and may not be able to get online much if at all until Sunday. If I'm lucky, there'll be a signal I can piggyback on. :)) I have routinely brought blocks I make that I fear might be controversial to ANI. They seldom get any response, which I guess means that they probably weren't really controversial. But it gives people the opportunity to protest. It would seem that the problem of reblocking would be covered by WP:WHEEL, at least for the same offense. Hmm. What if it were offered as an example of a contentious block? Off the top of my head and incorporating your words, "An admin should generally consult other admins before non-urgent contentious blocks or seek review after making a block that might be seen as contentious, such as if they have previously blocked the user and had that block lifted by another admin."? That said, I think we may need to consider another element here: ownership doesn't just happen with blocks, it happens with unblocks, too. That could be covered by point 6, but not if Admin:John Clark's friend is continually unblocking User:John Clark from different admins. If we make the block situation explicit but not the unblock, there will be quibbling. what about reworking point 5:

An admin should generally seek review by other admins after making a block that might be seen as contentious. Admins making non-urgent contentious blocks or responding to contentious unblock requests should seed feedback prior to taking action. A block may be seen as contentious if the admin has previously blocked the user and had that block lifted by another admin. An unblock may be seen as contentious if the admin has unblocked the contributor before.

But then you run into the problem I always face: it gets long. :/ Everything after "taking action" could be relegated to a footnote? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I like Moonriddengirl's suggestion.

Another approach is to note that the current proposal has suggestions for what an admin should and shouldn't do. It sounds like the problems are with the "shouldn'ts", and maybe those should be omitted. Under a modified version: Admins may unblock accounts without consulting the blocking admin if there is no notice of special circumstances or probation. Is something like that agreeable? It completely omits 5 and 6.

Frankly, this seems to describe current practice. I have no evidence, but I get the impression that most unblockings occur without previously consulting with the blocking admin. Is that correct?   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it all really comes back to ownership of an editor's block status. Admins shouldn't own keeping someone blocked, and they shouldn't own keeping someone unblocked either. So I also like Moodriddengirl's suggestion for point #5. We could even roll point #6 into it in a similar way. Maybe a survey of ANI threads will yield some more tips. I could see that being a useful essay ("Clues that your administrative act may turn out to be contentious") to help admins, although these things always seem to turn into a stick to beat admins with.

Will's rephrasing of points #1-4 is good, but I have to take issue with one aspect. I want to give admins an absolute power to unblock unilaterally when the block was unilateral, without restrictions. I don't want an admin to be able to force a block to stick simply by referencing mysterious special circumstances. If the block notice is clear, then the unblocking admin can use that to make their own judgement as to what research and consultation is required. Mistakes will be made in unblocking, but we already have an error rate in blocking (that no-one really talks about) and, except in the rare case of high-speed super-disruption, the extra rope will usefully clarify whether the encyclopedia needs to be protected from that editor without too much collateral damage.

It may be current practice for some admins, but personally I try very hard to avoid violating blocking policy as written. And if that's the case, then we should align de jure and de facto policy. I also have family commitments today, but I will try to find the time to make a survey of recent blocks and unblocks and report back. Will, did you see the example of unblocking that I posted above? Bovlb (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't see the example. Could you point to it or repeat it?   Will Beback  talk  00:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Example Bovlb (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked for two or three recent examples and you provide a single case from two years ago? If that's the extent of the problem then I don't think we need to be worrying about it several years later.   Will Beback  talk  14:28, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the likelihood that administrators, like editors, have real lives to attend to and there is no absolute certainty regarding when they will be next available, I'm not seeing the reason why the explanation should not be provided in advance. If administrators are free to review the circumstances of a situation prior to imposing a block (without consulting anyone else), then really, administrators should be free to review the circumstances of a situation (and the explanation of a block) prior to lifting the block (and that too wouldn't require much consultation, if any). A courtesy note to the blocking admin may be all that is required. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

What percentage of blocks are unblocked? Having to write a detailed description of the reason for every block seems like unnecessary work, and in some cases may violate WP:BEANS.

Regarding user:Reidweaver, it seems like that was a mistaken block. Note that the current policy does not prohibit unilateral unblocking. Instead it advises contacting the blocking admin, and if that is impossible then to use AN as a backup.

• Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

It seems like there's already leeway to cover special cases.   Will Beback  talk  10:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe some of this could be solved simply by softening "unambiguous error". Maybe something like, "Except in cases where an admin has a demonstrable belief that a block was made in error..." That puts the ownership of the unblock on the unblocker, and they'd naturally provide the the reasons why they thought the block was in error. It would cover the example case, where the unblocker could show that it was due to a mis-programmed bot and and to an admin who may not have seen that factor. It'd also cover a block of an alternate account that had been properly disclosed where the blocker does not appear to be aware of it. Does that seem like it would be an improvement?   Will Beback  talk  13:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I don't handle a lot of unblock requests, though I do a few, but it seems to me that it's currently common to unblock people without first discussing unblocks with the blocking admin or going to ANI, not just because of error, but also because the user is being given another chance. I've had a number of copyright violators request unblocking. Sometimes they receive it; sometimes they don't. It isn't that there was an error made in the block, but that they indicate that they "get it" now and will comply. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Recording in the block log

In the "Recording in the block log" section, it says "Bureaucrats occasionally make an exception to provide a link to the prior block log of a user who has undergone a username change." This statement is 3 years old. Back in 2007, when usernames were changed, their block logs did not follow their username changes, because the username changes log at that time did not specify which username they changed to – that was only visible in the username change summaries. So the bureaucrats usually mentioned their old block logs in their new block logs. I'm really wondering whether we should remove this statement, as this is technically no longer the case. HeyMid (contribs) 12:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked at WP:BN for a crat to comment on this. If the situation is as you describe it I agree it is outdated information and can be safely removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Block logs now move over when renames are done, however, when renames are done on users with large editcounts, the renames can break and some things (like block logs, user rights, etc) may not transfer. But since that is the exception to the rule, it could probably be removed from policy. MBisanz ^talk 04:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, what Beeblebrox and MBisanz said. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

 Bureaucrat note:+1 -- Avi (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yup, add me to the 'crats that think this can be safely removed. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since this is non-controversial I've made the update. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Prevent account creation

How on earth does "prevent account creation" work? If the blocked user has logged out, how does the software identify them as being a blocked account? Surely the only info. available is the IP address and that is covered by a separate question. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. However, we cannot remove this information solely based on the fact that the IPs may not be autoblocked always. I think that if account creation is blocked, but autoblock is disabled, technically only the accounts themselves are blocked from creating new accounts, not the IP. Regarding autoblocks, I think that the accounts are autoblocked, even if they have already logged out of their accounts. I think MediaWiki logs the IPs any account has edited behind. I think it follows Special:RecentChanges (which, as far as I know, is kept for a few months). HeyMid (contribs) 22:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:Requests_for_comment/dispute_resolution relevant discussion

Much discussion here about how to deal with reluctance to impose blocks for Cool down blocks, WP:Harassment and WP:Personal attacks, despite multiple complaints at Wikiquette and/or ANI vs same editor(s). As well as possible alternatives to make it easier for admins - or perhaps others with such powers just for that purpose - to impose them. The whole problem is alluded to in today's New York Times article quoting Sue Gardner but if she's trying to recruit women the hostility many have had to face here likely to face more scrutiny if something isn't done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks and autoblock

To make sure I understand this right: if an account gets an indefinite block with account creation disabled and autoblock enabled, their IP and every IP they use from then on will get blocked, but only for 24 hours? That setup will not result in any indefinitely blocked IPs, will it? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right - the IP(s) will only be blocked for 24hrs each time. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user -> unregistered user

{{editsemiprotect}} As per

• WP:HUMAN,
• WP:IP,
• WP:ANONYMOUS,
• WP:IP edits are not anonymous and
• Meta:Unregistered user.

I think referring to unregistered users as "anonymous users" is incorrect and confusing. Registered users who do not adopt their real name as their username are also anonymous. In fact, registered users are arguably more anonymous, since their IP address is hidden.

Also, the phrases "anonymous user" or "anon" are often used in a discriminatory way by editors who do not fully appreciate (yet) the value and potential of unregistered users.

In the spirit of calling a spade a spade, please change all instances of "anonymous user" in this project page to "unregistered user", or "IP user". Thank you. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. One instance changed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:30, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Notifying the blocked user

This section is in conflict with the uw-vandal series of template messages, WP:Vandalism, and WP:Vandalism-only account. All of the others say that blocking may occur without notice, but this section of this page says it's mandatory.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Editors may certainly be blocked without notice, but we usually use the various sets of graduated warnings to make sure they are aware that they are risking a block. That's not the "mandatory" described here though, what is indeed mandatory is that you must provide a clear rationale for why you are blocking someone and almost always leave them a talk page note explaining the reason for the block and quite often their avenues for appeal. Franamax (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Often though, vandalism-only accounts or schoolblock'd IPs often don't get notified on their talk page that they have been blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no point notifying a troll on their talk page, especially when they're expecting it. There is also, often, no point leaving a block notice on the talk page of a shared IP. The person who gets the orange bar will often not be the same person the message is aimed at. Other users of the same IP will usually have no idea that their talk page even exists - block message or no. The exact same template message is visible to them when they try to edit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Then should we modify this policy to include that?Jasper Deng (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. The policy already mentions 'unless they have a a good reason not to'. I use the word 'often' above - that's a rather difficult thing to define in any better way. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a little less vague...Jasper Deng (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I know this discussion's stale but just an FYI, "without further notice" doesn't refer to notifying the user about being blocked. It means that there won't be any further warnings before a block is enacted (basically another way of saying "this is your final warning"). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a question.

Are users allowed to remove block notices from their talk pages, even if it is currently active? I have observed some interaction where one party is stating that it should not be removed until the block expires, but it is acceptable afterwards; the other party argues is that the user can do what (s)he wants to their user talk pages, including remove active block notices. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 03:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The last time we did this dance (I'd have to dig around for links/diffs) the consensus was that you can't remove declined unblock requests or shared ip notices. Nearly everything else is fair game. Relevant policy section is WP:BLANKING. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mainpace block

Suggested addition to the policy:

Mainspace blocks

In any situation where a user may justifiably be blocked, an admin may at their discretion instead impose a "mainspace block", i.e. blocking the user from editing any pages in mainspace, as well as any pages that affect display of mainspace pages (eg most templates), and categories relating to mainspace. This block is not currently enforceable by technical means, so the user is expected to respect the block as if it were an editing restriction. A breach of a "mainspace block" results in the imposition of a full block, at double the length of the mainspace block. There are no exemptions for breach (eg reverting vandalism).

At some point in the future this might be enforceable technically, but in many situations, it would be a useful tool now, enforced non-technically (by threat of further, more severe sanction). I'm thinking, for example, it could be used in many cases where editors need to engage in more discussion (eg 3RR situations), and blocking them from editing completely is a bit counter-productive. Equally, in theory a mainspace block could substitute part of a block (eg 24 hr block, ensuring a record in the block log, plus 24 hr mainspace block). Thoughts? Rd232 ^talk 15:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Seems like it could be a good idea if technically possible. But 3rr blocks do also give the user a chance to calm down. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Block messages

I think there should be a change in policy where Admins should need to elaborate on a block proposal. For example, I recently reported User:Nisar shah. She had been continually warned not to recreate a deleted page. Her block stated that it was for "Creating attack, nonsense or other inappropriate pages." While this is a pretty clear-cut case, I think it should have been written "for re-creating a deleted page after being warned not to." In another example, User:Wekn reven i susej eht was blocked for welcoming users who were no longer active. His message stated that his account was being used for "trolling, disruption or harassment." I believe that should have stated exactly what he was blocked for. I am discussing this here now, and may bring it to the village pump later. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

More general things are useful with regards to the request below for example, but a good explanation does make it clearer for everyone to see exactly why they were blocked. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to Unblocking section

Based on discussions in the MickMacNee Arbitration case I'd like to propose the following addition to the Unblock section:

If the user requesting an unblock has been blocked at least a couple of times for the same reason, then unless there is a clear community consensus the blocking administrator must be contacted before unblocking. Additionally a waiting period of at least 24 hours should be given so they have a reasonable chance to respond.

Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Creepy. --causa sui (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTCREEP :). There is a genuine issue here. Sandstein explains it well in the above case.-- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry that this is not related, but could someone comment on the section I started of Block messages? Ryan Vesey (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Places too much power in the hands of the blocking admin. I draw the opposite conclusion (well, different, anyway) from that incident, and therefore propose something in this direction:

Indefinite blocking and community support

Indefinite blocks may be either clearly temporary (i.e. intended to be lifted at some point; the block is expected to be of limited duration but not permanent) or permanent (not intended to be lifted). Blocks of the latter type require community support. Such support is typically assumed (since administrative actions should reflect the wishes of the community); where it is clear in any given case that the block is contested by the community (i.e. by third-party editors in good standing, via discussion at an appropriate venue), the block requires a consensus in order to stand. Administrators opposing the block are expected to take into account that such consensus is required, and to avoid precipitate unblocking while consensus is being established.

Rd232 public ^talk 23:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's hopelessly wordy, but expresses much of my sentiment on this. I'm worried about the "requires a consensus in order to stand" wording especially, as it has no time-frame, thus allows opporutnistic picking of the right time to decalre "no consensus has emerged, thus I will unblock". Often the first commenters are those opposed to blocking (sometimes opposed no matter what), so there's a problem there. Also, the intention in indefblocking should be made clear on the subject editors page at the time of the block notice, i.e either "indefinite not= inifinite" and here are the steps forward, or "indef == infinite", go away now (but with nicer words). Franamax (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

For the reason explained in more detail at the arbitration workshop page, I support the thrust of the proposal, although we need to take into account the legitimate concerns of some people that inappropriate blocks are not made (practically) too difficult to undo. I think that the thoughts by Rd232 public go in the right direction, but that what they call a "block intended to be permanent" is in reality a community ban and should be called that. Other blocks are (or ought to be) not to be intended as permanent. How about the following scale?

1. Blocks should normally be limited in duration for the first two instances of any given type of problem (spamming, edit-warring, attacks...) and may be unlimited in duration afterwards, except for problems where an indefinite block is normally the only sanction (vandalism only accounts, legal threats, ban evasions, etc).
2. Unblocks should note whether the unblock occurred because the block was found unnecessary to begin with, or because it is no longer necessary (e.g., because of assurances by the blocked editor).
3. Any block can be reverted with the agreement of the blocker or ArbCom. Failing that:
4. A block for the first or second instance of any problem can be reverted by another administrator after giving the blocking administrator a reasonable time (about 24 h, shorter if the block is shorter) to respond to the proposed grounds for unblock. If a discussion in a community forum is already underway, the unblocker must wait until it becomes clear that there will not be a community consensus for the block. (In other words, for first- and second-time blocks for any problem, "no consensus" defaults to unblock.)
5. If the block log already contains two prior blocks for the same problem that were not overturned as unnecessary to begin with, an unblock requires positive consensus in a community forum (i.e., "no consensus" defaults to keep blocked, pending an appeal to WP:BASC or agreement with the blocker).
6. A block that is intended to be permanent is a ban and requires positive community consensus to be enacted. For that reason, an editor kept blocked after a "no consensus" discussion outcome may make an unblock request to the community two months after the most recent discussion, and the block shall be lifted if there is not consensus to maintain it or to enact a formal ban.  Sandstein  06:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Really, given the results from the last RfC that took place on this issue here, it is getting a tad bit tiring. This is very much in creepy WP:BURO territory, and importing into policy specific situations concerning a minority is a bad idea. That a minority are apparently unwilling to comply with very basic expectations and are trying to import changes that suit the agenda is probably what I am more concerned by, given that policy is to benefit the Community at-large, and thereby, the project at large. Also, I'm sure I am not the only one who is getting tired of having to watch resources being spent on babysitting certain administrators who are unwilling to (1) admit that there is a problem in the approach that they are taking towards other users, or Wikipedia generally, and/or (2) to avoid the areas which are being affected by this problematic approach (until they have taken necessary steps required to adjust the approach so that it is not a problem), or to acknowledge that a particular role may no longer be suited for them. Administrators are expected to have good judgement and understand things come on a case by case basis. But if you're repeatedly involved in arbitration in relation to sanctions you have been involved with, that doesn't mean there is a problem with the rest of the Community.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hard cases make bad laws. In general I'd say what's needed isn't more rules, it's more WP:CLUE. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmvocalist and Elen of the Roads. This is instruction creep: the proposals are very complex legal language couched with multiple nested conditions and exceptions, as if we need administrators to use a series of logic gates or a flowchart to make decisions. We do not need to handle every eventuality with policy. Common problems and misconceptions with administrator judgment can be corrected and guided by policy, but this is going to cause more confusion than benefit. --causa sui (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not seem to agree what is clueful. There are at least four basic scenarios, all of which may be sensible in certain circumstances: block, revert / discuss, block, revert / discuss, block, discuss, revert / block, discuss, revert. And that's even before we address how to handle inconclusive discussions. Many administrators seem to have very different expectations about when to use which approach, and how their colleagues should comport themselves, and the policy is rather vague and at any rate mostly ignored. And the wheel-warring policy amounts to a statement that everybody who has at least one admin friend with loose views of professional conduct is almost immune from sanctions, no matter what the rest of the community thinks. All of this is a real problem, as it generates disputes, and it has a real effect on how well, and how equitably, our conduct rules are enforced. Nobody likes rule creep, but written rules are at least clear. I'd much rather have a clear written rule that all administrators comply with, even if I think the rule is wrong, than the current situation where everybody seems to live by their own personal blocking and unblocking policy. That's why I've concluded that under the present circumstances conduct enforcement that goes beyond clear-cut vandalism-only accounts is so arbitrary that it's a waste of time. But maybe the much-maligned "GovCom" will surprise us yet with some useful guidance.  Sandstein  19:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:CLUE is great in theory but it has two fundamental problems. Firstly this is a global project, to use cannabis as an analogy if you smuggle a joint into Singapore you're going to get the death penalty if you get caught, whereas if you smuggle a tonne of cannabis into the Netherlands (which is still technically illegal) you'll probably get a slap on the wrist if you get caught. Therefore culturally the Singaporean admin will block someone for sock-puppetry indefinitely for the first offence, whereas culturally the Dutch admin will only give them a block longer than 24 hours after they've done it a couple of times.

Secondly you have an interview process for adminship (RfA) and then you basically let people do whatever they want with little supervision, this means that if people slip through the net without WP:CLUE or they are angry/upset about something they have very little guidance to help them. What fucks me off most about admins, is when the apply the rules wildly inconsistently from each other. Having some sort of common standard means the rules are applied reasonably equally to everyone.

Consensus works well in small companies (or most discussions on Wikipedia, which don't involve more than 50 people), but in large organisations, like Wikipedia as a whole, you basically always manage things with processes. Wikipedia despite its policies on not being a bureaucracy uses processes quite a lot already. The manual of style for example is a process - people have decided how articles should be styled and everyone who writes an article to a good standard has to follow those rules. And lets not pretend Wikipedia isn't a large organisation. Even the admins on en.wiki are a large company by themselves, as the usual standard is that large companies have over 250 employees and there are ~ 1000 admins here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you could go a long way toward allaying my concerns with a proposed revision that doesn't sound like it was written by lawyers. I had to read that paragraph four or five times before I could sort out all the nested rules, conditions, and exceptions. It may seem straightforward to you since you know the history and context that motivates all this, but I don't, and the proposed text doesn't do much to illuminate that. The prescriptive-ness of your intentions combined with the complexity of the proposal means good-faith administrators are going to get whacked for failing to understand this needlessly complicated wordy verbiage, and that's not okay. Keep it simple please! Regards, --causa sui (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to improve the wording, I didn't think it was particularly good to start with :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein's proposal is much bolder change than mine, but it seems clearer and that could be worth taking to the community as a whole. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

• Personally, I think it is a very, very bad idea to make a major change to this policy without a much broader segment of the community expressing an opinion; this particular aspect of the blocking policy has been very contentious for as long as I have been on Wikipedia. I am particularly hesitant to enshrine first mover advantage into this policy, for the simple reason that the administrators most likely to rely on such a clause are the very ones whose block decisions are most frequently challenged. Do we really need a 50 kb thread on AN every time someone makes a poor blocking decision? Risker (talk) 22:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree completely, if something along the lines of Sandstein's proposal is made it needs listing on WP:CENT if not more. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Agreed on CENT listing for any substantive change, but let's see if we can hash out some preliminaries; there's nothing worse than taking a half-baked idea to the wider community - this very easily squashes the chance to get anything done for quite some time afterwards. Rd232 public ^talk 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

No, Sandstein's is far too detailed and far too prescriptive. Unless absolutely necessary, policy should only lay down broad principles. I think there's room for recognising the broad principle that indefinite blocks require community support. This support is normally assumed, but when a third party in good standing contests the block, an explicit community consensus should be required. Laying down a timeframe for allowing consensus to develop shouldn't be necessary. So let me try again with the wording:

Indefinite blocking and community support

Indefinite blocks must have the support of the community, and whilst most indefinite blocks are not controversial, some are, and these few cases can usually be predicted with relative ease. Where an indefinite block is likely to be controversial, it is preferable for community discussion to take place before blocking rather than after. Where an indefinite block has been made without prior community discussion, any third party editor in good standing may bring the block to an appropriate venue for review. In such cases, if after a reasonable period of discussion there is no consensus in favour of the block, it should be removed, or replaced with an appropriate alternative sanction which takes into account the community discussion.

This is reasonably clear on how to handle the key cases, yet limited in its prescriptiveness. Rd232 public ^talk 23:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232 that it's a good idea to have something that at least the folks most interested in the blocking policy can agree on before we put it up for public review. I also agree with Rd232 that Sandstein's proposal is too detailed and too prescriptive, and that policy should only communicate guidance on general principles rather than taking the form of code law, and his most recent proposal is more attractive to me as a jumping-off point for future discussion.

Here's a wild idea: Why don't we make a subpage to work on the proposal wiki-style? It seems silly to be copy-pasting our proposals here when we have all the tools we need for exactly this kind of collaborative editing. I boldly did this at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy/Proposal, copying Rd232's language above and making some changes. If you don't like my changes, revert them! :-) --causa sui (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing I like about Sandstein's proposal is that its prescriptive. As I've pointed out above without a prescriptive policy, or at least lots of examples, you are still going to have issues with the blocking policy.

If having narrow bands for what was an acceptable block led to less long and boring discussions about them that has to be a good thing.

Rather than wasting 50k on discussing a block wouldn't it be better to use that 50k for an article? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Any further comments? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

What needed to be said has already been said; maybe it's time to take the hint. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Its been made quite clear above discussion that the current policy is flawed and that no-one has come up with a way forward we can yet agree on - so obviously further discussion is the right answer.

Just because its a hard problem with no easy answers shouldn't mean that we just give up, someone might have a good idea next week, or next month and they should feel they can suggest it and get a positive response. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, what is clear is that a minority are refusing to acknowledge what they have been told - that is, that the policy is not the cause of the underlying problems here, but rather, it is a lack of judgement on the part of a few users. It is a similar inability to appreciate, accept or acknowledge how this is an issue which has led to the need to arbitrate that issue. In other words (seeing you missed the message in transit), the discussion that is warranted here is on user conduct of the specific situation; it is unhelpful to try to change policy in favor of a particular agenda and user when it is not in the actual beneficial interests of the project as a whole. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Its quite clear that MickMacNee isn't the only user who gets 50k discussions about his blocks. Just recently I have been having a rather long discussion (which I hope we have agreed to disagree on) about an entirely different block with User:Timotheus Canens as to whether an indefinite block or a 48 hour were more justified for first time sockpuppetry. Probably on balance both of our positions are within the letter of the policy. I'm sure there are plenty more discussions like this as Risker points out above.

To take an extreme position if the blocking policy stated that first time sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry had to be within 72 hours and a week, or one week and two weeks or whatever range was deemed appropriate by the community then we wouldn't have had to have a discussion at all and neither of us wouldn't have wasted any time over the matter. It would then leave discussions about blocks to only whether the block as a whole was justified, but you could also have a list of example blocks in each category, which would make that easier as well. At that point it would be virtually impossible to have long discussions about individual block at all as they'd either follow policy or they wouldn't. WP:DYK on the front page follows that kind of policy and seems to work pretty well.

Now that is a very authoritarian position, but I reckon we could get most of the benefits with some kind of intermediate position between our current position and that position. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

In my view, you don't fully appreciate the nature of policy as it works on Wikipedia. Wikipedia could have very easily chosen to adopt a legislation-type set of rules if it wanted to, and that may have even catered for the type of thing this minority have been pushing for, but the bottom line is that it has neither been preferred nor adopted by the Community; until that happens, I do think this is an unproductive use of time and wikiresources. Frankly, I also think you've missed the point Risker was actually noting above.

As for policy as currently accepted, simply changing it will neither change the problem nor address it; this is not just a mechanical process for a limited purpose nor can it just be adopted to suit a minority position, and there is a lot of nuances in it. Yet, what provoked the discussion here was a straightforward matter of direct unwillingness to adhere to the Community's expectations. In other words, it was a steadfast and problematic adherance to (i) what one thinks policy should be (even if it is in conflict with what the Community actually values and what the Community's actual attitudes to issues are) (ii) what one thinks their admin actions and status should be given by everyone else broadly, and (iii) how one should choke all the individuals, and if necessary, bodies who disagree with them or stand in the of way of the ultimate self-(and-minority-)serving agenda. This approach and mentality can be even more problematic (and disruptive) when it is in conflict with the purpose of this project and what the project is actually about. This is why users are expected to be receptive to feedback; those that aren't will need to be addressed through the other means available (or the only means available if all else has failed to produce the desired result). It all comes back to case-by-base basis, which is why much of these admin policies has been crafted in a very deliberate way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"Wikipedia could have very easily chosen to adopt a legislation-type set of rules if it wanted to, and that may have even catered for the type of thing this minority have been pushing for, but the bottom line is that it has neither been preferred nor adopted by the Community" - the existence of WP:MOS is the clearest refutation of that point. But actually if you follow how the main page operates for example there is a hell of a lot of legislation in place. For example WP:ITNR, WP:ITN#Criteria, WP:OTD#Criteria_for_listing_items_on_this_set_of_pages, WP:DYKAR, WP:WIADYK the criteria on WP:TFA/R etc.

Secondly while it is true that this discussion did come out of MickMacNee's arbitration request it doesn't mean there isn't a wider issue.

Thirdly I don't think its obvious that the admin policies work anywhere near as well as they should - there is outside criticism in the Economist of issues surrounding the civility guidelines, and frankly any policy which results in lots of 50k discussions about how its applied has fairly clearly failed. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And yet...the most recent RfC sparked by this type of proposal on blocking policy led in a pretty overwhelming message that this form is not helpful. Funny how that works huh? And do you really think it's the wisest idea to bring MOS over here? The reasons and circumstances which resulted in the creation of those guidelines arise very differently to those being pushed for here by a minority. But even if were to continue to pretend that wasn't the case, it really doesn't take that long to find the many disputes over petty issues concerning MoS with discussions in EXCESS of a 50k mark (and the very negative reactions by the Community). Also, acting as an admin is not the same as applying criteria for certain content processes, and I have a pretty strong feeling that admins will not want to be in the business of devoting just as much (or less) time to content as they will be required to under legislation if they are to address certain situations (which are already better catered for under the current scheme). Incidentally, there's this term that people give to editors who repeatedly raise the same sorts of proposals and arguments on the same pages because they didn't get the answer they were personally wanting...it seems the term has slipped my mind at this point, but I do know that the net effect is exhaustion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been helpful to link to the previous discussions you refer to? There is for instance this WT:BLOCK discussion from November on related issues. In general, the same issue popping up again and again indicates a real need for something, even if it's only clarification. Now your remarks about "legislation-type rules" I think are generally correct, but do you agree that this applies to Sandstein's proposal, not to mine? Rd232 public ^talk 17:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would like to see the previous discussions as well.

You're probably right that there are MOS issues, but given its massive maybe there are legitimate issues with parts of it, and it certainly is an example of "legislation type rules".

And I've never made any proposal relating to the blocking policy in any way before so to claim that I've bought this up before is total nonsense. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

@Rd232 I dunno if I agree with you about legislation being inherently bad, but I think if we can work within the confines of the existing structure that is a good thing. If without legislating we can make the policy work better - so for example giving an indefinite block and a 48 hour block for the same offence aren't both considered acceptable - and get the range down to something vaguely sane then that's probably good enough (and that's certainly something thats achieved by the protection policy which isn't legislated). I have to admit I'm not entirely satisfied with your proposal, but given its less controversial and a smaller change its probably worth giving it a go and getting consensus and seeing if it appears to help. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it's not just a question of "legislative or not". There's also a difference between Civil law (legal system) and Common law approaches, with the former being much more prescriptive and the latter being more about the application of principles. It's probably no coincidence that English Wikipedia policy has more in common with the latter than the former, since Anglophone countries are generally common law-based. Rd232 public ^talk 19:27, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

True enough, but how common law systems actually work is far closer to the authoritarian system I suggest above than how the current blocking system works - I doubt English Judges can more than double or half someones sentence based on the exact circumstances of the crime. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. This is drifting off topic but given the lack of others' input what the hell... Some English sentencing guidelines. Eg for grievous bodily harm the sentencing range is from community order to 4 years' custody. Rd232 public ^talk 23:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting reading. Fair point. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW by the previous case I presume Ncmvocalist is talking about this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please just leave it on a case-by-case basis. No set of new rules is going to prevent occasional mistakes from being made. This being a wiki those mistakes are fairly easy to rectify once they are identified. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, I'll bring up some more evidence then. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I think it's time to stop beating the dead horse. --causa sui (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Personally I think its pretty clear there is a serious issue here.
  • I don't think it will be difficult to find examples where I am uninvolved along similar lines to the ones I've bought up. If after going through a reasonably representative sample (e.g. the last 50 non vandalism-only account blocks, or the last few weeks of ANI discussions) I am unable to find any other examples I'll be more than happy to accept that there isn't a serious issue here and drop the matter. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)