Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Stronger warning against IP address range blocks, supported by mention of key Principle and trimming of 'fig leaves'

The Administrators' Guide to Blocking appropriately emphasises that blocking ranges of IP addresses should be considered a last resort. I don't think there is sufficient explicit emphasis of that nature here, under "IP address blocks", or at the linked page Blocking IP addresses. They do certainly convey a message to 'be careful', but that lacks the appropriate forcefulness of expression.

I also think it would be helpful to support that warning by linking to the central/founding/core/sacred/guiding principle that Wikipedia shall — in general — be editable without requiring user registration. A fact that some editors have disputed (without providing any evidence to back their statements).

Finally, I am concerned that the advice on the rangeblock template, inter alia, for (collaterally) blocked IP address editors to create an account in order to keep editing not only flys in the face of the above-indicated fundamental principle that editing should not require registration, but also acts as a fig leaf such that editors can (wrongly) claim that range blocks are not such a bad thing, and needn't be left as a 'last resort', but instead turn into responses of first resort!

—DIV (1.144.111.80 (talk) 11:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC))

It's going to be moot soon when they stop publishing IPs. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Evidence

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

---

I think a higher level of evidence should be required for blocking suspected socks that aren't otherwise disruptive. Innocent users sometimes being wrongly blocked is an unacceptable sacrifice to make. Benjamin (talk) 10:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What proof would you recommend be required? A signed confession is unlikely. Socks are corrosive and, if unchecked, could undermine the community. Johnuniq (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

CU, behavioral patterns, etc... Benjamin (talk) 10:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty much the sort of thing we already use anyway... Yunshui ^雲_水 10:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yunshui and Johnuniq: He’s referencing DeltaQuad’s “we don’t have to play your guessing game” block at User talk:DecisiveDomination. Another example from me would be User talk:Cernelmustard, though I have theories on that one. In my view here the standard is pretty clear: if disruption is likely we don’t play the games of trolls. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course, it's a matter of degree. I think it should be held to a higher standard, and we should assume good faith in uncertain cases. Benjamin (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And AGF is not a suicide pact. Never has been. We are only here because this wouldn't pass a request to be overturned at ANI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you assume good faith in all cases, just the particularly borderline cases. Benjamin (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If this is really a borderline case, take it to ANI. Because clearly, from the CU data I ran, and the crap on the talkpage, this user is here to deceive. If that's not enough WP:NOTHERE, I don't know what is. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

How can you be so sure? I thought the story seemed plausible. Benjamin (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Because Amanda has had dealing with this as one of her primary focuses on Wikipedia for almost a decade, and it has been one of my primary means of contributing to the project for the better part of 3 years. When you have experience with these things, it becomes abundantly clear who is playing the "Can you guess who I am?" game. Their story is not believable in the slightest. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Will you not even acknowledge the possibility that you might be wrong? Benjamin (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminikuta, I will speak as a non-CU admin: there is always a possibility that they might be wrong. Even if the evidence points 100% to one person using one device to operate two accounts, there exists a miniscule probability that WP:BROTHER actually is true and there are two people using an account. CU data isn't infallible, the CUs themselves aren't infallible, but if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck and you've been duck hunting for ten years then you know what a duck looks and sounds like. If you want to change the system, make a proposal somewhere, but otherwise let them do their jobs. Primefac (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Yes, there is always the possibility of being wrong, but Wikipedia is a private website, not a court of law, but even in criminal trials the standard is not beyond all doubt but beyond a reasonable doubt. While I think the sock block standard should be lower than that, I also think this block has no room for reasonable doubt: their explanation is not a believable one and we are not required to take them at their word when everything points in one direction. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The problem that I see is that in cases such as this, where an editor is wrongly blocked, the admin might very well assume they did the right thing, and never be proven wrong. And then they use that as evidence to say that they are usually correct. How can we evaluate the accuracy of something if the metric we use to evaluate it is the very metric in question? Anyway, I'm not suggesting a radical or fundamental policy change, but merely that we be a bit more careful. I don't expect to effect a change in policy all by myself, but let it not be said that there was no disagreement. Benjamin (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

"in cases such as this, where an editor is wrongly blocked" - you still seem to be stating that Amanda made the wrong call with this block. If you want to challenge her actions, then this is not venue in which to do so. Incidentally, having now reviewed the evidence, you can add me to the growing list of admins/checkusers who agree that she was correct. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I don't expect to overturn this, but I at least want my opposition to count, so if nothing else, it isn't assumed to be unanimous. But for what it's worth, I find the story particularly relatable, as someone who also edited from IPs and read policy discussions before registering an account. Benjamin (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want your opposition to be counted, then make a case at AN or ANI, rather than dragging it out here. If you are not able to muster enough evidence to make a case at one of those venues, then stop using this page as a soapbox to criticise one specific block. Piss or get off the pot, as my dear old grandmother would say. Yunshui ^雲_水 22:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I am opposed to the application of the policy more generally, rather than just this one specific block. Besides, is that really what ANI is for? Benjamin (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

If you are opposed to the application more generally, then write a policy proposal to change it. Just be ready to be to back it up with examples where the implementation is wrong, because otherwise it'll just be status quo ante bellum. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even sure how the wording of the policy would be changed to reflect that. I don't have a problem with the wording, per se. I just think the threshold should be a little higher, even if the methods are the same. But that's kinda moot, isn't it? Since consensus is clearly against me, anyway. Benjamin (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2019 (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.

Ideas

There are some things I consider issues that should be addressed. The scope of blocking (according to the lead) is to "prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users".

Purpose and goals

"Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. The wording "to protect the project" is important but and other users is not found in the lead, is relegated to a third sentence (buried), so seems an after-thought.

Protection

The first listed reason to block is:

• persistent personal attacks.

There is more than one reason using persistent is out of place and improper. Everyone should be able to be a part of this community without fear of being personally "attacked". The policy seems very clear: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.", and also includes; Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack.

• "Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior."

The opening paragraph of the policy on civility offers: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.", yet there is a leniency factor of the added word "persistent" (continued) that gives clear implications that some amount of "attacks" are tolerated. Some attacks do not deserve a chance to be repeated before becoming a concern. An interpretation of "persistent" could be several times, while "repeated" would be on the second occurrence, and both allow leeway to "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia".

I think fostering a safe and friendly environment to those participating in this community, as well as apparent WMF concerns, dictates that the community not take too soft an approach with attempts to water-down wording that at best can foster gaming the system. I think being overly-tolerant when there are civility issues, particularly personal attacks, creates an atmosphere that "this is not allowed" --BUT-- tolerated to a point. Editors should not be subjected to personal attacks to have to be advised to just ignore it.

That safe-guards be in place to "protect the project from harm" are important it should be important to include wording of a goal to ensure that Wikipedia is a place where participants not be intimidated by insensitive words or personal attacks. Wording that at the least, makes it seem tolerated, should be left out. Within that context it would seem wording that includes "and other users" not be buried. Considering these things I feel that "persistent" does not belong in the above sentence and mention of the protection of others be made more prominent. Otr500 (talk) 12:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

In practice some attacks already result in immediate blocks, others merit a warning or a request for clarification. We are a diverse global text based community, and not everything that is perceived as an attack by some is considered an attack by all. I think that replacing "persistent personal attacks" with "egregious or persistent personal attacks" would bring the policy closer to longstanding practice, and be a step in the direction that you want. As for the WMF, I'm conscious of their shift from having lower standards on this than the community, to wanting the community be stricter but having difficulty in being specific as to what change they want. I've been here long enough to remember when the WMF made it clear that one of their staffers was unblockable, despite issuing death threats on IRC. I think overall their shift has been positive, even though some of their recent behaviour has been toxic. For example in issuing a 12 month ban without disclosing to the banned person what behaviour they are accused of and by implication should discontinue at the end of the ban. ϢereSpielChequers 12:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Improvements will not come easy

WereSpielChequers: If "an attack" can already result in a block or ban then I still don't see the need for the added word. In "practice" a block is usually considered after other options have been tried anyway. As far as secret proceedings, I am 100% against those. The entire idea of transparency becomes moot when there are closed-door sessions with the community in the dark, or the community being asked to be involved knowing only part of the story because of gag orders. There are too many ways where we can be kept more in the loop while sensitive or private information can be redacted. I certainly saw a "positive shift" or I would have joined others throwing in the towel. You mentioned that "some attacks already result in immediate blocks, others merit a warning or a request for clarification.", and that is and should be, discretionary sanctions.

The "Incivility" section of the Civility policy: Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness and disrespectful comments. Especially when done in an aggressive manner, these often alienate editors and disrupt the project through unproductive stressors and conflict. While a few minor incidents of incivility that no one complains about are not necessarily a concern, a continuing pattern of incivility is unacceptable. In cases of repeated harassment or egregious personal attacks, then the offender may be blocked. Even a single act of severe incivility could result in a block, such as a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person.

A protection block must be discretionary but "if" it is decided such a block was unnecessary or even wrong then figure out how to expunge it. The way it is written now, by the time "persistent" has been determined an editor (or more than one) may have been alienated, run off, or there is other damage requiring mitigation. Four warnings may work most of the time but we don't need to unnecessarily hamstring any process concerning uncivil behavior.

In legal terms there can be a personal attack (that can result in no serious effects) or a more serious aggravated (severe, aggressive or egregious) personal attack. There can be simple annoying harassment or aggravated harassment. In the on-wiki world we mandate "make no personal attack anywhere on Wikipedia" yet in wording we nullify this by repeatedly using "persistent".

The Wikimedia Foundation has determined there are specific harassment concerns on Wikipedia that has created an "impetus" to find solutions. I will offer that we can be proactive, in reviews, discussions, and solutions, or lackadaisical and be forced to accept some ultimate determined conclusion or solution.

• Goals of the Wikimedia Foundation:

• Reduce the amount of harassing behavior that occurs on Wikimedia projects.

• Fairly resolve a higher percentage of incidents of harassment that do occur on Wikimedia projects.

• Potential measures of success (according to the link):

There are challenges to measuring harassment but we still want to be sure our work has an impact on the community. Current ideas include:

• 1. Decrease the percentage of identifiable personal attack comments on English-language Wikipedia.
  2. Decrease the percentage of non-administrator users who report seeing harassment on Wikipedia, measured via survey.
  3. Increase the confidence of admins with their ability to make accurate decisions in conduct disputes, measured via survey.
  4. Increase new user retention

I do not think the above ideas to be unreasonable. If an admin sees an incident or reviews a complaint they can make an initial determination if a block is required or not. As I understand this is current practice and should be left to the Admin community as a first line of defense for the protection of Wikipedia and individual editors. The WP:NPA policy lists "What is considered to be a personal attack?", which would already be an elevation as opposed to any other "lessor" act of incivility, and may be determined to be an "extreme" case, even if a single isolated personal attack. That was mentioned as being what is practiced.

Admins do not need the extra burden of worrying about exactly where a line has been crossed or exactly how much damage may have been inflicted on another editor or Wikipedia (it may be serious and possibly extreme but maybe short of egregious or catastrophic) before a block is clearly uncontroversial. Blocks, as a last absolute option, are important but it should remain discretionary to the Admin. and we already have a list of those willing to make difficult blocks.

The Administrators' guide on blocking uses the word "persistent" or references multiple incidents (3RR, edit warring, etc...) as to "When to block", and this clearly shows a protectionist stance stacked against a potential victim. In seeking improvements, such as making Wikipedia a "safer place", increase new user retention, increase the confidence of admins, or other nice words, we should not just use token words. If the way we have been doing things is shown not to be working, possibly out of date, then instead of fighting to maintain the status-quo, maybe looking at all areas would be a better idea.

In this case, adding the word persistent, in effect makes it appear a reviewing admin has to look at the editing history of a potential offender before first determining any potential severity or harm that could be inflicted. That sort of makes sense, in a twisted way, since two other examples given under the "Reason to block" section of WP:Administrators' guide/Blocking (concerning behavior), is persistent gross (egregious) incivility and persistent Wikipedia:Harassment.

At one point the policy stated "In cases of gross or extreme vandalism a warning is not needed at all, such as in the case of promotion of hate or racism. Other users will deserve only one warning, others more warnings. Decide on the severity of the behavior and the likelihood of salvaging a good user. No hard and fast rule will do; use your good judgment.". This looks to have been replaced in 2008 with the edit summary of "tweek" where seven instances of the word "persistent" was added, uncontested, and still surviving. I guess a plus would be that the WMF is looking for "better reporting systems for volunteers, smarter ways to detect and address problems early, and improved tools and workflows related to the blocking process.". I submit that one way would be to stop advancing that an editor already be clearly exhibiting they are not here to build an encyclopedia before considering protective blocks and bans.

If there just has to be an adjective added then possibly "extreme" would be a better candidate like:

• "personal attacks considered extreme". I do not think anything needs adding because the reason for a possible block or ban would simply be a violation of that policy as evidenced by the link. However, extreme would be considered acute or severe (even extraordinary), without rising to egregious.

"We are a diverse global text based community, and not everything that is perceived as an attack by some is considered an attack by all." is very true but it does not mean we have to be accommodating to an editor with a behavior problem at the expense of those that do not. I am in no way advocating increasing blocks. Removing stumbling blocks that can fertilize inappropriate behavior cannot be a bad thing though.

I still submit that the word "persistent" needs to be omitted as unnecessary. Otr500 (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fairness of blocking

The perceived fairness of a block seems to have a small effect on whether an editor will respond to a block. If you're interested in some preliminary research on the subject of what happens when you block a user, then you might want to see the most recent mw:Wikimedia Research/Showcase at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiUfpmeJG7E WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply Copyedit (minor)

firstly hello, I think it was a misunderstanding that I did not copy, says you have been blocked in a message that came to me, could you please unblock me Ahmadkurdi44 (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTHERE discussion

I've started a related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Here to build an encyclopedia#NOTHERE by proxy, i.e. paid SPAs. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Impersonation blocks

It recently happened that a user registered an account with a user name quite similar (but not identical) to that of a well-known athlete, who has an article on Wikipedia. This user made several small but not unhelpful edits to sports-related topics, but did not edit the article about the well-known athlete, nor any page on which that athlete is mentioned or any topic with which he is involved. . The user was reported at WP:UAA, which I often patrol. I placed a warning template on the user's talk page, advising the user to either declare that a/he was not the well-known person, or that he was, and in the second case to email info-en@wikimedia.org with evidence, as suggested by WP:IMPERSONATE.

Beeblebrox responded, saying: I'm afraid I disagree with you here ... Blocking is usually the tool of first resort when using the name of a notable individual. The reason is that there can be real harm to the reputation of real people if it looks like they've been editing their own Wikipedia article. The block template used clearly explains how to prove they are who they say they are, and that such blocks are for their own protection

If blocking is indeed the "first resort" in such cases, neither WP:BLOCK nor WP:IMPERSONATE says so. The blocking policy says only that Accounts with inappropriate usernames are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, thus dfering to the Wikipedia:Username page, but that page says only that:

Do not edit under a name that is likely to imply that you are (or are related to) a specific, identifiable person, unless it is your real name. If you have the same name as a well-known person to whom you are unrelated, and are using your real name, you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person.

If a name is used that implies that the user is (or is related to) a specific, identifiable person, the account may sometimes be blocked as a precaution against damaging impersonation, until proof of identity is provided.

No standards are given for when a username is likely to imply that you are ... a specific, identifiable person and may sometimes be blocked seems to leave considerable discretion to an admin whether to block of not.

I propose that if a user is not (and has not been) editing a Wikipedia article about the person whose name the users username resembles, and has not claimed to be that person, nor taken other actions to clearly imply that he or she is that identifiable person beyond the choice of username, then blocking should not be the usual first choice until the user has been asked whether he or she is the identifiable person, or not. If the challenged user continues to edit without responding in a satisfactory way to the question (either by clearly denying the relationship or identity, or by explicitly affirming it and sending an appropriate communication to info-en@wikimedia.org) then the user may be blocked.

While Beeblebrox is correct that the standard block template tells a blocked user how to appeal, and how to identify oneself via email (although only in general terms) many new users here find a block highly off-putting, and will simply leave and not return. It seems to me that the potential costs of such a block, particularly when the challenged user's username is not identical with the name of the identifiable person, outweigh possible future damage when the user has not been editing topics connected with the identifiable person. What do others think about this? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

A couple points:

• I'll grant that this may be a case of "hard cases make bad law" as this is not an exact match and they haven't been editing content about the person.
• That (soft) blocking is the tool of first resort may not be explicitly stated in policy, but I believe in practice it has been for some time. If policy doesn't reflect that perhaps the policy should be updated.
• My main concern here is basically WP:BLP, admittedly in a rather roundabout way. If a user creates the impression that they are a notable person that they are not, there is a risk, regardless of exactly what they are editing, that news sources may pick up on it and report that "so-and-so seems to be editing Wikipedia". In this age of he 24-hour news cycle, some over-pressured tech reporters are willing to engage in such reporting because they have to report on something at least once a day whether it has merit or not. When we block such accounts it makes it clear that as far as WP is concerned, this is not that person unless and until they go through the process to confirm that it is.
• That it could be off-putting to new users is true, but we really don't want to encourage anyone to impersonate a living person and I believe that simply outweighs this concern.

I hope that clarifies my position.Beeblebrox (talk) 22:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Yes I see your point, but I disagree with the relative importance and urgency of the possible BLP issue and the WP:BITE issue when the user's name is not a close match for the name of the known person, and no edits are in any way about that person. I am inclined to doubt that a tech reporter would pick up such a partial match, and I think blocking would only be likely to draw additional attention to the situation, not less. Your concerns are not without value, but I disagree with the relatice weight you are giving them, and neither policy page settles that issue as currently written. I would favor a more explicit policy statement here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• It is also worth noting that the user name policy speaks of a specifically identified person while the appropriate blocking template (and the matching entry in the blocking drop down) speaks of a "famous" person. these two should be harmonized, one way or another. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I usually disagree with Beeblebrox on just about everything to do with the username policy, but I think he’s correct here. On the larger question of UPOL blocks, I think the entire page should be blanked and replaced with “Administrators may block accounts with disruptive usernames at their discretion”. The existing policy is needlessly complex and is more a codification of UAA practice from a decade ago than anything else, and I’d be willing to bet that most username blocks don’t happen based off of UAA reports, but based on names popping up on watchlist. I’ll also go ahead and point out that with the exception of impersonation blocks, I think soft username blocks are a violation of the principles of the blocking policy: either someone is disruptive enough to be hard blocked, or they shouldn’t be blocked at all, so in that way I guess I agree with DES’ broader point about soft blocks being off putting and largely a negative to the project because they either tend to scare off people who aren’t causing any harm because of some policy that only a handful of people know well, or on the flip side it encourages spammers to create a new account and spam more easily. Neither outcome is good.
  The issue with impersonation blocks that makes them different is that it’s a BLP concern but we don’t actually want to hard block a fan of an actress or actor. It’s just about the only situation where soft blocks actually make sense: they protect living people while also offering the chance for good faith newcomers to start again. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• FWIW, I'd support TB's simplification of UPOL. As long as the admin's discretion is constrained by certain parameters—disruptiveness, promotion, offensiveness etc—and the usual WP:COMMONSENSE that many admins show day in, day out, in the course of every other of their duties, then yeah: it's currently ~3,000 words of, if not WP:WAFFLE, then extraneous detail, looking for and finding problems where they may (note: may) not exist which flies very much in the face of WP:NOTBURO, WP:RAP etc. ——SN54129 06:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Impersonation blocks are needed to prevent impersonation. It does not matter that the user is editing constructively or not editing about themselves. This is important. And Template:Uw-ublock-famous is quite polite and not biting, downright conciliatory, in explaining the reason for the block (protecting real people who could sue us if we hurt them or allow someone to do so in Wikipedia's name) and in explaining the avenue to unblocking. Beeblebrox and TonyBallioni are spot on. Serial Number 54129 has a point.-- Deepfriedokra 09:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• I agree with Beeblebrox here that sufficient similarity to a famous person's name (especially coupled with likely behavioural matches) is sufficient to warrant a block. What constitues sufficient similarity or "is likely to imply that you are ... a specific, identifiable person" can not, in my view, be codified usefully, as it's very much a case-by-case thing and needs to depend on discretion. I also agree with TonyBallioni that policy is messy and over-detailed (as is so much Wikipedia policy, unfortunately). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with DES It shouldn't be the first choice, and usually isn't , for example, do a quick search on the unusual first name of our founder, Jimbo Wales and you'll find different variation on his name.

For example, we have User:Jimbo_online who at one point had a message on his page saying he wasn't the other Jimbo, and he's currently not blocked nor has he been asked to change his name at all. Yes there are variations of the name Jimbo that are blocked , not because they resemble the name Jimbo Wales, but because they were vandalizing, like "Hail Jimbo". Don't block someone just because their name is similar, it happens, it even happened to Kareem Abdul Jabbar (the basketball player). There's a football player with a similar name. It happens, it's not a good enough reason to block. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 16:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• It's confusing that Twinkle has a template called an "Impersonation block" but only refers to impersonating another editor. I share the desire that we change the word famous. I blocked an editor today who was using the alleged name of the Trump whistleblower. I did it as soon as I found the account - there are times when we shouldn't wait. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• A whistleblower whom the likewise-named user claimed was a CIA operative and whose last name just happened to start with the letters CIA! El_C 17:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• I would also like to completely get rid of "famous" and replace it with "notable" which is a much lower bar. In many of these cases the person is known in their field, or to a certain fandom, but not "famous" by the normally understood meaning of the word. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Going off of your and Doug's point, I think it kinda reinforces that most administrators don't know what the username policy actually says and are just looking for a reason in Twinkle when they see something on their watchlist. Personally, I think you're fine blocking notable names. UAA is kinda a walled garden and I think many administrators would block for "notable" and if hauled to AN the person bringing them there would get trouted and told to stop being so literal. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Question: My real name exactly matches the name of an American politician. If I used my real name for my username here and never edited anything related to that American politician, would I (or should I) be blocked? With hundreds of thousands of biographies on Wikipedia, this could easily be a common occurrence. It is noted above that "Blocking is usually the tool of first resort when using the name of a notable individual", but is this really true? It seems unnecessarily harsh to me, if so. Peacock (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It could be a common occurrence, but luckily it generally isn't. I can personally recall one case similar to what you describe, the name was the mayor of a mid-sized city in Canada, but in that case the user did in fact edit about that city, and was blocked. When he explained that he had just found out he shared the same name as the mayor of the city he lived in, he was unblocked. I don't recall the name exactly but it was something like "Brad Taylor" a fairly common type of name that could easily belong to any number of people in a city of 50,000. So I would say there are degrees of nuance here, and generally if someone claims it is their real name and it's not something really unusual or distinctive we should AGF that they are telling the truth. The exact case that brought this discussion about, however, seems pretty clearly to be a reference to basketball player, although they've not edited content related to that player. As I said above, probably not a good test case for this aspect of policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed with Beeblebrox that "hard cases make bad law." My 2c: if someone is editing with a name substantially similar to a notable person and their edits would suggest they are that person, famousblock; that is, behavioral evidence needs to be taken into account. I'm willing to flex a little in either direction based on the uniqueness of the name (if user JohnSmith were editing a page on someone named John Smith, I'd be more inclined to drop a note on the person's talk page before blocking; if there's a famous person named Xyzzy MacZqfmgb and someone registers that account, I'm probably going to request an impersonation block regardless of where they're editing). When I've requested a block like this, 99% of the time it's because someone is editing a page with a username that implies they're the subject of the page. In this case, I probably wouldn't have blocked the user in question but would have gone for talk page discussion. Also, regarding tech news writers: I sure hope that the average tech newsie is smart enough to realize that anyone can register a username...but maybe I'm being too optimistic. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 21:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I've just seen so many terrible, lazily written news stories about WP, where they didn't bother with the slightest bit of research. There's just too many people trying to create news so they have something not everyone else is reporting on. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Peacock: Until you sent proof that you were you to WP:OTRS, yes. The risks of impersonation are to great to not do so. "Harsh" implies punitive. Blocks are to prevent disruption, not to punish.-- Deepfriedokra 10:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Sigh. Pcock was one of Edgar's socks and was therefore perfectly aware of this when they asked it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Policy on partial blocks

I actually agree with comments elsewhere that this can basically be done in 1-2 sentences, and I'd say without the need for a formal RfC. Something like Partial blocks may be used at administrator discretion in line with this principles of this policy would more than cover it. Ping QEDK. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur. Since we intend for partial blocking to be used in accordance with BLOCKPOL and for it to function as a supplement to site-wide blocks, that is ideal, since the less the WP:CREEP, the better. --qedk (t 桜 c) 13:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Ideally, we can add a new subsection under "Implementing blocks" (#6.3) like

Partial blocks

Administrators can prevent users from editing only certain pages or namespaces in accordance with this policy if there is a reasonable assumption that the problematic editing is restricted to certain pages or namespaces (such as restricting users from pages they edit-warred over in lieu of protecting the page). Partial blocks are subject to the same enforcement and appeals processes as regular blocks.

The WP:Partial blocks page could then serve as an information page. Regards SoWhy 11:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. The only other thing I see that would need updating is the Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors section. Editors blocked from editing an article can still participate on the talk page, and their requests should be treated the same as if the page was protected. – bradv🍁 15:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

How about:

Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a blocked editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. However, in closed discussions, comments by blocked editors should not generally be reverted or struck through.

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. This also applies to edits at the direction of a partially blocked user with regards to the pages they are blocked from editing. New accounts that engage in the same behavior as a banned editor or blocked account in the same context, and that appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. See also Wikipedia:Sock puppetry § Meatpuppetry.

Partially blocked users are allowed to edit any pages not covered by the partial block or other sanctions (e.g. talk pages to discuss changes to articles they are blocked from editing).

Pinging @TonyBallioni, QEDK, and Bradv. Regards SoWhy 16:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

SoWhy, I like it generally. I would maybe add something near the end to clarify that if used for sanctions enforcement a lack of a partial block does not indicate a page covered by another sanction is okay to edit. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: That reads pretty well. Tony's suggestions seems to be automatically applicable, but it would not do harm to footnote it. -qedk (t 桜 c) 13:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I suggest rewording the last sentence, because I think it could be read both ways: "If you are under a partial block that covers a given article, you may edit its talk page to discuss changes to the article" (interpreting the parenthetical text as an example of "any pages not covered…") or "If you are under a partial block that covers a given article, you may not edit its talk page to discuss changes to the article" (interpreting the parenthetical text as an example of "other sanctions", such as a topic ban that may be associated with the partial block). I'm not sure how best to reword it, though. – PointyOintment ❬💬•⌨❭  12:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@PointyOintment: Changing the example in parenthesis to (e.g. editors blocked from editing an article are usually still allowed to edit its corresponding talk page) should do the trick. Regards SoWhy 13:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposed change to section on checkuser and oversight blocks

I've opened an RFC at Wikipedia:Village pump regarding a proposed small but important wording change in this policy, with respect to checkuser and oversight blocks. If editors watching this page are interested, please contribute to the discussion. Cheers. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Wordy sentence

In the "against the blocking administrator" section of "When blocking may not be used", the sentence "A blocked administrator can block the blocking administrator..." is somewhat hard to read, and I feel should be replaced with "An administrator that has been blocked can block the administrator that blocked them..." Thank you. Plankhouse0 (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on partial blocks

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggested changed to Blocking Policy Conditional unblock and Enforcing bans

If Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks passes and the consensus is that Conditional unblock should allow partial blocks as a possible condition of unblocking, I recommend these changes (comments in italics are not part of the proposed new text):

• Partial blocks have the same basic eligibility for unblocking as a full block.
  • Not all blocks are eligible for unblocking, and not all eligible requests should be granted.
• New partial block or set of partial blocks may be used to enforce bans or other unblocking conditions, provided:
  1. It must not last longer than the related unblocking condition.
     • This should be obvious.
  2. It must not block editing beyond the scope of the related unblocking condition.
     • If this is not possible, grant or deny the unblock request as you would today.
  3. It must not block the user from editing content he previously was not blocked from editing.
     • The new set of blocks must be a proper subset of the previous block. This specifically applies to conditional removal of an existing partial block or set of related ones as it is all but automatic when replacing a full block. The one case where this would affect replacing a full block is if the user was allowed to edit his own talk page before but is not after.
• The use of new partial blocks beyond those listed above concurrent with a conditional unblock is not prohibited, but they must be done using other criteria for placement of partial blocks, not as a condition of the unblock.
  • This will rarely be invoked, as editors who would be facing additional blocks are usually not good candidates for being unblocked.
• Logs are kept [Where? The block log is not detailed enough] detailing which new partial blocks replaced which old block or blocks, which condition each partial block corresponds to if it's not obvious, and any additional information the block-modifying administrator things would be helpful to other administrators.

We will also need to revisit the expiration of blocks related to unblock conditions: Should they be allowed to last as long as the related unblock condition even if the original block would have expired sooner or should they be required to expire no later than the longest block or blocks they replace, if shorter than the related block condition?

Please read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks including WP:PARBLOCK2019#Can partial blocks be used for conditional unblocks against a full block? and give this some thought.

Likewise, if the relevant portions of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks pass, WP:Blocking Policy#Enforcing bans will need to be modified to make it clear that partial blocks can be used to enforce bans.

Anyhow, this discussion doesn't need to happen until and unless the proposal passes. However, several weeks in, it seems to have enough support to be approved in some form, so I am posting this now so people can think about it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The consensus (as I read it) is to form a new partial blocking policy and not add conditions on to this. I started an essay at WP:Partial blocks. Anyone is free to contribute. --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I opposed partial blocks (still do, and won't use them), but I honestly have no clue what this means. It's too complicated. Basic policies such as this should be based on principles not complicated criteria. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure where one should post this but one idea would be "Partial blocks may be used to enforce bans provided that the scope of the ban can be clearly captured by the partial block. Partially blocked editors must comply with the terms of a ban, even on pages not covered by the block, and may receive additional blocks (including full blocks) for such breaches." That's mostly to dissuade both an inappropriate use of partial blocks when a topic ban doesn't neatly map to a set of articles and also wikilawyering about block settings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Some tips on partial blocks based on first impressions

After the enabling of partial blocks today, we've noticed a few oddities. A few tips:

• When setting partial blocks on registered users, it's usually a good idea to uncheck the "Autoblock any IP addresses used" option under "Additional options". Setting an autoblock seems to result in more collateral damage than benefit, as it seems to partially block everyone else using the same IP address.
• Avoid partial blocking administrators because of a bug that prevents them from accessing Special:Block and Special:Unblock while partially blocked by someone other than themselves. See phab:T208965.
• It is possible to submit an empty partial block form, partially blocking someone from no pages. If you do this, the targeted user will continue to be able to create and edit articles, and do anything a normal editor can, with the exception that administrators still cannot access Special:Block or Special:Unblock. :-/ This will also generate a log entry in Special:Log/block with the cryptic verbiage "X blocked Y from specified non-editing actions with an expiration time of Z".

Mz7 (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2020

finna wanna edit dis pag cuz its incorrect the gramdma is wong Themanwhoisbaconandeggsontoast (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 02:25, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2020

When a user gets blocked, how is it possible to not be sitebanned? 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:55 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC) 2600:387:5:805:0:0:0:55 (talk) 22:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Its complicated, but see WP:BLOCKBANDIFF for the difference between a block and ban. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Blanking a user page of an indef banned user

When a user is inded banned, is it recommended or not to blank their user page (just leaving the notice about them being indef banned)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Piotrus, given that the query is concerning a different policy (Wikipedia:Banning policy#User pages), it probably should be posted at that policy's talk page. You are welcome to delete this thread (including this comment of mine) and re-post your query there. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Blocked

I was blocked recently but could not figure out the reason from the block notice.

I could not send a message to the person who has blocked me or start a Talk discussion about it.

Now that the block has expired I can not find any details on my account about the block to ask the person who blocked me why?

It has been very frustrauting and unfair.

Please advise me. Jossdickie (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your account was not directly blocked at any point. It is therefore likely that you were caught by a block of your underlying IP, possibly due to a rangeblock. You should have seen a block message when you tried to edit that would have provided a reason. If this becomes a recurring problem you can ask for an IP block exemption to prevent it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Requesting clarification of EVASION and proxying

Hello. I have recently made a handful of good-faith edits to various mainspace pages on behalf of blocked user Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · logs · block log) per his Talk page request. User Justlettersandnumbers alerted me to the fact that this may be a violation of WP:EVADE. I'm asking for a clarification regarding proxy editing policy in connection with section #Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors. For me, the crucial sentence in this case, appears to be the following:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or "proxying") unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits.^{[emphasis added]}

In this case, I "can show" that the "changes are... productive", but have not been asked to. This seems analogous to the verifiability standard: assertions must be verifiable, though not every assertion has to be verified. So, if I'm reading the sentence right, my edits have passed the first clause, i.e., the "can-show" criterion. The second clause, "independent reasons" is trickier. First of all, I take responsibility for all my edits. (Even if a blocked editor would attempt to trick me into performing an edit contrary to policy, if I go and ahead and make it, that's on me.) In performing each of these proxy edits, I asked myself: "If I were editing this page, and came across this content, would I have made this change myself without being prompted?" If the answer is yes, I went ahead and made the change; for example, this one, or this one. If not, then I didn't.

Although I think the "can-show" part is uncontroversial, the "independent reasons" part is trickier, because it depends how you interpret "independent". If that means, "would I have found those articles independently and made the changes?", then the answer is no; they are not on my watchlist or in any area of interest of mine. If "independent reasons" means, "irrespective of prompting by another editor, if presented with the pages and told to 'fix them' without any further guidance, would I have independently made the changes indicated?", then the answer is "yes".

So, it kind of depends what we are trying to achieve by WP:EVADE. If the purpose is to shut down a blocked user during their hiatus except for a block appeal and nothing else, then that should be made clear, and probably the "can-show"/"independent reasons" sentence should be removed. But, blocks are not supposed to be punitive; so, if a blocked user suggests an edit that another editor finds to be policy-compliant and beneficial to the encyclopedia, imho that should be allowed. If there is consensus for that interpretation, then WP:EVADE needs to be expanded slightly to make that manifest, and also perhaps to add that the proxying user takes full responsibility for that edit.

With respect to the current situation at RF's Talk page request, I have stopped making edits to further points on his list, pending outcome of this discussion. User:PamD may wish to lurk or contribute to this discussion as well. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Coming here after being pinged, thanks. Yes, I've made a couple of edits which were suggested by this blocked editor (and I signposted to discussion elsewhere on another bullet in his list), but I would consider "it's a typo" or "it's a broken ref / a bare URL" to be an adequate "independent" reason to justify any edit, whether I've spotted it myself in a stub I'm sorting, a page on my watchlist or anywhere else, or if as here I've been alerted to it in a talk page on my watch list which happens to be that of a blocked editor. Any suggestion that I shouldn't make such edits would be shocking: "don't improve the encyclopedia because the need for that incontrovertible improvement was pointed out by a blocked user"? Surely not. PamD 22:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• I favor pragmatism. Look the other way when dealing with people like RF who, while irritating many, nevertheless work to benefit the encyclopedia. However, if it's a troll who is amused by the chaos ensuing when people agonize over what to do with their good edits, apply DENY. Pragmatism fails logic, but it works well at Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Chewing this over more, I would add that obviously RF is making a POINT (that blocking him is preventing problems from being fixed). Also, the people who imagine they are helping by carrying out the blocked editor's wishes are highly mistaken—such encouragement often emboldens the sanctioned editor and that can cause them to go off the rails and be indeffed. My bottom line is that a reaction should not involve further sanctions on anyone in a case like this (because it doesn't involve trolls). By all means remove talk page access because a blocked editor should only be appealing the block. Johnuniq (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I would argue that RF's motives matter not a jot, and that considering them here is not only irrelevant, but could be counterproductive. The more one aligns one's actions to frustrating the perceived motives of an editor who one might suspect of illegitimate motive, the more it ties one's hands from free action and clouds one's view of what the policies and guidelines suggest. A good editor should trust themself to act independently on every edit. As a corollary of that, one should have no qualms about making an edit that a phalanx of POINT-wielding trolls are all in favor of, because their PoV should not be considered in deciding what to do. Conversely, opposing an edit they favor, should be purely on policy grounds, and not because of their history, character, or nature. Regarding RF's editor status, I'd be happy to engage on that in the appropriate venue, but I consider it off-topic here. My only point in opening this discussion, was to see if there is consensus for altering the wording of WP:EVADE to make it clearer in one direction, or the other (or neither). Mathglot (talk) 07:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• I think your position is correct. Also: If your edits, although "improving... Wikipedia", violated WP:EVADE (and I don't think they did), WP:EVADE must be ignored. (Disclosure: a note of mine contributed to RF's blocking.) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
• There's no firm rule on this. Typically the rule is if you're an unblockable who gets blocked no admin is going to revoke your TPA because they'd be crucified at AN. If you're not, you generally only get to use it for appeals. Sorry to be that blunt, but this very much is a situation where we have two different sets of rules depending on how likely admins are to get yelled at by your friends. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, That sounds about right. I would not recommend revoking TPA. SQL^{Query me!} 19:34, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh, is Rich blocked again? I hadn't noticed - his talk page shows 2111 drama-free days, he usually resets that when somebody blocks him. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• Was it Rich who the Community had a major discussion ideological spat a while back on whether adding edits to your TP while blocked, and other editors choosing to act on them was permitted or not? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Unblocking general query

More of a general query, since while I've had a couple of unblocks that potentially fell into this category in the past, I don't have a current one or I might ask at AN.

Going off the following premises:

1. Wikipedia concedes that it will block users who are, in fact, not guilty.
2. No reviewing admin or community consideration of any unblock request I've ever seen has accepted it where the individual does not concede their action(s)
3. Lying in unblock requests often just gets TPA removed
4. Block evasion is particularly disliked

How do we explain/avoid, the fact that Wikipedia has created a setup that makes it easier for guilty individuals to come back after a lengthy timeout, but that falsely blocked individuals are stuck between damming their reputation and lying to the Community (itself problematic) or never being able rejoin? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, what kinds of issues are you talking about? Sockpuppetry mostly? —valereee (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@Valereee:, socking is certainly the most common example (as it's one of the principal cases where it's a true matter of fact in dispute, as opposed to a judgement call on what is sanctionable etc), but I also recall seeing an instance before I became an admin where a somewhat odd edit got blocked as trolling but the editor was adamant it was not (and without being clearly wrong). I'm not sure I edited on it, so I may not be able to dig it up, but I'll try. I group them since i've seen examples of each where the editor stating they were at fault and then saying all the right things would likely have been unblocked through SO etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Nosebagbear, yes, I understand. I've wondered about this, too, and particularly in socking cases where the evidence is behavioral. The blocked editor can't prove a negative, but I sure wouldn't want to have to admit to socking if I hadn't done it. I'd walk away from WP before I'd do that. I think I've even asked about this somewhere in the past year or so, about whether there were any step an editor could take that would prove they weren't socking. —valereee (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Partial blocks

Now partial blocks have been around for a while, I think it's time to update the blocking policy to show it exists and is an integral part of it. In particular, I strongly think partial blocks mean an edit-war on a single page between two editors should rarely be addressed by a site-wide block, and believe reports on WP:AN3 are trending in this direction. So I have updated the policy to suit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Ritchie333, I'm wondering if maybe make it a little stronger: Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule often result in a block from the pages the user is disrupting, or, if required, the entire site. to "Edit warring on a single page or small number of pages, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, should generally be handled with a partial block. Edit-warring on a single page rarely requires a site-wide block." ? —valereee (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The place to advocate for such a change is with the administrators who make such blocks, not on the policy page. Policies, with a very few exceptions mostly confined to WP:LOP#Legal, describe what actually happens, not what we want to - the pithy and overused, but still accurate, "descriptive, not prescriptive" mantra. Edit warring blocks are still overwhelmingly sitewide, not page-specific. If you're into hard numbers, 134 out of the last thousand blocks mentioning edit warring or reversion were partial, less than 1 in 7. —Cryptic 16:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Cryptic, I wonder how many admins are not even aware of partial blocks? —valereee (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Of the ones that block people? Roughly zero. The sitewide/partial radio buttons and pages/namespace fields together make up nearly a third of the blocking form. —Cryptic 17:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'll think it's best to start off with these changes, which follow on from the partial blocks RfC where there was consensus to use the feature. If nobody challenges the additional wording and it becomes stable, it would be possible to yank an admin off to ANI to get consensus to downgrade a site-wide block to a page-level one "per policy". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why we would need to yank an admin off to ANI, at the very least not until you've actually discussed the block with them and asked if they'd be willing to "downgrade"; there could be other issues at play. Primefac (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is a rather dubious method of trying to implement policy by bedding it in - what would be the point that the first admin queried couldn't just revert it? I don't think a full RfC is needed by any means, but dropping a note to a change at AN and/or VPP seems a preferable route. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised if it approached zero for as a group admins who didn't block regularly and recently. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

I only just noticed these with Keizers. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

And noticed it again today. Maybe it is just more common now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Noticing it more and more. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: What have you noticed? Is it the use of partial blocks? When did you first notice it? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64 Yes exactly that. I have not really been on the Wiki for a while so I might just not have been there when it was introduced. Seems like a good idea though. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Emir of Wikipedia: The partial blocks feature was introduced to the MediaWiki software in mid 2019, but only enabled on a per-wiki opt-in basis. It was enabled here on 13 January 2020 following this RfC which concluded not long before. Discussions were held on this page (see several threads at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24), in the course of which the policy was updated. The decision to enable them was announced in admin news, and was added to Twinkle soon after. There were also discussions at WP:AN, see for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Partial Blocks and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive316#Partial Blocks PSA.

Any admin using Special:Block in the last six months should have noticed a few extra entry options in the form, such as radio buttons for Sitewide (Every page on the wiki and all other contribution actions.)/Partial (Specific pages or namespaces; see WP:PBLOCK.), the latter being followed by entry items for Pages and Namespaces. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Just noting since there's still discussion about it here that Ritchie's change above resulted in a dust-up (archived here) which highlighted criticism for having made such a significant edit to a high-level policy without prior discussion, and for having attempted to enforce the change (separately archived here) without having communicated it to anyone other than on this page. That discussion eventually settled on a revision with less compulsive language which was then revised into the policy, and which everyone involved seems satisfied with. On the point of awareness, there are definitely admins who are very active in both 3RR enforcement and blocking in general who have not heard about partial blocks, despite it being right there in the block settings screen, but the default is still sitewide, and the radio button for partial does not link to anything to explain what it is. More reminders in the admins' newsletter perhaps would help, for example "a change to the blocking policy explains when partial blocks may be more appropriate than traditional site-wide blocks" might get some admins' attention, or just announcements of new discussions regarding partial blocks. Maybe even a watchlist notice as a reminder. I don't know really, some people just like to do things the way they've always been done. Anyway, if anyone's going to start making changes to this policy that have the effect of "admins must use partial blocks and must not block sitewide in some situation" then that should be done after a well-advertised RfC. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  I just tested; MediaWiki:Ipb-partial-help accepts a link but when present on the block interface does not preserve that link as a link (presents as [[WP:PBLOCK|This is a partial block]]). Maybe a Phab task is in order... --Izno (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Who can initiate a block review?

The policy says

"If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."

Is there a restriction that says that only the blocked user may initiate a block review? Related question; is there such a restriction on initiating a case at arbcom? Unless I am mistaken, the correct sequence is 1: ask the admin to reconsider on his talk page. 2: ANI block review. 3: Arbcom. Are uninvolved 3rd parties allowed to perform each of those steps?

If the answer is what I think it will be, perhaps we should change "If editors believe..." to "If any editor believes..." to make the policy clear? --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I thought that sentence meant other editors only (not the blocked one), given its plural. Agree it needs clarity. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A blocked user cannot file an ANI, therefore, it needs to be filed by a third party. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Well yes, but they should be allowed to demand a community review and have their request copied to AN, kinda like how arb blocks must be copied to AE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, a user with a partial block can file a block review at ANI. The current vague wording sort of makes it sound like only the blocked user can file a block review, which of course won't work for fully blocked users. And I believe that you can limit all of your interactions with Arbcom in certain circumstances where going public may put you in danger. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

---

• I ask again, is this the correct sequence?

1. Normal unblock request(s) on the user's talk page that are denied. (I believe that only the blocked user is allowed to post an unblock request)
2. Ask the admin to reconsider on his talk page.
3. ANI block review
4. Arbcom

In other words, you aren't allowed to post a ANI block review if you haven't asked the admin to reconsider, you can't ask the admin to reconsider if no unblock request has been posted and answered, and you can't go to Arbcom without going to ANI first. Is that right?

• I ask again, are uninvolved 3rd parties allowed to perform each of those steps?
• I ask again, are blocked users allowed to perform each of those steps?

Note: a blocked user may be partially blocked but able to post to ANI or the admin's talk [page, may post something on their talk page and have someone else copy it word-for-word with signature to the admin's web page or to ANI, may email the admin and ask the admin to post it to the admin's talk page and then respond, or may be temporarily unblocked for the sole purpose of participating at ANI or ABCOM. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm particularly interested in point (3). I think generally editors should be allowed to demand a community review of a unilateral block. Obviously said editor can't post to ANI themselves so they should be allowed to request an admin do this for them (which an admin shouldn't be allowed to decline if requested, unless a review has already been made recently and thus further requests would be disruptive). Context of current wording makes me think admins referring a review to ANI is simply an optional courtesy: If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended. (note: many admins, 331dot's sections come to mind, seem to offer this courtesy anyway, but an entrenched practice seems appropriate imo). Re (4) I thought ArbCom only intervenes in select cases (per Special:Permalink/690747247#Motion:_BASC_disbanded, particularly see Arb discussion on motion)? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

IMO (YMMV) block reviews should always be initiated by the blocked user and not by third parties, if it's a review of the block specifically and not, say, a review of an admin action someone thinks is excessive (a fuzzy line, I know). The review should start with the user posting an {{unblock}} request on their talk page, followed by an admin (ideally not the blocking admin) reviewing, and deciding whether to accept, decline, or to pass on to the community for review (I prefer AN to ANI for this). Certain sanctions must be reviewed by the community (bans, GS actions, sanctions resulting from community discussion) but in other cases it's a matter of admin discretion; sometimes it's just a good idea to get more input. In any case Arbcom is not a step in this process: they're a venue of last resort for disputes that the community cannot solve, not another parent to ask when we don't get our way through community process. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:56, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've said before in an arbitration case and more recently at the administrators' noticeboard: since sanctioned editors are the ones directly affected by the imposed sanction, they should retain control over when and how an appeal is made. It's fine if they agree to someone else making an appeal, but their right to craft their own appeal shouldn't be pre-empted by others. (I agree there is a fuzzy area regarding other parties requesting a general review of how a situation was handled overall.) isaacl (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

• Arbcom is not in the business of reviewing blocks that do not require arbcom to review them, such as checkuer and oversight blocks, or cases where all other avenues of appeal (talk page, community discussion, UTRS) have failed and the blocked user does not have access to their talk page. The committee will generally not hear appeals that were just heard at ANI, it is not the role of the committee to second-guess the community. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Banned at UTRS

So, what avenue of appeal remains once the user has lost TPA and UTRS? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom, I suppose. Or they could follow the traditional route of posting using an IP on Jimbo's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Facepalm --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh, what Beeble said. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Does UTRS ever ban people for ever? For example, if someone were to stay away from UTRS for five years and then send them an email would they consider it? UTRS works on an email basis, they can't stop someone sending them an email from a new email account. ϢereSpielChequers 19:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Why on earth should UTRS bans be permanent? What sense does this make? --217.113.243.81 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It stops the endless abuse and disruption from those making abusive and disruptive "requests". Basically, we remove TPA and the disruption, the pointless requests, the abusive language, the incoherence, and more goes to UTRS instead. And this is the concern I bring to you. How long? What alternatives can we offer? Tell 'em to contact ArbCom? Carry their request over from UTRS to WP:AN? Where do we go from here? And yes, there are some banned-by-the-community people who continue to sock, receive checkuser blocks and global locks, who make then meaningless requests at UTRS from their various sock accounts. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If a user gets to the point where their only avenue of appeal is arbcom the "hard way", i.e. after all other options have failed, there's a very low probability that arbcom will decide to unblock. It's far more likely we would direct them to the standard offer, although UTRS probably already did that as well. Arbcom is technically the appeal of last resort, but if you've gotten there by exhausting the patience of people on your talk page, and again at UTRS, chances are slim you're suddenly going to submit a coherent, well reasoned, and believable request to be unblocked. Not that that stops anybody. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Village pump discussion on wording in "CheckUser blocks" and "Oversight blocks" sections

There is a village pump discussion on the wording in the "CheckUser blocks" (WP:CUBL) and "Oversight blocks" (WP:OSBL) sections. If you are interested, please participate at WP:VPP § Altering vs. loosening CheckUser and oversight blocks. — Newslinger talk 10:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Can I comment under a blocked user who is asking that their block be reviewed ?

Am I allow to comment and make a defense under a user blocked for sockpuppetry. He is currently still asking for review.

For example am I allow to comment underneath this blocked account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bablos939

I simply want to comment to make a defense against the lies, confusions, wrong accusations by the blocked user but I don't know if I'm allowed to comment. Vamlos (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to add comments under the unblock request, if you feel that you have worthwhile information that could impact the request. Primefac (talk) 21:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Reconciling with WP:SOCK?

The blocking policy states (WP:BLOCKP) (long quote, since all of it is relevant here):

Blocks should be used to:

1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and
3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.

Further, it goes on to state a bunch of rationales in WP:WHYBLOCK. None of these include "previously having an account which was blocked", and indeed blocks are not bans.

This query is in response to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Block_review_:_Linas posted by Ritchie333, but (here) I'm more interested in this from a more general approach. A summary of the case: an editor was blocked in 2012 for personal attacks. They began editing regularly (beginning in 2015) from an IP address. That IP address had no block history or concerns of problematic or disruptive conduct. It was blocked in February 2020 for 6 months, for "block evasion" of the 2012 block, after a delayed SPI.

My queries:

1. Is such a block in compliance with the blocking policy? It appears to be wholly punitive, and (at my skim) does not seem to meet WP:BLOCKP or any of WP:WHYBLOCK?
2. If such a block should be permitted, shouldn't the blocking policy be reconciled with WP:SOCK to permit punitive blocks of 'socks'? Nothing here permits such a block, although the socking policy seems to state socking is a valid reason for a block, and it previously says that "clean starts" are not legitimate if the previous accounts have any sanctions on them. So per that, perhaps such a block is okay.
3. Notwithstanding WP:BLOCKEVASION, such wording also seems to create de facto bans, doesn't it? But admins do not have the power to ban.

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a long-standing opinion that our procedures at SPI and blocking are sub-optimal and need improvement - I basically wrote an essay here. In particular, I think a block for sockpuppetry is punitive without evidence the original account was disruptive and the sock was equally so, and WP:G5 can be functionally equivalent to vandalism. I haven't said very much for obvious reasons but I supported Arbcom's action against Bbb23 earlier this year. There can be legitimate reasons for switching accounts, such as harassment (real or perceived) or wanting to be judged on edits alone rather than any reputation (eg: some long standing editors now edit as IPs and don't use their accounts). As a result, I don't get involved in most sockpuppetry cases beyond judging whether the content created should be retained. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The Sockpuppetry policy, incidentally, says "If a person is found to be using a sockpuppet, the sockpuppet account(s) should be blocked indefinitely.". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I want to block this user

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

---

How can I block this user? User:Alexandermcnabb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alexandermcnabb.

Can someone advise me?

Thank you --Ramy5077 (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the place. But you'll need to put together an actual argument for why their edits are disruptive. Praxidicae (talk) 17:56, 4 November 2020 (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.

WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK

Please see Wikipedia_talk:User_pages#Wikipedia:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, where I asked if ongoing unblock requests should be added to the list of exceptions where a user should not be allowed to freely remove posts by other editors. Debresser (talk) 00:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

IP vandal - 2 weeks since last block - can we reblock without 4 new warnings?

If an IP gets 4 warnings, gets blocked, then vandalizes again 2 weeks later, do we have to do 4 new warning templates before re-blocking, or can we re-block right away? What is the exact amount of time that you're allowed to reblock without re-warning? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no exact amount of time, it's more or less admin discretion. I would think most admins would be more inclined to block if it appeared to be the same person, or if it is a school IP. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. If the pattern is convincingly similar. And a school IP w/o constructive edits. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Blocking category

Hey, I was going through categories of banned and blocked editors and found this category: Category:Google Wireless Transcoder proxies with one IP account that apparently was blocked for 2 years, 10+ years ago. Does this category even apply any more or can this be deleted? I thought I'd ask here, for editors and admins more familiar with the history of blocking, before proposing it at WP:CFD.

In general, I found some inconsistencies in our categories of blocked & banned editors which seem to be have been set up 15 years ago and never reevaluated. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:42, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Liz: Yes, I would say this category can go. Also, IMO the template can be subst'd then deleted. These proxies were rare to begin with, but I believe the service has also now discontinued. There's no administrative usefulness here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

RfC notification: Community review of blocks

A notification is proposed which may result in changes to this policy. Your participation is appreciated at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Can_editors_request_community_review_of_the_blocks_of_others?. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 April 2021

Why have I been blocked.i am having trouble understanding of this. Sunshineek7 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Sunshineek7 (talk) 21:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, you are not blocked. Primefac (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking for feedback on adding specific block actions

Hi all, the Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on adding specific block actions to the Block form. These include:

• Block user from uploading files
• Block user from creating pages
• Block user from moving pages
• Block user from sending thanks
• Block user from marking edits as minor

These features have been long requested by the community. We have created some design mocks and laid out some considerations on this meta page for your feedback. Please take a few minutes to review it and tell us your thoughts. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

IP address being blocked

How can your IP address get blocked if you are only that uses it and you didn't do anything wrong? How do I make private so one else tries to use it? Cwater1 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be asking a question about how and why Wikipedia blocks some IP addresses. The place to ask such a question is not here but Wikipedia:Help Desk. They are super helpful with this sort of question. Be sure to include the exact error message you are seeing and what kind of computer and browser you are using. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Just as a general answer to the question, it's always possible to have a "legit" IP address in the middle of a range that is being used by vandals; there's always the possibility of collateral damage. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on consolidating pages about/for blocked editors

 You are invited to join the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext § Redundant help pages. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:41, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Conditional unblocks

WP:CONDUNBLOCK says that conditions of blocks that expire in less than a year can have conditional unblocks of less than a year but it doesn't seem to state that the latter has to always be the same or less than the latter, similarly for blocks that expire in more than a year (including indefinite) can have conditional unblocks that are indefinite. It would seem rather odd say that in the 1st case an editor who had been blocked for 3 months for edit warring at the Weather article could have a conditional unblock banning them from editing the Weather article for 6 months since had the editor not accepted the unblock conditions they would have been able to edit the Weather article after 3 months anyway, similarly an editor who was blocked for 18 months ending up with a conditional unblock from editing the Weather article indefinitely. Does this mean that if in the 1st case the editor edited the Weather article after 5 months or in the 2nd case the editor edited the Weather article after 2 years could be blocked for violating the unblock conditions (even without fresh misconduct) and be reverted per WP:BRV even though they would have expired had the editor declined the conditions and waited the block out they would have been able to edit without facing WP:BRV? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk page access

The policy currently says "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page".

There have been a few cases in the last couple of weeks where I have seen the need to revoke talk page access pre-emptively. One case involved a threat of rape, another a death threat, and a third was an accusation of pedophilia. All of these were vandals reacting to warnings given to them by editors here.

I felt that it was irresponsible to continue to allow them any venue to repeat such threats so I felt these talk page revocations were justified under WP:IAR. I don't think however that IAR is a long term solution, I think this should be a best practice.

I propose we modify this part of the policy to say "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of their user talk page or when the they have made grossly inappropriate edits that have required revision deletion".

Perhaps someone else can come up with better wording than this. As always instructions to UTRS should be provided when removing talk page access. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 05:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Note that Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm#Advice for administrators already says "Threats against others should be met with blocking (generally including removal of talk page access) and possibly blocking email as well".

This change would bring the blocking policy in line with that advice. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

• I think if this is not codified it should be. It's obvious that LTA's and people making threats should lose TPA and email. Them having those things is not beneficial to the 'pedia --Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to the spirit of this proposal, however when it comes to policy changes I always think of how policies can be 'overapplied' because some people will take it literally. I do wonder if having a hard-coded criteria of rev-deletion could result in yanking TPA where it wouldn't be currently. I can probably think of a few cases where this criterion has been met but this hasn't been done. I'd be interested in seeing if anyone has the better wording. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is one of those places where admins are expected to use discretion, and codifying it will just be a case of over-legislating. For what it's worth, I do routinely yank TPA for threats and LTAs. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

• I do worry a little about admins pulling TPA preemptively when an otherwise-sane editor has lost their temper and gone on a rant. Obviously threats of physical harm are different, but will people interpret this as "remove TPA because they were making personal attacks"? I really hate seeing TPA removed without a pretty good reason. I totally get that we should remove it in the kinds of cases HIBC is talking about. I just wonder if there'll be...well, drift. —valereee (talk) 21:41, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:BANHAMMER" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:BANHAMMER. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Wikipedia:BANHAMMER until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Aasim (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of relevance to blocking

Here folks are proposing to use an edit filter as an alternative to plain blocking for certain mobile users, who cannot see a block notice and thus cannot appeal or respond to a regular block for the reasons spelled out at WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Cross-linking this in pertinent places. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Redundant fork section?

The section on "Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors" in this article seems a clear fork of the Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Edits_by_and_on_behalf_of_banned_editors. What's the point? We should of course retain it as a see also in its current place, sure, but having two copies of the same text in two places, where they jmay be subtly tweaked over the years, it not best practice. Let's remove this from this article, leaving just a 'see also' (in the current location, not at the bottom of the article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

The first two sentences are the only similar content, so I'm not really seeing how it's "two copies of the same text". That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to getting one standard language and transcluding the section from one page to the other. Primefac (talk) 06:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk Page Access - CUOS/blocks

I was about to revoke TPA on a CU-block where the user just wasn't getting it and functionally spamming unblock requests. I then realised that CUBlock prohibits amending a CUblock without talking to a CU.

Removing TPA, while leaving a block otherwise untouched, would not seem to be under the anticipated restrictions of this, but "IAR" and "CU blocks" are somewhat mutually exclusive areas.

As such, I'd like to amend it to specifically exclude TPA/email access changes from the "don't alter" restriction Nosebagbear (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

As a follow-up, it's only here that the ruling is absolute. On the actual CU page <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser_blocks> it's clear that it's just loosening not allowed. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Support. Removing TPA or email access is frequently necessary and I don't believe the policy is meant to prohibit that. Reinstating talk page access is necessary when someone wishes to apply under WP:SO, for example, and also would not be a concern. --Yamla (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

GN's just changed it to match the CU page "loosen", so issue seems resolved Nosebagbear (talk) 13:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• There was a previous discussion about this. If a situation develops where revoking TPA is appropriate, I think you should go ahead and do it. The same applies for removing email access. However, I would discourage doing this without action by the user since the checkuser made the block. And I would also still discourage 'altering' - even strengthening - other things, including autoblocks, account creation, hard blocks, and partial block scopes. I also don't particularly agree with Yamla about restoring TPA, if a checkuser removed that TPA for a non-obvious reason. Checkuser blocks are placed with great precision. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say removing TPA if the CU did it would be unlikely, but if UTRS decides to return TPA (revoked by me) because it's dependent on what they can see and is in the log, that wouldn't be problematic Nosebagbear (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2021

In Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Self-requested blocks: (orange text is my addition, please copy the text only and not the color)

As an alternative to requesting a self-block, users may use the Wikibreak Enforcer, a user script that can prevent a user from logging in. However, this does not prevent one from editing logged out, as with other self blocks, and thus resisting editing in a wikibreak in this scenario is up to sheer will. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser partial blocks

Can non-CUs "upgrade" checkuser partial blocks to full non-CU blocks? I ask because if a non-CU cannot loosen or undo a CU block without consulting a CU first, this means that a partial to full block is allowed as it is more of an upgrade (as it keeps the partial block in place but prevents editing everywhere else too). However, as a non-CU cannot checkuser block someone this implies that the CU block does not extend to the new full block, so having it marked as a checkuser block is not appropriate.

If non-CUs can upgrade checkuser partial blocks to full blocks, does it still mean that non-CUs cannot (without consultation) unblock the user fully (i.e. only reverse the full block back to the CU partial block)? Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The short answer is, always check the block log. If a CU block is amended, such as yanking TPA or amending the scope of a partial block, then there's nothing special about those amendments. The checkuser block element remains in place and shouldn't be undone (without consultation). Every time I've seen this done, the block log message retains some indication that it's a checkuser block, from where people can figure out what's going on (ie which part is a CU block). It's arguably against policy to remove an indication that a block is or contains a checkuser block. I'll add that it's usually a lousy idea to amend any checkuser blocks in any direction (apart from yanking TPA or email) without consulting a checkuser. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Question

Suppose some vandal posts an external link that goes to a known malware site. What blocking rationale would be used, if different from "attempting to spread malware"? 172.112.210.32 (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism, Disruptive Editing, "NOTHERE"... take your pick. Primefac (talk) 08:07, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Odd wording in the conditional unblock section

The section on conditional unblocking contains the following:

• The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after one year or less will expire after no more than a year,

What exactly is the purpose of this line? This seems entirely redundant. Invalid^OS_talk 15:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That and the bullet point below specify the maximum length of unblock conditions when offering a conditional unblock.

This particular line says that if the current block has an expiry of a year or less, the unblock conditions have a maximum expiry of 1 year (i.e. they must all expire by 1 year after the conditional unblock is given).

The second bullet point says that if the block is longer than a year then the unblock conditions can expire up to and include indefinite (i.e. the unblock conditions can be indefinitely long or any time shorter than that). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamy Jazz: Oh, I misread it. I thought both portions referred to the unblock conditions, and missed that the first referred to the length of the block. Invalid^OS_talk 17:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording is needed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Block evasion description

I think we should add info about block evasion on the evasion and enforcement section on the page.

Block evasion is a method of attempting to avoid a block, by either using an account or IP address to edit while one of them is blocked. This also includes a blocked user asking editors or administrators to edit on behalf of them. Registered users who are blocked are not permitted to logout to edit or, if applicable, use a different account to edit.

AKK700 03:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext overhaul

MediaWiki:Autoblockedtext is pretty terrible from a usability perspective. It's about 10x as long as it needs to be, as anyone encountering it isn't going to want to read an essay covering everything there is to know about autoblocking, but rather to just quickly understand the basics of what happened and how to get themselves unblocked. Would someone more familiar with blocking than me be interested in a rewrite to trim it down to the essentials and better emphasize/deemphasize the important/unimportant parts? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a stab at this, @JJMC89! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed edits

My bold edits to the policy page were reverted by User:Bbb23, so I have come here to discuss their addition. Currently the WP:EXPLAINBLOCK section says:

Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page.

From what I have gathered at ANI, this is not a mandatory requirement. I suggest we clarify this. My edit is one possibility, but I'm sure there are others. The WP:OPTIONS section says the following:

Prevent user from sending email ... 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 Ticket Request System) through which they can discuss the block.
Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked ... Editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged on serious threats, accusations or outing which needs to be prevented from reoccurring.

From what I have gathered at ANI, there are additional situations when email and talk-page access can be removed besides the listed reasons, and again, the sentences are written in a mandatory (efforts "should" be made, "only" these reasons) tone. I suggest we clarify what the additional situations are. My edit is one way. I'm sure there are others. I don't edit policy pages much, so I'm keen to know what the policy experts here think. Modulus12 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be best to wait a bit for that discussion to cool down, and see if anyone else thinks this is worth adding later. Adding individual points for every single dispute that comes up is a recipe for policy pages that are massively-bloated and unreadable. That said, the page already says that On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately; that is the real spirit of what's going on here rather than "trolls" - an administrator does not need to waste their time in detailed procedure on an editor whose bad faith is completely obvious. It might be worth having something spelling that out, but it would require some consideration. --Aquillion (talk) 23:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was closed. I'm not sure how waiting for it to "cool down" more would help; I think we'd want to resolve this issue while it is fresh in the mind, and I don't want to get accused of waiting for it to be forgotten about and trying to sneakily change policy later. I agree we don't want to bloat the policy. The sentence you quoted only specifically talks about warnings. If sockpuppets and trolls are not the only times administrators can ignore the listed requirements (talk page notification and access), then maybe the solution is to remove the mandatory language and emphasize that these things are all left to administrator discretion. Modulus12 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

It will help in that it will prevent you from being site-blocked, which otherwise is the likely outcome of your refusal to drop an issue after perhaps a dozen people have told you to do so. --JBL (talk) 19:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And to put the WP:NOTBURO arguments (made elsewhere) to bed, let me emphasize that this is a policy, specifically one that normal users look to to understand and judge admin behavior. Look at how rigidly the WP:MOS, a lesser guideline, is enforced. I am not turning into a bureaucrat when I look at mandatory language in a policy and assume that it is in fact mandatory. The block of a run-of-the-mill troll should presumably comply with this policy, not need some kind of WP:IAR exception. So I think it is in the best interest of the community to adjust the policy to match the consensus-reality. That would lead to admins more easily justifying their blocks, satisfying editor questions, and that would lead to less drama at the admin boards. Modulus12 (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that Wikipedia policy can not explicitly cover every possibility and every possible exception, and we simply can not provide black-and-white rules to be hard followed to decide every single case. It is impossible to cover every specific possibility, and trying to do so will only cause more and more rule bloat - and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a hard rule-following bureaucracy. And, the more specific cases we try to cover explicitly in policy, the more we would open up to "But specific issue X is not included, so you can't do that." No, policy pages describe general best practice, and there will always be individual cases that need personal subjective policy judgment - it is designed that way. We should not be trying to eliminate that personal judgment, and we should not be trying to turn admins into hard rule-following automata. Until this specific instance, I have seen nobody having any problems understanding the way blocking policy works, failing to understand that what is widely applicable to good faith editors is not equally applicable to trolls, and failing to accept when widely accepted applications of policy are explained to them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oh, and you can't put WP:NOTBURO aside by simply saying "this is a policy". WP:NOTBURO itself, specifically, says "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Boing! said Zebedee: No, policy pages describe general best practice. So... why can't we change the policy text to accurately encompass this administrator discretion? Look at the WP:OPTIONS section. It uses very specific, exclusive, mandatory language to describe removal of email access and talk page access. "You may only do this for these reasons and it should not be used for anything else." Presumably, that language was added per a consensus. ANI now says "well actually admins can use this setting whenever they reasonably deem it necessary". (Which is fine, I don't care which way the consensus goes; I just want it to match the policy text.) "Describing general best practice" is exactly what I'm trying to do here. Change the policy text to match reality. That's not demanding an adherence to bureaucracy; it's resolving a contradiction so that normal editors aren't seeing administrators do the opposite of what policy says.

  Oh, and you can't put WP:NOTBURO aside by simply saying "this is a policy". My point is that policies sit at the top of the rules hierarchy for a reason. You can't WP:IAR the five pillars. And you really shouldn't be WP:IAR-ing a policy. If editors/admins are frequently ignoring specific, mandatory language in policy, and it's met with approval, then the policy is clearly **over-specific**, and needs to be trimmed back to a more general, permissive language that accurately describes actual practice and no longer requires WP:IAR. It's a bizarre world we have here where nobody cares that the blocking policy is out-of-step with reality, but something like the WP:MOS guideline and its hundreds of uber-specific requirements are militantly enforced. Modulus12 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  The absolute irony of you saying, outloud, You can't WP:IAR the five pillars when pillar #5 says "Wikipedia has no firm rules" and links to IAR in the elaboration on the pillar. All rules, even the five pillars, should be ignored IF ignoring it makes for a better encyclopedia article. --Jayron32 11:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Explaining the term "standard admin action"

At WP:AE, we sometimes see admins saying they have blocked someone as an "standard admin action" or "ordinary admin action"[1][2]. Should this concept be described in the Blocking policy, e.g. "Uncontroversial blocks are often made as an ordinary admin action, without first consulting other administrators"? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of what that means is incorrect. I assume the administrators mean that it is not an arbitration enforcement block, just a block for whatever. It doesn't need to be explained in the blocking policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of blocks are unilateral, bog-standard admin actions, and are what the majority of this policy page describes. All that statements like that mean is that those admins are explicitly not invoking the unusual provisions at WP:NEVERUNBLOCK. —Cryptic 23:54, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, you seem to be saying different things. Bbb23 suggests it means that the block is unrelated to arbitration enforcement. Cryptic says it means that the admin is blocking for a reason that's not described in WP:NEVERUNBLOCK.

The term is used at ANI[3] in addition to AE - shouldn't we try to come to consensus on what the term means, and explain it on a policy page? It looks like I didn't get it right on my attempt. Does anyone else want to try? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE

An RfC has just been initiated about a change to WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. That RfC can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Updating BLOCKEVIDENCE. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Documenting UPE/spam blocks based on off-wiki evidence

ArbCom has recently clarified that blocks for undisclosed paid editing based on nonpublic evidence should be labelled as UPE or spam blocks, with a VRTS ticket number pointing to where the evidence is archived. I've already been doing this for some time (before that I marked them as CU-blocks), but there are a couple of problems:

1. Nothing in the message templates for these blocks ({{uw-upeblock}} and {{uw-soablock}}) communicate to the blocked user that nonpublic evidence was considered.
2. Consequently, the instructions for requesting an unblock in these are a little misleading. Technically they can appeal on their talk page, but in many (most?) cases they're better off appealing to ArbCom, since most admins can't see the full rationale for the block.
3. It's also easy for reviewing administrators to miss that the block is based on nonpublic evidence and therefore that they can't unblock unless they have access to it or consult with someone who can; cf. {{checkuserblock-account}} which makes this very obvious.

Should we make versions of {{uw-upeblock}} and {{uw-soablock}} that incorporate unblock instructions similar to {{checkuserblock-account}}, and/or allows the VRTS ticket numbers to be inserted? Should it also be documented on a guideline page somewhere? – Joe (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we need additional templates rather than to edit or replace the existing ones? Because a lot of spamblocking happens purely based on WP:DUCK, and doesn't require any extensive investigation involving non-public information. I think it is fine to add an extra template that may clarify the difference, but we shouldn't get rid of the existing ones. --Jayron32 16:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes I would say either a new pair of templates or a parameter (defaulting to false) that changes the wording of the existing ones. I think the vast majority of UPE and spam blocks don't involve any nonpublic information. – Joe (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd say a parameter added to the existing template(s) would be better - we really don't need to add to the already-numerous uw- series templates for this. firefly ( t · c ) 08:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

An additional parameter would be for the best. --Jayron32 11:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Is anyone interested in taking this on? I would strongly support a new parameter. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

3RR and blocked users

In 2013 the exception to 3RR that was presumably longstanding that editors formerly banned could have their edits reverted without violating 3RR was added for users who had simply been blocked, see Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 20#reverting blocked editors. Until then somewhere there was a footnote (I can't find it) saying that only users who had formerly been banned could have their edits reverted without violating 3RR. WP:BANAUTH says that individual admins generally can't ban users without discussion even though a block can be imposed unilaterally. I'm of 2 minds here, 1 is that not having the 3RR reception encourages block evasion but on the other hand a block is just a technical measure that can be imposed by a single admin. Should this be changed or left as is? Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This should be left as is. Evading a block and evading a ban are treated similarly in established policy; see WP:EVASION and WP:BANEVASION. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Change the order of the reasons for block

This emphasises WMF, and editors/users have no rights or property

"A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users, or the public.

"A user may be blocked to prevent disruption to WIkipedia, for incivility, for the safety of a user, or as directed by the Wikimedia Foundation to protect the foundation's rights, property, and safety:"

Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 11:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Suspected indef block evasion

Hi guys, I am not sure how to proceed on a case of suspected indef block evasion, which is currently being done through a new account created, say, a one or two years after block was imposed on earlier violations? (I have zero experience in sock research and investigation in preparing evidence, so I am a bit in a tight spot here) Any advice would be truly appreciated. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:05, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Santasa99: If you're not sure and it doesn't need immediate attention, maybe mention your suspicions to the blocking admin. Otherwise you'd have to present your evidence at WP:SPI. If there's ongoing serious disruption (obvious vandalism, spam, etc) that need an immediate block, take it to WP:AIV (or WP:ANI if it's more complicated). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, HJ, thanks for quick reply. Well, problems are there, I can't say exactly how immediate, but certain activity which does not comply with our basic and usual policies and guidelines appear, persistently (concerning things like mass changes, consensus, sources, neutrality, and signs of WP:NOTHERE), but there are no these extremely serious disruptions like spamming and other vandalism issues. This idea to report it to blocking admin is a good idea, which would not occur to me so thanks, that is a good first step. My major concern is how to bridge this time-gap between editing activities which spans more than a year. I guess I will have to dig in and compile some evidence based on editing patterns and style .Thanks, if anything else helpful comes to your mind in the meantime, please let me know. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Unverified UTRS tickets.

I have posed a question at Wikipedia talk:Unblock Ticket Request System#Unverified tickets. Please feel free to opine -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

"WP:BANHAMMER" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect WP:BANHAMMER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 26 § WP:BANHAMMER until a consensus is reached. Should have linked this here earlier but it didn’t occur to me. A smart kitten (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocking IPs per request of school administration?

It came up at WP:SPI (see discussion thread) that we have some indef blocked IPs, which led me to discover that we have a handful of such blocks which are annotated as being per the request of a school's administration (see this query for a list). I don't see anything in WP:BP which speaks to this, so I'd like to start a discussion about it. I apologize in advance that some of the material discussed here will not be accessible to everybody, but I don't think the details of any particular case are gemaine to the larger policy discussion.

I'll be up-front about this: I don't think outside entities should have any input into what blocks get placed. I haven't read any of the associated VRT tickets (still trying to get access), but I can easily see some school principal writing to us saying, "We don't want our students editing wikipedia. Please block this from your end". In fact, I see a similar request being made in one particular item that I do have access to on the functionaries mailing list. To my mind, requests like that should be turned down flat. I'd like to hear what other people think. RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

If some network administrator doesn't want someone doing something they should block it on their end. Besides, there are hundreds of "Wikipedias". — xaosflux ^Talk 15:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that an organization wishing to keep its computers from Wikipedia needs to take action on their end. 331dot (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this is something for the organization to enforce rather than Wikipedia. I would say that these requests should be turned down flat per WP:AGF and because if there are vandalism coming from these IPs they'll be anonblocked anyways. ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 13:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Blocking write-access is not always straightforward. You'd probably have to block the whole site(s), for everyone including staff with accounts, which probably no one wants. In my experience a lot of previous blocks (of this type) have been caused by talk pages mentioning the school and a bunch of warnings for vandalism. Teachers didn't necessarily want to block access, they wanted people to stop complaining to their school about the vandalism. Actually we also want to stop complaining, so these days we'll just anonblock them long-time anyway. If a teacher suggests it's a good idea, we should certainly consider it. If there's no editing from the IP then we probably won't. Our blocking practices have changed a lot since when most of these blocks were introduced, with 10-year schoolblocks not uncommon. It's probably the same fix to the same problem. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

When the school administration, having demonstrated that it is actively monitoring vandalism from its network and removes all of it within minutes if not seconds, requests that it NOT be blocked for years on end so that students can familiarise themselves with the Wikipedia experience and learn to edit the site constructively please accede to the request. This is not happening at the moment Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive302#5.150.96.0/19. 213.123.216.179 (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

School blocks are something we do even without requests from the schools, and I think any external entity should be able to suggest a block. Then an admin should evaluate the block per policy. That is, not "block because requested", but "block because persistent vandalism" (or repeated doxxing of children, which should also trigger blocks). MarioGom (talk) 07:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I now have access to info-en, so I picked ticket:2010030310001736 more or less at random to dig into. The thread starts with somebody who introduces themselves as the IT administrator for a school saying, "There is no reason our students should be attempting to edit Wikipedia pages, so we would like to block this ability to our students permanently". The block log for the IP in question does show a handful of short-ish blocks for vandalism over the preceding two years, which the IT director refers to. The indef block in question was placed over 10 years ago.

So, I'll go back to my original premise. I'm quite concerned that blocks like this are complicit in a school's desire to control the activities of their students. If they want to prevent their students from accessing wikipedia, that's their business. We shouldn't be involved. If they only want to prevent their students from editing, they can block POST requests, or delete cookies, or some other evil thing today's stateful inspection firewalls are capable of. I don't want them to do those things, but if they do, at least it's on them.

If some admin thinks the level of vandalism from this IP is too high, they can certainly block an IP, but we shouldn't be doing (especially not indef) it on request of the school. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith: These ranges would have eventually been blocked, so the blocks probably make sense. I understand you being uncomfortable with this, but I guess we're not going to avoid blocks because someone asked for them. So I think statu quo policy is that admins can do {{schoolblock}} as needed, and they can do them regardless of why they started looking at a range. I wouldn't be opposed to add some clarification on blocks not being placed at will by external entities or something like that though. MarioGom (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with blocks based on observed vandalism. I just don't want to see us catering to schools' desires to cut off their students from editing. I also don't see indef blocks making sense in most of these cases. A year, sure. Even two or three years in extreme cases. And I would hope we could implement some sort of automated process which checks the WHOIS data for these long-term blocks and cancels them (or at least alerts humans) if it looks like the IP is no longer associated with the same entity. RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to change all these blocks to long-term temp block, then just review in the future. But other than that, is a policy change needed? MarioGom (talk) 20:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe instead of considering it a "request" (even if that's how the requestor is terming it) we consider it, "just wanted to let you know we have been unable to resolve this on our end, feel free to soft block the IP, we completely understand and won't be at all offended"? Valereee (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If Wikipedia were accessed via unincrypted HTTP, client-side partial disabling of access to English Wikipedia would be technically possible. However, once all clients must use HTTPS, the only option available is to disable Wikipedia's IP address, which effectively prevents all access to English Wikipedia plus all sister sites. If less than this is required, then client-side is not a solution. Animal lover |666| 19:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You may be correct, but it's still not our place to be enforcing a school's internet access policies for them. RoySmith (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think that the fact that an organization is a school is not relevant- we wouldn't do this for any type of organization or business. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Large organizations generally set up a man-in-the-middle engine, and require its use for access. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Vermont might be interested in this discussion; I know they've looked into other sorts of blanket blocks (open proxies and the like). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

This discussion confuses me. Are people suggesting that we should block edits from school IPs that engage in vandalism ... unless the school asks us to do so, in which case we should avoid doing so? That sounds like being deliberately obnoxious for no good reason. 217.180.228.138 (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with '138: if an organization's IT department wants to prevent editing Wikipedia but not reading it, they have two options: politely ask us to block their ips, or write a bot that replaces random pages with profanity until we block their ips. We used to see the same thing (albeit not usually automated) back when every admin was still willing to toe the "we do not block user accounts on request" line. Honoring these requests is less irritating to us and saves them maybe a few hours of effort at most. Win-win. —Cryptic 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is this a real thing, i.e. were school administrations actually vandalizing articles on purpose to goad us into blocking their students? RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of both ips and registered accounts deliberately vandalized to get blocks back when we didn't do that on request - quite frequently, and from the earliest days of the project. Do a search for edits with comment_text REGEXP '(?i)\\bblock\\b.*\\bme\\b' (though plenty of those are just trollery or defiance, of course). Hadn't meant to imply I had knowledge specifically of IT officials doing so. —Cryptic 04:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

If government employees are purposefully disrupting charitable organizations such as WMF projects there could be backlash. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• I've had a possibly insane idea in the back of my mind on the subject of schools for a while, I went ahead and opened a thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Bring back WP for schools as a fork?. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
• Even if we are willing to do this, it should be, first, only in cases where we would already block the IP, and secondly should not be indefinite (I don't really like seeing indef blocks on IPs as a general rule anyway). Otherwise, it's up to organizations to set and enforce their own computer access policies; it is not our responsibility (or any website's responsibility) to help them do it. (And, did anyone verify that we really were talking to an admin, and not a malicious student?) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

  @Seraphimblade that's an excellent point regarding verification. I had wondered about that when I first looked at the ticket, and decided not to go there because it wasn't my main issue. But to answer your question, I don't see any indication in the ticket that the person's identity (or authority) was verified. RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I have seen Wikipedia IP blocked whilst editing on my lunch break at quite a major office building in London from Wiki's end. Of course I just requested an unblock and it went through. FOARP (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are indef IP p-blocks okay?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Are indef IP p-blocks okay?. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:48, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding guidance on Special Circumstances Blocks

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

Blocking a mentor

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

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

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

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

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

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