Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Other wikipedias

The following addition has been proposed by User:Shultz IV: Users may not be blocked simply because they have been blocked on foreign Wikipedias, since their affairs are to stay entirely separate. However, you may discuss those blocks with the users in question if you wish.

I do not think this is a good addition. At best, it is m:instruction creep. At worst it could promote wikilawyering or otherwise get in the way of reasonable measures to limit the damage caused by cross-wikipedia vandals. FreplySpang (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that this isn't a good idea - although we shouldn't normally be running around making sure all our blocks line up, there may be situations involving abusive cross-project vandals who should be banned based on their patterns elsewhere. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that that is not a good addition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So if you know a user here that was blocked for vandalizing on a foreign Wikipedia, what would you do? Would you leave them alone or talk to them about it? --Shultz IV 22:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd watch them a bit more carefully than most, and I would be less likely to cut them slack. But it's a subjective thing - no need to codify it. FreplySpang (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FreplySpang; this can be decided case-by-case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

And I guess you'd also ask why they did what they did at the foreign Wikipedia in the first place. --Shultz IV 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Death

I see this was added to the policy page by Ryan Delaney (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves). First of all, I'm wondering where the discussion is on this, and secondly, I don't see why a block would be necessary. In fact, I would think that there would be a possibility of collateral damage if that was done. Just a thought. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. And how do we know if someone has passed away? FreplySpang (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone's dead, their account's use in the "recent past" (last few minutes) is unlikely to trigger any auto-blocks, unless a sysop is tasteless enough to add it as they die in front of their screen in some bizzare situation.

As to verifying the death of fellow editors, it's not always certain, so we should be careful both in application and wording (no block messages saying "You're dead. Go away." or something. :-)).

BTW, I'm utterly perplexed by your comment, BorgHunter, that you "wondering where the discussion is on" Ryan's sensible addition - since when did Wikipedia become a place where policy amendments had to be made by parliamentary decree? :-)

James F. (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's customary to propose a change to official policy rather than simply add it. Why? I had objections...and you have replied to them quite nicely. Thank you. And if I observe a Wikipedian dying in front of their screen...I'll save blocking them until the next day to avoid the autoblock. ;) —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that there was a typo in this section... (have have passed away) 207.179.172.217 12:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Have any Wikipedians actually died? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 17:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:DW. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the accounts of both of the English Wikipedia users on WP:DW, Kwantus (talk · contribs) and Caroline Thompson (talk · contribs), were blocked earlier today by Deskana (Kwantus block log, Caroline Thompson block log). While I personally think blocking the accounts of deceased users, along with protecting their user pages, is a good idea, does anyone know if this was ever done before the "Death" section was added to this page? (I'm leaving open the possibility that there could be some deceased Wikipedians who were never added to WP:DW and whose accounts were blocked.) There's been a little back-and-forth reverting on this issue, and I'm not sure consensus is really firm on such blocks. szyslak (t, c, e) 20:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Policy about blocking ISP web proxy?

I am aware that at least two ISP's in Thailand is permanently blocked recently. One is KSC Internet, the second ISP in Thailand and one of the biggest, which uses the IP address 203.155.1.245 for its outbound web traffic. (See [1] for a long list of contributions before the block.) Another one is TOT, the second largest ADSL operator in Thailand, which recently use the address 202.47.247.116. Using a common IP address here is a norm as some web filtering is enforced by Thai government. Since too many users are affected because of one bad user (I suspect it is hacked or spywared), I proposed that these two addresses should be unblocked. And there should be something that mark the user page that the IP belong to ISP web proxy so that later administrator should only block for a short period. -- Lerdsuwa 15:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Do those proxies send x-forwarded-for headers? if so it would probablly be a good idea to talk to the devs about getting them trusted. Plugwash 15:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I get for 203.155.1.245 when checking with [2].

via 	1.1 wc-bkkbt1 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.3)
connection 	keep-alive
referer http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=th&q=http+header&btnG=%E0%B8%84%E0%B9%89%E0%B8%99%E0
             %B8%AB%E0%B8%B2%E0%B9%82%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%A2+Google&meta=
accept-language 	th,en-us;q=0.7,en;q=0.3
x-forwarded-for 	203.107.204.92
content-length 	0
host 	www.ericgiguere.com
accept-encoding 	gzip,deflate
accept text/xml,application/xml,application/xhtml+xml,text/html;q=0.9,text/plain;q=0.8,image/png,*/*;q=0.5
accept-charset 	TIS-620,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.7
cookie 	JSESSIONID=A7855EC696CCC6CE25F027F916D0F73D;__utma=135980773.2094759798.1145289195.11 
             45289195.1145289195.1;__utmb=135980773;__utmc=135980773;__utmz=135980773.1145289195.1.1.
              utmccn=(organic)|utmcsr=google|utmctr=http+header|utmcmd=organic
user-agent 	Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041123 Firefox/1.0

It's a dial-up connection. The following is the log for addresses used by the connection.

Apr 17 23:05:19 host pppd[12010]: local  IP address 203.107.204.92
Apr 17 23:05:19 host pppd[12010]: remote IP address 203.107.130.172
Apr 17 23:05:19 host pppd[12010]: primary   DNS address 202.44.144.37
Apr 17 23:05:19 host pppd[12010]: secondary DNS address 203.155.33.10

For the 202.47.247.116 address, I will ask the person who has the problem for this information. -- Lerdsuwa 16:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The information for 202.47.247.116 address I received:

x-bluecoat-via F58248E7BE268626 
connection Keep-Alive 
referer http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%9E%E0
       %B8%B5%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5%E0%B8%A2:%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%A5%E0
       %B8%82%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%8A%E0%B8%B2%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%A7%E0%B8%B4%E0
       %B8%81%E0%B8%B4%E0%B8%9E%E0%B8%B5%E0%B9%80%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B5%E0
       %B8%A2 
accept-language th 
content-length 0 
host www.ericgiguere.com 
accept-encoding gzip, deflate 
accept image/gif, image/x-xbitmap, image/jpeg, image/pjpeg, application/vnd.ms-excel, application/msword,
        application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/x-shockwave-flash, */* 
user-agent Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Maxthon) 
cache-control max-stale=0

-- Lerdsuwa 14:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

I'd like to add this to the policy, and would appreciate feedback.

Editors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy if, in the opinion of the blocking admin, the material is unsourced, or incorrectly sourced, and may constitute defamation. Blocks made for this reason are designed to keep the material off the page until it is written and sourced in accordance with the content policies, including WP:BLP, and should therefore be kept short in the first instance. Repeated infractions should attract longer blocks.

I've dealt with several cases where newish editors try to add unsourced material that could cause legal problems. Dealing with these is very time-consuming, because the policies have to be explained to the users several times, and then sources have to be found and used properly. In the meantime, they're reverting to restore the material, and we only have three reverts ourselves if it's not simple vandalism. Asking another admin to block the editors for disruption is awkward as the policy currently stands, because arguing about the use of sources and quality of writing is regarded as a content dispute and therefore not blockable. Asking Danny to deal with all these cases is unrealistic, because there are so many of them, and he restricts himself to formal complaints. It seems absurd that, with around 1,000 admins, Danny is having to juggle all these complaints, when we could head some of them off at the pass by taking early action against the users who make these problematic edits. My guess is that just the threat of a block for disruption would be enough in most cases to show new editors that Wikipedia takes these issues seriously. Any thoughts? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds quite reasonable, and I'd block for it, but I'm afraid the only way most people will, and the only way to keep such blocks from being lifted by a clueless AGFer, is if somebody creates a series of progressively forceful boilerplate warnings... as much as I hate the damn things, e.g. {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, etc. Pathetic, I know. — Apr. 20, '06 [23:01] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Good idea, though. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See Template:Defwarn. Jkelly 23:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just created {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, and {{blp3}} along the lines of the vandalism ones. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The template that Jkelly posted indicates it's already policy that we can block people for suspected defamation (which I didn't realize had been made explicit), so I'm assuming it's okay to go ahead and add that to the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

While we all get worked up about different issues (like the nickname of a handgun), defamation of living people is perhaps the most serious legal issue facing both the Wikimedia Foundation and individual editors. Enforcement of this extension or clarification may even help the editors by preventing them from causing harm for which they could be found liable. -Will Beback 04:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "defemation"? Critical material that is cited and balanced out in an NPOV fashion with non-critical material, or critical material that is biased and unreferenced? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 06:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it's unsourced material that's the problem. If we have a reliable source for the information, and we summarize it with NPOV, then negative information is allowed. -Will Beback 08:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

<<<I welcome this initiative for all what has been expressed. My only concern is that WP:LIVING is a guideline and not policy, so the wording of the {{tl|blp''n''}} templates need a different wording that refers to the new section on WP:BLOCK that relates to Biographies of living people, that hopefully SlimVirgin will add it to the page. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 09:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've added it. Thanks for all the input, everyone. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have also tweaked the blp warning templates accordingly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What about a statement about refactoring out unsourced defaming text from talk pages? We need that. Deleting such text from articles is OK as we can assert that these are in vio[ation of WP:V and WP:NOR, but our hands are tied when the text appears in talk pages... ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 10:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Slim, that was rather quick. I didn't think you'd take my ideas so seriously, I'm actually flattered. Now we just need to get people to actually use them, so cross-post to the necessary departments. — Apr. 21, '06 [10:49] <freakofnur_xture |talk>

Thanks, Fon. Your template ideas were excellent. They look quite good: serious but not overstated. Jossi, I agree we should say something about when to remove material from talk pages. Maybe I'll try to add something later, or put up a proposal here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

disruption

Is "editing against a 2 month old poll result" a case of disruption? Raphael1 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It would depend on the context, Raphael. You might need to give more detail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

He's referring to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where he's going against a supermjaority of editors who want it kept and has been invited several times to start a straw poll if he thinks the decision is no longer valid but has instead decided to remove the images arbitrarily without discussion. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the supermajority is indeed 2 month old. Besides, I've never refused any discussion as you can easily see on the Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display page. Raphael1 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

NPA

It has been brought to my attention that violations of NPA are not listed separately in the blocking policy, nor is blocking mentioned as a possible consequence on the NPA page. Wp:npa#Consequences states that "repeatedly engaging in personal attacks" can result in a ban; no mention is made of the common interim method of block. WP:BP#Disruption mentions personal attacks. Should a mention be made on the NPA page as well? Posting on both Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy and Wikipedia talk:NPA; I suggest discussion continue on Talk:NPA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Exhausting community patience"

That part of this policy is (a) not needed (you can already block people for disruption) and (b) potentially very divisive (if there's no disruption, many people will consider the block unfair). Can we just get rid of that section? Zocky | picture popups 02:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was a useful way of describing the degree of disruption that can get you banned indefinitely. "Exhausting community patience" is quite a good way of putting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We don't normally indef-block for the first instance of disruption. If many people consider a block unfair, there is certain to be an admin who will argue that the block should be undone, and that is an indication that the community's patience has yet to be exhausted. This all actually works out in practice, and I don't think it makes sense to remove it. Jkelly 02:22, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a good way of putting it. To anybody threatened with such a block, it's bound to sound like a troll-basher's wet dream. The community is not a person. About whose patience exactly are we talking?

In reality, all the users listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users#Banned by the Wikipedia community were banned because the members of the community debated and decided that the user's further presence will not ever be beneficial to the encyclopedia. No patience, frustration, or other emotion involved, at least on the part of "Wikipedia community".

In addition to being redundant, it's probably even wrong. Community indefinite blocks are not blocks, they are bans and they are covered by their own, banning policy, as #1 method of banning a user. Zocky | picture popups 04:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned briefly in the banning policy, but I see no harm in mentioning it here too. This is where new admins come to learn when to block, and although you rightly call it a ban, it's a ban that's enacted by an admin blocking, and knowing when it's okay to do it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in the section right above. Also, every ban is enacted by an admin blocking, so I don't understand the rest of the argument. The harm is obvious - things that are written in multiple places can get changed in multiple places, leading to inconsistencies and unnecessary disagreements. Zocky | picture popups 13:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

indef blocking

Where can I see a list of thing for which you should block a guy indefinetly? I've seen some admins block people indefinetly for having nothing but vadalism in their contribution log, but I don't know what to do in cases like this one: Special:Contributions/Evieman. User's only edit is vandalims. Should I indefblock him? --Dijxtra 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Generally we don't indefinitely block for a single edit which was vandalism. The exception would be if the account is a sock-puppet (which seems likely) of a user who has been indefinitely blocked for prior bad behaviour (which I don't know about in this case). I'd probably just place a warning and then a short block later and possibly a sock-check if they continue to vandalize. --CBDunkerson 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We tend to block for a single vandalism edit if it was offensive. If an account is only being used for vandalism, then it should certainly be blocked indefinitely (though that doesn't apply to IP addresses). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Undoing another admin's blocks

I would like to reword the section called "If you disagree with a block" in order to strengthen the caution against undoing other admin's blocks without discussion. Although it's generally accepted that we shouldn't do this, it continues to happen. The section currently says:

If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter. Some reasons you might want to unblock would be:

The user was blocked in violation of this policy
The reason for the block no longer applies

Bear in mind that blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of persecution by a biased admin. Because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's edit history what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin, rather than performing the unblock yourself.

Exceptions to this would be where an unambiguous error has been made ...

I would like to change this to:

If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate. Blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of injustice, and because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's contributions what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin rather than perform the unblock yourself. Exceptions to this would be where an unambiguous error has been made (not a judgment call) and the blocking admin is not online: for example, if a user was blocked for 3RR, but there were clearly only three reverts. If you feel that such an error has been made, and the blocking admin is not available, you must notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at WP:AN/I that you are unblocking a blocked user before doing so. In the absence of such an unambigous error, do not undo another admin's blocks without prior discussion.

Any feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about admins who aren't around anymore? If there's an unambiguous error, an admin shouldn't be afraid to undo the block if the blocking admin is gone for a while, though this doesn't preclude discussion on ANI. —BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi BH, an exception would be if the blocking admin wasn't online for whatever reason, and unambiguous errors would also be an exception, as it says. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. I'm even willing to be repetitive here. :) There are few cases where needing to undo admin actions is so urgent they can't wait until a discussion supports them. If an admin blocks under the policy no other admin should revert that without consensus to do so. If the block wasn't a good one, consensus that it was bad will quickly develop and the user can be unblocked with minimum harm. If no consensus develops, it should never be reversed. Reversing another admin's action is a problem, and simply following the above will eliminate it for the most part. - Taxman ^Talk 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Support this rewrite. Well done. Yes there are exceptions but it needs to be strongly worded. Admins need to back each other up. ++Lar: t/c 13:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree as well; this is merely a specific example of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which is already policy. It's unfortunate (and kind of sad) that it has to be stated explicitly, but history indicates that there are a number of admins who don't seem to understand this. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

It is sad indeed, but I'm glad there's agreement, and I think people are becoming more aware that it's frowned upon. I'll add it to the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree as well. AnnH ♫ 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

There was a recent attempt to deal with a real problem in the wrong policy. People making war against Wikipedia outside Wikipedia is one problem (perhaps real). People making life difficult (attacking, harrassment, giving personal details) for Wikipedia contributors is definately a problem. I suggest everyone who thought Wikipedia:No personal attacks was the right place to solve some part of that, instead concentrate on making this policy perfectly clear about which parts of it apply to inside Wikipedia cyberspace and which parts apply to activities outside Wikipedia cyberspace as well (beginning with "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it."). WAS 4.250 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Multiple blocking

The section "Expiry times and application" in this policy says that if a user is blocked by more than one administrator at a time, the user will be blocked until his/her shortest block has expired. Is this actually true? If it is, how does a sysop lengthen an expiry time before the current blocking period ends?

Isn't it more logical that the most recent block period replaces all previous expiry times? — AdiJapan ☎ 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if it could be changed, because at the moment, if we want to extend a block, we have to manually unblock, including undoing any autoblocks, and then reblock. It also means that if admin A blocks for a week, and admin B blocks again for 24 hours without checking that admin A has already blocked, it's the 24 hours that takes precedence, so that admin A's block has effectively been undone without his knowledge, and possibly without admin B intending it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The blocking code is currently being redone from scratch, as it is currently a hodgepodge of hacks according to Rob Church who is working on it. That is why the obvious WP:BPP hasn't been added on as yet another hack. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking Without warning

Can This Policy Expand on Blocking Without warning. I was recently Blocked for a first offence WP:POINT Without a even a notice on my talk page that I was blocked. The person who blocked me told me that only new user gets warnings and because I clearly knew the policy (and linked to it) I qualified for a block without a warning or notice. I know we aren't entitled to one rule break (The no rule rue) But I felt that under the Particular circumstances their are exceptions. I was under the impression Blocking is a last resort used to stop interference in action. I was especially upset because I Defended What I defended and was done with the issue and I was blocked after the fact.

I feel what is important is not the law it’s self but what the law is defending. Is it ever appropriate to have a mild violation of WP:POINT that only effects one user in order to defend other user form WP:BITE in action.

Don't you just hate it when you disagree with a user who happens to be an admin?--E-Bod 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it makes sense to block people who disrupt wikipedia. Could you possibly point us (no pun intended) to the incident you're talking about? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I Have Posted a Long reply on User:Yskyflyer/Block_Complaint. This is my Short answer.

This is what I was talking about. User_talk:Ed_g2s#Fair_use_uncyclopedia
This was the reply form the user. User_talk:Yskyflyer#Unenecyclopaedia

Unfortunately their is a difference in what the Original Wikipedian believe Wikipedia is for and what the new wave of Wikipedian believe it is for. Wikipedia has a life of it’s own. Wikipedia is to large to be strictly controlled from one man and his others. Wikipedia is a Beaurocracy WP:NOT and their aren’t blanked rules. If the user disagreed with my edit he should discus it with me not block me.

This is the page with the edit i was protesting.

The longer you are around the more conflicts you get into. Blocing peopople becose of a metaconflit is not acceptable. (Nether was parts of my edit)--E-Bod 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically I felt i was not Disrupting Wikipedia but rather one user who was massily disrupting user space while refusing to talk with users. After the fact

A block was not appropriate because it prevented my form resolving the issue I was blocked for. It has frustrated me enough that I no longer want to go back and redit my comment with an apology. Being silenced is a horrible feeling. I am used to having the right to speak and be heard and the obligation to listen to others.

Another issue is that When you block somebody the Blocker almost craves power. They will tell thou that they will unblock you iff you admint what you did was wrong. This Policy is unacceptable because then Unsisere people will lie and say they know wat they did was wrong

I feel one should only be blocked when there is reason to suspect they will repeat the offence. Admins shoed assume good faith.

I have not yet went back to complain to this user because how can I complain to an arbitrator. --E-Bod 19:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking while a user is involved in a request for mediation, comment or arbitration

A user was blocked and then unblocked by a second admin, partly because the user was involved in a request for mediation. I think we should have some policy/guideline on whether to unblock when the editor has a request for mediation, comment or arbitration going on, as this has come up before and will almost certainly come up again. I'm reluctant to give them a complete exemption because some editors are involved in such cases frequently and they can take a long time to resolve, so the editors may be unblockable for a significant amount of the time. Also, their behavior may be even worse if they know they won't get blocked. Instead of not blocking these editors, I suggest that the blocks be kept short, 24 or 48 hours at the most. If they are ineffective, then something else could be tried, like a temporary ban from editing certain articles. I suppose that a user could get a longterm block and respond to the RfX on his or her talk page. -- Kjkolb 06:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Or we could just use our common sense, like we're already doing. In some cases blocking should be avoided. Some examples:

Requests for comments take a long time, there is no reason for any block exemption at all.
Arbitration also takes a long time, but actually gets a useful result. Just don't block them for more than a few days at a time.
Users in mediation should mostly not be blocked, other than in extreme circumstances. --Phroziac ♥♥♥♥ 14:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

- So what, admins are going to have to act like rational, reasonable people with common sense? Oh, that'll work. ;-) I don't think it would be a problem to make a minor note about your suggestions on the page, but this definitely isn't of critical importance. Thanks, Kjkolb 06:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Hi, I would like to add a minor bit to the policy, stating that IPs may be block indef if they are zombie/open proxies (already policy); but would like to add that some sort of network admin (at the place requested) has requested a Wiki admin to indef block. What do you think? Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Telling users how long they have been blocked for

I've noticed that users are not told how long they have been blocked for unless it is an indefinite block, for which there is a template. It seems like people generally wouldn't know how long they've been blocked for. They can look in the block log, but a lot of people probably don't know about that page. Is there a perceived advantage in not saying how long the block is for? I would think that it would be rather frustrating, with the user constantly checking to see if the block has expired. -- Kjkolb 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The {{test5-n}} allows the length to be filled in as part of the message. It's the template I normally use. However (I don't know as I've never been blocked), does it not appear on their screen along with "You've been blocked by X . . . The reason for your block is Y"? AnnH ♫ 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockedtext is the page that has the text you see when you're blocked. From what I can tell, there are four parameters

$1 : Blocking admin username
$2 : Block reason
$3 : Blocked user's IP address
$4 : Appears to be blocking admin's username again.

...and none of them include a block time. I don't think it does tell you. I think a link to the block log would be nice on that page but I'm afraid to touch it. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a link to the block log further down the page. Thanks for the help. -- Kjkolb 00:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

how do i report a user?

i'm sure this is on here somewhere, i just can't find it. Joeyramoney 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:AIV Jkelly 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

getting frozen

Can a user account get "frozen" (i.e. permanantly disabled) on Wikipedia? ['frαs.ti] 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

It might be indefinitely blocked - this type of block lasts until as the user is unblocked by a sysop (which may never happen). See also Wikipedia:List of banned users and Wikipedia:Account_deletion#Deleting_your_user_account. googl t 18:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

When blocking may not be used

Self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited.

Why? As long as nobody else is affected (dynamic/shared IP), I see this as a victimless crime... Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a libertarian "society"? --Gutza ^{T T+} 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Well ... no. It's an encyclopedia project, not a society of any sort. It doesn't have crimes, either. --FOo 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant all of that euphemistically... Regardless of anything though, why? --Gutza ^{T T+} 00:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Admin privaledges are not to be used lightly.
Admins are to use privaleges in the service of wikipedia, not themselves.
Admins do not necessarily know whether thier IP is permenant.
It's trivial to undo a block, so block is pointless

Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

When someone blocks themselves, I guess they have good reason to.
Usurping a privilege inherently involves a wrong against someone, or discrimination against someone. This wouldn't be the case.
I won't comment on this, I find the very proposition offensive.
Rationally, yes. Subjectively, I'm not so sure. Have you or someone you know ever tried quitting a habit? Smoking, perhaps? (Not being sarcastic, malicious, etc, just making a point.)

--Gutza ^{T T+} 00:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

These days, I tend to ask before chastising, because experience has shown that usually there are superior reasons for many rules (on Wikipedia) or laws (in real life) which seem nonsensical at first sight. I don't see any such superior reason for this one though, even after clarification, so I'll move on to chastising. :-)

Any set of rules must be self-consistent in order to function. I feel that this particular rule is not consistent with the Wikipedia policy -- I feel it's intrusive, arbitrary, essentially dictatorial and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. Allow me to elaborate.

There are two sides to my objection against this rule. First, I feel this rule is essentially patronizing the administrators ("we, the 'Wikipedia lawmakers', know that you, the administrator, might want to take a break, and we also know that blocking yourself might help you accomplish that, but we shall not allow it, because we know better"). Second, I don't think it makes sense: can Wikipedia rules also prevent me from cancelling my contract with my ISP, should I choose that method to terminate my Wikipedia contributions? Could it prevent me from failing to pay my Internet subscription, should I file for banckrupcy? What if I chose to commit suicide, just to stop being an admin -- would you resurrect me from the dead? (Ok, that was too extreme, but you get the idea.)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin on the English Wikipedia, but I am an admin on a local one. A couple of weeks ago I wasted an hour or so cleaning up vandalisms on the local Wikipedia during business hours, in my office. I was cascading from fixing one vandalism to the next, so I ended up blocking myself for a couple of hours (literally) in order to break away. I was subsequently drawn to order (rather jokingly) by another contributor to the respective Wikipedia. You can infer my feelings from my comments above.

--Gutza ^{T T+} 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

When this rule came into place there were a number of admins who were blocking themselves to enforce a wikibreak. Some of them did not realise that thier IP used a caching proxy. When they blocked themselves they blocked everyone who used the same proxy, causimg some upset! Non admins cannot use blocking to force a wikibreak, why should admins be able to do so? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Were someone to approach me and ask me to block them so they could go on a WikiHoliday, I'd just tell them not to edit, I wouldn't block them. Thusly, I wouldn't block myself. It's totally unnecessary. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, that makes sense -- but I wast assuming this wasn't the case; after all, there is a separate provision for that situation ("Sysops also should not block themselves for testing unless they have an unshared static IP because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users.")

Deskana, I see you're not the first who points out the uselessness of blocking yourself. I don't see any reason why the Wikipedia policy would need to explicitly forbid useless exercises. --Gutza ^{T T+} 10:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Evasion

It seems that there may be an oversight in the policy. A blocked user has recently stated that, though blocked, nothing in the policy prevents him from continuing to edit using different IP addresses. If this is covered somewhere, please let me know where. If not, can we add something like the following:

While blocked, a user is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Users should not attempt to evade a block.

It might also be wise to include existing practice (extension of the block period).

Comments? Jakew 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The current policy has nothing about evasion at all. Evading a block is, in most cases, considered justification for resetting or sometimes extending the original block... especially when they evade the block to continue their same behavior. I was surprised that this isn't mentioned here. This should really be mentioned too. --W.marsh 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added some wording for it to spur things along. As always, feel free to edit it mercilessly, or be patient (unlike me) and discuss it here. --W.marsh 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In such a situation, the evading user could have any number of IPs available to him. Would it make sense to treat his edits as vandalism, so that there isn't an upper limit on undoing his mischief? Jakew 09:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I suscribe to the logic of "Revert on sight, block on sight." The point of being blocked is not being able to edit. -Randall Brackett 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Infinite/Indefinite

What's the difference between an "infinite" and an "indefinite" block? In what cases should I use each one? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This was a confusing change that someone made to the interface. The two are technically identical, only the "infinite" one is practically incorrect. It's been removed now. -Splash - tk 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

presenting evidence to support an accusation

I got blocked by Jayjg for being a sockpuppet of two users I had not even heard of. The admin did not present any evidence supporting the claim nor did she or he try to contact me in advance. She or he did not leave a message on my talk page as the blocking policy instructs to do. I looked up what the users I was accused of being identical with had edited, and there were not even similarities in the articles they focussed on with mine. I looked it up at the checkuser page. There was nothing about the two users I was accused of being a sock of. Concerning me there was a case concerning a fourth user. It was a user whose block I had protested as he was blocked for a "personal attack" that in my eyes was none. The admin who blocked me had disagreed about this with me. As this was the only event when I was in contact with her or him, I had the impression of getting censored. The case was labelled "inconclusive" by a user with a comment about the two of us editing from two different European countries that were unnecessarily identified: Best advice is: If it smells like a sock, it probably is. As a sidenote, it disturbs me that someone ignorant of the principle of the benefit of the doubt and with a history of blocks, even for vandalism, apparently nearly exclusively handles such a sensitive field as checkuser.
I requested to be unblocked, but the blocking admin did not answer, and others told me I should email him. I could not because I already get enough spam and do not want to provide an email address. She or he did not answer my unblock request, which was removed three times by admins claiming I needed to contact him first. Unblock requests are there for cases where a user feels a block was unfair, thus they are unlikely to trust the admin who blocked them and should not be asked to contact her or him. As Zocky agrees with me:
A request for unblock is not a request to get told to email the blocking admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky 10:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So I asked another admin, Theresa Knott, who provides a link on her user page to her webpage where an email address can be found. She was very kind and replied fast and asked Jayjg who had blocked me. All he replied was this, showing he actually had no evidence supporting his claim.
With this experience in mind, I suggest four changes to the policies:
1. Blocking admins should be instructed to post verifiable evidence for the accusation against the blocked user on her or his talk page.
2. Blocking admins should be instructed to watch the talk pages of users they recently blocked to ensure they see if any protest arises.
3. Unblock requests should not be removed unless an admin can present verifiable evidence for the accusation against the blocked user - of course if the originally blocking admin already presented this and the blocked user did not counter it convincingly the request can be removed stating just this.
4. The checkuser policies should be enforced:

Checkuser is a last resort for difficult cases.

Even if the user is committing abuse, it's best not to reveal personal information if possible.

If you're in any doubt, give no detail.

As this is relevant both to the checkuser policy and the blocking policy I repost it at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Enforcement_of_policies. My suggestion is to post comments where they are more appropriate. Socafan 16:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Socofan you need to shut up. You are making yourself look bad, and in fact you are also making me look bad in the process because I unblocked you. Essjay is a highly respected admin, his so called "history of blocks even for vandalism" is evidence of what exactly? Anyone who looks at that block log will see it for what it is - two joke blocks , one error block and one unblocking of the aforementioned error. Please stop making personal attacks and calm down. Don't make me regret unblocking you. Go and have a cup of tea or something. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You may respect him for what he did in other cases, and it is your right to do so. When he handled my case I think he violated a policy, and as you wrote him yourself he did not answer my complaint nicely. Furthermore, this is not on anyone personally but on the general policy which I believe needs to be improved. Please stop falsely claiming that I personally attack others. I do not, I just give a factual report of what happened, and in fact I find it a personal attack on me to say that I personally attack others when I do not and to tell me to shut up when I am trying to improve a polciy. If his block history does not show past abuses, as Armedblowfish also indicated here, I would say it should be erased. Socafan 21:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, why don't you delete references to specific admins and actions and concentrate instead on your general proposals? This really isn't the place for complaining about perceived injustices, and you'll find that people are more receptive to your ideas if you avoid mixing the two.

Just my opinion, but I would say that your first two suggestions are worthy of consideration. I'd have to give the others more thought. Jakew 21:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thought it would be clearer why this is needed if a specific case is presented where it would have helped, but go ahead if you can make it more concise and more convincing. Socafan 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

For the first suggestion - we would have a problem with WP:BEANS. We need to be careful not to tell socks how not to get caught in future. However as a general principle I can agree to it, but the wording would have to be gone over very carefully. Suggestion 2 isn't really practical. When I go on recent changes patrol I sometimes block multiple vandals. Watching everyone of them's talk page for more than a few minutes isn't really on. The point of the unblock template is so that another admin can see that the blocked user want's to talk. Suggeastion 3 - hmm makes sense to me. Suggestion 4 has nothing to do with the blocking policy and so shouldn't be discussed here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As no one seems to disagree with suggestion 3 and we do not have anything about unblock requests up to now I put it on the project page? Socafan 08:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes why not. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about it, Socafan. What is meant by "verifiable evidence"? If it's check-user evidence, it can't be presented. If it's linguistic evidence, admins may not want to present it publicly. For example, if I block X because he makes exactly the same unusual spelling mistakes as Y, I'd be prepared to e-mail that evidence to another admin who queried the block, but I wouldn't be prepared to post it publicly, because I'd want X not to know how he got caught. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Remember we are only talking about having to present evidence in order to remove an unblock request, not to be able to block in the first place. in socafan's case someone removed the unblock request without so much as looking at the block reason.This needs to be discouraged. To me, the word verifyable means that it can be checked out - not that it is necessarily publically available for anyone to check out. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

I think it's just that, if we use the word "verifiable," I can foresee endless requests for more and more information, and a refusal to accept that it had been verified, just because the blockee didn't have access to all the info, or did but refused to accept it, or pretended not to accept it. Could we soften point 3 above to something like: "Before removing an unblock request, please review the blocking admin's reason for issuing the block, or ask for details if none were offered. When you are satisfied that the block is correct, you may remove the tag." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it needs to be verifiable. If we just write "Remove the tag when you are satisfied that the block is correct" that is entirely discretionary. Verifiable does not mean the blocked guy has to be shown how he was detected, but there should be at least a link to where at the checkuser site someone wrote that the user is a sock or in a case of vandalism or 3RR or personal attack or threat or whatever where it was done or decided upon. Socafan 09:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it being discretionary, only that admins take sufficient time to study the fact's involved before removing an unblock request. OK let's try rewording it - Unblock requests should not be removed until an admin has verified the evidence for the accusation against the blocked user. Where appropriate the evidence should be presented on the user's talk page. How does that sound? Socafan I know it's a watered down version of your proposal but can you live with it? It can always be tweaked later if it needs to be.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

But then the admin can even say, hey, there is an official policy, I have looked into it, I do not regard it appropriate to present evidence, I just remove the unblock request. That would make things even worse. What is so hard about presenting a link to where abuse happened or to where in checkuser it was stated that the user is a sock? I think socks are the only possibility where it might have disadvantages to present evidence, and in this case a link to checkuser would be sufficient. Socafan 20:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Permablocking IPs

Based on the conversation here, I believe that we should have a system in place for longer blocks of static IPs with identifiable sources from which virtually all edits are vandalism. AlisonW has noted the presence of about 20 primary school IPs from which abundant vandalism flows whenever a block is not in place, and objects to the 1-month limit on blocking such IPs as a waste of admin time. She notes also that the IP's in question are blocked almost all the time, as they begin vandalising again as soon as the block expires. Either we need a change in policy to address this, or perhaps a notice board where IPs for which a permablock is proposed can be brought. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would clarify that, sfaiac, whilst 'vandalism' has a policy that suggests one month as a maximum, disruption (which this so clearly is - look at Archive65 and Archive54 plus Wikipedia:Abuse_reports/Internet_for_Learning for previous long discussions about these IP ranges) is the problem here, and policy states that blocks on static IPs can be of increasing length.

I dislike it that I've had to take this step as I'm certain is everyone else, but we have to look at what is sensible for Wikipedia and what leaving these IP addresses open to editing results in. We aren't stopping them reading Wikipedia, we just stopping them vandalising it. I wouldn't look to this becoming a general procedure, but we also need to recognise that one size never fits all and where many have tried again and again to get this vandalism and disruption to stop - and failed every time - we must eventually stop hitting our proverbial head against the brick wall and accept we have no better solution that a permablock. --AlisonW 23:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How much time does it actually waste? I suspect not that much really. Are you suggesting indefinate blocks? That seems unecessary to me. However terms are usually fixed and well known. I'd support a proposal to allow admins to block problem schools until the end of the current term. This would potentially be ~3 months max. Does this seem like an idea peaople can live with? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Extending it to up to three months or so seems reasonable. Has anyone tried to contact the schools about the problem? Perhaps they could punish those who vandalize. Even just a specific warning about vandalizing Wikipedia might help a little bit with elementary school children. If ability becomes available, requiring those with the IP to register in order to edit might be an acceptable solution. -- Kjkolb 08:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Theresa! Yeah, a termly block might be as good, though if practical terms comes to the same thing. Kjkolb's suggestion is, of course, exactly what we need, but the Bugzilla entry to enable it has been sitting around for quite some time now, sadly. --AlisonW 14:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Exausting the community patience

In my opinion this section:

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").

has some problems:

Instead of defining a rule it seems just to state something that has appened and seems to say implicitly that it's OK
It makes no specification about what can or should be a legitimate "exaustion of patience": it seems to imply that whenever a group of users feel they have lost their patience about the behaviour of some other user (maybe after an edit war) they can be legitimate to block him
It makes no specification of what does it mean to have the "community support": sure it is not referring to the whole wikipedia community, so how many people are needed to make the "community support"?

Don't you think that this section, as it is stated, could easily be misused? --Pokipsy76 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A confusing sentence

The following sentence from the WP:BLOCK#Expiry time and application section is potentially confusing:

For instance, if an administrator blocks a user for one day, and another administrator blocks the same user for two days, then the user will remain blocked for one day, assuming that the blocks were given at the same time.

It is highly unlikely that two admins block the same user at the same time. What does at the same time mean? Within less than a second of one another? What will happen if the second block is given half an hour after the first one? If a user is blocked for one day, and is blocked again for two days in an hour, will the duration still be one day or will it be two? Would the duration of the block be counted from the time of the first or the second block?

While I am pretty sure that a shorter block always overrides a longer one, the sentence could still stand to be clarified by someone who knows for sure. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoing blocks

Rebecca, sorry for reverting your change, but that part of the policy has strong consensus. The section is at Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#If_you_disagree_with_a_block, and there have been noticeably fewer wheel wars in recent months as a result of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I responded to this on your talk, but I'll respond in brief here also. Firstly, I don't see much sign of consensus on this page, not least in the amendment proposal raised further up this page. While there may have been fewer wheel wars, it also creates vastly more room for unfair blocks, by giving admins who may be too emotionally involved or just downright wrong what essentially amounts to a veto over the overturning of their block. As such, I'm making the policy actually workable. Rebecca 15:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing to stop concerned admins discussing blocks with the blocking admin. I've only had one occasion where I asked a blocking admin to consider overturning or reducing a block where the admin has said no. Usually, people are willing to consider other viewpoints. But if an admin simply undoes a block without discussion, it serves only to get people's backs up and entrench positions, and we end up either with wheel wars or worsening working relationships and resentment. This section of the policy basically asks people to respect each other's judgment, which is a good thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. It doesn't amount to a veto, it amounts to one voice in the discussion about whether the action should be overturned or not. Unless a consensus develops to overturn it, it should never be overturned. - Taxman ^Talk 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If the ban had been discussed initially at length, then perhaps this is so. By this measure, a strong consensus is needed to overturn a block, when that same consensus isn't necessarily needed to make the block in the first place. This is grotesquely unfair. Rebecca 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, your version sounds like a nice idea but is unworkable in practice, unless any blocking admin is required to be available on-call 24 hours. I doubt you're volunteering for that. Since they're not, best effort or notify afterwards is likely to actually be workable. Some admins don't like their blocks being reversed ever for any reason, but I gotta say too bad - David Gerard 16:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the section in question to remove the ridiculous red tape roadblocks. I have also attempted to moderate the didactic tone - you get admin on en: with the assumption that you have sound judgement. If you don't, that's a matter the arb com has been increasingly willing this year to deal with appropriately - but assume good judgement first - David Gerard 16:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

David, if the blocking admin isn't available, the block can be discussed on AN/I instead. The point of the passage is to stop admins from unblocking on a whim because the blocked user has emailed them or appealed on IRC. We can water it down a little if you like, but if it's diluted too much, it'll just be ignored, and having it here really has made a difference in reducing block/unblock wars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) While there are good arguments for discussing blocks first to 'get a full picture' and 'cut down on wheel-warring' I have to agree with Rebecca that there is a 'flip side' problem of admins making questionable or unjustified blocks and using this to raise a stink when they are over-turned. The wording as it was had started to stray into the territory where correcting an erroneous block was a greater 'sin' than placing one. All these stringent warnings about fully discussing and getting second opinions before reversing blocks... but not before making them. Obviously we should all strive for consensus, but absolute statements like, 'never undo a block unless you have first done A, B amd C', go too far. --CBD 16:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(ec)Slim's right - we shouldn't undo blocks without discussion, even bad ones. If the blocking admin isn't around or doesn't reply promptly, there's always AN/I. Changing policy pages without first getting consensus isn't acceptable, especially in reponse to falling afoul of the page. Even an archetypically "rouge" block shouldn't be undone unilaterally - and no, IRC does not count, unless Brandt is logging it ;). But most importantly, don't change policy without first achieving consensus to do so. That doesn't just apply to newbies - it applies to veritable institutions like Ambi and David. Guettarda 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, a "consensus" to make a process that's trivially unworkable in practice is not valid. I should note by the way that there is no WP:OWNership of policy pages either - David Gerard 16:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That the process is indeed "trivially unworkable in practice" is not a given. I see no reason provided here as to why I should accept that it is. FeloniousMonk 16:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FM. How is the process "trivially unworkable"? I don't think I have ever undone a block without discussion. Of course, you inform the blocked party of what you are doing. But beyond that - where's the fire? There are obvious exceptions - like when someone range blocks an entire country. But even there, you need to inform the person (and AN/I) of what you did. Guettarda 16:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And what's up with this WP:OWNership claim here? I see no evidence of that. FeloniousMonk 16:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The provision is reasonable. All too often the admin doing the unblocking does not have all, sometimes any, of the relevant facts pertaining the block. This provides for an opportunity to get them. Like the old saying says: Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up. FeloniousMonk 16:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying blocks can't be overturned. If the blocking admin is wrong, that can be discussed on AN/I and if there's agreement there, the block can be undone, even over the blocking admins protests. What shouldn't happen is for ONE other admin to arrive and say effectively "I know better than you," particularly when thef second admin knows little or nothing about the background. That's what causes wheel wars, and this part of the policy is designed to stop it. David, the reason I restored "discuss thoroughly" is that I had one admin post her "discussion" of her unblock with me one minute before unblocking, which is obviously pointless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct. FeloniousMonk 16:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Slim, in this edit [3] you summarise with "restored most of David's changes". However, I see that it's actually a complete reversion matching this edit [4], complete with spelling error. Is there another change you were about to make? - David Gerard 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll take a look. Maybe I restored the wrong thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Assuming good faith should extend to assuming the original admin action was good unless there is a consensus it was not. There is simply no urgent need to undo it before discussion can occur. That eliminates essentially all wheel wars and causes no problems. The one making the action isn't required to be around 24hrs a day, but they should be at least notified of the discussion. If a consensus developes without them, then go ahead with the consnensus. If not, don't. Besides, in the specific topic at hand there was consensus on this talk page to strengthen the provision, so removing that out without consensus to do so it not helpful. - Taxman ^Talk 16:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? I count four users replying. The policy in its previous form completely upended the onus of proof - instead of having to justify why a user should be blocked, an admin can just block at will, safe in the comfort that the onus lies on the unblocking admin to prove it wasn't necessary. This is highly unfair to the parties involved. Rebecca 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

5 supports and not a single dissent. Come on, that's the best working consensus you can get sometimes. If you disagree with what was changed, start a discussion and get consensus. Don't revert something that has working consensus until you do. - Taxman ^Talk 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It may be the best working consensus you can get, but when this is a result of no one actually knowing about the discussion, don't be surprised when it isn't held to be binding down the track. Rebecca 17:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on the policy's talk page, there's not really an excuse for not knowing about it. It's find if you don't, but not knowing doesn't get you anything either. And nothing is binding down the track, but that doesn't mean you can ignore it when convenient either, and just revert what you don't like without bringing up discussion first. - Taxman ^Talk 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, it doesn't say the blocking admin has a stranglehold on the block. If just says that discussion has to take place somewhere before a block can be overturned (unless there's been a clear error). The discussion can be with the blocking admin or on AN/I if the blocking admin either isn't around or isn't being coooperative. No one has to prove the block wasn't necessary; they just have to convince others that undoing it is a good thing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(two edit conflicts) David, sorry about that. I had cut and paste your version next to the old one, and fiddled, then I deleted the wrong one. Your version is back up, but I restored "discuss thoroughly" rather than "try" to discuss, because there's no reason not to be able to discuss either with the blocking admin or on AN/I if the admin is offline. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to make it "attempt to discuss properly", i.e. good faith effort (and not "ask then unblock 1 min later"). But this version or this version seem tolerably workable to me.

To make it clear: I do agree blocks should not be undone willy-nilly, and a stupid unblock is a nuisance ... but it can be a major nuisance getting hold of some people in a timely manner ... including myself. If I block someone and have to drop offline for some reason, then a sensible undoing of my block is not something I am going to be offended by, or indeed something I should be offended by - David Gerard 16:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But is there a problem asking people either to discuss thoroughly with the blocking admin OR to post on AN/I if the admin isn't available? I do take your point; I just want the wording to reflect that some (real) discussion somewhere has to take place, and that people shouldn't just take it upon themselves. If you can think of better wording, by all means go ahead, if you can retain the spirit of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm acutely aware of the problems that can occur when admins repeatedly unblock without consultation, as with the Guanaco situation. That said, there is no excuse for doing the complete reverse, and shifting the onus of proof on to the unblocking party. Rebecca 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is. Putting the onus on not undoing an admin action unless there is consensus to do so prevents wheel wars. That is well worth the couple hours it may take to get a consensus to undo an admin action. - Taxman ^Talk 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

This only makes sense where there was a strong consensus to make the block in the first place. As David quite well sums up, there are two causes of wheel wars - stupid blocks and stupid unblocks. While I appreciate that this is an attempt to deal with the latter, it gives people carte blanche to do the former. Rebecca 17:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't give carte blanche. If a block is stupid, consensus will quickly develop to undo it. If no such consensus develops, it wasn't that stupid. - Taxman ^Talk 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant with "attempt to discuss properly". Perhaps "a good faith attempt to discuss." I might try a complete rewording. "WHEREAS Stupid Blocks are a problem, and Stupid Unblocks are also a problem ..." - David Gerard 16:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this policy page is way too long to be any use as a guide for admins and needs a rewrite. In my copious free time I may attempt a /temp drastic slimming down of it - David Gerard 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, I don't see the reason for your objection. Supposing someone e-mailed you and asked to be unblocked. You post a note to the blocking admin and ask her to reconsider her block. She says no and gives you a list of things the blocked user has done. You still think the user deserves a chance, and so you take the case instead to AN/I. There, you either get support and you can unblock, or you get other admins giving you more information about how terrible the user is, so you have to leave the block alone. What is it exactly about this process that strikes you as unfair or unworkable? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is far too onerous to unblock, and far too easy to block. In a case where a block has been discussed at length by quite a few people, this may well make sense, but requiring a consensus to unblock that wasn't necessary to make the block in the first place is patently unfair. CBDunkerson explains well below why we need a balance between preventing stupid unblocks and preventing stupid blocks. Rebecca 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we all agree that 'unblocking willy-nilly' is bad and warnings against it should be incorporated into the policy somehow. However, there is a valid argument that things had shifted too far the other way. I've seen admins handing out and/or threatening indefinite blocks based on 'exhausting the communities patience'... to people who have never been blocked before and indeed haven't really done anything except disagree with the admin in an edit war. Getting agreement from such an admin, or even a consensus from AN/I, is often nearly impossible... and that's not the way it should work. It shouldn't be more difficult to undo a bad block than it is to place one. The wording in the policy needs to balance these two concerns. --CBD 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't follow your example, CBD. Can you say what would be wrong with the example I outlined above? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In the example you outlined above, it would be far more difficult to undo a bad block than it would be to place said bad block. This is the problem. Rebecca 17:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are admins threatening community bans for a content disagreement, those admins need to hear that is not okay, from the community or from ArbCom. We shouldn't write policy as if that was a normal state of affairs. Jkelly 17:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there were a few more respondants in support of the admin than opposed - though most did say they should not have placed the block themself. Hence (for Slimvirgin) my statement about the difficulty of getting consensus to undo a bad block from AN/I. Unfortunately we admins do have some tendency to 'stick together' against the 'regular user hordes'. Having to get a consensus to overturn a block generally means it isn't going to happen in all but the most egregious cases. --CBD 17:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. I'm not talking about community bans (this is the blocking policy, not the banning policy), and it isn't limited to the rather extreme case of an admin blocking someone they are in a content dispute with. It may be a misguided block, or it may be someone the admin simply does not like. Either way, this policy makes it far more difficult to undo a bad block than it would be to make the bad block in the first place. This is unfair. Rebecca 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, that's what I see as good about it. Bear in mind that if there's been a clear mistake, this part of the policy doesn't apply: so if someone is blocked and there's definitely no basis for it in policy (e.g. a 3RR violation with only two reverts), anyone can unblock straightaway.

But where there's no clear mistake i.e. where the block is arguably correct, then surely there does have to be discussion, because otherwise I think the block is good, you overturn it, someone overturns you, and so on, because we're all using our judgment and it differs. Where the block is based on a judgment call, if we don't discuss, we have wheel wars. David did dilute the section a little, so it now says discuss either with the blocking admin or AN/I. Does that alleviate your concerns at all? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Not especially. I agree that there does have to be some discussion, but in my opinion, that should be rather proportionate to the discussion that saw the block enacted in the first place. If the block was enacted because fifteen users in good standing agreed upon that course of action, then it had better need a very damned good reason for being overturned. On the other hand, if the block was enacted because an admin was having a bad day and blocked someone themselves on rather dubious grounds, then I see little need to discuss the matter beyond informing them of the unblock. Obviously, if it looks like turning into a block war, then both sides need to stop and hash things out, but I see no reason for leaving the user blocked in the meantime. Rebecca 17:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But how would you know that the blocking admin had made the block for a bad reason if not by asking him? What's wrong with dropping him a note saying "User X has asked me to unblock and frankly I can't see why he was blocked in the first place. Do you object?" The admin will then give you good or bad reasons for the block. There may be things you don't know about, or maybe his reasons will be very poor. But it's going to take a bit of looking into either way. I think we have to assume good faith about other admins, rather than only assuming it about blocked users. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to making sure you've got the admin's side of the story first. I do object, though, in cases where there was a weak or non-existent consensus to make the block in the first place, to an expectation that a consensus should be needed to override that block. Rebecca 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebeccca, would it help to add to that section something like: "Blocking admins should always be open to the possibility that they've made a mistake, and should be willing to discuss unblocking if another admin asks them to consider it." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It still relies on getting the blocking admin's permission to unblock. If the block is unfair and the admin is emotionally involved, this is an unreasonable burden. Rebecca 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't rely on getting the blocking admin's permission. It hopes that the blocking admin can be persuaded herself to remove the block, but if not, there is always AN/I. All the policy says is that one other admin alone isn't enough to unblock (in the absense of a clear error). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Define 'clear error'. The page says '3RR which isn't'... but if you follow the 3RR talk page you've seen the wildly different interpretations of what is and isn't a 3RR. Indeed, there is apparently such a dispute in the case which tripped this discussion. Is an admin blocking a user they were in a content dispute with a 'clear error'? What if the block was for posting defamatory comments about a living person... and whose judgement of 'defamatory' are we using there? Et cetera. It is almost never absolutely clear. Does this clause then come down to 'admin judgement'? As in, don't unblock without discussion unless in your judgement the block was in error? I'm pretty sure that isn't what you are going for... and thus the 'clear error' clause generally goes the other way - if 'anyone' would dispute it then it isn't 'clear', and it is far more difficult to remove a bad block than to make one. --CBD 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It is almost never absolutely clear whether a 'clear error' has occurred and the very example chosen illustrates this nicely; some people look on the 3RR as a completely mechanical rule, an "electric fence" if you will. Others see it as a flexible tool for stopping revert wars and gladly block people for violating the "spirit" of the 3RR. A person of the first school might well see a 'clear error' in a block applied by a person of the second school. More generally, it takes a lot of 'judgment' to distinguish between a 'clear error' and a 'judgment call' and we have so many admins with such a wide variety of views as to what 'good judgment' is that I think this rule is unworkable. I suggest we remove the paragraph. Haukur 14:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The text that was removed said (in part) "If you disagree with a block, begin by discussing it with the blocking admin". If a person is blocking incorrectly, you need to let them know what's wrong with their blocks. There might be more there than you are aware of. Talking to them reduces the probability of wheel-warring. Unblocking without attempting to discuss the reasons for the unblock is also a clear slap in the face to the blocking admin. It's a huge failure to assume good faith. It shouldn't be necessary to say "don't unblock without discussion" - it should be unthinkable that any responsible member of the community would unblock without discussion. Obviously people are willing to unblock without the courtesy of informing the blocking admin. It's a bad idea. So policy should reflect that it's a bad idea. Guettarda 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I've got no objection per se to requiring that an unblocking admin get the blocking admin's side of the story (that is, if they're around - if they're not around, it is unworkable to wait for them). It shouldn't be necessary to say "don't unblock without discussion" because people shouldn't block without discussion - or, if they do, shouldn't be surprised when it gets overturned with minimal fuss. Rebecca 17:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, if I were to block you for 24 hours right now with a block summary of "annoying user" and just a generic 'you have been blocked' message on your talk page should another admin have to try to contact me before removing it? Should they have to get consensus on AN/I first? You're well known so that might actually be possible... but consider when it is a well-liked admin, say Karmafist back when he was very popular, against some unknown newbie... how likely are other admins going to be to say 'yeah, it should be overturned' when they don't know what is going on. It should be incumbent upon the blocking admin to make a valid case for the block in their comments in the summary and on the talk page. If they just write 'troll' and 'You reverted me so I am blocking you' I think we ought to just be able to undo the block on the spot without having to talk to the blocker or get consensus from AN/I. --CBD 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the slap-in-the-face factor that we need to avoid. I once spent a couple of hours going through diffs of one user I was about to block for disruption, at the same time discussing the possible block with him by e-mail to see whether we could find another way, but in the end I did block. Minutes later, another admin posted to my talk page words to the effect of: "Hi! I've unblocked X but I'm on wikibreak so I don't know anything about his case!! Hope that's okay!!" as though it was all a big joke. Turned out the blocked user had emailed a bunch of admins and had gone on IRC looking to be unblocked. That's the kind of thing that starts wheel wars, resentment, leads to admin burn-out, and makes all admins looks silly to the blocked users who pull the strings. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you one bit - those things need to be avoided, but I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater. If you're going to unblock a user, you should at least have some idea of what is going on. If the blocking admin is around, I don't disagree it makes sense to discuss it with them - or if they are not, to let them know (and let them know your reasons for doing so). I draw the line, however, at having to do something that wasn't required to block the user in the first place. I badly need to sleep - I'll pick this up in the morning. Rebecca 17:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, you're saying there's a disparity between what's needed to block (no discussion) and what's needed to unblock (some discussion). I see your point but I'm not sure there's any way round that, and it's not an uncommon situation. It takes a traffic warden seconds to give me a parking ticket, but might take me months to get it cancelled if it was given unfairly. We don't require all parking tickets to be discussed by a court before being issued, because that would be unworkable given how many are handed out. We do require a long process to have tickets cancelled, because otherwise everyone would try it on, so it's a self-selecting process whereby only the people who have a good case proceed. Similarly, we can't ask that all blocks be discussed first on AN/I, because there are so many, but we surely can ask that all unblocks are discussed to some degree (I'm not suggesting Camp David-style talks, just a courteous discussion), so that only users with a good case are unblocked. Most blocks are issued with good cause, as are most parking tickets, and that has to be our baseline when we talk about the undoing process. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with that. I take the point that it can occasionally happen that an admin blocks because he's having a bad day or something. But evidence of abuse can be dealt with by RfC or RfAr, and in extreme cases, admins can be de-sysopped. Particularly since the blocking admin may have information that other admins who encounter the blocked user through e-mail or IRC do not have, the block should not be overturned without an attempt at finding the full background. It wouldn't matter very much if it's just a standard 24-hour block for 3RR (though even in that case, an effort should be made to contact the blocking admin. But when it's a case of sockpuppetry, abuse, posting of personal information (which may have been deleted from the history), I would strongly discourage unblocking by someone who doesn't know the background, unless the blocking admin is offline, and the matter has been discussed (not just reported) at WP:ANI. I think the wording before it was changed was better, though I wouldn't be opposed to some rewording to allow for the fact that "stupid" blocks are not meant to be protected under this policy. AnnH ♫ 18:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To the above, I'd like to add that there are some cases where very clear evidence is available for the "offence" that led to the the block — for example a 3RR violation, or a very nasty personal attack. However, there are other cases where the evidence is not public, and shouldn't be. One such case is sockpuppetry, where new incarnations have the same linguistic style. Put that in the block log or talk page, and they'll know what to avoid with the next account they register. Or, you can have a user who deliberately posts the real name, address, etc. of another user. On occasion when I've seen that, I've blocked instantly, and then deleted the page, and performed a selective restoration. Let's say the blocked user moans on his talk page (or in e-mails to other admins) that he didn't do anything wrong. Another admin comes along, sees the block log ("stalking"), looks at the blocked user's Special:Contributions, can't see any reason for the block, and unblocks, while I'm asleep. I would strongly oppose any wording that might result in a weakening in the policy and allow that kind of thing to happen. AnnH ♫ 19:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

However, it shouldn't be the job of the other admin(s) to 'guess' why the block was placed. I think this is our best way forward. Everyone agrees that 'blind unblocks' are bad and should be discouraged, but I'd like to see more requirements that blocking admins cite the actual evidence / reasons if the block isn't something obvious... for persistent vandals you can just say that in the block summary and anyone can check their edit history to confirm it. If someone 'posted personal info which was then removed from the edit history' the block summary absolutely has to say that rather than something completely unhelpful like 'blocking obnoxious jackass'. Likewise for sockpuppets... just say that you have evidence of sockpuppetry which cannot be publically disclosed. If there is any room for dispute then the blocking admin should spell out their case in the block summary / on the user's talk page. We don't currently stress this and we should. If 'lack of knowledge by unblocking admins' is one of the primary drivers of the strong 'do not unblock' wording then a better course would be to have stronger 'explain your blocks' wording. Admins reviewing blocks shouldn't be put in the position of having to leave the user blocked because they can't get info on the case. --CBD 19:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I would have no objection to a wording change that stressed that block logs should give as much information as appropriate. But in the case of something like stalking or sockpuppetry, no admin should even consider unblocking without hearing what the blocking admin has to say. And tne blocking admin should never be expected to report in the block log or on the blocked user's talk page personal details about other users or details that will help a notorious puppeteer to know what to avoid next time. AnnH ♫ 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the page temporarilly because it didn't seem like the revert war showed any signs of slowing or stopping. This is without judgement as to any particular version, the reverting was just getting disruptive fast. --W.marsh 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You were involved in the dispute, so I'm unprotecting. If a completely uninvolved admin wants to reprotect, that's fine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. --W.marsh 16:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't this page be protected anyway? - David Gerard 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Convenient. m:wrong version FeloniousMonk 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with it? Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a policy page. Protecting it with controversial changes gives the impression that policy has been changed. This is misleading. Guettarda 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

LB, you're also involved in the content dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because I made a single revert of a revert of (etc.)? Fine. I'm removing myself completely from this ticking nuclear time bomb. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you got involved in the content dispute, so you can't turn up minutes later as an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Umm... does anyone think that the page shouldn't be protected to prevent further edit warring until the dispute is over? --CBD 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It shouldn't be protected by anyone who has been involved in this disagreement, either by taking part in the reverts or by making arguments on the talk page. Even if the admin is being perfectly fair, and deliberately protecting it at random, without checking which version it's at, it looks bad, and shows admins up in a bad light. AnnH ♫ 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The reverting seems to have stopped and people are discussing, so there's no need for protection. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

Rebecca's concern is that blocking admins appear to have a veto, according to this policy. I would say there is more of a presumption in their favor than a veto. So would it help to add something like this?

"There is a presumption in favor of blocks having been made in good faith. Unblocking without discussion can be interpreted as a slap in the face to your fellow admin, leading to poor editing and admin relationships. Nevertheless, nothing in this policy gives the blocking admin a veto over whether a block should stay in place."

Or does that take us too far back in the other direction? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The basic presumption of a wiki system is in favor of editing, not in favor of administrative action. Blocking is a departure from that presumption, and needs to be carefully justified. I suggest that if another admin reverts a block, that this means that the block was not adequately explained and justified. The blocking admin must not re-block, but should instead explain the situation and the justification for the block more completely, and request that it be reinstated by another. --FOo 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Bingo. It should be the responsibility of the admin placing the block to justify it... they are the only one who CAN. All this stuff about 'the reviewing admin may not have the full story' is really only the case if the blocking admin hasn't explained it. In such cases the user should not have to remain blocked or the reviewing admin 'guess' because the blocking admin didn't provide a proper explanation. Failure to adequately justify a block ought to be a clear reason to overturn in and of itself. Maybe there was a valid reason for the block... maybe there wasn't. But if the admin who placed it didn't provide one that should never be held against the blocked user. --CBD 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the presumption is that all editors, including admins, have good faith. We also assume that when an admin blocks an editor, there is good justification for it, at least in the eyes of the blocking admin. It is typical for many blocked users to complain to other admins, and if the other admin, without knowing the full extent of the situation, reverts the block, the quick reversal causes major damage and disruption to WP. The blocked user can wait a few more hours or even days - the world won't come to and end if he/she takes a short wiki-break, justified or not. OTOH, WP will suffer greatly if a well meaning blocking admin is prematuredly reversed. Crum375 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You certainly can't have a situation where one admin is allowed to undo another's without discussion, but the blocking admin may not restore the status quo. That would be absurd. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion is a two way street... and starts with the blocking admin explaining the block adequately. If they don't do that it shouldn't be incumbent on others to chase after them for an explanation or guess whether the block was warranted or not. --CBD 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that admins should say why they're blocking, but most do, either in the block log or on the blocked user's talk page, or on AN/I. What we're talking about here is where another admin wants to question whether the reason is good enough, and that's fine, questioning is good, but what isn't good is just overturning it, thereby substituting your own judgment for the blocking admin's, who almost certainly knows more about the situation. That's all we're talking about here. No one's saying one admin has a veto; no one's saying blocks shouldn't be questioned; no one's saying blocking admins shouldn't have to give reasons for their blocks. All we're saying is: please don't just turn up and undo other people's work without talking first. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If we suggest to the blocking admin that he/she should provide all the information for the block we can just hope he/she will follow the suggestion. If instead we allow other admin to unblock poorly justified blocks we can be sure that the blocking admin will provide all the evidence.--Pokipsy76 21:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you think of a case where a blocking admin fully explained the reasons for a clearly valid block and was reverted anyway? It seems an unlikely situation. That leaves invalid blocks (should be over-turned), poorly explained valid blocks (ideally should be upheld, but should not be reviewer's responsibility to differentiate from the previous), and issues where there is a disagreement in policy interpretation or personal judgement. It is this last category where 'discussion' comes into play, but I still don't think 'retain the block' should be the default. You speak of the possible 'slap in the face' to the blocking admin... but what of the 'slap in the face' they may have given to the person they blocked? Yes, over-turning another admin's block is placing your judgement over theirs... but sometimes we absolutely should do that. For instance, in cases where the blocking admin was involved in a dispute with the user. Or where the admin has been being incivil / making personal attacks. --CBD 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what sparked this discussion and caused various people to turn up here all at the same time. This was placed in the policy after discussion on this page, AN/I, AN, mailing list, and on several other pages where there was a strong consensus against block/unblock wars. It has been there for months. Why the sudden interest? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist. --CBD 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Then you'd have seen the discussion about this a few months ago, and you'd have seen it being added to the policy, yet you didn't say anything. I was wondering what had sparked the sudden interest today; whether it was just the Giovanni33 thing, or some other issue. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't on my watchlist a few months ago, and the way the change has sometimes been applied / interpreted wouldn't have been apparent in advance in any case. --CBD 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine too. Changes here affect the ability of all editors to edit, and so are highly important. --FOo 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

On "assuming good faith"

It's been argued above that when an admin places a block, that others should "assume good faith", by which is meant, assume that there was a valid and policy-supported reason for the block, even if the blocking admin does not state one. I think this position stretches "assume good faith" well beyond its reasonable limits.

"Assume good faith" means to assume that other editors are not acting out of malice. It means assuming that their intentions are good; that regardless of what weird or seemingly erroneous thing we may see them doing, that they are trying to improve the encyclopedia. It means that when we see an editor do something seemingly bizarre, we should try to interpret it as an experiment, a well-intentioned mistake, a difference of opinion, or something else innocent rather than jumping to the conclusion that it is vandalism.

"Assume good faith" never means "assume correctness." For instance, if we see someone insert an erroneous claim into an article, AGF means we shouldn't assume they are vandalizing it; they probably are well-intentioned but making a mistake. We are within proper behavior to revert the error, giving our reason for doing so. AGF doesn't mean don't fix the article; AGF means we don't need to report the error-inserter as a vandal.

The interpretation of AGF that has been argued above is an "assume correctness" interpretation, and even more than that. It tells us that we should assume that a blocking admin has acted in a way which is correct, unbiased, and supported by policy, even in the absence of any stated argument to support that claim. I suggest that this interpretation has no legs to stand on. --FOo 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people who raised the point, I would like to say that I did not seek to conflate "assume good faith" with "assume correctness". By requiring that you should (in most cases) talk before unblocking, it assumes that the original blocker did not place the block maliciously, and thus probably has a good point for blocking. Thus, you owe them the courtesy of engaging them before undoing the block. To undo their block without explanation is rude. It also amounts to an assumption of bad faith because it assumes that the blocking admin made the block maliciously. If someone has made a mistake, you talk to them and try to point out the error. That's even true if their reason for blocking is clearly in error (like a 3rr vio in which one of the alleged reverts was clearly not a revert) - if you believe that the admin blocked in good faith but was wrong you let them know, with the hope that they will be more careful in the future. Undoing a block without explaining it to the unblocking admin amounts to saying you were wrong to block, and I don't believe that you are capable or willing to learn from your error.

And that, is failure to assume good faith. Guettarda 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It boils down to common sense. If I don't know why someone has done something, I ask them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Why the blocking admin can assume bad faith on the blocked editor and other people cannot assume bad faith on the block by the admin?--Pokipsy76 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Guettarda, I don't think anyone is suggesting that admins should undo blocks without explaining why. Just that the explanation should not have to come before the unblock. --CBD 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a hairsbreadth of difference between "explaining in the unblock log" and not explaining it at all. Ambi unblocked Giovanni33, without informing the blocking admin (AFAICT). She later made changes to the Blocking policy, modifying the instructions about talking to the blocking admin. So I have to disagree with you on what is being proposed here. Guettarda

IMO because the admin represents WP. As such he/she is entitled to block at his/her discretion. Then, with due process, that action can be appealed all the way up to ArbCom, but undoing it too quickly, without due process and proper discussion, escpecially with the blocking admin, undermines the entire WP system. Crum375 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Admins absolutely do not 'represent' WP. They are supposed to have no more 'authority' than any other user. One of the problems with 'block at whim / unblock only with consensus' is that it abrogates that fundamental principle of the "WP system". When a user edits an article we do not require other editors to discuss before undoing or changing that edit if they disagree with it. They make their change and explain their reasons. Should be the same for admin actions. Edit or wheel warring from that point forward is a separate issue. There should be no 'whoever strikes first gets precedence'. At that, even if admins did represent WP... that would be true of the unblocking admin as well. --CBD 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

They absolutely do represent the WP community. They were elected to that position by the community after a vetting process and were empowered to block disruptive editors (among other duties). We give them presumption of competence to judge when a block is needed, and we include an appeals process that can be used to validate their actions. To arbitrarily and summarily reverse them without due process, would cause disruption to the entire WP project. Crum375 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

You're setting up a strawman by implying that admins block "at whim." Show me an example of a block "at whim," where no reason whatsoever was given for the block, or is apparent from the contributions. If I can see some examples, then I'll know there's a problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the AGF in the case of a block is different than a well intentioned edit that is overtly questionable. In the case of a block, it is the entire WP system that stands, temporarily, behind it. It is no longer just a (possibly trigger happy) admin - it is the organization. As such, it should be viewed with respect and reversed only upon careful consideration and discussion, if at all possible with the blocking admin him/herself. There is no urgent rush to undo it - as I noted, the world won't stop, there will be no irreparable harm to wait a day or two. OTOH, if we quickly undo a block we undermine the entire WP infrastructure - we create a bad impression and ill feelings all around, and we can potentially lose a good admin. Crum375 21:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe someone could give a concrete example (apart from unambiguous errors) of when unblocking without discussion would be a good thing, and explain why exactly. Because offhand, I can't think of one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the problem is in your definition of "unambiguous errors". I recently encountered a block that I consider an unambiguous error with no room for question whatsoever... yet more than a dozen other admins have said it was justified except for a possible minor procedural issue. The phrase is essentially meaningless. If it was entirely "unambiguous" the blocking admin would very seldom have blocked in the first place. And when you say 'discussion' does 'I am going to unblock because XYZ' qualify or do you have to get consensus? How long are you supposed to wait? I think every admin who undoes a block should place an explanation on the blocking admin's talk page... but I don't think they should need to do more than that unless they don't feel they have a solid understanding of the reasons behind the block. --CBD 22:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

An unambiguous error is one that everyone would agree was an error, where the blocking admin wouldn't have made the block had they realized they'd made the mistake e.g. miscounting the number of reverts in a 3RR report.

As for how long you have to discuss, you should be aiming to persuade the blocking admin of your views, but you might not succeed. What you seem to be saying is that your view must prevail. If you see a block you don't like, even if you know nothing about the situation, you should be able to just march in and undo it. And if the blocking admin restores it, she is wheel warring, but you were not. That isn't reasonable.

Can you give me a concrete example of when talking with the admin or AN/I, and trying to persuade rather than undo, would not be a good idea, and please explain why it would not be a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppose that we applied this kind of "AGF" to editing. Instead of reverting an error, you must discuss with the editor who made that error, and convince them that it is an error; only they may revert it. The result would be debacle.

In practice, the interpretation of "AGF" you are taking is equivalent to "assume correctness". It elevates the will of the blocking admin above meaningful review by others, because nobody else may undo what they did. It is anti-wiki, because wiki means perpetual, omnipresent review -- and sometimes, reversion -- of your actions. And it is anti-editor, because it means that one admin may not cure the mistakes of another, even when those mistakes are wronging an editor.

We should not be so afraid of "wheel warring" that we allow an erroneous block to stand simply because the person who put that block in place is asleep or away for the weekend. Reverting an error is not the same as getting into a revert war, and one revert does not make a war.

The only sensible standards are those which prefer editing over blocking, except where there is a clear and defensible reason to block. I suggest that if any admin unblocks an editor, that it is the unblock that should be presumed correct until a block is adequately defended. --FOo 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Slimvirgin, check your email. I sent you an example there because I didn't think it appropriate to dredge up the details publically again. --CBD 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdent) I think that it is wrong to compare the reversion standards of edits to blocks. In the case of an edit, it is normally an issue of content, and it is WP's theory that by constant back-and-forth tweaking by multiple editors we'll eventually converge on a properly balanced article. In the case of a block the situation is very different. Here we have a case of an individual who was found to be disruptive (say) in the eyes of a presumed competent admin. Once that determination was made, it should not be undone in a rush, as it will disrupt the overall WP infrastructure. A block can and should be reviewed and either confirmed or reversed, but not on whim, rather via a careful due process mechanism, where the blocking admin is given a chance to defend and explain his/her rationale. Crum375 22:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The unblocking admin is also presumably competent and not acting in a rush. Look at it this way... admin A reviews a situation thoroughly, determines that no block is warranted, and posts a detailed explanation of why. Admin B then comes across the issue, does not review it at all, and places a week long block immediately. Admins placing blocks don't have any 'special wisdom' over other admins in that moment of blocking. They are just as subject to fault as any other admin and their actions should not be more sacrosanct because it is a block... indeed, given the potentially disruptive nature of unjustified blocks they should be subject to review and reversal as needed. --CBD 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your example of A and B. I think that unless B has new information, then A should not be overridden, assuming A's reasons are well explained somewhere. But once a block is made, it should not be reversed without due process. Wheel warring looks like a childish food fight among the teachers to the outside world and to most other non-admin editors. There should be a clear and careful process of block reversal that should include a chance for the blocking admin to explain the rationale. Anything else will undermine the overall WP project. Crum375 23:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

'Whoever strikes first gets precedence' looks much more childish to the outside world. If the admins don't want to appear childish they can just try to get consensus on a block before doing it, as it happens in the wikipedia's of other languages. It must be up to the blocking admin to create a situation where he can't be corrected by other one, not on the other admin to accept his behaviour just becouse he came first or because they must give an idea of authority. This latter behaviour is definitaly the most childish one.--Pokipsy76 08:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is not an issue of 'whoever strikes first' but 'whoever starts the machine'. The 'machine' in this case is the WP formal censorship process, that temporarily prevents one editor, found disruptive in the eyes of (at least) one community vetted and elected admin, i.e a formal WP community representative, from editing. Once that step occurs, for whatever reason, it must be allowed to run its course via due process. That due process must include an opportunity for the blocking admin to fully explain his/her rationale if it is questioned. Simply reversing the block like a typical edit war over article content is unacceptable. If the block was not fully justified, it will be reversed in due course, and the blocked editor will simply have to endure a short wiki-break while things are sorted out. OTOH, if the block is too quickly reversed, that is a start of a wheel war, which is disruptive, destructive and must be avoided at all reasonable costs if we are to succeed as a project. Crum375 13:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

1) Unfair behavior against user is likewise "disruptive, destructive and must be avoided at all reasonable costs if we are to succeed as a project".

2) It's not reasonable to think that the unfairly blocked user have to wait days before he get unblocked.

3) If you really want to avoid wheel war at any cost you have an easy way: just require for a block to be supported by a votation or by consensus (that is the way other wikipedia's do). Wouldn't it be a "reasonable cost"?

--Pokipsy76 13:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

From my time here, it's very rare that a user is blocked without reason. Sometimes other users may disagree with the blocking admin's reasons, but it's not as if users are being blocked "on a whim" without any review. In those rare cases where a user has been blocked for little or no reason, a discussion on AN:I or with the blocking admin could quickly resolve the situation. Aren't I Obscure? 14:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could likewise say that it is very rare that an user has been unblocked without reason and sometimes other users may disagree with the unblocking admin's reasons and in those rare cases where a user has been unblocked for little or no reason, a discussion on AN:I or with the unblocking admin could quickly resolve the situation.--Pokipsy76 14:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that way lies wheel wars. Reversing an admin action should be the result of discussion, not the opinion of a single admin. So why not require the original blocking admin to discuss any block first? It would unworkable. Blocks are most often made quickly and with strong justification. Controversial blocks are the exception, not the rule. Aren't I Obscure? 14:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

But controversial unblock are not the rule too. You are afraid of things you don't like, and when other people are likewise afraid of things they don't like you say they are "rare". Not a good way to do a debate.--Pokipsy76 14:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, hey, we don't need to make this personal. ;) I was trying to provide some perspective to this issue. Only a small percentage of blocks are even remotely controversial. Yes, occasionally an admin will use less than ideal judgement in blocking. That's a situation for discussion, not an immediate unblock. The assumption should be that the blocking admin had good reason to block. Thus, an unblock without fully investigating and discussing would be inappropriate. Should an admin have a habit of using poor judgement for blocks, that's a matter for the ArbCom. Aren't I Obscure? 14:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal. If it is so rare to have a controversial block why are you so afraid about wheel wars? If an unblock is likely to occur that mean that the judjement for the block are not so clear cut. I don't agree with a blind assumption on good reason for the block. The blocking admin who thinks the block could be reverted by people without appropriate information can provide the relevant informations when doing the block. What's the problem? If the block is "clear cut" he will not need to write too much.--Pokipsy76 15:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

(outdenting)

'Unfair behavior to an editor', in the sense that he/she were blocked for a couple of days, while there was a belief by at least one competent elected community representative (admin) that the editor was distruptive and deserved the enforced wiki-break, is not disruptive, or destructive. Any reasonable person knows that sometimes mistakes happen, and waiting a couple of days off-wiki to have them sorted out is no biggie and will not threaten WP in any way.
It is most reasonable to expect a reasonable person to understand that mistakes can happen, assuming the person is totally innocent and it was all a silly misunderstanding.
The reason we allow an admin to block is to temporarily stop one user from editing. That assumes that within a couple of days other admins can review the block and reverse them with due process if needed. Requiring a consensus process just to block would be impractical, as there are times where a block is needed quickly and most blocks are very clear-cut.

Again, I think for a reasonable user/editor, taking a short wiki-break once in a blue moon is not a big deal. Editing WP is not like breathing (although some would probably disagree with that). If you really think you were unjustly blocked, you reach another admin via email, who then finds out the real deal by, among other actions, discussing the block with the blocking admin. A couple of days tops, and the innocent editor is re-instated, no big deal (and IMO it would be extremely rare for a perfectly civil, guidelineline/policy adhering and rational person to be ever blocked by any admin). OTOH, for a blocking admin to be reversed too quickly, and without due process, it would start a wheel war, would look extremely ugly to the outside world, and would disrupt and over time destroy WP as a whole. Crum375 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

'Wheel war', in the sense that an editor get unblocked while there was a belief by at least one competent elected community representative (admin) that the block was undeserved is not disruptive or destructive. Any reasonable person knows that sometimes mistakes happen and having a methaphorical "slap in the face" is less painful than a 48 hour forced wikibreak and will not threaten WP in any way. The next time the admin will be more carefull in blocking and will try to get consensus: this will make WP work better.
It is most reasonable to expect a reasonable admin to understand that mistakes can happen, assuming the admin is in good faith and it was all a silly misunderstanding.
If a block is needed quickly and is very clear-cut why should we be afraid that some other admins will revert the block.

Blocked editors don't see unfair block as a "wikibreak", they see it as unfair punishment and start to get angry against WP. There is no reason to edit WP if it produces stress and angryness. These users became less motivated and prone to leave their activity: this is a damege to the community. See also this.--Pokipsy76 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Irpen's summary in your reference. I also think that if an editor is mistakenly blocked (e.g. in a rush by an admin who issues multi-blocks), even for a couple of days, all he/she would really want upon re-instatement is a duly-issued, sincere and heartfelt apology from the blocking admin. That really seems to be missing. Yes, I agree that WP is the totality of its editors, not its admins, but the admins serve a vital and critical role to keep the machine running smoothly (as well as contribute personally of course). The blocking admins must block only when it is absolutely necessary in their judgment to stop further abuse, not as punishment, and must be ready of course to defend their actions. OTOH, once the block has started, it should never be reversed without discussion with the blocking admin. The hurt to the innocently blocked editor will not change that much if the block takes 2 days instead of 2 hours - it's the principle (e.g. of false accusation) that counts. I suspect many editors would prefer a 2 day block with a duly issued and sincere apology at the end to a 2 hour block with no apology at all (remember the block always has a declared reason - no apology perpetuates that reason at least by the blocking admin). A block is a formal procedure that is not a whim - it must be started as well as continued to its due course judiciously and carefully, with due process. A quick reversal with no consultation with the blocking admin is bad all around. We all want our valuable editors to keep contributing, but we must have a stable and respectable infrastructure for them to operate in. Crum375 15:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I might as well note that I've personally taken care of one half of the problem with a simple note on my user page. This has reduced my wikistress significantly, since I can now step away from my computer after performing an admin action with a clean conscience, safe in the knowledge that if I happened to screw up, someone else can fix it even if I don't constantly monitor my talk page and e-mail.

Of course, that doesn't help if I'm the one who spots what seems like a mistake by another admin. I haven't stumbled across any mistaken blocks yet, but I did once try to contact another admin about a mistaken copyvio claim; it took me two weeks (after two talk page messages and one e-mail) to get a response. Since then, I've generally followed the rule that, if I don't get any response from the other admin within a week, I assume they're away or not interested, go ahead with the revert and leave them a polite note explaining what I did and why. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Unblock abuse

The Template:Unblockabuse deletion debate moved to WP:DRV. -- Omniplex 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked message when I'm not blocked

When I'm trying to edit, they say that "I'm blocked" but I'm not blocked. Is it a bug or did somebody blocked me? Please reply me if you have the answer. Thanks. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the message that I receive, even though I'm not blocked: --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing.
You were blocked by $1 for the following reason (see our blocking policy):

$2

Your IP address is $3.

You are not blocked from reading pages, only from editing them. If you were only intending to read a page and are seeing this message, you probably followed a red link. These are links to pages that do not exist, so they take users to an editing screen. You should have no problem if you follow only blue links.

If you would like to know when the block will expire, please search for your name or IP on the block list.

If the reason given is "username", "user...", or "contact an administrator for verification purposes", then you or someone with whom you share an IP address has most likely been blocked for choosing an inappropriate or suspicious username. Please read our username policy for more information. If you do not feel that the name is inappropriate, or if the name was registered by somebody other than yourself, please contact the blocking administrator, as described below.

Innocent?

Sometimes IP ranges or shared proxies are blocked from editing Wikipedia. This means that innocent people sometimes can't edit. If this is the case, it should be explained in the reason given above.

Also, some individual dynamic IP addresses may be blocked, usually for 15 minutes to 3 hours. Occasionally, users with dynamic IPs will be blocked accidentally, due to that fact that their present IP was previously used by a blocked user.

We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause. If this problem affects you repeatedly, and you would like to help us resolve this issue, you will need to contact a Wikipedia administrator and your internet service provider (ISP). The administrator should be able to obtain the time, date, and IP address used for the inappropriate behaviour in question, and describe what the problem was. You can then pass this information on to your ISP, explaining that you are unable to edit Wikipedia due to the inappropriate actions of another person using this ISP, and ask them to remedy the problem.

What to do next

You can either wait for the block to expire, or contact $1 to resolve the problem that led to the block.

If you wish to contact $1, you may do so via email, or by adding "{{unblock}}" to your user talk page (which you can edit even while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking.

If after discussing the matter with $1 you believe the block is unfair, you may appeal the block. You will need to know:

Your IP address, which is $3
The name of the blocking admin, which is $1
The reason you were blocked, which is:

$2

Note that you may not use the "email this user" feature unless you have a Wikipedia account and a valid email address registered in your user preferences.

Editing from China?

Please read Wikipedia:Advice to Tor users in China.

Editing from America Online?

Please read Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users.