Wikipedia talk:Five-block rule

message: This came out of a discussion out of groups that seem to specialize in wide ranging, low-level edit wars. Needless to say, despite the fact that some of the users ARE somewhat useful when it comes to editing, the sheer amount of disruption and hand-holding needed to keep things from breaking down just does not make it a net positive for the project. If someone has 5 separate blocks for the same type of offense, it's pretty obvious that they're not going to be abiding by our rules. Rather then continue to try to mediate and protectthese problem users, admins should be encouraged to eliminate those whose disruption outweighs their benefit SirFozzie 01:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And luckily, if they *really* belong, the ban can be challenged. MessedRocker (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: +1. Sounds like a good idea to me. People shouldn't have to waste their time on offenders that have no intention of changing their behaviour. A five-block rule seems like a fair (or even lenient) way to differentiate between such cases. --Seans Potato Business 16:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Perhaps that should be "can". I don't want to tie my hands with a block that is hard to undo (1 admin can't do it). Voice-of-All 01:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, can the blocking admin reverse himself and unblock (I know it's semantics, but it says 'lone admin')? Voice-of-All 01:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reversing yourself shouldnt need explicit permission imo... I can officially state that if need be. Can vs Should... yeah i'll go ahead and make that change now.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Should" -> "Can" addresses one of my main concerns too. Thanks. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The next block should be placed for an indefinite length." 

message: Admins should already take into consideration previous block history in cases of problematic editors.  We can already block people for increasing lengths when they are repeat offenders.  So I don't see the need for some new "rule" here.  This purpose seems like it would be well served by just adding more advice to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks.  Let's not create yet another guideline/policy page unless we have good reason. Friday (talk) 15:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I'm tempted to agree. We have enough rules as is. This could be served with an extra line to the main blocking page. Voice-of-All 03:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this rule is meant to mean a mandatory indef block after 5 block then I think that is harmful in that it reduces admin discretion. If it simply means to allow for that, then we really already have the option. I see no need to codify this, if we have been handling this without a policy(as I believe we have been) then creating a policy is not a good idea. 1 != 2 02:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's because folks look at each block as its own creature.. In some examples, if I blocked someone for 72 hours for editwarring and they had a history of such things, I would be accused of drifting into "Punish instead of prevent" SirFozzie 03:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I concur that we don't really need a rule there. It suffices to add a footnote to WP:BLOCK that blocks can sometimes be longer for repeat offences. Which, well, they can. A strict "five strikes you're out" isn't necessary, and Wikipedia has its share of "well-meaning hotheads" who are generally productive but manage to land themselves a block per month since they're, well, hotheads. >Radiant< 12:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do we need a rule?