Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 3

message: It used to be the case that logged-in users were never blocked except by Jimbo.  Then we added the provision that users whose only edits were vandalism could be blocked (e.g. WoW).  Then we added blocks to enforce AC rulings.  Now there have been a few instances where users have been blocked based on community consenus, see Wikipedia:Account suspensions.  I changed the policy wording to acknowledge this.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks without policy basis 

message: Why is self-blocking not allowed? I see no compelling practical reason to disallow an admin to block themselves in order to enforce their own WikiBreaks, but maybe I'm missing something. -- Seth Ilys 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant sentence contains an "unless" statement: "Sysops should not block themselves ... because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users ... unless they know what they're doing (i.e., they have a static IP)." Self-blocks are quite okay if your IP is static or you're willing to undo any autoblocks. — Dan | Talk 01:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The "unless" was added later.  This had been discussed extensively at one point.  In addition to the problems with the autoblocker, the point was that the blocking mechanism isn't something to be used lightly for such things as wikivacations.  Since admins have the ability to reverse self-blocks anyway, they accomplish nothing useful.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-blocking 

message: I would like to request that someone consider blocking User:Alabambam.  (I've read mountains of legal-sounding-policy pages -- none of which seem to be current -- about how to request this and couldn't find one.) The only purpose of this log-in is to spread hate.  Here's what he added to Joke:
Q: Why did the nigger cross the road?
A: Because niggers are an inferior race.
and:
Q: What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?
A: Pizza doesn't scream in the oven.
You'll also notice in his/her user history (Special:Contributions/Alabambam) that he was fighting on the Hurricane Katrina page to talk about how black people aren't as smart as white people and this is why most of the victims were black.
I hope that someone can help keep this person from vandalizing wikipedia anymore.--Quasipalm 14:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Guettarda pointed me in the right direction: WP:AN/I Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct.  Policy pages are SOOO hard to find, ugh.  -Quasipalm 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Alabambam]]

message: "Administrators are permitted and encouraged to IP-block anonymous proxies indefinitely. See the entire thread for discussions about the legitimacy of using an anonymous proxy to edit Wikipedia. Such blocks are routine but controversial. A better policy to help against this balkanization of the internet would be highly appreciated."
I object to the use of this term even if the corresponding article claims it does not necessarily show disapproval. Any comments? <KF> 11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And they're not controversial either, there are a few people who oppose but there is no controversy. Reworded. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No wonder that only a few people oppose. If you must expect oppression for speaking publicly and have to use a proxy to protect yourself, you need much courage to speak at all. Many are not even heard because they have too much fear. Neutrality would be served better if the consensus would not be built only by those who can afford having their words linked to their identity. I'm sure there are better ways to deal with possible vandalism than by simply locking certain people out. --Freedom of speech 18:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[Balkanization]]" 

message: If an ordinary user notices repeated vandalism, what can they do to bring the matter to the attention of a sysop who can block the offending IP address? Is there a place to report vandals? I didn't see anything about that on the main Blocking policy page.
:Try Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.  - brenneman(t)(c) 23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should non-sysops do about reporting vandals? 

message: I asked this question on Tim Starling and Brion Vibber's talk pages, but I thought someone else might also have answer to this:
This concerns an ArbCom case that I'm gathering evidence for. A user claims that he was able to view the IP address of blocked registered users by clicking on the autoblock link in the block log. Has this ever been the case? I wasn't able to find any record of this bug in Bugzilla. This user has only be around since early July, so that's time period I'm mostly concerned about. He claims that the bug has now been fixed. I'd also like to know whether any user (other than developers or David Gerard) could have knowledge of registered users' IP addresses through any technical means. Thank you! Carbonite | Talk 04:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual IP address rather than a numeric code appeared in the block log up until about a couple of years ago.  I am unaware of any recent software bug or feature that would allow an IP address to be determined.  I would imagine that the most practical means of determining another users' IP address would be to get them to click on a link to a non-Wikipedia site that logs such information, perhaps by disguising it as linkspam, a diff, or an offsite-hosted image.  Emailing a message to the user that contains a web beacon would also work if the target user's email program were configured to display inlined HTML images.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: After Brion put the search box in Special:Ipblocklist, there was briefly a bug by which, if one were to search for an actual IP address, autoblocks on that address would also display. However, it was corrected within hours, so I doubt it has any bearing on this case. — Dan | Talk 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has Autoblock ever displayed a blocked registered user's IP address? 

message: Could someone point a newbie admin to someplace I could find answers to these questions, so that I don't block improperly? (A link in the intro to the article, or definitions there, might be a good idea.) 
*How do I tell the difference between a static and a dynamic IP? 
*What is an anonymous IP? 
Thanks, kwami 09:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how to tell the difference between static and dynamic IPs. An anonymous IP is one that doesn't identify either the person using it or their ISP. Brian Jason Drake 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I wasn't sure that was what was meant. But since we're encouraged to block anonymous IP's indefinitely, how do we know we're not blocking logged-in users along with them? Although the problem may be cleared up now, I was thinking of an anon IP that was used as a sockpuppet to revert the Urdu article a good fifty times, with no other edits on its contribution page. kwami 23:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  define terms? 

message: Shared IP addresses like User:169.244.143.115 get used a lot by anonymous vandals in public libraries/schools, and I've noticed moderators in the past blocking an IP for a month when they saw no positive contributions in its history, because they don't have CheckUser power (they were corrected shortly thereafter by emails from the affected registered users). Should a policy of moderators requesting a CheckUser on an IP before making a long-term blocking decision be put in place? Phoenix-forgotten 09:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see they had more success than me, when my school's IP was blocked (I got no response). Is anyone going to consider my suggestion this time? I suggest that there be a class of users that can edit from any IP, and that other classes of users with elevated privileges automatically get this privilege as well. Brian Jason Drake 11:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocking shared proxies policy 

message: User:Nashferatu in this edit and other ediots to the same talk page, has revealed the legal name of at least one wikipedia editor, without permission and againt the wishes of that editor. It appears that this name was discoverable by not too arduous internet reserch, and thr is no allegation that the editor was in any wany endangered by this act, although celarly his privicy was invaded. 
I am about to warn User:Nashferatu not to do this again, but I would like support for my contetion that revealing personal if about another editor (apparently simply to make a point, not becauase the name was in any way relevant to the discussion in progress) is blockable conduct -- i argue tht it is celarly a form of disruption.  The dispute was disscussed on WP:AN#Nash the Slash, which is how I came to the matter. DES (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocks for breaching privacy? 

message: A view in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Duncharris is that "While self-unblocking is certainly unwise, current policy specifies that one should not unblock oneself, but does not indicate that one may not do so". This view has received endorsement. 
Hence, to avoid this misinterpretation, I suggest that in the phrase "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so", the word "should" should be replaced by "must". Thincat 14:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, although the current phrase "should absolutely not do so" seems crystal clear to me. — Matt Crypto 15:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Matt. It boggles my mind that someone could read that as allowing self-unblocking. (It's not as if an admin doesn't know where to go to protest an unfair block, anyhow.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm when were you last blocked? Not all admins are contactable by email which means you have to rely on the mailing list. This can take anything up to a few hours to get a responce from. Back when I was createing all those dummy accounts on the front page of list user I was getting repeatedly caught in ip blocks and frankly I couldn't be bothered with messing around after the first time and just pulled the blocks.Geni 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd suggest, then, that we add a clause explicitly allowing admins to unblock themselves if caught in an IP block by accident.  — Matt Crypto 17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  This seems like common sense to me; does it even need codifying? I've unblocked my IP several times and nobody has complained. — Dan | Talk 17:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that in my case it wasn't exactly an acident. It was the accounts that I was creating that were getting me blocked because they would look insanely suspicious to someone who didn't know what was going on. I did announce my actions at AN/I and they were within policy.Geni 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I prefer the "should" wording. Self-unblocking to get around 3RR and other valid blocks is bad and merits an RFC. In a few cases, however, a block is placed in bad faith and should be removed by the victim. Guanaco 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's often the case that the least capable person of rationally judging the validity of the block is the person blocked, as he or she is likely to have a very biased and emotive view of the situation. It's better if some other admin, preferably one not already involved, judges if the block was unfair and needs to be removed. Take as an example the situation with Duncharris above, who obviously felt that the block was in bad faith, but not everyone agrees. — Matt Crypto 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Matt's point makes sense, but I am still inclined to agree with Geni.  If a block violates policy I don't see why you shouldn't be able to unblock yourself.  In Dunc's case, Ed's block was controvertial but not entirely against policy, but I could envision a block which was totally wrong.  While in such a case it should be easy to get someone to unblock you, it shouldn't be strictlyforbidden (much like getting caught by the autoblocker...you can undo that, but even that is less than idea).  Guettarda 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I guess it's better to leave it as a guideline rather than creating a legalistic, watertight rule. The real problem here, I suspect, is that the person arguing that Dunc's unblock was not against policy is taking a far too literal view of how one reads policy (he's reading it like an Internet RFC). I think most people acknowledge, including Dunc, that it was wrong for him to unblock himself. — Matt Crypto 18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-unblocking 

message: The Helpdesk mailing list has received an e-mail from a user concerning incorporation of blocked users into a firewall as follows.
I was reading on your website about banned IP addresses and would like to know, if you have a list of banned IP addresses that I can incorporate into my own firewall software.  From most of the attacks you have, they seem to be classed as vandal, and/or computer misuse.  I am working on a ban list also, and would like to import your ban list, into the firewall I use also.
 
I could give you a copy of the ban list I am working on if you require also.  I think it would be a tremendous advantage to your excellent website, to have an active banned IP list online and ready for all normal people to incorporate into their firewall packages. (...)
I said that I would put his idea forward but stated that there were privacy concerns with the proposal and it might also cause problems for users whose ISPs have floating IPs ie AOL. Any comments you might wish to add would be greatly appreciated.
Capitalistroadster 03:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: all the stuff we are prepared to release can be found on our blocklist.Geni 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorporation of Blocked Users into firewall

message: This poll has been cancelled -- SlimVirgin was correct in that it was a bad idea. --FOo 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Phew, I was going to comment about trolls being empowered and the (I'm sure inadvertant, heh) support for which from familliar quarters... El_C 01:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancelled poll 

message: I've added one line to "how to block" referring to the fact that some admins (such as myself) a request when their IP is about to be blocked so as to avoid losing work. If I overstepped in doing that, feel free to revert, but I think it is worthy of mention (having just lost work for the third time this week!) Grutness...wha? 11:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notifying

message: I've added notes to the 'indefinite non-policy blocks' section to note the ban  on WP:ANI and Wikipedia:List of banned users. Note that if someone is being that much of a dick, the usual response on WP:ANI is a string of followups saying "Good!" and complaints of gross admin abuse from an IP or two; such community bans are in practice not all that controversial. Which is nice - even when admins are at each others' throats otherwise, they do try to avoid wheel wars - David Gerard 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But they're not exactly banned until then (just blocked). I tried to clarify it so that they don't go to the banned list until the support is there.  Dmcdevit·t 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bans because someone is being a completely disruptive dick

message: If I am threatened to be blocked for vandalism, and it is determined that the threatening individual was patently false in their accusation, yet they continue to make threats, can any action be taken on them? If so what? I would consider this to be harassment and intimidation, and I would like action taken on this individual (once the administrators have determined that his actions were out of line) Here is the text from my talk page of the offense:
The Rock (entertainer)
This message is regarding the page The Rock (entertainer). Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't really the right place to report such things.  If you disagree with a generic blocking template, explain why it wasn't vandalism, civilly, to the user who left the warning.  He may have misunderstood it.  If warnings are very persistent, you could file a request for comment, but those are kind of a big deal, so it's easier just to ignore one error.  If you are actually blocked wrongly, the proper place to report it is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- SCZenz 05:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not an automated post. It is more like a form letter -- a pre-written message that a user can choose to leave on another person's talk page. It doesn't show up on your talk page unless the sender specifically put it there. Using it inappropriately is not OK. --FOo 09:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have responded to the message. See my user talk for a full response. Yes, the template is generic and was already created on its template page. (See ) SycthosTalk 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Other users have responded that he has threatened them as well" is also false. Firstly, the template is not a threat message. Secondly, two of the users responding on my talk page are actually genuine vandals posting a message to attempt to conceal their vandalism. Again, see my talk page for more information. SycthosTalk 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unwarranted threats of blocking  

message: I would like to see this symbol, which I created, become a de facto standard image for communicating a block or a ban.
--  Denelson83  09:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbol for "block" 

message: My apologies if this has been debated ad nauseum before.
I was surprised to find that immediately notifying the blocked user of the block, with reasoning and justification, is not mandatory. The policy page says it is "customary" and only for long blocks. I think it ought to be mandatory except in cases when it is obviously not needed, such as blocking a WoW sock or a bot-generated vandalism account.
Ideally, the software would automatically generate a talk page message for the blocked user with the blocking admin's supplied reason for the block, but it is quick and easy to leave a talk message, and there is no reason not to communicate reasoning and justification with someone you've just blocked. android79 02:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this should be highly encouraged.  In fact I'm fairly sure people won't disagree, so I've been bold and changed the "how to block" section to read "Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages."  Also, for my own part, I'd be much more likely to undo an unexplained block if I could see no obvious reason for it.  Friday (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this in general, especially as the policy has recently been changed to say that admins looking to undo a block must in most cases discuss it with the blocking admin first, but I think there are exceptions. For instance, if an account has been used for nothing but persistent vandalism and they've received proper warnings then there is no reason to add an additional message that the block was for ignoring those warnings. That's just extra documentation of the obvious that there often isn't time for when dealing with a vandal onslaught. Blocks on contributing users are another matter entirely and ought to be fully explained on the talk page and/or AN/I as noted under different sections of the policy. --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notifying the blocked user: make mandatory? 

message: Discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Undoing_other_admins.27_blocks. Please comment if you have a view so we can determine what the consensus is. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing other admins' blocks

message: I think we should add something like: The blocking admin can at his or her discretion revert the latest contributions of the blocked user. The reverts done to the last version of a valid contributor do not count as an involvement into the editing if the administrator was currently uninvolved into the article or against the WP:3RR if he or she was involved previously. All other possible types reverts or edits by a blocking admin count as ordinary edits. The reason I want to put it here is that I saw instances of admins not reverting disruptive edits made from open proxies out of fair to be labeled as involved into an edit conflict/violation of 3RR. abakharev 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While the policy may not explicitly cover it there is a standard practice of admins blocking people posting clear vandalism even after having reverted that vandalism themselves. I don't think that's a problem. For things which aren't vandalism it is alot less clear. Blocks for 3RR aren't meant to be for 'disruptiveness' or to endorse one version of the article over another - they are to enforce a non-activity period in hopes of discussion rather than just reverting back and forth. I've already seen admins issue blocks (even where no 3RR was committed) and protect pages on articles where they clearly were involved in the content dispute. I don't like the idea of giving such behaviour cover (not that anything is done about it currently) behind an exception for non-vandalism article edits which the individual admin judges to be 'disruptive'. If this is meant only to apply to vandalism, then as I said, I've seen that being done frequently and agree it ought to be formally stated. --CBD ☎ ✉ 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion of contribution's of a blocked user