Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 1

message: * Wikipedia talk:Bans and blocks
* Wikipedia talk:Clarity in Policy Discussion - whether admins may decide the merit of legitimate edits, ambiguous language, the role of admins in editing, sysop vigilantism and the rarity of de-adminship.
* MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext, about the message that appears to blocked users.
* wikipedia talk:username, about what usernames are appropriate, and whether sysops should be authorised to block inappropriate usernames on sight.
----
Thanks for reworking this page Martin. The new version's great. The only problem is that Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion still states that "pages created and edited solely by a banned user..." may be deleted instantly. Is the disappearance of this from the blocking policy today meant to suggest that sysops may not delete such pages? Is it also the case that reverts of potentially valid edits by banned users may no longer occur? I can see advantages for both allowing this and not allowing it, but the banning and deletion policies should at least be consistent with each other. Perhaps different policies for different banned users would be appropriate. Edits by Michael, for example, are allowed to be reverted without consideration as to their validity, whereas edits by DW should not be?
Other than that, the only changes I would suggest are re-adding the link to dealing with vandalism, and having a new section on how to unblock a user (a question that gets asked quite a lot). Angela. 02:50, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)
: I deleted the stuff about deleting pages by a banned user because it wasn't strictly related to blocks. I think it still applies (until/unless someone edits Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion to remove that section).
: I've put it on a seperate wikipedia:banning policy, and (re)marked it proposed. Martin 23:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Old/relocated discussion

message: :Proposed 9th April 2004
:The fact that a username may contain a word that was once used in the username of a previously banned user should not be taken, in and of itself, to be cause for blocking, although it may be blocked if it is likely to cause confusion by virtue of being extremely similar to another user.
:: This is common sense - nobody believes the opposite. Some folks don't feel the word "troll" is appropriate in usernames, but this is a single case, not some strange general rule that would see us ban the word "of". Martin
: Proposed 9th April 2004:
:Above paragraph to read: The decision as to what is an inappropriate name is to be made by voting as with Votes for Deletion unless the name is, contains, or is likely to be interpreted as profanity, blasphemy, libelous (or otherwise illegal) or personal abuse.
: ...does not include normal behavior such as expressing an opinion in a poll, or voting. It also does not include NPOV violations or bullying (i.e. not reaching an agreement on an article's Talk page): see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. 
: user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and disruption should not be permanently blocked in this manner
Martin 21:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive users

message: Just a note that this page doesn't define a "hard ban". Unless I missed it somewhere, it might be a good idea to add the definition. Wmahan. 05:57, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
:Wikipedia:Banning policy describes bans, and the difference between those and blocks. Angela. 07:45, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I still don't think that page is clear about "hard ban"--is there any other type of ban? I was wondering because several pages, such as User:Michael, link to Wikipedia:Bans and blocks with the text "hard ban". Wmahan. 04:42, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
: Once upon a time, I proposed a "soft ban" mechanism, to be enforced without blocks, but it didn't catch on. At the time, I created the phrase "hard ban" to refer to the existing ban mechanism. Martin 19:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of hard ban

message: What do you all think of this idea?  It seems that there might be cases where a user merits being blocked from an edit war on a particular page, but they should still be able to quickly and publically contest the ban, or to work on other non-controversial projects.  Or would this power get overused? --Atemperman 01:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested this on Meta. See m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion#Page protection improvements for my comment. Guanaco 01:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking a user from just one specific page? 

message: We have the example where JRR added category tags to over a hundred articles.  Worthwhile work, but pretty clearly a smoke screen for the several dozen more problematic edits.  I have some concern that the wording may allow a troublemaker to game the system in this way, but policy isn't an exact science.  UninvitedCompany 01:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why there is little point in fretting about the wording. No matter what wording is chosed, there will be people who try to game the system. If on the balance of evidence sysops decide they are vandalising, then we can block them. If the case isn't clear cut we let the arbitration committee sort it out. theresa knott 20:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  example - mixture 

message: User:Guanabot is not functioning correctly.  See Wikipedia talk:Bots and the pages referenced there. VV 20:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wish is my command. theresa knott 20:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) VV 08:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please block Guanabot 

message: I blocked Adam Carr unilaterally, without going through the arbcom. I see no reason to wait for days or weeks. Isn't one insulting use of profanity enough? 
* You are a f#####t
A swift block is SO MUCH BETTER than an arbitration procedure.
* Starting arbitration gives the user attention.
* Arbitration makes it a HIM vs. YOU thing.
* Instant block deprives the user of attention.
* It makes it a HIM vs. THE RULES thing.
Public schools in the US that try "conflict resolution" rather than "sending rule-breakers to detention" have not shown a track record of improving discipline, morale, or even good grades.
Schools with swift and strict (though fair and/or mild) restraints on rule-breaking tend to have better morale, and often long waiting lists of applicants. Why not try it here? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Because (a) this is no school, despite the number of school kids editing, (b) Adam is not American, (c) Experiences with conflict resolution in schools outside the U.S. are exactly the other way 'round (e.g. Switzerland), and (d) you shouldn't work so hard to live up to your reputation of "shoot first, then talk"? :-) Seriously: AC has had some verbal run-ins with other editors, who didn't use only kind language either. If you feel that his behaviour was a problem, open an RfC and try to get him on a "no personal attacks" parole. (Or is he already?) Then you can block him. Remember, you're a janitor, not the headmaster. Lupo 15:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Test Case 

message: Is there a policy somewhere talking about warnings?  Do warnings have to be written?  For each block, does a separate warning need to be given? User:Grap
Hello Grap (I've taken the liberty of signing for you, you can do it yourself by typing four tildes ~~~~) I don't think we have a formal policy as such, but general practice is to warn vandals a couple of times before blocking in case they are newbies test out the software. There are exceptions though - if vandalism is very clear and deliberate, we recently had someone vandal out recent changes page by putting a "you have new messages box" on that page and then directing people offsite to an abusive page. He was blocked without warning as there is no way he could have been just trying things out.Other examples is if someone vandalizes, gets blocked and then comes back with a different IP and vandalizes again. They usually don't get a warning and the block is usually for longer. As for the second part of your question. It depends. If the IP is static (they have broadband) then no a second warning is not usually given for a second block. If the IP is an ISP's proxy then yes, we have no reason to suspect that a second lot of vandalism is the same person, so we warn again. Also we don't extend the block past 24 hours because it will affect too many innocents. Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 23:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings

message: If a user is blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and the user continues to make edits while under the block (by not logging in, but making it clear that it is the same person), what should be done? Should the IP he is using be blocked for 24 hours? Should the user's account be blocked for 24 hours past the last illegal edit made? What is the standard procedure? (This is, of course, not hypothetical.)  – Quadell (talk) (help) 19:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I continue to believe that blocking people for 3rr violations is problematic because of problems with sockpuppetry and ban evasion.
The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block.  However, these policies have never been followed consistently.  I suppose we could do the same thing with 3rr blocks, since without doing so, the effectiveness of blocks as a tool to affect user behavior is lost.  
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocks are not bans. It makes no sense to block an IP/account that is not making bad edits. If a user is blocked for vandalism and evades the block to help with Wikipedia:Cleanup, it would be counterproductive and wrong to revert the cleanup edits or to block the user. If the user returns and continues to vandalize, the user should clearly be blocked. This has been the policy at least as long as I have edited Wikipedia. 
This applies to 3RR violations as well. If the user comes back to revert (or vandalize) the article for which the user was blocked, the user should be reblocked, but if the user begins to make constructive edits, blocking is unnecessary and harmful. Guanaco 21:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: The system automatically blocks IPs used by blocked users. It's only necessary to block each IP manually in this case because the user concerned appears to have a dynamic IP. Proteus (Talk) 08:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing while blocked 

message: Static IPs aren't exempt from changing their IP. They just have to renew their network lease by running Winipcfg.exe or similar programs. Vacuum c 03:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
That's not necessarily so. I do that and I get back exactly the same IP. Including after power off for several days. It's more common for DSL users to be able to change than cable users, though. Jamesday 20:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Static IPs 

message: I am concerned about the indefinite block of User:Dnagod. Please have a look @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wrongful_block and let me know if that is the right place to discuss it. I left a note @ Wikipedia talk:Controversial blocks as well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should Controversial blocks be discussed? 

message: # No. I dont want them to be mentioned, and also I dont want them to be blocked at all. Aeropus I of Macedon 17:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think so. Many people like public accounts, lets say cheesedreams for example. Anyway, lets see if there is rough consensus, please vote in the poll. It is a policy that you cannot change a policy before rough consensus is reached. Also you cannot change blocking policy and mention public accounts while there is an active ArbCom case for the same issue. I am sorry but I will revert again blocking policy. Aeropus I of Macedon 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  VOTING! Do you want public accounts to be mentioned in Blocking policy? 

message: Would it be a good idea to have an addition to this policy so we are explicit on whether sockpuppets created to get around injunctions/resolutions should be blocked or not, and if so for how long? 
I propose: Users believed to be sockpuppets created to get around an injunction or ruling by the Arbitration Committee should be blocked for 24 hours per offence pending confirmation of identity. If it is confirmed, or is blatently obvious, they are a sockpuppet of a user subject to an Arbitration Committee injunction or ruling they should be blocked indefinitely
If the "blatently obivous" is disputed then confirmation should be sought and a different administrator can remove/shorten the block as apropriate. Thryduulf 02:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: ArbCom injunctions/resolutions

message: According to The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.), "Capital letters used as words, abbreviations that contain no interior periods, and numerals used as nouns form the plural by adding s." Examples given include "IRAs" and "URL's" (and "1990s", for that matter). It suggests "To avoid confusion, lowercase letters and abbreviations with two or more interior periods or with both capital and lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s." Therefore, I am removing the apostrophe from the plural "IPs". — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostrophes 

message: :Note: this has been cross posted to WP:NPA, WP:BP and WP:AN#Personal attacks on controversial pages.
I would like to propose that the following message box be added to articles deemed controversial and where there is a history of editors making inflammatory remarks and personal attacks:
The very first article I would add this to is Jihad. Last year I had my first taste of just how bad things could get, now after a year I have gone back and found the article in just as bad (if not worse) a state with even more inflammatory comments and personal attacks which have caused editing to come to an almost complete halt. Warnings do not work here, with at least one user being blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin, but who has just created a sockpuppet account and also started editing anonymously. I feel that the only way to deal with this sort of bad faith is to give a global warning on the top of the talk page and then start blocking those who feel the need to make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this. A number of Islam-related talk pages have been reduced to chaos recently by anon IPs, sockpuppets, and some regular users making personal attacks. We can block the ones who've made no useful contributions for disruption, but we can't block editors who've contributed properly in the past. Even short blocks of a couple of hours until they'd calmed down would help a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
I realise this is going to sound bad, but these policy changes require modifications to two policies. As such, it's going to make discussion hard to follow if we discuss it on three locations! Can I suggest we use WP:AN to discuss this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ammendment 

message: Blocked users cannot edit any page, including talk pages. This makes it difficult to respond to blocks. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 12:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Blocked users may edit their own talk page.  This is a feature recently added to Wikipedia.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: And they can email the mailing list and any admin.  smoddy 14:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Responding to blocks

message: I think I found an inconsistency in the text of this policy and the way it is used in practice.
Before coming here I asked at the village pump and at 3RR.
Here's how I understand the text of the policies:
* extending a block timer is only applicable if the user has been banned See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Penalty for evasion
* blocking a known sock is only applicable if the user has been banned
* an admin cannot ban a user on his own. Either a vote, the ArbCom or Jimbo is needed for a ban. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban
* when a user violates the 3RR the admin can decide to block the user, but that is not a ban
Therefore (if I understand correctly):
* the block after a 3RR violation cannot be extended (since it's not a ban)
* the known sock of a banned user after a 3RR violation block cannot be blocked (since it's not a ban)
I think this is an inconsistency and probably an oversight on the part of those who created these policies.
Other users told me that the policies are not interpreted this way, and admins do extend blocks and do block known socks of 3RR violators even though the blocking policy doesn't give them an option to do this.
Of course, I might have misundersood something. Could you help me clarify this?
Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 02:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible inconsisency in the policies and practice: 3RR blocks are not bans 

message: Should a provision be added to permit blocking of users who reject the GFDL, or claim not to license comments under the GFDL, as User:Pioneer-12 has done? He's the only such case so far, but it may be wise to codify our policy on this sort of issue to ensure that our content remains freely usable by mirrors and whatnot. — Dan | Talk 17:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GFDL issues