Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 6

message: This probably won't fly on wp-en, but on wp-de apparently it's acceptable to block someone if they're disturbing good editors and keeping them from contributing at their normal rate. Since we are writing an encyclopedia, not creating a community, this makes sense.... if some account appears, contributes no content, and just goes around antagonizing well-meaning editors, right now it is difficult to block them if they know 'the rules' and are careful not to make actual personal attacks, violate 3RR, do anything that fits under disruption, etc. 
Why not allow blocking of people who contribute nothing or essentially nothing to articles, but contribute a great deal of argumentative comments? --W.marsh 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be wary of doing this due to the potential for abuse. I think the existing ability to block for disruption or community ban for general stupidity covers these problems. Rebecca 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Rebecca on this. It would be very hard to define any clear rules, and users would probably waste more time dealing with arguments than simply reverting bad editors in the existing way.--MichaelMaggs 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bothering good editors 

message: I was recently getting messages saying I was blocked because somebody was using my IP address for vandalism; I found this wholly unlikely because my IP is static. If I clicked "Edit this page" several times, I'd be allowed to do so. Moreover, the IP address listed was not my own; I used some DNS tools and the IP is used by Google. I found that by disabling Google Web Accelerator, I haven't run into any problems, though it could just be a coincidence. Perhaps this is worth noting somewhere... more official so that other users can benefit from this. If its already been mentioned, then I guess I just didn't look hard enough. --[[User:Douglas Whitaker|Douglas cdgf 04:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the correct solution is to use "Don't Accelerate These Sites" feature within GWA and add WP to the list of unaccelerated sites. Obviously GWA will pick up blocked IPs over time so this step will be needed for all WP users who elect to use GWA (until Google figures it out and automatically removes WP from its acceleration list). Crum375 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: See also Anonymous and open proxies, which implies that GWA is illegal as a way to access WP, since it effectively anonymizes the user's IP. Comments invited. Crum375 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to agree wholeheartedly on this. I was thinking about what the implications were, and allowing GWA didn't seem all that good of an idea. If it is indeed the cases of using GWA, I think this should be made much more public so other users can find out about this. --Douglas Whitaker 22:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's the obvious question, I know, but have we asked them?  I'd think the folks at Google wouln't mind telling us, but I suppose I could be mistaken.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Web Accelerator 

message: I have changed the section which states that the maximum block length for static IPs is one month to say that it is indefinite, as this seems to be the general consensus. I have seen static IPs blocked indefinately on several occasions and Template:IndefblockedIP exists.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 09:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block length 

message: Is there something about role accounts somewhere? I cannot find it at the moment; some help would be nice :-) --HappyCamper 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is something about Public accounts, which is not quite the same thing. The authority for role accounts is WP:SOCK which says that role accounts are not officially sanctioned and are likely to be blocked. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role accounts 

message: Would it be an idea to add more information to the block templates? For example, Template:Test5 currently reads:
: You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires.  
This gives no information on when the block expires, with no indications on how to find out, or mention that the user can still edit their talk page, or tell the user which edit they have been blocked because of. Template:Test5-n does some way towards this, by telling the user how long they have been blocked for, but it's still not ideal, or in common use. The rest of the blocked templates are no better. I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, as it's not tied down to a single template. Mike Peel 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not try ? I love it. --Lord Deskana (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I hadn't seen that template. It's better than the others, but not there yet. It should really link to this page, and preferably note how to contest the block (see Template:Block). Also, I'm more after making this a common thing, something that will be used in the majority of cases, rather than something that the odd admin will do. (Note: I'm not an admin. I can't block people, so don't use these templates myself. I just see a lot of them on my wiki travels.) Mike Peel 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm in favour of at least an optional duration parameter on all block templates. Guy 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extend the blocking templates to give more information? 

message: The language used here is taken directly from the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy).  These are the same conditions under which CheckUsers may reveal personal identifying information about an editor; it stands to reason that these same conditions are conditions under which blocks are appropriate. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support without reservation. The wording seems a little broad if you don't have that context, though. Perhaps a footnote might be in order? ++Lar: t/c 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems pretty pragmatic, and considering it's in the Privacy Policy, it's actually been ratified by the Board. - Mark 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No, that's entirely wrong.  This is a general principle under which many blocks proceed.  If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be blocking people, and certainly should not be editing the blocking policy. Kelly Martin (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then out of complete honestly I admit I am not certain as to its implication.  Could you perhaps give an example of its use? ~ PseudoSudo 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reorganized the blocking policy to help clarify matters.  Most of the "laundry list" of reasons given before are really elaborations of three basic reasons for blocking (blocks for disruption, blocks for protective purposes, and blocks pursuant to bans), and I've restructured the lists to reflect this better.  I will probably do more refactoring in the future to make this more clear.  Kelly Martin (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of general blocking principle 

message: THis may seem like a stupid question, but are admins supposed to follow this actual policy as shown on the article page before/when blocking people or are they allowed to interpret it in any way they see fit? --Light current 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Execution of policy 

message: Hi. I am not good as this whole blocking and banning thing and may be asking a silly question. We have a problem with a new editor who uploads and changes and moves stuff about, but who refuses to respond to questions about his actions on his talk page. What headline is this under? It's not vandalism, but just Refusal To Engage in Communication with Other Editors (RECOE). Most of the dispute resolution suggestions begin by telling us to establish some kind of communication, but that idea seems to require two parties. Please help—a pointer to the relevant subsection of this or a related page will do. Arbor 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He must be warned then, if no response, on the next violation, blocked on grounds of disruption etc!--Light current 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-responding editor? 

message: People fix articles and help Wikipedia, but your blocking policy is too strict! Can someone tell me why they block people after helping Wikipedia? 24.121.73.22 17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To protect WP from vandalism and disruption. Obviously Admins who block users feel that the users are acting against one ore more of the current policies.--Light current 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: LIke what?--Light current 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean the contents box?--Light current 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He probably means a taxobox or something similar.  Unfortunately, there are people who do that kind of thing deliberately, usually for no reason other than because they think it's fun to break things.  We usually do try to warn them first, but if they keep doing it we do block them.  If you weren't doing it deliberately and got blocked anyway, I'm sorry.  But the block has (obviously) expired by now, so why not just write it off as a learning experience and move on?  Just mind you don't do it again and you should be fine.  Being blocked from editing Wikipedia for a while isn't the end of the world, you know.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes. (ahem) Quite right! I know!--Light current 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do you do this?! 

message: User:Jon Awbrey (discussed at User:Jon Awbrey project spam at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) has been indef blocked/banned due to edits outside article space which have  exhausted the community's patience; but he is not listed at Wikipedia:List of banned users. WAS 4.250 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Jon Awbrey

message: There has been suggestions to merge the info at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block, here. None of that info is policy yet, but we can change that. I'm not particularly interested in blocking policy, so I don't have an opinion either way. Comments on the merge or the info?  Fresheneesz 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should merge this as soon as posssible. Codifying current practice is a valid way to create policy. And the two pages deal with the same topic. Some of the contents of Wikipedia:Appealing a block could be under the sub-section of Accidental blocks and the rest of the content could be under a newly created section. --Siva1979Talk to me 03:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info at Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block 

message: I realise it's a few months since this was added, but there didn't really seem to be consensus for it at Archive 5#Death so I'd like to restart that discussion here. I see no reason to insult someone and their family by blocking them when they die. It's an unnecessary and highly insensitive thing to do and should not be part of this policy. Angela. 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support removing it. I don't think it's insulting or insensitive to block someone if they die. But it does seem overkill (pardon the unintentional...) to have it as part of policy. How often are Wikipedians conclusively known to have died? Very rarely. And if they are, how big is the risk that their account is compromised? Very slight. Let's avoid cluttering policy with instructions on how to deal with wacky edge cases. — Matt Crypto 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just removed it.  It was added out of the blue in the first place and the resulting discussion was inconclusive.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I would suggest replacing it with a statement that says that if a Wikipedian is known to have died, and is postmortem used for anything other than the standard "Hey, *blank* has died, his family appreciates the outpouring of support from the Wikipedia community, here are a few memorials" or "I'm not dead! I feel happy! I feel happy!" it should then be blocked. Blocking should really be a last resort. Captainktainer * Talk 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do we really to spell that out in a policy document? I just don't think it's worth it. — Matt Crypto 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dying is not a reason to be blocked 

message: (also known as 24.126.191.129)
I don't know what to do about this case, he keep removing parts from the article on Brownstone (group), and I've told him that if he feels that there should be separate article for the information he keeps removing. His general attitude towards the woman in question - Nicole Gilbert - is "MAKE A SEPERATE PAGE FOR NICCI FOR HER INFO!!!!!"/"Make a seperate page for Nicci to speak on her", but obviously he's got something against the woman in question, as he claimed: "who cares what nicci does now" and "i dont care about a seperate showing for nicci". I think if we follow logical reasoning it is the person who wants something removed from an article who has to make the new, separate entry on Wikipedia as other editors are most likely not going to be watching that article 24/7 and as time goes by many other edits to the article might have been done, making it more difficult to discover what has been removed from the article.
Basically I'm in need of some input from other editors on this issue as it is on the verge of becoming an editing war (if it hasn't already become one), and I feel already uneasy enough about reverting and rewriting his edits all the time. Thanks. Oh, and if this isn't the place to discuss this kind of issues please tell me where I can do to so. - chsf 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I rolled back his latest revert and made a redlink for Nicole Gilbert. I think we should suggest to him that he work on that independent article. Fred Bauder 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the wrong place. Please take this to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. You should not block this person yourself as you seem quite involved and heated. Fred Bauder 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[User:Cquest]] and his edits of [[Brownstone (group)]] 

message: OK, the user has got a test4-n template, he's done it again, i subst:test5-n, which tells the user he's blocked, but I'm not an admin. So, is he blocked or not, and if not, why does it say he is and why am I putting this template on his talk page? thanks Gzuckier 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ps, how does the : thing in the template work; can i substitute the page name in there without having to save the ssubst:template and reedit? and what does the [[: in front of the pagename mean, rather than just [[? thanks again Gzuckier 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This is pretty much what community blocks are for. Basically, if not one of a thousand admins will unblock you, you just might in fact be batshit insane. The refactored blocking policy covers this - David Gerard 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, you left it out. Fred Bauder 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, buh. I'll check again - David Gerard 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it in just about your words after the bit about cool-down edits - David Gerard 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i'm confused about test5-n template 

message: Obvious cranks and users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary. Such persons should be dealt with kindly and patiently, but should be prevented from wreaking havoc over the period of weeks or months it would take to process an obviously righteous Arbitration request.
This guideline has been under discussion for some time. I think it is sound. Waiting for months for the Arbitration process to handle matters which ought to be handled at the community level is wasteful of everyone's time and energy. Fred Bauder 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is pretty much what community blocks are for. Basically, if not one of a thousand admins will unblock you, you just might in fact be batshit insane. The refactored blocking policy covers this - David Gerard 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, you left it out. Fred Bauder 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, buh. I'll check again - David Gerard 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it in just about your words after the bit about cool-down edits - David Gerard 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disruptive editing, per se

message: See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Simplified. Key points are:
* Clearer statements
* Blocking is all about admin judgement anyway - to be effective, this page should guide that
* Should be just about the same as now in effects, but with less bolt-holes for rules lawyers
I'm trying to work to what I've outlined at Process essay#Process_hardened_to_policy - this is process that is important and needs to be nailed down, but the really hard bits need to be few and important, and Taylorising everything is actually counterproductive.
Are there any important bits of the present text that are missing? Can the clearer version be cut'n'pasted over the current page bit by bit? Is it actually complete garbage? Opinions please - David Gerard 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot bit needs clarifiying. Even if the thing has been aproved if it appears to be causeing trouble it needs to be blocked first and questions asked later. you may wish to mention Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses to keep some of the comcom members happy.Geni 14:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bot bit mentioned; sensitive IP bit mentioned up top (I couldn't see a more appropriate place, and I certainly wasn't aware of it) - David Gerard 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall I like this much better than the current page. One discordant element is that 'disruption' is treated as a class of blockable offenses including vandalism, usernames, bots, et cetera in section 1.2... but listed separately from those issues in section 5.2. Obviously there are many other forms of disruption so maybe that's intentional, but it doesn't 'line up' neatly. I should note that this doesn't include 'incivility' or 'personal attacks' amongst the specifically listed types of disruption... I tend to think those are heavily over-used (when there is no real impairment of anyone's ability to contribute), but they are the most frequently cited reasons for 'disruption' and 'cooling off' blocks so it is going to be an issue if people keep getting blocked for them on a daily basis and there is nothing specific in the policy on it. I might also move 'biographies of living persons' from the 'disruption' section up to 'protection' because the goal there is more to protect Wikipedia than stop something which is preventing users from contributing. Anyway, minor issues. Thumbs up from me regardless of these. --CBD 11:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yes, that's good stuff. Want to make that civility one a descriptive note? "These blocks are controversial." OTOH they're not actually that controversial in practice if someone's being a real dick ... - David Gerard 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think my views on incivility blocks are well outside the mainstream (I'd say that except in extreme cases, BigDaddy777 comes to mind, they often do more harm than good) so I'd probably not be the best choice for putting in the phrasing on that issue. Just wanted to note that it needed something. Your idea of wording about them possibly being controversial, due to differing views on when such behaviour becomes significantly disruptive, seems fine. --CBD 13:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree that this is a simpler, more streamlined, and more straightforward page than the one we have now. I commend all. However, I would love it if there were some way to deal with the "cool-down" block problem that I noted above. Is there some simple and elegant solution we could apply to disencourage 3 hour blocks that result in 2 months of drama, or is that just wishful thinking on my part? —Nate Scheffey 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a big question is, how do we deal with it?  I think the short term blocks (under 12 hrs) are more contested simply because they criteria for them is so low...what one admin sees as a 15 min offense another might not see an offense at all.  Whereas when an admin levies a 24 hour block, the offense is usually much more serious and more self-explanitory.  So, do we suggest that under 12 hr blocks be discouraged as they're more likely to be contraversial?  Or do we suggest that blocks under 12 hrs not be overturned except in extreme circumstances, as that is likely to result in contraversy?  --InkSplotch 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  '"Cool-down" blocks are likely to result in controversy. You need to judge whether a 1-hour block will result in 2 months' drama.' - David Gerard 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just refactored section 5.2 to reflect the layout of 1.2, and I even added a bit on cool-down blocks.  I'll look over the whole thing again to see if we need to reinforce that elsewhere.  Oh, and I even looked up "controversial" so I spelled it right.  --InkSplotch 14:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactored blocking policy

message: Nandesuka has taken it upon himself to ban further discussion on the publicgirluk discussion page, moreover he jumped at absolutely civil comments I had made elsewhere on the issue within seconds calling them trolling, threatening to ban me, and removing questions I left on the talk pages of other admins of his own accord. I see above that this is not the first time he has blocked a usertalk page, and he seems to be trying to censor discussion where he pleases. Checking the admin histories I found that he has dished out more indefinite bans than almost any admin on WP. My question is does admin have the right to block usertalks simply at a point where he is disinclined to the existence of further discussion? Secondly, does admin have the right to delete questions left on third-party usertalks? Thirdly, is there no system of monitoring the frequency of indefinite blocks admins give to ward against the trigger happy? I am new here, and I find this kind of behaviour very disturbing and hazardous, I never would have thought Wikipedia was that kind of place. Please comment before he deletes this message grendelsmother 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still here 36 hours later ... Do you have the edits? - David Gerard 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because CBD has since unblocked it. grendelsmother 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking talk pages 

message: I've added (what I think is) a decent 'policy in a nutshell' summary to the top of the page. If anyone has a problem with it feel free to remove or reword. Cynical 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! I didn't notice that was missing. Reworded a bit simpler - David Gerard 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made it "Editors can be blocked for a time by an administrator to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm." I thought the second sentence could be dropped as the fact that the time varies is implicit in it being to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm - David Gerard 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy in a nutshell 

message: Sorry if this is a naive question, but can the block durations not be automated and incremental? For example the admin’s job would only be to hit the “block” button, and a first-offence block would then be for 15 minutes, then 1 hour for a second, then 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 6 months, 1 year. This would keep admins from handing out indefinite blocks where they may not be justified, and at the same time they would be policemen rather than judges handing out sentences - a task they can hardly all be wise enough to do judiciously. People would not be written off of the wikipedia project altogether for attracting the wrath of an admin, for finding themselves in a once-off vandalistic mood or getting otherwise carried away. 2) The user would have a sign on their userpage notifying them of the number of times they have been banned and the duration of the next ban, as well as any reference to the fact that they are currently protesting a previous ban. Is this possible? grendelsmother 16:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the repeat factor, and delay between repeated offenses, is only one of many factors that could influence a block length. While some could be easily automated, others (e.g. that depend on the type of offense) are more discretionary and require 'judgment' that we hope the admin would be able to wisely employ. The bottom line is that blocks are usually much more discretionary than automatic. Crum375 19:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I, also, was only talking about block duration. The block length does depend on repeated behavior as well as the nature of the offense. Crum375 20:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you that if admins started 'dishing out unfair blocks' on a routine basis it would be unhealthy. This is why we have a fairly tight system for screening admin candidates by the community, and why we allow each block to be reviewed by other admins. This way, even if someone lost his/her cool the offended party would have redress. In my own experience a totally improper block is extremely rare, but if it ever happens it should be easy to correct. I doubt very much that an automaton meting out blocks or even suggesting block durations would help in any way. Crum375 21:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated, incremental banning system 

message: So far people seem to think the refactored version is a more usable version. Unless there's good reason not to I suggest moving it to the present page on Wednesday, which will be one week since I put the 'change' notice on the current version. So this is a really good time for checking the two say the same things where important - David Gerard 13:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactored version live on Wednesday if no objection

message: I changed the "don't do it" section to state that any blocking to enforce a vacation is not on.  Ok, and not just to make me retroactivly right.  It doesn't work, and can serve to muddy the waters if we're using blocks "nicely." - brenneman {L} 06:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vacations 

message: The nutshell on this page is (at the moment) kind of pointless because it gives a dicdef of what a block is, as opposed to summarizing the circumstances under which we make blocks. I am not opposed to nutshells per se but neither do I believe there must automatically be a nutshell on every page if it has nothing useful to say. Maybe someone can suggest a better nut, or maybe it should be removed? >Radiant< 13:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you that in some of the other policy pages the current nut leaves something to be desired, this specific one seems to me very concise and to the point. For someone new to WP, it very much summarizes the essence of this policy, in a very short and sweet way. Of course one could add verbiage, but IMO we would not gain much while losing the current simplicity. Crum375 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nutshell 

message: : Banned users are not physically prevented from editing all or parts of Wikipedia. Bans should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. They may be banned by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo Wales or by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.
The prior text said:
: Banned users are typically blocked from editing all or parts of Wikipedia. They may be banned by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo Wales or by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees.
We could perhaps emend the text to incorporate community bans.  However it's quite a needless distinction to say that banned editors aren't "physically" prevented from editing.  If they do edit, and are detected, they pretty soon will be prevented from editing, by blocking.  Which is what our current version says.  And I think adding the other stuff is a good example of Wikipedia:instruction creep.--Tony Sidaway 21:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Arbitration Committee decisions involve bans that do not include blocks.  Wikipedia:Blocking policy makes that very point in saying that in explicitly saying "Bans should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia."  These two policy pages need to use consistent terminology. Gene Nygaard 00:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Not physically prevented": this seems a bit funny so I reverted it

message: Following a discussion over at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Acceptable username policy I took a look at the template used for blocking new users whose names are inappropriate (too similar to another user's name, contain improper characters, etc) and it seemed to me that the current template is pretty harsh, and may scare well-meaning new users away.  So, I tried to put myself in the shoes of a new user (not so tough, as in many ways I still am one) and redesigned the template to address this issue.  My proposed template, along with a copy of the original template, can be seen at User:Badger151/templates.  Please stop by and leave your thoughts on that page's talk page.  Thanks --Badger151 23:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username block 

message: I restored the BLP subsection, in part because I feel it should be emphasized and not included as one sentence in the disruption section, and in part because it's helpful to be able to link clearly to it when issuing BLP warnings; I find that doing so tends to concentrate the mind of the offender. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP section

message: I decided to revive this old discussion from archive, because I noticed one fact - anybody is able to self-block itself to enforce wikiholidays, even without being sysop.
It is simple:
# Create an inappropriate username, something like "I want to destroy wikipedia", "I am king of vandals" or something similarly stupid
# Wait for admin to indefinitely block it. It probably won't take very long.
# Remember the password. Now every time you want to enforce one day of holidays, log in as that blocked user and try to make an edit somewhere
# You're autoblocked for 24 hours
# No chance for editing -> you have holidays :)
So, is everybody able technically to do this to enforce wikiholidays, or have I omitted something?
Territory 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, WP:BEANS? More seriously, just because a policy is not perfectly enforceable doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. We would prefer if that sort of behavior not occur either. JoshuaZ 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically, most bans here are unenforcable, IF the banned person won't resume their bad behavior pattern (and they use another IP + username) ... but if he/she make no trouble, it's usually not a problem ...  Territory 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should one need to block ones self?. Why not just take a  Wikidamnholiday?--Light current 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is more addictive than crack, apparently. Perhaps we should start a 12-step program for people who need to be blocked to avoid editting for 24 hours :-) --W.marsh 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is simpler just to go away, I was just curious whether this is theoretically possible. And theoretically this may be (ab)used to block someone sharing computer with you. (Is your brother editing wikipedia too much? Block him :) Territory 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Theoretically you could put this up in a cronjob (or something similar ...) for a bit more permanent (though interruptible) solution :) Territory 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: In that case thers should be a self blocking request desk where addicts can go to request that they be blocked. 8-)--Light current 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-blocking to enforce Wikiholidays 

message: Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Death threats and its talk page for discussion on that topic (recently moved to that subpage). One suggestion was to make the wording here stronger, and to specifically mention what to do in the case of death threats, as opposed to having a separate page. I'm recording this suggestion here, so that it can be discussed. See also Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Suggested addition. Carcharoth 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested addition 

message: Apparently, User:Naconkantari, in an attempt at Being Bold, has decided that all anonymous AOL IPs should be blocked, as it is commonly known that AOL IPs are a frequent and severe source of disruptive behavior. Should this be official Wikipedia policy?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy on the AOL network. To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies while logged out is currently prohibited.  If you wish to edit, please create an account.  For more information, please see Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users.
that's the sort of stuff she's posting on their block notices. I got it from User:Naconkantari/aolproxy.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is Foundation policy that open proxies are banned. Since AOL software can be downloaded for free and used limitlessly to hop across AOLs vast IP ranges, it rather qualifies under this. Anyone who has AOL as his ISP can still access Wikipedia, either by registering a user account or by using Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, etc. instead of the AOL browser. —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   Naconkantari and Anonymous AOL IPs 

message: I had assumed that IP blocking lasted on the order of days, and was going to ask that it be extended to more like months. I was disturbed to find that the policy suggests hourly blocking. That might slow down sprees currently in progress, but it does absolutely nothing about chronic vandals. 
Seriously, what is the signal to noise ratio of edits from anonymous IPs? It can't be higher than 10-20%, so why not just nuke them from orbit? -- Frankie
:Given how many of the longterm chronic anon vandals are school IPs, giving them a 24 hour block beginning on Friday afternoons probably doesn't result in their ever noticing that they had been blocked. Gzuckier 21:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Block Duration? 

message: Your IP address has been blocked because it is an open proxy. Please contact your Internet service provider or tech support and inform them of this serious security problem.
That's not a particularly appropiate message for someone using an open proxy, because there's a good chance that the owner of the machine at that address *knows* it's an open proxy (eg: Tor). A message for the users of the open proxy would be advantageous.
I assume it's nigh on impossible to allow their potential edits to be screened pre-submission? 84.92.54.192 21:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "User is blocked" message inappropiate 

message: Looking at Template:IP LGFL, a significant percentage of the anon edits are vandalism. See for example the block log of the first IP listed.
This seems to be a typical example of young unorganized vandals. IMO many of them would not vandalize if they were required to create an account first. The IP addresses are obviously shared between different persons, probably through some kind of public terminals.
While I appreciate the value of encouraging new young contributors, I strongly feel that Wikipedia should not have to deal with that level of vandalism. It wastes our time, and detracts from the goal of being a reliable encyclopedia.
So I would like to block anonymous contributions only from those IP addresses, more or less permanently (for example for 1-2 years at a time). Since this will affect a lot of users, I would like your opinion. Thue | talk 13:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking anonymous edits from London Grid for Learning 

message: I added a block warning to someone's talk page, which he consequently deleted. Is he allowed to do that? For a little more detail (this may seem a little childish), we were accusing each other of vandalism (he deleted an comment of mine at the ref desk, which I reverted), after which he gave me an (unofficial) block warning, so I gave him an official one, after which he blocked me and removed my warning (he's an admin, I'm not). I'm not asking for arbitration on the broader subject, though, just if one is allowed to (instantly) remove a block warning from one's own talk page. DirkvdM 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, no, it wasn't about that. The mutual accusation of vandalism was about the ref desk. Anyway, I suppose you're right, people can do whatever they want to their own talk page. It just seems a little childish. Ha! I can delete everything he wrote on my talk page! (speaking of childish behaviour :) ). DirkvdM 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People cannot do whatever they want on their own talk page, but removing possibly bogus vandalism warnings is appropriate. The only reason for keeping vandalism warnings on the talk page is so the record of past actions is clear. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting a block warning 

message: An admin block a new user, with only 7 edits, all 7 were vandalism, some being vulgar, nothing more (no threats, etc.). Do the rules state there be a warning first?  
How about 2 very vulgar vandal edits?
I am not sure. Travb (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should an Admin indefently block a vandal without a warning first?

message: Is it possible (or sane) to block oneself, if one is able? Mathwhiz90601 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This says it all! I actually got tied in an autoblock after doing that too, quite embarassing. --Deskana talk 04:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I did it too ...  LOL.  Hey, it was early in the morning, I wasn't awake yet.  Antandrus  (talk) 04:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You see I had no excuse. I've been an admin for a while and it was only 9:45pm. I suck :-P --Deskana talk 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-Blocking 

message: Hi. I was looking for a wikipedia policy page that describes what a softblock is. But I couldn't find it. Can you still register if a softblock is in place? Or do you have to register at a different ip?  I suppose one of the options in this page is a softblock, can somebody add which one it is? Thanks. Sander123 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've saw it on the talk page of some vandal ip. Can't find that page now, but I did see it again in this template Template:SharedIP. Sander123 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi, I've seen it mentioned in Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall, I gather it means blocking an individual IP (that is softblocking the individual IP), which allows logged in users to continue using. Addhoc 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Softblock 

message: Ignore my last two deleted comments here - I accidentally replied to the wrong page. Cyberia23 21:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Doh!

message: User:Srkris was blcoked for one week for consistent violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:COPY, WP:COI, WP:AGF and WP:NPA has been circumventing his block by editing anonymously. I requested a checkuser but was inexplicably declined. I have added more diffs to support my request. However my question to the community is if a blocked user can openly disregard the block this easily and continue his merry way, circumventing 3RR and other guidelines, then what use blocking anyone? How is this a deterrant? I have included the list of vioations here:
:Comment: It is not clear why this request was declined. If it is due to lack of diffs, here are some which clearly shows that this user identifies with the blocked editor:
:#  - acceptance that he is User:Srkris and is breaking the block
:#59.92.83.63  - incivility
:#59.92.83.63  - reverting copyvio notices and questioning the validity of WP guidelines. WP:COI
:#  - incivlity
:#59.92.87.43  - incivility and acceptance that he is user:Srkris
:#59.92.87.43  - acceptance that he is user:Srkris
:#  - Personal attacks
:#59.92.46.252  - disputing blatent copyvio and questioning the validity of WP guidelines.
:#59.92.46.252  - reverting copyvio notices
:#59.92.46.252  - Incivility
:#59.92.46.252  - reverting blatent copyvio notice
:#59.92.46.252  - WP:COI violations and the acceptance that he is User:Srkris
:#59.92.46.252  - reverting copyvio notice
:#  - Personal attacks and vandalising my User page
:#59.92.63.37  - Fake warnings in my talk page
:#59.92.63.37  - acceptance that he is User:Srkris
:#  - Incivility and acceptance that he is User:Srkris
:#, , , - 3RR violations using anon edits
Parthi talk/contribs 22:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Parthi,the block has been doubled and the IP accounts included. Usually, circumstance such as this are reported at WP:AN/I. Thanks for raising this and all your help with the Carnatic music article, Addhoc 12:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked editor continuing to edit anonymously 

message: There doesn't seem to be much input from neutral/outside observers so far, which could hopefully be helpful in sorting out this RfC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington#Statement_of_the_dispute.
Cindery 02:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for community input regarding an RfC pertaining to blocking policy