Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 12

message: Re here, I'm wondering if the indefinite block on this account was applied too late. Of the two accounts mentioned in the thread, the user only wishes to retain the one that is currently blocked indefinitely. Any thoughts...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applying a block too late...? 

message: I think :Category:Wikipedians who required user interventions should be replaced or supplemented with :Category:Wikipedia blocking – Gurch 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done John Reaves (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: It currently says "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended."
I suggest we change it to "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment, or you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin, a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended." which seems more in line with our actual practice.
Other wise Admin A can do a block, Admin B can say "I think your wrong", Admin A can respond says "But I am not wrong, and here are my reasons..." then Admin B can unblock with the knowledge that he discussed it with the blocking admin. Admin A is now at a loss due to fear of wheel warring. Thoughts? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I was under the impression that a difference of opinion alone did not justify reverting another admin, and that some sort of consensus was need with the blocking admin or the larger community. Am I wrong in that? Do I really just have to tell the admin, then undo the action? I would rather get consensus first, and I would rather others do the same. Not sure which way it really is/should be though. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **Indeed, in general it does not. There are a few exceptions, where it may be better to leave the user in question unblocked until there is consensus to block him, the most obvious one being an admin blocking a user he was in conflict with. Then again, this is tricky business; I can think of at least three users who have a long-standing pattern to ask around until they convince some outside admin to unblock them (generally by wikilawyering or by calling the blocking admin biased) which had the result of them being effectively unblockable and encouraged further disruption on their part. >Radiant< 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: *That is one of the problems I am hoping to address(the whole "ask the other parent" trick). But also I hope this could avoid the type of editing between admins that we don't like to see in regular editors(the type where disagreements are settled by reverting, not reaching consensus). If an involved admin gave the block, and does not agree to the unblock, then it really should got to ANI anyways. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: **I completely agree with the last sentence there: admins should be strongly discouraged from unblocking if the blocking admin doesn't agree. They should also be encouraged to post their own blocks to ANI if they are likely to be disputed. I notice lately that some people (mostly nonadmins) are starting to think that posting to ANI is in itself some sort of disciplinary action, which it isn't. CMummert · talk 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This isn't bad, although in practice I've tended to find WP:AN to be more use for block review.  --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold and changed it to "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment, or you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin, a discussion on WP:AN/I or WP:AN is recommended." Please discuss if you disagree. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undoing another admins block 

message: I've just completed a series of copy edits intended to remove jargon and clarify references to shortcuts.  Even if (unfortunately) our discussions are sometimes peppered with jargon, it's best if our written policies are written for clarity. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Series of copy edits

message: Undoubtedly templates are useful for large-scale block warnings such as those for dealing with vandalism.  However I think the current wording, even though it deprecates use of warning templates, isn't strong enough.  Failure of communication prior to (as well as after) blocking is a frequent cause of administrator error leading to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee, so this is pretty important.
The current wording says:
: A variety of templates exist to warn users of undesirable behavior that may lead to a block. Their purpose is in part to notify novice users they may be breaking a policy they are unfamiliar with. These templates exist solely as a convenience to editors who repeatedly make similar warnings. The templates do not form a mandatory part of blocking process, and to long-term users, custom-written warnings are more appropriate than the premade warnings.
I suggest a stronger wording such as:
: A variety of templates exist to warn users of undesirable behavior that may lead to a block.  Their primary purpose is to aid busy administrators who may have to deal with several simultaneous instances of blockable behavior.  However they should not be used where normal human communication is practicable.  Except where the action is seriously disruptive, communicating with a user in the first instance should normally aim to dissuade rather than threaten or warn, and administrators should use their own words in preference to a warning template.  This is important both in communication with apparently genuine new users (Do not bite the newcomers) and with established, highly valued editors. Avoid use of jargon in all communications as an administrator.
This would be a fairly important change, but I think it's necessary.  Giving a warning template or saying something like "You will be blocked for 3RR if you continue" is unfriendly and masks important communication in unnecessary, hostile jargon. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of templates, and communication with users

message: I've just rewritten this page. The rewrite hopefully achieves a number of things:
# reduces the wordiness of the prior version (including much repetition)
# consolidates related parts together (eg, everything about unblocking is now in an "unblocking" section)
# separates the policy stuff from the "how-to" stuff (which is now at m:Help:Block and unblock; local copy)
# expresses some of the ideas around blocking that maybe haven't been included in the policy before, or maybe have been lost in recent versions (eg, the "education and warnings" section, or the "reasons and notification" section)
Discuss. --bainer (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks good; I made [ a few other tweaks]. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:59:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

text: This often happens during a rewrite. I suggest you just be bold and reinsert them, they already have community acceptance, and there is no indication their removal was anything but a mistake. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was attempting to ac\void accusations of edit warring on a policy page, considerign the recent fuss of WP:ATTACK and related issues. But since you sugest it, i will do so. If any one thinks my edits are improper, the matter can be discussed here. DES (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I was not aware of any of those confounding issues. Regardless, be bold. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that paragraph was added after extensive discussion in several locations. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to discuss specific rewording or repalcement of the content above, or even if there is a consensus to remove any of it, fine, so be it. i don't think the goals of your rewrite justified the incidential losses. Ohers may disagree. Taht is why i think with an extensive rewrite it eould have ben beter to create a /draft sub-page, put the rewrite there, and move it when consensus was achieved. But since that wasn't your prefered course, here we are. Specifically:
#I disagree. People have so often requested, an indeed imnposed, blocks over contet and policy disputes, we need to keep in a strong statment that such blocks are not appropriate. partixularly since the list of blocking reasons says that it is not comnprehensive. If you want the specific wording changed for greater bervity, that could probably be done.
#Since a number of users have been claiming that all such links should be removed, and the removal enforced by block, and since that position is hotly disputed at present, I think it is vital that some text warnign that such blocks are contrntious remain. Again the exaxct wording could be debated and i am not wedded to the wording above.
#This one I am least atached to. I think the substance should be included, but it could well be improved by significant editing
#I think that ther is consensus for some form of this, it was recently added, but after a prolongued discussion, and at the time it was addded, IMO had apparent consensus on the talk page. Discussion about the format and content should continue. It might well be advisable to separate the how from the why, in line with your other changes, but in reinserting text i wanted to stick closely to versions that had significant support in the past.
*Can we discuss the specific marits of these and perhaps other changes, and find a way to achieve consensus going forward? DES (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there are serious problems with the passage which implies that it could be controversial to block people who deliberately link to a site that identifies anonymous editors. We want, or we should want, to do everything in our power to discourage the practice of "outing" people, and to write a loophole into the blocking policy is a very bad idea, in my view. Also, the first arbcom case referred to made a particular ruling. The second one did not cancel it out; it merely declined to restate it. Only a ruling that these sites may be linked to could cancel out the MONGO ruling. ElinorD (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. Privacy is, or should be, a significant concern. Part of the promise of Wikipedia is to be able to work anonymously. People have various reasons for wishing to protect their privacy but its not my intent to defend every rationale. Regardless, it seems clear to me that the community and ArbCom have forbidden the practice. Vassyana 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the detaild discussion and warm dispute now in progress at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. It is a fact that a number of editors and admins stronmgly oppose the blanket removal of links to "outing sites", while there is general consensus for the removal of links directly to pages containing personal information. Blocks based on the wider concept are in fact controversial, and more than one admin has indicated a willigness to overturn such blocks in at least some hypothetical cases. I think this should be made clear. Failing that, what aboput a link to WP:NPA and its talk page, where this has been discussed at length. See also the rejected policy proposal on attack sites, which again makes it clear that consensus on this is quite narrow. DES (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have (and have had for some time) items in the policy like "disclosing personal information" and "performing actions that place users in danger" expressly there which are more than sufficient to cover all malicious linking; saying something about non-malicious linking can wait until there is a real consensus about it. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DES, you mention that the substance of the "aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies..." paragraph is important. Would you support a wording that was focused more tightly on users who persistently violate content policy (because that is what it is seemingly addressed at)? --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem reasoanble. I am by no means insistant on the precise language. DES (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The following changes were made in teh course of the massive rewrite, which i think are undesaireable, adn should be discussed or simply undone.
# The following very important paragraph under the headign Disruption disappeared. I think it should be reinserted.
#:Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.
#The following cautionary paragaph disappeared. While i would edit it to say The community rather than The Arbitration Committee (to reflect the actual source of policy) I think some version of this should be retained, until there is a wide consensus on this issue, which there currently is not.
#:The Arbitration Committee has not reached a conclusive and binding decision pertaining to the addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users, as documented by two different cases here and here.
#The following cautionary paragraph disapared, and i feel that its contetn is valuable and shpuld be retained:
#: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 obvious Arbitration request. Remember to note the case on WP:ANI. Be kind.
#The following paragraph on advertising disappeared compeltely. While discusion on the presise wordign ans scope of this provision was still ongoing, I fell that some form of it should clearly have been retained. 
#:Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocked indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute shall not be considered as a reason for such blocks.
*I feel that these, and posisbly other changes made in the rewrite, should be discussed and the content cited above should be restored to the policy page, unless the consensus is to remove it. DES (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This often happens during a rewrite. I suggest you just be bold and reinsert them, they already have community acceptance, and there is no indication their removal was anything but a mistake. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was attempting to ac\void accusations of edit warring on a policy page, considerign the recent fuss of WP:ATTACK and related issues. But since you sugest it, i will do so. If any one thinks my edits are improper, the matter can be discussed here. DES (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah, I was not aware of any of those confounding issues. Regardless, be bold. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that paragraph was added after extensive discussion in several locations. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If people want to discuss specific rewording or repalcement of the content above, or even if there is a consensus to remove any of it, fine, so be it. i don't think the goals of your rewrite justified the incidential losses. Ohers may disagree. Taht is why i think with an extensive rewrite it eould have ben beter to create a /draft sub-page, put the rewrite there, and move it when consensus was achieved. But since that wasn't your prefered course, here we are. Specifically:
#I disagree. People have so often requested, an indeed imnposed, blocks over contet and policy disputes, we need to keep in a strong statment that such blocks are not appropriate. partixularly since the list of blocking reasons says that it is not comnprehensive. If you want the specific wording changed for greater bervity, that could probably be done.
#Since a number of users have been claiming that all such links should be removed, and the removal enforced by block, and since that position is hotly disputed at present, I think it is vital that some text warnign that such blocks are contrntious remain. Again the exaxct wording could be debated and i am not wedded to the wording above.
#This one I am least atached to. I think the substance should be included, but it could well be improved by significant editing
#I think that ther is consensus for some form of this, it was recently added, but after a prolongued discussion, and at the time it was addded, IMO had apparent consensus on the talk page. Discussion about the format and content should continue. It might well be advisable to separate the how from the why, in line with your other changes, but in reinserting text i wanted to stick closely to versions that had significant support in the past.
*Can we discuss the specific marits of these and perhaps other changes, and find a way to achieve consensus going forward? DES (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think there are serious problems with the passage which implies that it could be controversial to block people who deliberately link to a site that identifies anonymous editors. We want, or we should want, to do everything in our power to discourage the practice of "outing" people, and to write a loophole into the blocking policy is a very bad idea, in my view. Also, the first arbcom case referred to made a particular ruling. The second one did not cancel it out; it merely declined to restate it. Only a ruling that these sites may be linked to could cancel out the MONGO ruling. ElinorD (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. Privacy is, or should be, a significant concern. Part of the promise of Wikipedia is to be able to work anonymously. People have various reasons for wishing to protect their privacy but its not my intent to defend every rationale. Regardless, it seems clear to me that the community and ArbCom have forbidden the practice. Vassyana 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the detaild discussion and warm dispute now in progress at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. It is a fact that a number of editors and admins stronmgly oppose the blanket removal of links to "outing sites", while there is general consensus for the removal of links directly to pages containing personal information. Blocks based on the wider concept are in fact controversial, and more than one admin has indicated a willigness to overturn such blocks in at least some hypothetical cases. I think this should be made clear. Failing that, what aboput a link to WP:NPA and its talk page, where this has been discussed at length. See also the rejected policy proposal on attack sites, which again makes it clear that consensus on this is quite narrow. DES (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have (and have had for some time) items in the policy like "disclosing personal information" and "performing actions that place users in danger" expressly there which are more than sufficient to cover all malicious linking; saying something about non-malicious linking can wait until there is a real consensus about it. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: DES, you mention that the substance of the "aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies..." paragraph is important. Would you support a wording that was focused more tightly on users who persistently violate content policy (because that is what it is seemingly addressed at)? --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem reasoanble. I am by no means insistant on the precise language. DES (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Significant changes made in the rewite

message: ;from here:
I understand what you are saying about the other person did it too argument being on it's face invalid because what the blocked editor perceives as "doing it too" may actually be correct actions the blocked user doesn't understand. I'm just saying we need to be vigilant about looking into the background of disputes. People have a tendency to leave out their own bad behavior either because they don't know they are acting poorly or do know and are just gaming the system. Several times I've seen blocks issued on the basis of the accusers complaint alone and no background research. I theorize that some editors see pages like WP:ANI as a tool they can use by making a "bad" enough sounding complaint to get an "opponent" blocked. Anynobody 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that all these comments are just special pleading. As we edit Wikipedia, we leave traces of our behaviors (see WP:WRW#Wikipedia_keeps_an_Akashic_record), and these aggregate to represents an editor's public identity and modus operandi. I would suggest moving on... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuation of original conversation