Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 5

message: The following addition has been proposed by User:Shultz IV:
Users may not be blocked simply because they have been blocked on foreign Wikipedias, since their affairs are to stay entirely separate. However, you may discuss those blocks with the users in question if you wish.
I do not think this is a good addition. At best, it is m:instruction creep. At worst it could promote wikilawyering or otherwise get in the way of reasonable measures to limit the damage caused by cross-wikipedia vandals. FreplySpang (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree that this isn't a good idea - although we shouldn't normally be running around making sure all our blocks line up, there may be situations involving abusive cross-project vandals who should be banned based on their patterns elsewhere. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that that is not a good addition. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: So if you know a user here that was blocked for vandalizing on a foreign Wikipedia, what would you do? Would you leave them alone or talk to them about it? --Shultz IV 22:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd watch them a bit more carefully than most, and I would be less likely to cut them slack. But it's a subjective thing - no need to codify it. FreplySpang (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with FreplySpang; this can be decided case-by-case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I guess you'd also ask why they did what they did at the foreign Wikipedia in the first place. --Shultz IV 04:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other wikipedias 

message: Is "editing against a 2 month old poll result" a case of disruption? Raphael1 01:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would depend on the context, Raphael. You might need to give more detail. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He's referring to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy where he's going against a supermjaority of editors who want it kept and has been invited several times to start a straw poll if he thinks the decision is no longer valid but has instead decided to remove the images arbitrarily without discussion. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 02:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the supermajority is indeed 2 month old. Besides, I've never refused any discussion as you can easily see on the Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display page. Raphael1 02:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disruption 

message: It has been brought to my attention that violations of NPA are not listed separately in the blocking policy, nor is blocking mentioned as a possible consequence on the NPA page. Wp:npa#Consequences states that "repeatedly engaging in personal attacks" can result in a ban; no mention is made of the common interim method of block. WP:BP#Disruption mentions personal attacks. Should a mention be made on the NPA page as well? Posting on both Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy and Wikipedia talk:NPA; I suggest discussion continue on Talk:NPA. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPA

message: Where can I see a list of thing for which you should block a guy indefinetly? I've seen some admins block people indefinetly for having nothing but vadalism in their contribution log, but I don't know what to do in cases like this one: Special:Contributions/Evieman. User's only edit is vandalims. Should I indefblock him? --Dijxtra 13:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally we don't indefinitely block for a single edit which was vandalism. The exception would be if the account is a sock-puppet (which seems likely) of a user who has been indefinitely blocked for prior bad behaviour (which I don't know about in this case). I'd probably just place a warning and then a short block later and possibly a sock-check if they continue to vandalize. --CBDunkerson 13:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We tend to block for a single vandalism edit if it was offensive. If an account is only being used for vandalism, then it should certainly be blocked indefinitely (though that doesn't apply to IP addresses). SlimVirgin (talk) 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  indef blocking 

message: I would like to reword the section called "If you disagree with a block" in order to strengthen the caution against undoing other admin's blocks without discussion. Although it's generally accepted that we shouldn't do this, it continues to happen. The section currently says:
:If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, please contact that admin to discuss the matter. Some reasons you might want to unblock would be:
:* The user was blocked in violation of this policy
:* The reason for the block no longer applies
:Bear in mind that blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of persecution by a biased admin. Because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's edit history what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin, rather than performing the unblock yourself.
:Exceptions to this would be where an unambiguous error has been made ...
I would like to change this to:
:If you disagree with a block placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing the matter thoroughly in advance with the blocking admin, and with other admins on WP:AN/I if appropriate. Blocked users commonly e-mail several admins claiming to be the victims of injustice, and because it is not always obvious from the blocked user's contributions what the problem was, it is a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult the blocking admin rather than perform the unblock yourself. Exceptions to this would be where an unambiguous error has been made (not a judgment call) and the blocking admin is not online: for example, if a user was blocked for 3RR, but there were clearly only three reverts. If you feel that such an error has been made, and the blocking admin is not available, you must notify the blocking admin on his or her talk page and the rest of the administrator community at WP:AN/I that you are unblocking a blocked user before doing so. In the absence of such an unambigous error, do not undo another admin's blocks without prior discussion.
Any feedback would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what about admins who aren't around anymore? If there's an unambiguous error, an admin shouldn't be afraid to undo the block if the blocking admin is gone for a while, though this doesn't preclude discussion on ANI. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi BH, an exception would be if the blocking admin wasn't online for whatever reason, and unambiguous errors would also be an exception, as it says. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly agree with this. I'm even willing to be repetitive here. :) There are few cases where needing to undo admin actions is so urgent they can't wait until a discussion supports them. If an admin blocks under the policy no other admin should revert that without consensus to do so. If the block wasn't a good one, consensus that it was bad will quickly develop and the user can be unblocked with minimum harm. If no consensus develops, it should never be reversed. Reversing another admin's action is a problem, and simply following the above will eliminate it for the most part. - Taxman Talk 12:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly agree as well; this is merely a specific example of Wikipedia:Assume good faith, which is already policy. It's unfortunate (and kind of sad) that it has to be stated explicitly, but history indicates that there are a number of admins who don't seem to understand this. Jayjg (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is sad indeed, but I'm glad there's agreement, and I think people are becoming more aware that it's frowned upon. I'll add it to the page. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree as well. AnnH ♫ 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Undoing another admin's blocks

message: There was a recent attempt to deal with a real problem in the wrong policy. People making war against Wikipedia outside Wikipedia is one problem (perhaps real). People making life difficult (attacking, harrassment, giving personal details) for Wikipedia contributors is definately a problem. I suggest everyone who thought Wikipedia:No personal attacks was the right place to solve some part of that, instead concentrate on making this policy perfectly clear about which parts of it apply to inside Wikipedia cyberspace and which parts apply to activities outside Wikipedia cyberspace as well (beginning with "Sysops may block IP addresses or usernames that disrupt the normal functioning of Wikipedia, or pose any kind of threat to it."). WAS 4.250 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia:No personal attacks

message: The section "Expiry times and application" in this policy says that if a user is blocked by more than one administrator at a time, the user will be blocked until his/her shortest block has expired. Is this actually true? If it is, how does a sysop lengthen an expiry time before the current blocking period ends?
Isn't it more logical that the most recent block period replaces all previous expiry times? — AdiJapan ☎ 08:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be great if it could be changed, because at the moment, if we want to extend a block, we have to manually unblock, including undoing any autoblocks, and then reblock. It also means that if admin A blocks for a week, and admin B blocks again for 24 hours without checking that admin A has already blocked, it's the 24 hours that takes precedence, so that admin A's block has effectively been undone without his knowledge, and possibly without admin B intending it. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The blocking code is currently being redone from scratch, as it is currently a hodgepodge of hacks according to Rob Church who is working on it. That is why the obvious WP:BPP hasn't been added on as yet another hack. - Taxman Talk 14:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple blocking

message: Can This Policy Expand on Blocking Without warning.  I was recently Blocked for a first offence WP:POINT Without a even a notice on my talk page that I was blocked.  The person who blocked me told me that only new user gets warnings and because I clearly knew the policy (and linked to it) I qualified for a block without a warning or notice.  I know we aren't entitled to one rule break (The no rule rue) But I felt that under the Particular circumstances their are exceptions.  I was under the impression Blocking is a last resort used to stop interference in action.  I was especially upset because I Defended What I defended and was done with the issue and I was blocked after the fact.
I feel what is important is not the law it’s self but what the law is defending.  Is it ever appropriate to have a mild violation of WP:POINT that only effects one user in order to defend other user form WP:BITE in action.
Don't you just hate it when you disagree with a user who happens to be an admin?--E-Bod 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it makes sense to block people who disrupt wikipedia. Could you possibly point us (no pun intended) to the incident you're talking about? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 17:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking Without warning 

message: Hi, I would like to add a minor bit to the policy, stating that IPs may be block indef if they are zombie/open proxies (already policy); but would like to add that some sort of network admin (at the place requested) has requested a Wiki admin to indef block. What do you think? Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:51, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: I've noticed that users are not told how long they have been blocked for unless it is an indefinite block, for which there is a template. It seems like people generally wouldn't know how long they've been blocked for. They can look in the block log, but a lot of people probably don't know about that page. Is there a perceived advantage in not saying how long the block is for? I would think that it would be rather frustrating, with the user constantly checking to see if the block has expired. -- Kjkolb 23:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  allows the length to be filled in as part of the message. It's the template I normally use. However (I don't know as I've never been blocked), does it not appear on their screen along with "You've been blocked by X . . . The reason for your block is Y"? AnnH ♫ 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a link to the block log further down the page. Thanks for the help. -- Kjkolb 00:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telling users how long they have been blocked for 

message: i'm sure this is on here somewhere, i just can't find it. Joeyramoney 01:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:AIV Jkelly 02:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do i report a user? 

message: Can a user account get "frozen" (i.e. permanantly disabled) on Wikipedia?
['frαs.ti] 22:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  getting frozen 

message: :Self-blocking to enforce a Wikiholiday or departure are specifically prohibited.
Why? As long as nobody else is affected (dynamic/shared IP), I see this as a victimless crime... Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be a libertarian "society"? --Gutza T T+ 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ... no. It's an encyclopedia project, not a society of any sort. It doesn't have crimes, either. --FOo 00:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Full disclosure: I am not an admin on the English Wikipedia, but I am an admin on a local one. A couple of weeks ago I wasted an hour or so cleaning up vandalisms on the local Wikipedia during business hours, in my office. I was cascading from fixing one vandalism to the next, so I ended up blocking myself for a couple of hours (literally) in order to break away. I was subsequently drawn to order (rather jokingly) by another contributor to the respective Wikipedia. You can infer my feelings from my comments above.
--Gutza T T+ 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Were someone to approach me and ask me to block them so they could go on a WikiHoliday, I'd just tell them not to edit, I wouldn't block them. Thusly, I wouldn't block myself. It's totally unnecessary. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 09:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When blocking may not be used

message: It seems that there may be an oversight in the policy. A blocked user has recently stated that, though blocked, nothing in the policy prevents him from continuing to edit using different IP addresses. If this is covered somewhere, please let me know where. If not, can we add something like the following:
:While blocked, a user is not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Users should not attempt to evade a block.
It might also be wise to include existing practice (extension of the block period).
Comments? Jakew 18:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current policy has nothing about evasion at all. Evading a block is, in most cases, considered justification for resetting or sometimes extending the original block... especially when they evade the block to continue their same behavior. I was surprised that this isn't mentioned here. This should really be mentioned too. --W.marsh 23:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have added some wording for it to spur things along. As always, feel free to edit it mercilessly, or be patient (unlike me) and discuss it here. --W.marsh 23:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In such a situation, the evading user could have any number of IPs available to him. Would it make sense to treat his edits as vandalism, so that there isn't an upper limit on undoing his mischief? Jakew 09:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I suscribe to the logic of "Revert on sight, block on sight." The point of being blocked is not being able to edit. -Randall Brackett 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evasion

message: What's the difference between an "infinite" and an "indefinite" block? In what cases should I use each one? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a confusing change that someone made to the interface. The two are technically identical, only the "infinite" one is practically incorrect. It's been removed now. -Splash - tk 16:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infinite/Indefinite 

message: In my opinion this section:
:There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").
has some problems: 
# Instead of defining a rule it seems just to state something that has appened and seems to say implicitly that it's OK
# It makes no specification about what can or should be a legitimate "exaustion of patience": it seems to imply that whenever a group of users feel they have lost their patience about the behaviour of some other user (maybe after an edit war) they can be legitimate to block him
# It makes no specification of what does it mean to have the "community support": sure it is not referring to the whole wikipedia community, so how many people are needed to make the "community support"?
Don't you think that this section, as it is stated, could easily be misused?
--Pokipsy76 13:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exausting the community patience 

message: The following sentence from the WP:BLOCK#Expiry time and application section is potentially confusing:
:For instance, if an administrator blocks a user for one day, and another administrator blocks the same user for two days, then the user will remain blocked for one day, assuming that the blocks were given at the same time.
It is highly unlikely that two admins block the same user at the same time.  What does at the same time mean?  Within less than a second of one another?  What will happen if the second block is given half an hour after the first one?  If a user is blocked for one day, and is blocked again for two days in an hour, will the duration still be one day or will it be two?  Would the duration of the block be counted from the time of the first or the second block?
While I am pretty sure that a shorter block always overrides a longer one, the sentence could still stand to be clarified by someone who knows for sure.  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A confusing sentence

message: I have protected the page temporarilly because it didn't seem like the revert war showed any signs of slowing or stopping. This is without judgement as to any particular version, the reverting was just getting disruptive fast. --W.marsh 16:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were involved in the dispute, so I'm unprotecting. If a completely uninvolved admin wants to reprotect, that's fine. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. --W.marsh 16:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, shouldn't this page be protected anyway? - David Gerard 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Protected. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 16:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Convenient. m:wrong version FeloniousMonk 16:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with it? Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 16:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a policy page.  Protecting it with controversial changes gives the impression that policy has been changed.  This is misleading.  Guettarda 17:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: LB, you're also involved in the content dispute. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I made a single revert of a revert of (etc.)? Fine. I'm removing myself completely from this ticking nuclear time bomb. Linuxbeak (AAAA!) 17:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you got involved in the content dispute, so you can't turn up minutes later as an uninvolved admin. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Umm... does anyone think that the page shouldn't be protected to prevent further edit warring until the dispute is over? --CBD 17:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be protected by anyone who has been involved in this disagreement, either by taking part in the reverts or by making arguments on the talk page. Even if the admin is being perfectly fair, and deliberately protecting it at random, without checking which version it's at, it looks bad, and shows admins up in a bad light. AnnH ♫ 18:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reverting seems to have stopped and people are discussing, so there's no need for protection. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected

message: Rebecca's concern is that blocking admins appear to have a veto, according to this policy. I would say there is more of a presumption in their favor than a veto. So would it help to add something like this?
:"There is a presumption in favor of blocks having been made in good faith. Unblocking without discussion can be interpreted as a slap in the face to your fellow admin, leading to poor editing and admin relationships. Nevertheless, nothing in this policy gives the blocking admin a veto over whether a block should stay in place."
Or does that take us too far back in the other direction? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic presumption of a wiki system is in favor of editing, not in favor of administrative action. Blocking is a departure from that presumption, and needs to be carefully justified. I suggest that if another admin reverts a block, that this means that the block was not adequately explained and justified. The blocking admin must not re-block, but should instead explain the situation and the justification for the block more completely, and request that it be reinstated by another. --FOo 19:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo. It should be the responsibility of the admin placing the block to justify it... they are the only one who CAN. All this stuff about 'the reviewing admin may not have the full story' is really only the case if the blocking admin hasn't explained it. In such cases the user should not have to remain blocked or the reviewing admin 'guess' because the blocking admin didn't provide a proper explanation. Failure to adequately justify a block ought to be a clear reason to overturn in and of itself. Maybe there was a valid reason for the block... maybe there wasn't. But if the admin who placed it didn't provide one that should never be held against the blocked user. --CBD 20:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I think that the presumption is that all editors, including admins, have good faith. We also assume that when an admin blocks an editor, there is good justification for it, at least in the eyes of the blocking admin. It is typical for many blocked users to complain to other admins, and if the other admin, without knowing the full extent of the situation, reverts the block, the quick reversal causes major damage and disruption to WP. The blocked user can wait a few more hours or even days - the world won't come to and end if he/she takes a short wiki-break, justified or not. OTOH, WP will suffer greatly if a well meaning blocking admin is prematuredly reversed. Crum375 20:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly can't have a situation where one admin is allowed to undo another's without discussion, but the blocking admin may not restore the status quo. That would be absurd. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion is a two way street... and starts with the blocking admin explaining the block adequately. If they don't do that it shouldn't be incumbent on others to chase after them for an explanation or guess whether the block was warranted or not. --CBD 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that admins should say why they're blocking, but most do, either in the block log or on the blocked user's talk page, or on AN/I. What we're talking about here is where another admin wants to question whether the reason is good enough, and that's fine, questioning is good, but what isn't good is just overturning it, thereby substituting your own judgment for the blocking admin's, who almost certainly knows more about the situation. That's all we're talking about here. No one's saying one admin has a veto; no one's saying blocks shouldn't be questioned;  no one's saying blocking admins shouldn't have to give reasons for their blocks. All we're saying is: please don't just turn up and undo other people's work without talking first. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we suggest to the blocking admin that he/she should provide all the information for the block we can just hope he/she will follow the suggestion. If instead we allow other admin to unblock poorly justified blocks we can be sure that the blocking admin will provide all the evidence.--Pokipsy76 21:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can you think of a case where a blocking admin fully explained the reasons for a clearly valid block and was reverted anyway? It seems an unlikely situation. That leaves invalid blocks (should be over-turned), poorly explained valid blocks (ideally should be upheld, but should not be reviewer's responsibility to differentiate from the previous), and issues where there is a disagreement in policy interpretation or personal judgement. It is this last category where 'discussion' comes into play, but I still don't think 'retain the block' should be the default. You speak of the possible 'slap in the face' to the blocking admin... but what of the 'slap in the face' they may have given to the person they blocked? Yes, over-turning another admin's block is placing your judgement over theirs... but sometimes we absolutely should do that. For instance, in cases where the blocking admin was involved in a dispute with the user. Or where the admin has been being incivil / making personal attacks. --CBD 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's on my watchlist. --CBD 20:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you'd have seen the discussion about this a few months ago, and you'd have seen it being added to the policy, yet you didn't say anything. I was wondering what had sparked the sudden interest today; whether it was just the Giovanni33 thing, or some other issue. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't on my watchlist a few months ago, and the way the change has sometimes been applied / interpreted wouldn't have been apparent in advance in any case. --CBD 21:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mine too. Changes here affect the ability of all editors to edit, and so are highly important. --FOo 20:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested compromise

message: The Template:Unblockabuse deletion debate moved to WP:DRV. -- Omniplex 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblock abuse 

message: When I'm trying to edit, they say that "I'm blocked" but I'm not blocked. Is it a bug or did somebody blocked me? Please reply me if you have the answer. Thanks. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the message that I receive, even though I'm not blocked: --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 06:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked message when I'm not blocked