Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 7

message: I know something else we need to block. I call it blackmarcketing. It's when a person copies completly or almost completley a userpage or article.Fattdoggy 17:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea 

message: Blocking people for nonvandalism purposes is a violation of WP:POINT. Thus why is it done? 4.235.147.174 21:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What disgruntled block-evading user are you? --Deskana (For Great Justice!) 21:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking 

message: Why do I, or possibly all users, have the option to unblock a user when looking at their block logs?  Is this a Admin function that wouldn't work for non-Admins?  John Reaves 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unblock a user function

message: I'm wondering if one aspect of the wording of WP:BP is in fact unhelpfully tight, and should be slightly relaxed.
Some scenarios:
# User X and admin Y have been editing on some article. User X engages in repeated clear and obvious vandalism to the article that would usually fall within the exception to 3RR, and this now happens to the point where a block or semi-protection would be usual. Since admin Y is co-editing with user X, he/she is limited to reverting and isn't allowed to apply that block.
# User X and admin Y had been co-editing on some article, and after a period of disruption, user X got blocked eventually for some significant breach of policy (WP:SOCK, WP:NPA or similar). User X returns as a sock. Since admin Y was involved in a content dispute with user X, he/she isn't allowed to block the sock but must explain on WP:AN/I to others why the newcomer is a sock, and explain the background of User X's history to others unfamiliar with X, before a block can be set on the new sock.
# User X and admin Y are editing on the same page. User X posts clear and obvious defamatory/attacking comments on the page about some other user Z who is also involved in the editing, which given the editor and article history would usually get a suitable block under current practice for WP:NPA. Because they co-edit, admin Y is not allowed to block user X for the matter.
The common theme is, a user who makes what is a clear and obvious breach of some policy, is nonetheless unable to be dealt with by an admin even if the matter is obvious and not contentious, instead he/she must recuse from action. 
Usually this is a Good Thing - usual reasons, if it matters someone else will do it, and it prevents edit/wheel wars. But sometimes its a Bad Thing, because like 3RR, when a Bad Action is "clear and obvious" it becomes a problem if it can't be immediately rectified, or it the inability of the admin most aware of the situation to take such action becomes a means to play games.
I'd like to see discussion of whether a "clear and obvious" exception should be included in WP:BP, since this does happen. A proposed wording would be something like:
:* Old:Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute.
:* New:Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. Exceptionally, simple and obvious blocks (such as 3RR, and ongoing clear obvious vandalism or spam) are not usually considered to be contentious. In such cases the risk of miscalculation is upon the admin, who is strongly advised to leave it to others to decide whether to block where possible, in order that their judgement does not come under question.
::(The "clear and obvious" wording used for exceptions is a lift from policies such as WP:3RR).
*Removal of vandalism is not a content dispute. - Mike Rosoft 11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking in "clear and obvious" cases? 

message: According to the instructions:
:Block anonymous users only prevents anonymous users from the target IP address from editing, but allows registered users to edit. Prevent account creation prevents new accounts from being registered from the target IP address. These options have no effect on username blocks.
This doesn't seem to be the case. I have just recently blocked User:Ronhudson.com due to an inappropriate username, and just received an e-mail that he is unable to register a new account. So what effect do these option have on account blocks? Are they applied to the automatic IP blocks, normally lasting a day? - Mike Rosoft 11:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Block account creation

message: The suggestion to use NMAP to check for proxies (port scanning) seems dangerous. It may be illegal or seen as such, and the remote site might take other actions, such as dropping all packets to/from where the NMAP "attack" came from.
Perhaps checking with the Administrative Contact (via whois) for the domain would be a prudent first step. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've commented the paragraph out until someone can come up with a good reason to keep it. Using port scanners is against the AUP of many ISPs, so this kind of advice could get some of our editors into hot water if they follow it. --Barberio 19:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NMAP to check for proxies?! 

message: 31 hour blocks seem to be popular. What's with that? That isn't any multiple of any convenient number of hours or 2n minutes or anything. --Frank Lofaro Jr. 22:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's one of the default time periods in the drop down menu that you can pick. You either pick one of the defaults or you have to type in a specific time period. NoSeptember 22:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a 2^n - 1, but I don't know if that means anything. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I think the idea is that it has a greater chance of "catching" an editor. If a nasty editor has slightly varying hours (e.g. edits 8-9 p.m. one day, 9-10 the next, varying arbitrarily) then a 24-hour-block instated at, say, 9 p.m. the one day does not actually affect that editor. >Radiant< 10:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I've always considered the 31 hour block to be the ideal short term "school block" because when you block during school hours you are certain to have the block remain for the entire school day the next day (unless it's Friday :). NoSeptember 19:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  31 hour blocks 

message: How does a non-admin editor report someone that might be doing things they can be blocked for? Shrumster 11:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Various subpages of the administrators noticeboard, such as WP:AN itself or WP:ANI/WP:3RRV. --Deskana (request backup) 11:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reporting by non-admin editors 

message: Warning That's what I got I'm desparate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniellerbenesch (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way to stop being on the last warning? 

message: This section of the policy page says that "blocks of logged-in users with a substantial history of valid contributions" are controversial "regardless of the reason for the block." (Emphasis is mine.) I'm wondering if 3RR blocks are an exception to that? I can see that an established user with a clean block log might feel quite insulted at being blocked in response to an uncivil comment made to another user, so it would probably not be the best way of dealing with that. But I've been looking at WP:AN/3RR (which is how I found this page), and it seems that anyone who makes a fourth revert to an article within 24 hours can be reported and blocked, regardless of that editor's history here. (I note also that an administrator may choose not to block.) I'm reluctant to change the policy page, as it might seem that I'm trying to change policy, but could someone more experienced say if the intention was that 3RR blocks, when applied to established users, should be included in the list of "controversial blocks"? Thanks. ElinorD 21:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial blocks of established users "regardless of the reason"