Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 4

message: The quotes are pretty much a good record of how this particular bit of policy was made, and that's significant in itself.  Thousands of Wikipedia editors didn't just wake up one morning and think to themselves: you know, I think these copyright infringements have to go and those who persistently introduce them should be blocked.  What made this policy was basically Jimbo's announcement that he didn't want to keep people who intentionally and knowingly expose the Foundation to liability, and who devalue the project with the taint of plagiarism.  Those two quotes document that.  I got rid of the cheesy quote boxes because I thought they were horrible. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am very disapointed that Tony has chosen to remove signed edits from a talk page as "silliness". I seem to recall an imbroglio over this regarding his removal of Nandesuka's comments, and am greatly displeased to see this behavior continue. I am sure this will be written off as "brenneman gunning for Tony" but it is bad form none the less to remove remarks critical of an action while leaving the initial explanation of the action behind. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, yes it is. Deleting discussion and leaving the misleading appearance of a one-sided declaration is not OK. --FOo 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, please stop doing this. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The quotes: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s edit

message: since I've seen I don't know how many reverts of this page in the past day—it seems to be at or near the top of my watchlist every time I check it. From this diff it seems that the issue is whether users may be blocked for persistent plagiarism or for persistent copyright infringement. 
While I've edited and argued over parts of this page before, I have no opinion on the matter currently in dispute. I've protected it until the disputants reach some agreement on the exegesis of, or Jimbo clarifies, the quotations at the center of the disagreement. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 22:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  protected 

message: I was definitely NOT expecting to start a wheel war by adding to blocking policy per Jimbo's quotes from AN & AN/I. Guys, Girls, lighten up... This is definitely not something we should be wasting our efforts fighting over. I think as it stands we have a perfectly valid process for overturning blocks. If someone is blocked per this subsection of blocking policy we can clearly debate that on AN/ANI. As this has not yet become an issue, why are we making an issue out of something hypothetical in the future? For gods sake we're supposed to be adults, and setting forth a good image to other users. How is a wheel war on the freaking blocking policy page going to help convince joe newbie that his block for 3RR is justified? I think we should leave it as it stands and ask Jimbo to come here and give some input. Cause frankly its looking like thats the only thing going to stop this wheel war.  ALKIVAR™ 23:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not a wheel war, just a garden-variety edit war . . . so far. If sysops were to continue the edit war while the page is still protected, or start protecting and unprotecting it repeatedly, then we'd have a wheel war. —Charles P.  (Mirv) 23:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I do agree that all this hypotheticalising is bordering on the ridiculous at this point. It's largely a to-and-fro between two users who disagree on something else (fair use images on userpages, specifically) and appear to be using this as another front in that battle. What Jimbo means is so blindingly obvious to me, that I barely even begin to comprehend the discussion above, or the need to write anything other than Jimbo's quotes along with a simple introductory sentence. If someone is blocked and disagrees with it, they will be told what to do in short order. -Splashtalk 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I've been trying to tell them- Nobody really disagrees here at all.--Sean|Black 23:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's pretty much the way I feel as well Splash, I think Jimbo's quotes are pretty fucking direct to the point, and seemingly obvious. That is why I added the mere 3 sentance intro and the 2 quotes to be the entirety of this section.  ALKIVAR™ 00:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sean thats bogus... what we first saw here was an attempt to misrepresent Jimbos words to imply that copyright violation was not to be subject to blocking only plagerism, later it shifted to an effort to state that blocking was only permitted if the user admitted to knowing it was wrong or if we got a complaint from the copyright holder. If you can't see how there remains a substantial difference in opinion I don't know what I can say to help you see that.  And splash, you should check the edit history. In no way is this discussion related to fair use images, what you see is a good dozen editors supporting the common sense previously standing version by alkivar, and three users edit-waring back in the text by Quadell. --Gmaxwell 03:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Jimbo doesn't condone bullying and incivility, particularly not in his name or that of the Wikimedia Foundation. Secondly, I think most people agree that editors who are acting in good faith shouldn't be blocked if the situation can be dealt with in any other way. So that's what we're trying to do here: find the words to express that without undermining the fair-use policy. I believe the suggested compromise achieves that. I also agree with Will that plagiarism of text is at least as important as image-copyright violation, so we should be careful to bear in mind that we're not only talking about images. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I agree that SlimVirgin's suggested version upholds the copyright policy and gives some protection to good faith editors. AnnH (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim if that were true Jimbo would not have said "We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy" and blocked User:*drew, who had been acting in good faith for more than a YEAR after the copyright incident he was blocked for.  ALKIVAR™ 00:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alkivar, Jimbo initially blocked Drew, but then he unblocked him.  And the wheel war involving several admins over a period of just a few hours shows that there seems to be no clear consensus to block good-faith editors in situations like this, which is why I feel some careful wording is needed in the policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did check the history, and I did indeed see others 'editing'. But the overwhelming bulk of the discussion above (to which I referred fairly precisely) is between you and Slim Virgin; it's not surprising that you two should be disagreeing with one another at present, over an issue related to blocking and/or copyrights. -Splashtalk 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, what I'm saying is, you disagree about the wording, and are considering the ramifications of that wording, but you agree with the spirit of what the policy currently says, and what it should say. We're just coming at this from different directions, is all.--Sean|Black 03:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We were just editing at the same time.. Did you miss the comments from the other users? .. heck I was a late comer to this issue. In any case, the test that is being edited doesn't even talk about fair use. --Gmaxwell 03:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: For whatever its worth, I think it qualifies as a wheel war now .--Gmaxwell 03:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was 3 minutes before protection was applied, and Talrias's was just barely before. The page hasn't been edited since being protected. -Splashtalk 03:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, you seem to be inadvertently deleting other people's comments.   SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for catching that.. I must have edited an old version (hit edit to reply while walking through diffs), and in the second case I must have done that to the topmost versions.. so that in that case I never removed Sean's text actually but I wasn't alerted to the edit conflict. The page is long enough that its making my mobil broweser really slow. --Gmaxwell 07:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: *blinks* WOW *blinks*

message: I've inserted a mixture of the last version suggested by Quadell, and the version suggested by Fubar. The former was supported by almost everyone (when I last checked) who posted about this to WP:AN, and the latter seemed to be supported here. Could I ask that people edit this, rather than reverting. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This has got to take the prize for the most complicated phrasing of a blindingly, incredibly, completely obvious message I have ever seen. I cannot understand what was wrong with the nice, clean, simple version. All this cruft about good-faith? Any admin worth their salt knows you don't block for good-faith edits unless the user is being truly idiotic, and we don't need paragraphs on policy-plaque written up to tell us so. I presume this is to permit people who disagree with the Foundation's copyright policy to point and say "oh but look, I can use copyrighted material any which way I like as long as I plead good-faith". That simply isn't the case, policy or no. -Splashtalk 23:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, tighten it, Splash, so long as you retain something about good faith, because that's what most people who responded wanted. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't edit a protected page. -Splashtalk 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I just unprotected because I think we've come to a conclusion.--Sean|Black 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sean. Splash, the problem is that there's a widespread perception that the policy is being enforced by bullying. The message may seem blindingly, incredibly, completely obvious" to you, and it does to me too, but there are people who unfortunately need to be reminded of it. There's no point in pretending that this isn't a divisive issue. The enforcement of it has caused more bad feeling than any other issue I can recall, so it's important to make sure admins aren't unnecessarily heavy-handed. Good-faith editors are (almost by definition) essentially reasonable people, and should be reasoned with, not shouted at and threatened with blocks (at least, not until everything else has been tried). SlimVirgin (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I scraped some of the plaque off it, and it now only says everything once rather than several times. I don't think the problems have been caused by enforcement of the fact that copyrighted material is illegal, but by the fact that people disagree over the usage of copyrighted mnaterial in the first place. -Splashtalk 23:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict X 3) The reason that the version above exists was so that we could edit it here as opposed to more idiocy on the main page.  I'm not seeing any "conclusion" to these discussions, except that one favored version is now on the page as opposed to another that was also supported.  I cannot help but point out that Tony and I agree on the concise version.  As to support at ANI, let 'em come here and work it out as opposed to making it a vote by proxy. - brenneman(t)(c) 23:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what difference it makes where people voice their support, Aaron, but they did voice it, so there's no point in ignoring it. Do you think we should arrange a poll? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since I undertand that some have a mild distaste for polls, I think it would be better if we waited to see what other people say before doing anything.--Sean|Black 00:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: My point about ANI is that whomever voiced some support somewhere there didn't do it here.  Did they look at the different versions presented, did they read the commentary here, or did they make in-principle noises about the one version that they saw?  The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Blocking_over_fair-use_image_disputes is much much shorter than that here. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed totally, ... I was unaware of the discussion over there. Thats not the correct place at all. The majority view *here* appears to be something like Mark's last version... --Gmaxwell 06:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page unprotected, let editing commence 

message: Greg has made more changes. I'll go along with pretty well any version, so long as something like the sentence "In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith and the copyright status is unclear, the editor should not be blocked" is included, because I want to avoid good-faith editors being treated too aggressively. People who have responded here and on WP:AN supported this, and I believe the overwhelming majority of Wikipedians will support it. 
The question is: do I have to go off and organize polls to find that support, or can it be sorted out here? I've compromised away every sentence of the version I prefer, but this sentence is crucial, as I see it. Without it, there's no protection from bullying for editors who are acting in good faith. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, if I can ask: What is the core "objection" to this sentence? It seems fine to me, but what objections exist?--Sean|Black 06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not really 'changes by me', rather it's a wholesale transition to Mark's work in progress version which appeared to gather the most support of the text proposed here.  The problem I see with the text you've proposed is that you've given us no basis to invalidate a presumption of good faith (since the text obviously removes the most obvious method, that the user reverts it in against the advice and warnings of other users)... as such as long as someone is simply wrong (but in good faith) and persistant, we will never be able to remove a piece of obvious copyright violation. The text you were previously supporting appeared to take this into account by saying we would take it down when the foundation recieved a complaint. However, that solution is not acceptable.  You've still yet to provide a case where a user has been inapproiately blocked over material which turned out not to be a violation. I've asked you politely several times, and even answered your request to provide examples of users which had to be blocked which your proposed policy would have allowed to continue.  I cant see how we can hold a reasonable discussion about this unless you can show us what problem you are trying to solve. --Gmaxwell 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greg, you're now just making things up as you go along. Mark's version did not gather the most support. I outline the problem I am trying to solve below. But you know what the problem is, because you are largely the cause of it. It is the bullying of good editors who have done nothing other than to use an image in a way you deem inappropriate. The policy must distinguish between people who are being truly disruptive and people who happen to disagree with Gmaxwell. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it does to me.. I'll count again. In any case, you've become really accusitory here. Can you please cite where we've had a case of me ever using copyright violations as a stick against "people who disagree with gmaxwell"?  ... Frankly your above post without substantiation is nothing more than a personal attack. I've asked you to cite the situation you were concerned about previously, in the hopes that it would faciltate discussion, but now that you've taken it personal, I must demand that you provide a citation. --Gmaxwell 07:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahad and put my version in... seeing the heat though I should have put it on the talk page - so I went ahead and reverted myself - my diff is here. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Greg could explain why he feels every sentence he wants must be included; and in particular why he wants it to be so aggressive. I wonder whether he is aware of the widespread bad feeling his approach has caused, and the knock-on effects of it in terms of people's distrust of admins (even though he himself isn't one). It's time to stop the bullying over this issue. Most editors are reasonable, and if the issues are explained to them reasonably and clearly, they'll cooperate. But to go around threatening to block people causes people to react by digging their heels in, and that sets off a dynamic where someone who has done nothing wrong ends up being blocked. The dynamic shouldn't be started until other approaches have been tried, and this policy needs to reflect that. Think of how hard it can be to block even the worst of the known trolls, then compare how easy Gmaxwell wants it to be to block someone who may be using an image incorrectly, in his opinion. The situation can't be allowed to continue. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? .... Slim, there is a version here which gathered the most support, I included it word for word. You editted in a version derrived from the one with least support. "The situation can't be allowed to continue", so you do have examples? I've only been asking you to provide one for days now.  As I said, show me where someone has been blocked when something turned out not to be copyvio and I'll gladly help make sure the policy reflects that situation. Why do you refuse to work with people who don't agree with your idea of not blocking a user when they are wrong and insisting on their wrongness, but mean well? --Gmaxwell 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, I can list the names of the editors who supported the other version, or I can start a poll, as you choose. If I do the latter, it will raise the entire fair-use issue again, which I would like to avoid, because it causes such strong feelings and is very divisive. But let me know if you think that's the way to go. You know what the example is and I won't play your games anymore. This policy page is meant, in part, to act as a brake on overly aggressive admin action. Just because YOU believe someone is wrong about an image doesn't mean they ARE wrong. Can you even see the difference? SlimVirgin (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the capitalized words in your post and little else. How about we discuss this when you're not so upset? --Gmaxwell 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be so patronizing. A sentence needs to be found that protects people from you wading in with aggressive threats, and when you don't get your own way, either threatening to block yourself (which you say you don't, but here's an example ) and then summoning an admin to block on your say-so. I appreciate that if you deal with inappropriate images a lot, your job might be frustrating, but you might find you'd encounter less opposition if you'd change your approach. Anyway, this page is about the blocking policy only: not whether you're right or wrong about images, but whether people may be blocked because they are in a dispute with you. Being in a dispute with you, Greg, is not the same as being in a dispute with the Wikimedia Foundation. You like to pretend that it is, and you may believe that it is, but you are wrong. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly don't understand a lick of what you just said. I'm not frustrated. I'm not here to argue about images. I'm not in a dispute with anyone at this point. I'm not being patronizing, I honestly just don't know how we can have a conversation when all you are going to do is put words into my mouth, assign intentions to me that I've never had, and yell at me in caps. :( --Gmaxwell 07:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: (Edit conflict X3) I am seriously afraid to look at the page's history, because if I have to make a couple of 3RR violation notices I'll be sad. Then when they don't get acted I'll have to cry, and I get snotty when I cry. I really really think that anyone who's had the letters R and V an any recent edit summaries had better go and check ye old electric fence, ok? - brenneman(t)(c) 07:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (EC x4) .. not me.  :-/ --Gmaxwell 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you too, Mr. Sailing-close-to-the-wind.  I did go and look now, and you've done five full reverts, three on the 17th (08:46, 09:03, 15:54) and two today (06:38,06:49).  Three reverts is not an entitlement.  Everyone needs to work together a little bit more, or no ice-cream. ^_^ - brenneman(t)(c) 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um. You must be a student of the new math :) You've managed to count every single non-null edit I made. By the same metric SV's made 9. In every case but the last pass I was simply reverting it back to the prediscussion state while discussion was ongoing and in the last two to Mark's version which I believe had the greatest support here (and which is substantially simmlar to the prediscussion version). In any case you asked about 3RR violation, and indeed there has not been one, ... the tone of your reply implies there is.  The page should have stayed protected until the discussion was settled, its not my fault that it was edited while protected then unprotected by a party to the discussion and edited to a clearly non-consensus version. --Gmaxwell 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do that.  I asked nicely that we stop with pointless reversions, and said that some people were walking a thin line.  There are five diffs up there that show full reversions you've done.  While you neither protected nor unprotected the page, do take responsibility for the edits that you made. - brenneman(t)(c) 08:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More changes

message: We all agree, you know that. Everybody agrees that editors who use copyright infringing material repeatedly can and should be blocked. We all agree that editors who don't legitmately understand what they're doing or disagree about the copyright status should not be blocked. But we agree, that as an unfortunate consequence, people who re-insert copyvio material after warnings, even if those people are acting in good faith. Now, that's where things get tricky, though. The way we solve this problem is easy: We add the following sentence, subject to modifications, to that section:
When editors are blocked for copyright violations, they are of course able to be unblocked by any sysop, should they promise to not use copright infringing material, and are subject to re-blocking should they do so.
--Sean|Black 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I disagree. You then have a situation where Gmaxwell disagrees with someone. The someone reverts because Maxwell has been too aggressive. Maxwell calls upon one of the admins he claims do whatever he tells them. The someone is blocked, to be lifted if and only if he does what Maxwell wants. Definition of bullying, Sean. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. But if someone emails me because they were blocked for copyright violations, they explain the situation, and we work out an informal parole, then there isn't a problem. Maybe we shouldn't be considering how the polcy could be abused, but rather what works best for keeping those editors who deserve to blocked blocked, and those who don't deserve it, not blocked. I don't really know what Greg's objections are, but I'm trying to compromise.--Sean|Black 08:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right. Ditto for trying to correct bad judgement by admins via policy... --Gmaxwell 08:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Er..what's the problem? 

message: (Edit conflict X6, I think) Ok, so working with the idea that we can accept the smallest version of the copyvio guideline as long as there is some protection for nice guys somewhere... The current lead section "When blocks may be used" now reads:
:Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans. There are several other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. Blocks should initially last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below.
I propose that this be changed to:
:Blocks are most frequently used to deal with vandalism and to enforce bans. There are other less common situations where blocks are appropriate, which are listed below. In all cases, blocks are preventative rather than punative, and serve only to avoid damage to Wikipedia.  In an instance where there are reasonable arguments as to the good faith of the contributor, discussion is the first course of action.  Blocks should initially last 24 hours unless specified otherwise below,  and in most instances will be lifted if the editor agrees to stop the damaging behavior.
Howzat?
brenneman(t)(c) 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but I suspect that "In an instance where there are reasonable arguments as to the good faith of the contributor, discussion is the first course of action" is redundant.  We nearly always discuss first even in obvious cases of vandalism--exceptions being repeat vandalism during an organised outbreak, where it's appropriate to block first on the assumption that the vandal has already had multiple warnings.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: To clarify: no major objections, though. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in bright blue the bit that Sean proposed.  It's "fat" to me, and I'd trim it, but I'm trying to be inclusive here.  brenneman(t)(c) 08:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving forward 

message: * Blatent disregard for copyright puts both the contributor and the project at grave risk of civil and in some cases criminal prosecution, and must be avoided at all costs. While [WP:AGF|good-faith] mistakes are to be tolerated and corrected, deliberately restoring copyright violations, or continuing to make substantively the same errors may be grounds for a block in order to protect both the contributor and the project from unnecessary legal exposure.
* Where copyright and fair-use are in question, the issues disputed must be addressed objectively, with the rights to use the content questioned clearly established in concrete facts that lie beyond any reasonable grounds for dispute and/or doubt before using the questioned content.  If there are ongoing questions, they should be addressed by community consensus. Knowingly disregarding a copyright dispute, being little different from blatent disregard for copyright, may also be grounds for a block for the same reasons as above.
Continued violations after notification shall be taken at face value as an  argument against good faith in copyright disputes. Users are therefore advised to tread with extreme caution after being warned of a violation.
Administrators should err on the side of caution within the limits of common sense when determining if someone should be blocked, and encourage the users in question to discuss the issues at hand before proceeding further.
- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this in principle.  However, I am not sure that being this prescriptive is a good idea.  The current text gives wide latitude to admins to respond to each situation as appropriate.  This seems most sensible to me. Sam Korn 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal regarding copyvio blocks 

message: An abusive admin has blocked my pal on IP address 24.147.103.146.  The admin is named Gamaliel.  This admin has been reported in the past by 24.147.103.146 for copyright violation and made to revert.  He must be holding a grudge.  It may also be due to his POV on the Kennedys and his past invlovement in edit wars.  The reason given for the block was an old RFC on Ted Kennedy.  My pal added appropriate links to other Kennedy pages not mentioned in the RFC.  The admin is pro Kennnedy so he blocked my pal.  In any case, this is an abuse of his priv and I ask your help in bringing this to light.  Thank you193.120.103.205 06:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Looking for some help!

message: Sorry.  I was sure I had hit "save" but it must have been preview.  Finishing up now. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, that's done.  Revert if you don't like it, as usual. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad archive 

message: Inserting other people's work into Wikipedia without permission or attribution is unacceptable. Copyright infringement and plagiarism pose serious moral, legal, and reputation problems.
If there is a dispute in good faith over whether a work can be used, editors should err on the side of caution, and remove the disputed work from articles until the issue is settled.  Editors who persistently insert disputed material, after having been warned, may be blocked to protect the project. In cases where an editor is acting in good-faith, exercising caution with regard to the copyright issues and there is no imminent legal threat, the editor should not be blocked.
Jimbo has said the following:
We need to deal with such activities with absolute harshness, no mercy, because this kind of plagiarism is 100% at odds with all of our core principles. All admins are invited to block any and all similar users on sight. Be bold. If someone takes you to ArbCom over it, have no fear. We must not tolerate plagiarism in the least. Jimbo Wales 04:28, 28 December 2005 UTC)
There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  current policy page version 

message: Unsuprisingly, I support my own proposed changes to the lead, including the blue text that Sean suggested, coupled with the working version. - brenneman(t)(c) 05:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done a little housework, just wiklinking and such, but the whole page really needs a good working over.  It's piecemeal development is showing badly. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version 

message: I haven't spoken up in this yet because (a) it's all I can do to keep up with what everyone else is saying and (b) I'd prefer to stay away from the interpersonal ugliness. But it's getting to a point where silence = consent. I do not agree with the "good faith" sentence because I believe it creates too much wiggle room. It's better now than when it said "clearly", which was even wigglier. But it still has too much opportunity for wiki-lawyering. FreplySpang (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've spoken up quite a lot about it elsewhere. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've mostly withdrawn from this argument as well to avoid getting further entangled in the interpersonal issues, but I think I stated my position somewhere back in the archive, and here I am in agreement with FreplySpang. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have been doing the much the same as Mindspillage and Freplyspang. I have been reading the conversation here most carefully. I also agree with what they're saying. Kim Bruning 00:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Not moi (as in I have not been reading the conversation here most carefully, prefering instead the much easier route of drawing conclusions wildly) and I, also, am preapred to support the most recent version: 19:05, 20 January 2006. More support for cheerful being sought. El_C 02:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree too on this. The good-faith thing is just going to cause problems, wikilaw, fights on AN/I etc etc and for no particularly good reason. Just expect admins to use common sense, and AN/I-roast them if they don't. Or block war over it. But don't give people such a get-out-of-jail-free card right up front. Basically, don't allow good-faith to be used in bad-faith. -Splashtalk 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. "Assume good faith" always holds, civility always holds, mentioning them explicitly in policy like this is at best redundant and at worst invites trouble. My problems with the language are threefold, and largely echo Splash: 1) We can't know motives. 2) We must stop unacceptable patterns of behavior even if they are done in good faith. 3) We have to assume our admins are reasonable people, and if one is not, the problem is the admin, not the policy. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case, Mindspillage, we could get rid of this policy page entirely, and just assume our admins are reasonable people and trust them to block when they judge it's appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, if you're trying to persuade me to the other side, you're barking up the wrong tree with that line of thought, as I wouldn't mind that at all! Still, I suppose it's difficult to have a sit down and a guiding chat with over 700 admins now, so a couple written guidelines are a good thing... but let's not go overboard on them. We know that certain things hold, always, stated or not. Assume good faith. Be civil. Don't be a dick. Follow NPOV. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Am I missing any? Oh, probably, but you know what they are, especially if you see someone running afoul of one. Do we state all of these in every policy we have? We don't, and why not? Why don't we have to say "if the person was acting in good faith" for 3RR? If some POV pusher thinks others' repeated removal of his screed is vandalism? He was acting in good faith, wasn't he—he just wants the truth out there. And, well, you still have to block him. You try to talk to him first, explain why it's removed, you don't act like a dick about it, but still, he was acting in good faith and you had to block him because he was doing something harmful. What's the difference? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you could read the version above that was originally suggested? The good-faith sentence is intended for cases where the copyright status is not clear. We're not allowed to block for vandalism that might not be vandalism. We're not allowed to block for a 3RR violation that might not be a 3RR violation. Similarly, the suggestion here is that we don't block a good-faith editor in ambiguous or uncertain cases until other methods of persuasion have been tried. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, perhaps this is where I disagree with you, then. I think if an editor complains in good faith—there's that troublesome phrase, by which I mean "has an honest and credible dispute over it", as this isn't intended to empower people who are merely trying to be a pain—the other party is obligated to remove it until the matter has been settled. And one who refuses to do so after being asked is being disruptive, whether in good faith or not. We err on the side of conservatism with copyright policy. Discussion can still continue while an image is not in an article, but it hurts us less to remove from an article or page a dubious image that turns out to be OK (and then can be reinserted or reuploaded) than to keep one that turns out not to be (and by this time has ended up in all our image dumps and mirrors), so this is what the policy should be based around. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the blocking policy, not the copyright policy, so we're not discussing when or whether it's harmful to have an image on a page a few hours longer than necessary, but when it's okay to block an editor for disagreeing. If having the image on the page is obviously harmful, then someone else will arrive to help the first editor remove it. If the image-retaining editor violates 3RR, he can be blocked. If he doesn't, image gone and no harm done. If the editor who wants the image to be removed can't find anyone to help him remove it, that might tell him something. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR is a bit too restrictive. Done in slow motion, copyright violation is still disruptive. How about someone who is warned for multiple images, and only reverts any one of them once or twice? Someone who repeatedly uploads clearly unacceptable material even after warnings? These are things 3RR doesn't cover that are still harmful, and are a little broad so that someone might question whether it generally falls under "disruption", so I think we do need this separate section (if we are going to have policy at all and not just leave it to admin judgment, alas!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is where we disagree. Someone who repeatedly uploads material that is clearly in violation, and has been warned, can be blocked under the disruption provision. Experienced admins can exercise their judgment as to the point at which the behavior becomes disruptive, just as they do with many other types of behavior. Of course someone might question that judgment, but someone might question any admin judgment, so that's not an argument against using the disruption provision. No one has yet come up with an argument as to why that would be insufficient. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we list anything specific and not just call it all "disruption"? If I were to guess I'd say the addition of this section was because someone had a legitimate dispute or concern over whether inserting copyvio could be considered disruption and it was decided that it'd be best to make this clear. (But I don't actually know.) Removing the section entirely would be OK with me, too, so long as blocking someone for causing disruption by it wouldn't get an admin roasted all over WP:AN/I for blocking against policy; I think it's widely recognized that the behavior is inappropriate, going by seeing previous threads, but it's hard to be sure. I think having nothing at all about copyvio specifically and leaving it up to judgment of whether or not it's disruptive is better than having overly loophole-prone language. However, the policy does say that blocks for "disruption" are generally considered controversial, and rightly so, as disruption is a broad category; this should be a clearer case to make, which justifies giving it a separate mention. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. There have already been incidents where good faith editors have been unduly dressed down and even threatened in just this way. I believe at least one editor has abandoned the project because of it and another has seriously considered leaving. There needs to be some small counterweight to the  overly aggressive enforcement. FeloniousMonk 19:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But as I stated to SlimVirgin above, we already have these counterweights. They're in other policies, which still hold. I've made blocks for copyvio before that did not meet 3RR. You could call them blocks for disruption, but really, it was clearer than that. I'd like to think that I've always been civil and reasonable about it: not because there was anything in the blocking policy saying I had to, but because the atmosphere of the project is made clear by the other policies that state that we must be. What I don't want to have to do is have every copyvio block I do (not that I do much blocking for anything lately) dragged over AN/I with "oh, but the user was doing that in good faith!". To make myself more clear: we should take corrective action against people who place improper blocks or who treat others with disrespect. There should just not be language here in a form that will encourage warring over cases that should be clear cause for blocking to prevent further damage. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "[E]very copyvio block that I do." How many copyvio blocks do you (or expet to) do? How many copyvio blocks are being done? Are these blocks significant enough to warrant a section in WP:BP (as opposed to being covered under WP:NOT)? El_C 21:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus?  

message: - Amgine 04:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[m:Instruction creep]] 

message: I copied from the old version this: "For admins and bureaucrats, being blocked also restricts their ability to use rollback, to delete and undelete pages, and to protect and unprotect pages. They can still add and remove blocks, and bureaucrats can still make someone a sysop."
I also made a note in the intro thus, but it was removed with the edit summary "Actually, admin powers are still usable when blocked; any prevention from using them is enforced socially, not technically."
I'm not fussed either way, but if the second one is correct than the first one needs to be fixed in the body at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Effects of being blocked.
brenneman(t)(c) 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The text you added was correct. See bug 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of being blocked - accuracy 

message: I've added a new section about this, which basically reflects what we're already doing: "Users who post personal details about other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident and whether the blocking admin feels it was isolated or is likely to be repeated." SlimVirgin (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd change this to "users who breach Wikipedia's privacy policy may be blocked for any period of time, including indefinitely", and make sure the privacy policy covers this. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I don't know what the privacy policy says exactly. I'll take a look now. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really cover this. The only people who could breach it, I think, would be the Foundation because it's their policy. It doesn't cover what any troublemaker who creates an account might do. Do you see a problem with the wording of the section as it is? It's what the de facto policy seems to be already, at least so far as I've seen. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, technically IP addresses may be considered personal information, so people with checkuser would be breaking this particular rule. We have enough problems with wikilawyers and we don't want to phrase something in the blocking policy which would give them ammo. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Talrias. I'll add something about that. Take a look in ten minutes or so. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added: "Nothing in this provision should be taken to apply to admins with check-user access, who may make certain information available within the terms of the check-user policy." I don't know what's allowed to be revealed under check-user (very little as I understand it), but that sentence should cover all eventualities. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Posting personal details

message: I have added the following to the policy, under "Copyright infringement":
:Please note, however, that fair use images on user pages are disallowed. As the editor may not initially be aware of this, the image will be removed. If the image is readded, then we will protect the user page for a while. If after unprotecting the user page the editor insists on readding the image, they will be blocked until they agree not to readd the image. 
I think that this is fair. I have made a note on Wikipedia:User pages also. Now to update protection policy. Please don't remove this. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make up policy on whim. Say something about no fair use in userspace, but don't prescribe a full-blown procedure in official policy. -Splashtalk 12:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's wrong with the procedure? - Ta bu shi da yu 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You invented it all of a sudden without any apparent discussion, and incorporated protection as part of the blocking policy (a mandatory part, no less), and the phrasing was very prescriptive when less prescriptive language will do the job ok. -Splashtalk 21:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't part of policy, tough, but I'll be implementing it anyway. Those who use fair use images on their user pages will have this happen to them, and I will encourage admins to implement what I have written. Just because it isn't written here doesn't mean it isn't going to happen.  This is a reasonable warning about what will happen if you add fair use images to your user pages and insist on putting them back. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ta bu, the policy already says how users will be treated, so to add your sentence would almost amount to a contradiction. I'd say most users don't support the aggression around the removal of these images, though they do support the policy; but because they oppose the aggression, it makes people look as though they oppose the removal. So for the policy to remain supported, it needs to be enforced very politely, in my view, with blocking used only when the behavior becomes disruptive, and at what point behavior crosses the line into disruption is a judgment experienced admins make every day. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slim, that's why I phrased it 1. Warn, 2. Protect, 3. Block. Not as it was later changed, 1. Block. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Tabu, you're absolutely out of line to rollback like a vandal. You can do it whichever way you like, but don't go inserting your personal methods into Wikipedia policy on a fancy, without any discussion and by use of administrator tools to enforce your personal whimmery. Thanks. -Splashtalk 21:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not my personal whim. That was a mechanism to avoid people using fair use images, in the most fair method available. Your change is, to be frank, not as fair as my revision, and in fact encourages far more draconian measures. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policy can't be a straightjacket, with mandatory and specific actions for all circumstances. -- SCZenz 00:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so it needed modifying. However, given that it seemed that we were encouraging admins to block immediately, I wasn't happy with the change. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use images 

message: I'm not sure if this has been discussed here before, but it seems that some admins do block users who contact other users on their talk page (apparently having found them through categories) to ask them to vote in things like AfDs. I've received such messages, and I tend to ignore them, unless it's something that I would have been interested in voting on in the first place. When such requests come from a total stranger, I find it at worst mildly irritating, but I never block for it. I find it a bit controversial to do so. I always welcome messages from wiki-friends who have worked with me on other articles, telling me that there is a vote taking place on a certain issue at a certain page. And I certainly don't blame them if they don't inform those who are likely to vote the other way. Sometimes it's not clear where to draw the line between spam and genuine requests for support, made by editors who share your view. You might think someone was a stranger, when it might be someone who had often read your comments on talk pages, but had not contributed much. I classify it as spam if it begins with, "Hi, I notice that you have listed yourself as a Catholic, and I thought I would tell you that there is a vote . . ."
I'm definitely not trying to start another discussion of the evils of user categories and user boxes; such discussion belongs elsewhere. What I want to know is whether or not it is generally considered a blockable offense to spam talk pages with requests to vote, and whether or not that should go into the "Blocking policy". At the moment, it doesn't seem to be there, unless we argue that it's covered by the rather loose term "disruption". I'd like some clarification, and if there is agreement about this, it should be in the Blocking policy page.  For example, if a block is appropriate, how long should it be? Should warning be given? 
Thoughts? AnnH (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a block is only warranted if it's done habitually even after the user is requested to stop, and if it's clear spam.  In that case, it's covered as a discretionary block for disruption.  Such discretionary blocks should always be discussed, so I would never perform such a block without a also bringing up a discussion at WP:AN/I, but we don't need additional specific rules in blocking policy. -- SCZenz 23:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking for spamming user talk pages with requests to vote 

message: In the vein of WP:SPP, I propose a new type of block for repeat vandals from shared IPs. This block would allow only registered users editing from that IP to edit and prevent any anonymous edits. This is intended specifically for shared IPs like my school's which gets blocked all the time and annoys the living crap out of me when I can't edit and either have to A) unblock the IP, allowing the vandals back in, or B) not edit, which harms Wikipedia. If the developers could implement this change (and it seems like it would be simple), I think we should adopt this special type of blocking for problematic IPs. When I get home, I may create a proposed policy page for this proposition, but for the moment, it remains here. I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on the matter here. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now at Wikipedia:Semi-block. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to block types 

message: Quick question for those in charge of the page move autoblock bots: How many page moves is too many to trigger a block?
The reason I ask is that I'm in the process of converting the Trains portal "Featured" content to "Selected" content as discussed in Wikipedia talk:Portal/Archive 3#Overloading "featured" terminology (yes, I agree with the idea of switching portal content from "Featured" to "Selected" when the content has not been vetted through WP:FAC or WP:FPC).  Doing this for Portal:Trains involves a couple hundred page moves (all the transcluded pages under Portal:Trains/Featured article and Portal:Trains/Featured picture need to be renamed to Portal:Trains/Selected article and Portal:Trains/Selected picture respectively); with one transcluded page per week, from May 16 2005, through December 31 2006, that means somewhere around 300 page moves.  At what rate of moving these pages would I run into an autoblock or alternately, can these moves be whitelisted before I start?  AdThanksVance.  Slambo (Speak) 18:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of a response would seem to indicate either that these moves would not trigger an autoblock or that nobody who knows has read my question yet.  I plan to start making the moves on Monday.  Slambo (Speak) 11:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My response would be two-fold; first, you shouldn't trigger it as long as you make moves smartly.  It's probably not a good idea to move thirty at once, but about 10/minute or so should be fine, I assume.  Secondly, if you do get blocked, the bot will post a message on the Administrators' noticeboard, and you'll be unblocked within just a few minutes, no harm done.  Ral315 (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblocking - how many moves is too many? 

message: Would anyone, who is educated in the blocking policies, consider this disruption? Canadianism 02:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disruption  

message: Wikipedia now has categories for blocked impersonations by the user they impersonate. Can anyone find out if any impersonations have been using the Cyrillic alphabet?? Let me see if I got this list on what letters can be used in Cyrillic impersonations (missing Latin letters indicate letters I don't know how a Cyrillic letter can be used to form an impersonation)
*A to A (Cyrillic)
*B to Ve (Cyrillic)
*C to Es (Cyrillic)
*E to Ye (Cyrillic)
*F to Ghayn (Cyrillic)
*H to En (Cyrillic)
*I to Ukrainian I
*J to Je (Cyrillic)
*K to Ka (Cyrillic)
*M to Em (Cyrillic)
*N to I (Cyrillic)
*O to O (Cyrillic)
*P to Er (Cyrillic)
*R to Ya (Cyrillic)
*S to Dze
*T to Te (Cyrillic)
*U to Tse (Cyrillic)
*W to Sha or Shcha (Cyrillic)
*X to Ha (Cyrillic)
*Y to U (Cyrillic) or Che (Cyrillic)
Anything else?? Georgia guy 23:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) Many Greek letters can also be (and are) used for this.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyrillic impersonations 

message: From :
:Now about indefinite vs. infinite blocks: the MediaWiki code is definitive on this. The terms are semantically identical. You really shouldn't be blocking this kind of user, with a mix of good faith edits and what are essentially pranks, indefinitely. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree. Such edits deserve immediate indefinite blocking. If such a user apologizes then, optionally we might let them back. This isn't a playground, it is an encyclopedia project. --Jimbo Wales 22:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How long to block logged in user who repeatedly valdalises

message: Hello, wiki-fiddlers...I'm a moderator on a reasonably large wiki devoted to an online game.  We have a repeat vandal there who creates an account, vandalises three and exactly three pages, then quits the account, changes their IP address, and makes a new account to start the whole business over again.  How can we get rid of them?--Mobius Soul 17:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, there is no easy way to deal with this. Just keep reverting the vandalism and blocking the accounts. —Guanaco 20:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's always writing to the ISP. - brenneman{T}{L}  10:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please help! 

message: I was suggested to me that I might make a proposal here regarding blocking policy. The specific policy in question is that of shared IPs, many of which are presumably from educational establishments. I will paste the points I made on another discussion page here, in full:
: To be honest, my own personal policy about it is that if I find recent vandalism, I report it here if there have been previous warnings or bannings (if there is a history of it). Its up to the admins as to what to do about them - I only report what I find. If this is not Wiki policy, or is inconvenient for admins, I'm sure before too long one of them will be kind enough to leave me a nice message directing me to the correct methodology. The problem is, as I see it, that there are many policy procedures - not all of them are clear cut - and many different warning (etc) templates that can be used. That's not a bad thing in my opinion, as it can cover all bases and is useful in specifying what a given problem is.
: Kingboyk, you mentioned that shared IPs can only be blocked for short periods of time. I'm personally concerned about this. Some of these IPs seem to be particularly persistant and sometimes quite damaging to Wikipedia. My suggestion would be that, while we should perhaps show *slightly* more leniency for shared IPs, if vandalism is persistant from a certain IP, it should be blocked indefinately. If its a school's IP, then its the problem of the school - not of Wikipedia. Of course, the school should probably be entitled to appeal the block and promise to clamp down on vandalism. It is a waste of time to be going about reverting edits along the lines of "My teacher/Sarah Smith looks like a potato" etc, when editors such as myself could best serve Wiki by improving and creating articles, rather than undoing the work of immature 'pranksters'. I've never been banned, but I assume some kind of message is created automatically for people who attempt to edit Wikipedia from blocked IPs, explaining the reason, and outlining a way to appeal the deicision made? That should be where, in my opinion, Wikipedia's responsibility ends.
Please excuse me if I am speaking out of turn, or if this policy has already been discussed and/or voted on in the recent past. I would ask you all to consider my points above and vote here to determine if there is consensus for a change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setanta747 (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been bold and noted editors who have commented here that support a change - though not necessarily changes that I have suggested. Feel free to change the edits I have made in that respect, if I have made errors in my presumptions. --Mal 00:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I've undone that, too much like voting.  - brenneman{T}{L}  01:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ** That's what my intention was - to see consensus clearly, I was suggesting that we vote on the subject. --Mal 01:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ***Too soon.  We've got to chew on it first.  First this section grows, then eventually someone goes and starts a page, and its talk page grows, and about five screens down on that page there's a vote.  At least, I believe the usual process is something like that for proposed policies. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for policy change on shared IPs 

message: Since email verification has been enabled, it has become impossible for blocked IP ranges and unverified blocked usernames to email the administrator who blocked them - their only option is the  template. The "you are blocked" page continues to suggest emailing though. This needs to be changed! BigBlueFish 14:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes it clear that you need an account to email. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important mistake 

message: Is there any allowances in the blocking policy to block a user that has uploaded hundreds of images to Wikipedia using misleading license tags? I have spent several hours tagging all these images and cleaning up, and there is still many more hours of work to clean the mess (orphan images in tens of articles, etc.) ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should certainly think so. It constitutes an copyright violation and goes against the fair use policy. However, it depends on weather or not anyone told this fellow of his incorrect tagging; if no one notified him of falsified copyright summeries, then he can claim a circumstance of ignorance. However, if he is, and he's being purposely misleading and utlizing deliberately falsified upload summeries, he could very well be idenfitely blocked. This is not playground or a web-gallery, and copyright violations are a serious matter. No one should triffle like that. No one would dare. -ZeroTalk 16:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will assume good faith for now, and assume (with a big effort) that this fellow did ot know. I have him on my watch list and at the first instance of misleading license info, I will issue a block. Problem is that now we have hundred imags to cleanup. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question shouldn't really be about good faith, it should be "can we trust this user not to screw up our work". If the answer is yes, we move on. If it is maybe we observe. If it is no, we block. It doesn't matter if someone is malicious, a patahlogical liar, profoundly stupid, or just frequently edits drunk... We should block all the same. :) If it makes you feel better, at least we *can* catch and clean these up. The much greater problem is the large number of people who come by and only incorrectly tag one or two images. :( Care to share who this user is? If the images are not in use perhaps it would just be easier to mass delete his uploads. --Gmaxwell 21:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see , Gmaxwell. -ZeroTalk 22:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I blocked User:Brian O Herrity for a week for doing this. He was uploading a lot of images under GFDL-self, but they were obviously copyrighted images (watermarked etc). He had been warned and Orphanbot made a number of posts on his talk page about properly adding sources and licenses etc. My question is, now he's back and he's uploading images again (he uploads a lot and adds them to articles - this is pretty much all he does), except now they appear to be the correct license, but there isn't a source. I've already had a complaint from another editor to look into what I can do as an admin, but I'm honestly not sure. He's been previously blocked and warned a number of times before so can I, at some point, block him for not providing sources on his images? If it was a couple times or whatever, this wouldn't be a question at all, but he uploads a lot and never does this. Warn again then block/ban? How far can I got here? I don't want to have to babysit this guy's image uploading habits. K1Bond007 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its really simple. If he can't follow copyright policy, block him and place the images on IFD. His diregard for warnings immediately blinks a red light for disruption. We are not here to play games for gallery festooning. -ZeroTalk 09:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger that. K1Bond007 22:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocking user for uploading images? 

message: To the degree and extent you have a recalcitrant editor who simply will not desist from making intentionally damaging edits, it's worthwile to consider that he/she must change their attitude or they can never be allowed back. It's a carrot and a stick approach. If someone wants to edit here and if their desire to have editing access is strong enough, then, denial of access (it's a painful thing to be denied what you desire), will have a salutary effect on their attitude (eventually, unless they are deranged). The psychic pain (the means) of denied access is indeed punative, but is only being applied towards a protective end. The ideas do not conflict, one merely needs to take into account common sense princples of stimulus-reward and  apply them accordingly. Merecat 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punishment can protect 

message: To the degree and extent you have a recalcitrant editor who simply will not desist from making intentionally damaging edits, it's worthwile to consider that he/she must change their attitude or they can never be allowed back. It's a carrot and a stick approach. If someone wants to edit here and if their desire to have editing access is strong enough, then, denial of access (it's a painful thing to be denied what you desire), will have a salutary effect on their attitude (eventually, unless they are deranged). The psychic pain (the means) of denied access is indeed punative, but is only being applied towards a protective end. The ideas do not conflict, one merely needs to take into account common sense princples of stimulus-reward and  apply them accordingly. Merecat 11:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're describing a preventative application, though. You're blocking a user to stop them from abusing their editing privileges, not because you think they deserve it. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

text: *To my mind it is protecting wikipedia: the idea of the 3RR is that continuous reverting of articles is damaging to Wikipedia and therefore the arbitrary policy is enforced to protect wikipedia against such damage.  Your comment regarding blocking a user to stop them from abusing their editing privileges being preventative is wrong; the editing privileges are Wikipedia, and therefore the abuse is to Wikipedia, and the block is to protect Wikipedia.   If 3RR was not enforced, Wikipedia would be heavily damaged; therefore its enforcement is protective. It's a big picture policy. Hiding  talk 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Unless I'm misreading your comment, I think you just supported my argument. Blocks are preventative (or protective, which is the same idea), not punitive. :) // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 23:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Punishment can protect 

message: Can we fix the software so that a blocked user will show up (to admins at least) as a blocked user right away, rather than requiring a posting on the user/talk page? A glance at the block log will show many instances where a vandal or sock has been blocked by three, four, sometimes five different editors, each unaware that another has already taken that action. This wastes time, especially taken in the aggregate. If a user is blocked, I'd like to see it automatically pop up in some way on his page before I go to block him myself. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That'd be great and would be a useful step toward handling block-conflicts. It probably wants filing on bugzilla or something (and I guess is probably there already?). -Splashtalk 00:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four or five indefinite blocks on an account...? 

message: I recently found myself blocked because the IP that I was using (which is shared by the entirity of Dartmouth College) was blocked. Is there any way to block IP addresses without blocking registered users from that IP? savidan(talk) (e@) 05:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy for blocking IPs