Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 21

I'd like to propose an addition to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking to clarify how a block as a result of an oversight action is to be handled. Under the line that begins "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable", I propose to add:

• When the block has been made as a result of the oversighting of an edit or edits, in which case only oversighters and arbitrators or checkusers may determine whether to unblock.

Essentially this would mean that if someone has been blocked because they have posted defamatory material, a privacy violation, or a serious copyright violation that has been subjected to oversighting, the decision on unblocking them is reserved to either the oversight team, the checkusers or the Arbitration Committee. This is necessary because, where defamation and privacy violations are concerned, such matters have to be resolved confidentially. Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Confidential evidence already provides that these editors are "qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls". Regular administrators are not thus qualified and do not operate under strict controls. In addition, because they cannot see oversighted edits, they do not have the ability to review the reason why the block was made in the first place. Prioryman (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I would take checkusers out of there, there are some that are only CU's and do not have suppression userrights. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Good point, thanks for highlighting that. Oversighters and arbitrators only then. Prioryman (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure this is necessary, but if we want to go forward with it, it should be structured in the same way as checkuser blocks, with its own section, and apply only where the block is explicitly identified as an oversight block. My impression is that that is rare, while the exact contents of the oversighted material may be private, its not the same sort of blackhole of information that checkuser often is by necessity. Monty₈₄₅ 22:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that it would be rare. The reason why it's necessary is that the only people who can review suppressed material, and therefore review why a block was placed, are oversighters and arbitrators – regular admins can't. Issues involving oversighting are already reserved to oversighters and arbs; regular admins can't reverse an oversighting. If an edit is so bad that it has to be oversighted and the editor blocked, regular admins simply don't have the user rights needed to review the reasons for the block. Prioryman (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

It may be that this is necessary, but at the same time, I wish we would spend more energy trying to find ways to respect privacy while still keeping process open to community. Instead, we end up relying more and more on blind trust of either functionaries or Arbcom. Now don't get me wrong, I trust the committee, I trust the functionaries I know well enough to form an opinion on, and I trust Beeblebrox, who is the functionary at issue here. Yet when it comes to good governance practices, we want to rely on our trust of them as little as is necessary. We should strive to have the minimum level of secrecy necessary to preserve privacy. I just worry that Oversight Block, can't talk about it, will decide in secret, will become an excuse to avoid the delicate task of providing the community with the information it needs to have a community based decision without violating privacy. Monty₈₄₅ 22:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. If it so bad that it needs to a special block the Arbs can make it that way. Oversight is not the same as Checkuser. A CU block suggests the very act of editing was a violation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, it suggests that the block was based on checkuser evidence which must be taken into consideration when reviewing the block. Blocks in general imply that certain edits were violations. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Monty, this doesn't seem necessary. In the rare case where an oversighter makes a block and thinks, due to special circumstances, that it shouldn't be overturned by anyone except an oversighter or arbcom, they could make a note to that effect in their block message and/or in the block log. "Garden variety" blocks for people who add material that is oversighted are often overturned by uninvolved admins upon a promise not to restore the material, and I don't think there's a history of problems with that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've written this in response to an incident in which Beeblebrox made a block in his role as an oversighter with just such a note, but it was overturned by a non-oversighter admin, with considerable controversy as a result. This is intended to ensure that there's no repetition of such an event. The basic principle is simple: if an oversighter blocks someone over an oversighted edit, regular admins shouldn't overturn them. 22:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I was operating under the assumption this was a general rule proposal we were discussing, not an attempt to get Kevin in trouble. I've said what I have to say about the specific proposal, and stand by it. Oversighters will sometimes make blocks due to oversighted material, as a preemptive way to prevent it from being re-added, but unless they specifically say "don't undo this", any admin should be able to unblock without asking arbcom's permission. I reserve the right to comment on this proposal, as worded, while sitting out the furor over Kevin's recent unblock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• It obviously wouldn't get anyone into trouble, as it wouldn't and couldn't be retrospectively applied. As I said above, the intention is to prevent a repetition of an unnecessary controversy. It will be to everyone's benefit if the rules over who can unblock what are as clear as possible. Prioryman (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd hesitantly support something worded so that oversighters could make it "OS and AC only" specifically, without that being the default position. "Hesitantly" because I would hope that oversighters wouldn't abuse this by using it unnecessarily. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• What changes would you make to the wording I proposed? Prioryman (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not great at wording stuff like this, and I really feel like I'm proposing instruction creep almost against my will. I wish WP didn't need to do this. But while I don't really support this, I wouldn't oppose something similar to what we have for CU's; perhaps "Administrators should not undo or alter any block that is made by an Oversighter and specifically identified as a block that should only be modified with permission from an Oversighter or ArbCom, without getting such permission first. If an administrator believes that such a block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Oversighter in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee." To which I'd love to add (but won't): "Oversighters who abuse this privilege will be smacked upside the head, or at ArbCom's option, have their Oversight permissions removed". --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Floq - that's really useful. Prioryman (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• In my opinion we ought to keep the groups whose blocks cannot be undone to a minimum. I think most admins know not to undo arbcom or arb enforcement blocks, why can't it be left at that? It's a fairly rare situation, and arbcom can make the block themselves or annotate the block log if required. Note that I'm probably biased, given my recent unblock. Kevin (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• I was under the impression that this was largely understood, and in the case that prompted this proposal, that should certainly have been evident, as the block log clearly stated "please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team" (or something similar). I know that a number of arbitrators share this opinion, and it seems to be already supported in part in the policy (WP:BLOCK#Confidential evidence, and in WP:BLOCK#Block reviews: "Where an uninformed unblock may be problematic, the blocking administrator may also wish to note as part of the block notice that there are specific circumstances, and that a reviewing administrator should not unblock without discussing the case with the blocking admin (or possibly ArbCom) to fully understand the matter."). If this is somehow not clear, it needs to be made clear (to the point that like a {{checkuserblock}}, lifting an "oversightblock" will result in desysopping), as administrators should not be taking action in situations where they cannot fully understand the circumstances that led to the decision to block. While oversight-related blocks are less common than checkuser blocks, they nonetheless would be placed for very good reasons, which may include potential legal consequences (for example, libel or massive copyright issues). Of course, not every block made by an oversighter would be subject to this, just as not every block made by a checkuser (even sockpuppetry-related blocks) are under the aegis of "checkuser blocks." Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Correct, this would be limited to the (small) category of blocks made by oversighters as a result of oversighted edits. "Garden-variety" blocks from oversighters would not be covered. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• If memory serves me right, the CheckUser block restriction came through ArbCom, and I don't see why this one couldn't come from them too. --Rschen7754 22:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll do a bit of research when I get home shortly; if that's the case, I'll work on getting a motion started for it. If the community can agree to this on its own, though, that'd be great. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 22:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I suspect it will probably be up to the ArbCom, so going the motion route seems like the best idea to me. Prioryman (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
      • is the statement that's linked from the blocking policy. I suppose I'm a bit shocked by the late date on it (2010, when CU was around earlier than that?) but it seems that it was just a defacto practice before then (with only a CU making an unofficial comment on the matter: ) --Rschen7754 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes - although that statement didn't change policy in itself, it does seem as though it formed the basis for the section in this policy regarding Checkuser blocks. I've drafted up a similar motion which should be posted on-wiki for voting soon.

• Prioryman, did you ban me from your talk page some time ago when I asked you some questions you didn't appreciate? If so, are you sure that personal animosity isn't affecting your judgement on this issue? Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't clutter this discussion with off-topic posts. Prioryman (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Did you start this discussion in response to my unblock? And, did you ban me from your talk page when I asked you some questions about Gibraltarpedia? Cla68 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• So... in other words Prioryman, your October 18, 2012 block would still be in effect, and you'd still be indef banned? Volunteer Marek 23:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Prioryman, Please don't hat other people's comments, whatever your feelings about the issues raised. It's extremely rude and uncollegial.

And it is on topic. It highlights that your purpose here is pursuit of WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than a serious concern for the encyclopedia, its functioning and fairness, and its policies.Volunteer Marek 00:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do you not think you're going a little bit too far in your attempt to block the "fuckwits" here? . As I said at Beeblebrox's talkpage, such things tend not to end well. For anyone. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• For anyone not up to speed here, this "idea" of Prioryman's is purely based on the unblock of User:Cla68 after they had been indeffed for allegedly outing a blocked editor. Prioryman does not like Cla68 due to their involvement in an external website (diff in my above posting). User_talk:Cla68 and User_talk:Beeblebrox are instructive here. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• As I've said above, it's not about blocking anyone, as it can't apply retrospectively. It's about clarifying the status of oversighter blocks to avoid future controversy. The circumstances of Cla68's unblock have led to a dispute involving Kevin and Beeblebrox, and it would be better all round if we could avoid such disputes in future. My proposal doesn't affect Cla68 or any other editor that I know of and it's certainly not aimed at any individual. Prioryman (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'll assume AGF. However, I'm sure you'll understand why I'm a little cynical at the timing of such an idea. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I understand entirely, and I can't say I blame you for feeling cynical. But let's try to work out a way of preventing controversies like this from recurring, since they don't do anyone any good. Prioryman (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• While changes in policy can't be applied retroactively, it is worth keeping in mind that policy as worded does note that administrators should be taking confidential information into account when reviewing a block, and if they are unable to do so, they should defer the review to the appropriate users (in this case, the oversight team or ArbCom), and that action can be taken in response to serious poor judgment in any event. The fact that an arbitrator was actively involved in discussion with the blocked user in this particular instance made this particular unblock especially concerning. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hersfold, if you're referring to me, then my view of the situation is a little different than yours. On Thursday when I emailed ArbCom, I immediately received follow-up questions from three arbitrators. I haven't heard a peep from them since, I guess that's about four days. I have no idea if they were even discussing the situation. If you guys classify that as an "active" discussion, then I find that surprising. If that's the way you guys do things, then I don't think you should feel concerned that someone else took the initiative and resolved the impasse. Cla68 (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• +1. If a situation is urgent, respond urgently, or somebody else will. This is common sense. — Hex (❝?!❞) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hersfold, in drafting the motion, I would urge you not to take the simple approach of saying hands off when a functionary says so, and instead develop a motion that pushes functionaries to keep the community as fully involved as possible without violating the privacy concern involved, and where sufficient information can be made available for the community to make a reasonably informed decision, to push that route rather then secret reviews. Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• What he said. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The proposed rule is not necessary in most cases. A lot of oversights leave the original post in a redacted form where it is obvious what the removed information was (e.g. there is an indication that a name, a web address etc have been redacted.) Any admin is perfectly capable of assessing whether the block needs to remain in place without speaking to the oversight team, unless they are an incompetent admin in the first place, in which case the problem with in the admin's approach to unblocks would most likely emerge in another context first.--Peter cohen (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'd have to agree that if an administrator is unable to see the oversighted edits, then they should not be reversing a blocked made due to those edits, pretty much as Hersfold explains. I don't want to see Cla68 or Kevin in jeopardy here since this is a discussion about an alteration to policy ex post facto. This is for future reference.--MONGO 04:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is it not true that oversighted edits are not viewable by admins? By very definition, an unblock based only on what an ordinary admin sees is at best foolhardy and at worst incompetent. It's like overturning an arbcom ban without arbcom input. There are enough oversighters and ArbCom members to handle this. So yes, obvious rule is obvious and should be grounds for immediate desysopping until they can explain themselves. We are through the looking glass with being trolled by external websites. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Is that in case I go on an unblocking people blocked by oversighters rampage? Cla68 said some things that an oversighter thought he ought not to have said, and blocked him, to prevent him saying them again. Once a promise was made not to say those things again, the reason for the block is gone, and it should be lifted. To do otherwise shifts the block from being preventative to being punitive, which of course we don't do here. In this case, the decision to unblock was not dependent on the actual things he said, rather on the promise not to repeat them. So it isn't quite so obvious as you say. You might want to further explain what you mean about external web sites. Kevin (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Well, Kevin you do have very few edits over the past year and but 200 over the past 2 years. Not the first time you've been in the fray over the issue of doxing.--MONGO 05:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Don't be coy, MONGO, say what you really think. You might do better though to address my argument. Kevin (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• In that case, you could have outlined your case to the Oversighter or emailed the group. If it was valid they could undo the block. The presumption should be that, AFTER that argument is made and there is no move to unblock, the block was and is still made for valid reasons. Presuming it's not is incomprehensible. --DHeyward (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Kevin, you show up at opportune times. Am I obtuse...you didn't read my first comment in this thread in which I stated that I didn't think you should be penalized if a policy is altered ex post facto. No, I don't think unblocking Cla68 is a bad thing punishable by desysopping, but you seem opportune...so others are wondering whats going on. So these blogs spend their time looking for all the pitfalls of Wikipedia and their members come here and stir up their own...and I suppose you go back and critique yourselves at that blog?--MONGO 05:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• MONGO's comment brings back memories of the WP:BADSITES initiative from a few years ago. I think I and and MONGO were on opposing sides of that debate. MONGO's "side" did not prevail. Cla68 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong...my wording at NPA about Off-Wiki attacks still stands almost unchanged after all these years.--MONGO 05:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• and Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment#If_you_feel_you_are_being_harassed specifically came out of BADSITES. It kind of makes it moot if an admin can undo an oversighters remedy to a problem. --DHeyward (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Getting back to the matter at hand, as I assume is obvious I kind of thought this was already understood. that apparently not being the case I am compelled to support this proposal. I'm not infallible, it is perfectly possible that I could make a bad block, but it should be reviewed by someone who is actually able to make an informed evaluation of the circumstances. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm reopening this. Ten hours is not long enough for a discussion on a modification to blocking policy. For reference, Crazynas' closing note was as follows. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to already be the status quo. As indicated below, the confidential evidence section of current policy already implies that contacting a checkuser or oversighter (as appropriate) is the proper course before an administrator unblocks a user under these sanctions. The addition to the unblocking section for oversighters makes explicit this responsibility of administrators, and reminds oversighters that they should properly note blocks made in this capacity. Also added is a reminder to both the checkuser and oversight unblocking guidelines that administrators may be desysopped under level II procedures for removal of permissions if they do not act in accordance with this policy. Crazynas ^t 07:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I also changed the policy to reflect my close. It is interesting that you reverted my archiving but not my change of to the policy. This is currently a discussion about a change that has already been made. WP:BURO anyone? As several editors (administrators, oversighters and regular editors) make clear they view this as policy already. Crazynas ^t 20:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reopening it is supposed to achieve, given that 13 of 14 currently active arbitrators have already voted in favour of making the change. It's a done deal. Prioryman (talk) 20:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

In my view it already is policy not to unblock someone when the block log says "please do not unblock without consulting the oversight team." If the policy needs to be reworded or amended to make this more clear maybe that's okay, but there is no legalistic wording so precise, and no enumeration of possibilities so complete, that it will cover every case. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Like many others here, I'm in the "I thought this was quite clear enough in the current wording of policy, but since it's apparently not, let's make it clear" camp. It's not a matter of zomgOversightPOWAH or anything; it's a matter of "in a certain very small set of cases, it's impossible to evaluate block/unblock conditions without access to the relevant evidence, and attempting to do so without that evidence can cause significant harm to the project or to real people". I can think of one, maybe two, cases in my tenure as an oversighter where this type of prohibition would have been needed. It's not common, at all - but when it is needed, it's needed because an uninformed unblock is a seriously bad idea. If it's not sufficiently clear to admins in cases like that right now that they can't adequately handle these unblocks (despite policy already addressing the matter less explicitly), then policy needs to be reworded to make it explicitly clear. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Same here. I think I might have done this once before in the nearly three years I've been doing OS work, it is not something I just did on a whim. I have made other OS related blocks but they were mostly on WP:LTA headcases who get the super hard "no-talkpage-no-email-no-nothing" block from the getgo. I've issued 2,200+ blocks, I don't think asking in two of those cases to be sure and clear it with oversight first is to much to ask. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edited. Couple notes -- changed alter to reduce because if an oversight blocked editor starts a talk page rant an admin should be able to remove talk page access. Changed case of first letter of "oversighter" since we don't capitialize "editor" or "administrator." NE Ent 17:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not saying it is correct either way, but that was simply a mirroring of the checkuser policy above (which currenlty capitalizes Checkuser). Crazynas ^t 20:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I lowercased checkuser to match oversight. Crazynas ^t 21:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I had changed "reduce" to "alter" prior to seeing this. My reasoning is that "reduce" is a subset of "alter", meaning that one can leave the length of a block, but change the email or talk page privileges under the "reduce" condition. Is that is what is intended? Does that mean I could go "alter" someone blocked under OS conditions by giving them talk page privileges without facing any backlash? I won't edit further, but rather watch and take notes for future reference. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm going out on a limb here, but perhaps it is acceptable for a "regular" admin. to add further restrictions but unacceptable for them to (as mentioned) reduce the restrictions. Hypothetical: Arb/OS/CU "blocks" only editing ability. Step 2: A regular admin. removes talk page privileges. Editor concedes to some conditions. .. can a "regular" admin. then restore talk page rights? — Ched :  ?  21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That'd depend, I would say, on why talk page access was removed in the first place. The problem is that this is particularly hard to assess without all the information. It's probably safer to ask an oversighter anyways even in cases that seem obvious; the worst that could happen is that they'll say "Oh, yeah, sure, you can restore talkpage access if you want." — Coren ^(talk) 13:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the admin who removes the talk page access makes a block log entry that's easily understood. NE Ent 22:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Fellow Editors:

I am under threat of sanctions, by a busybody with a very personal editorial agenda, about what is and what is not thematically pertinent and politically correct. Because the hook protrudes from the bait, I visited this page to learn about the cudgel with which I might be smitten. The previous version of the explanation was vague and very ambiguous. I have completed the sentences so that they mean what they say and say what they mean; flesh upon the skeleton, as it were.

For now, the identity of my very own, personal Inspector Javert is unimportant, yet. . . .

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You mean you'd like to introduce these changes. Why do you insist on adding the word 'editorial' everywhere? Almost all blocks I make (and I've made a lot more than most) have nothing to do with editorial problems, as it is usually interpreted. Please explain. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

THE AMBIGUOUS VERSION

Purpose and goals

Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Administrators should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening.

In general once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not seen as appropriate. Where an ongoing or serious concern persists, a number of processes exist to allow discussion and possible sanction of a user due to serious or persistent misconduct.

Blocks can be appealed (see further). Requests to be unblocked are also decided in light of prevention and deterrence. A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early. Equally, a user who has previously returned to inappropriate conduct after other unblocks may find their unblock request declined for deterrence reasons, to underline the importance of change and unacceptability of the conduct.

THE UNAMBIGUOUS VERSION

Purpose and goals

Editorial blocks serve to protect the Wikipedia project from harm, and so reduce the likelihood of future editorial problems. The duration of blocks can be extended if the problems recur. Blocks are imposed for the protection of the project, and not as retribution, and to protect other users from editorial disruption, inappropriate conduct by an editor, and to deter repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Therefore, Administrators should be familiar with the editorial-problem circumstances before intervening in a dispute between editors.

In general, once an editorial problem has become cold, and the risk of persistent editorial disruption has clearly ended, reopening the editorial dispute, by blocking retroactively usually is inappropriate. In the case of either a continuing conflict between editors, or a serious concern persists, there exist processes to allow discussion of the editorial conflict, and the possible sanctioning of a user, because of his or her serious or persistent editorial misconduct.

Yet, blocks can be appealed; a user’s requests to be unblocked are decided in light of the prevention and the deterrence of editorial misconduct. A user who agrees to desist, and appears to have learned from having been blocked, or in the case of a temporary situation that has ended, might be unblocked early. Equally, a user who has resumed previously inappropriate editorial conduct, after having been unblocked, might find that his or her unblock request is declined, as a means of deterring misconduct, and to underline the importance of editorial change, and the unacceptability of editorial misconduct. (see further).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhazard9 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 16 March 2013‎ (UTC)

Under WP:INDEF it says (was reverted to): Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block, ... This implies to me that in about 97% or more cases where an indefinite block has been applied, there would be an administrator somewhere willing to lift that block. Is that really the case? Victor Yus (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes and/or eventually. Once a blocked user agrees to abide by policy and recognizes past mistakes they will be unblocked. Only where they have been banned would a user in that situation have to wait a definied period (i.e a year or six months). It really only is in the extreme cases where the indef blocked user will not 'climb down' or has lied about stopping disruption enough times for *no* sysop *ever* to consider unblocking--Cailil ^talk 13:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

And furthermore just to clarify, indefinite does not mean forever it means for an indeterminate length of time - or in other words until the user gains a clue--Cailil ^talk 13:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I think trying to characterize the cases is simply creating something to argue over. Certainly many indefinite blocks are eventually overturned, but most indefinite blocks of vandalism-only acccounts are never overturned. I don't think those are "extreme" cases at all.—Kww(talk) 15:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a very good point. There is nothing "extreme" about adding the word "poop" to ten different pages with a throaway account named "ibveuqbouyrv" and getting an indef block over it that is never even appealed. In fact, that is probably the most common blocking scenario, and right behind it is User:Mycompany is great getting blocked for username and spamming issues. Now, when it comes to blocks of actual established user, people who are actually active particpants and not vandals or drive-by spammers, it is true, only in the most extreme cases do they end up de facto banned. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that is an important distinction - the extreme does only apply to established users. Maybe a clause could be added to the effect of "with the exception of vandalism only accounts"--Cailil ^talk 23:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to go into it at all? The purpose of the sentence seems to be saying that if no admin will unblock someone, then they're effectively banned. It isn't necessary to go into how common or uncommon this situation is. (In fact I think the whole sentence is something of a tautology, and could probably be removed without loss of understanding.) Victor Yus (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I think the point the piece is trying to underline is that indefinite does not mean infinite, and is not always a ban. Believe it or not many relatively new users find the distinction hard to get their heads around. But agree there would be a better way to phrase this.--Cailil ^talk 08:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It currently says Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block, which would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community. In the light of the above, how about changing it to: Indefinite does not mean infinite: an indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked [this links to the "Unblocking" section of the policy] in appropriate circumstances. In particularly serious cases where no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is considered effectively banned. Though it still isn't clear to me what, besides the tautological, the second point actually means. Victor Yus (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, the sentence about "a ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges" is restored, on the grounds that "lofty is sometimes needed". Regardless of whether that's true (there was no objection when it was changed to more accessible language in the banning policy itself), I think this is not just lofty, but rather misleading. Being allowed to edit Wikipedia is not a "privilege" in most people's eyes (anyone in the world with an Internet connection can do it), nor does it make sense to "revoke" something that was never granted. Assuming you didn't know what a ban was, you would read this sentence and assume it meant something like the withdrawal of admin or rollback rights, or at least autoconfirmed rights - it is these (if anything) that people think of as "privileges". Why not just use simple language? Victor Yus (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Heh, the only reason I didn't object to the change in the banning policy was because it wasn't on my watchlist. :-) Editing is a privilege. People don't have the right to edit Wikipedia, and we talk about editing "privileges" all the time, not just as special permissions. I'm not sure why you think you know how people will read the policy - most editors never read it. All that said, I am big on consistency, so if there is a consensus on what language we should use, I agree the language should match.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think it's common sense that people are more likely to understand us if we say what we want to say directly in straightforward language, rather than use deliberately "lofty" words - or more to the point, words that are not obviously matched to their intended meanings. Your version may or may not be correctly understood (people may or may not interpret "editing privileges" as equivalent to "permission to edit" - either position might be reasonable). If its only claimed advantage is that the words it contains sound more impressive, then I don't think that can even begin to outweigh the disadvantage of potential incomprehensibility. Victor Yus (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't find it incomprehensible, and the reason for the dramatic language is banning is a dramatic step. I'm usually in favor of casual over formal, but in this instance the emphasis serves a purpose, namely to illustrate what a big deal it is.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that IP blocks won't do any good. A blocked user can trick Wikipedia into allowing them to edit and create an account. To prevent a user from editing, Wikipedia has to know who they are. To do this, it looks at their IP address. By changing thir IP address (either by unplugging their router and plugging it back in or via the network settings on their computer), Wikipedia will think that you are someone else and allow you to edit and create an account as if you were never blocked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.128.9 (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends. Some IPs are static and are used by the same person for years. As you say, some are dynamic and change every time you turn on your computer. If there is severe disruption coming from a dynamic IP range we are able to block the entire range. Until we are able to see through the interweb and actually know who is ont he other end that is the best we can do. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a point on range blocks, to effect one for a subscriber to my company you'd normally have to block all IP addresses commencing 8... Also, at least as far as my organisation is concerned, the vast majority of users are on dynamic. The Roman Candle (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Their utility varies. I can't speak for now but in the past I've seen IP blocks used to 1) block disruption from people who, frankly, couldn't figure out how to get a new IP address if you handed them instructions and, perhaps coincidentally, couldn't figure out that Wikipedia was a serious project not their personal play-toy, 2) Businesses or institutions engaged in POV- or COI- editing, 3) TOR exit notes and other known public proxies, 4) Institutions which had a high percentage of anonymous edits which were disruptive, and 5) probably a few situations that I can't remember off the top of my head. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

A dedicated troll with enough technical know-how shouldn't have too much trouble screwing with Wikipedia. Thankfully, the Edit Filter helps a great deal in stopping most of this, as it recognizes and stops behavior rather than IP addresses. Trolls spend a lot of time developing and maintaining personalities, because why troll if you can't be recognized? And that's the genius of the edit filter. Back "in the day", we used to have all sorts of trouble playing whack-a-mole with guys like Willy on Wheels and Haggar/Jaraxle. No more, the edit filter shuts them down fast. Now, if someone edited Wikipedia from a variety of IP addresses over a variety of devices and spread over a wide geography, varied their tactics and never vandalized/trolled the same way twice, so were entirely unrecognizable as the same person from one day to the next, there's not a darned thing we can really do about that. Perhaps some of our vandalism does come from people like that, but we'd never know. Thankfully, as noted, the psychology of trolls is fairly amenable to being shut down by the Edit Filter, so IP blocks don't have to bear that brunt anymore, and we can focus on using those for shutting down bored middle schoollers and stuff like that. --Jayron32 05:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I hope you're right. There are ways around the edit filter. Forbidden words can be misspelled or spaces can be placed between the letters and the edit filter will let them through. Also, putting the code <!-- at the top of a page will blank the page without triggering the edit filter. The smarter vandal hunters get, the smarter vandals get themselves. Some vandals have found ways around blocks, around the edit filter, have guessed admins' passwords and have even tricked Wikipedia into vandalizing itself. You never know when, where, or how a vandal may strike so smart admins like to keep a lookout for that stuff. 2001:5B0:28FF:EF0:0:0:0:3D (talk) 01:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblocks can be used for many IP hoppers, especially for IPv6. Guessing admin passwords hasn't ever happened, as far as I know... and in any case, it is not productive to continue this discussion per WP:BEANS, in my opinion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I read beans but how does it relate to this discussion? 2001:5B0:28FF:EF0:0:0:0:3E (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've evaded close to 20 bans on 4chan using this method. That's how I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:28FF:1EF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:NAS/B has links to templates to use on blocked user talk pages, but there are no such links on this policy page. Is strikes me as useful to provide such links, and {{blocked user}}, under Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Implementing_blocks. (I boldly added them but was reverted.) – Fayenatic London 15:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Kevin reverted first because the notice is not required. You then changed it to be optional. I then reverted partly for structural reasons as the subsection you added applied to all blocks, not just indefinite blocks, and yet the notice involves only indefinite blocks. However, that could be remedied, but another part of my revert was whether we need this in the policy at all. As I understand it from your edit summary, you put it in there for the benefit of other admins as you apparently had problems finding it. I sympathize as I too sometimes have trouble finding certain templates - so much information on Wikipedia. That said, I'd like to know how many admins use the notice. I don't, but I don't know how typical I am. Generally, I tag a user's page only if it's a socking issue, not for a "normal" indef. If very few admins use it, it doesn't strike me as very useful to add it to the policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe some kind of infobox/summary thing? My objection really is to anything that makes it sound like a block was somehow shady if these weren't done. As Bbb23, the "blocked user" template seems only to be used for indefinitely blocked accounts. I only used the "blocked" templates when I think there's a real chance that the user doesn't understand the reason for his block and I need a venue to place a larger and more elaborate explanation.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Can an IP address changed? After they been blocked what happens to the Service provider 174.95.44.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Using Snuggle, I keep finding editors who only have two or three edits, all of which are vandalism. What is the minimum number of edits before a user can be reported as a vandalism-only account? Andrew³²⁷ 21:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No set number. It's "feel" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's what I suspected. Andrew³²⁷ 00:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If I delete a G10 page, I final warn the creator. The next unconstructive edit is there last. It's a judgement call, valued on the level of disruption and potential for harm. I've seen admins block after the second or third egregious, no-doubt-about-it-that-wasn't-a-test edit. Dlohcierekim 22:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

IP addresses should never be blocked forever, because most IP addresses change often. My IP address just changed by disconnecting my router, and this is easy to do. Furthermore, the list of banned users is glorying there existence. IP addresses can also be spoofed, hid by proxy, and can never identify the user. Also, banning is generally impossible. What's stopping them from going elsewhere? Or getting a new IP address? Range block may help, however my ISP has multiple ranges and even shares a range via another one. --209.188.61.226 (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal ethics? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that there are obsessive, deranged people out there who simply cannot accept that they have a personality that is incompatible with a project like this. There is no 100% guaranteed way to keep them away, but we try, hoping that at some point these disruptive persons will realize they are accomplishing nothing but making a nuisance of themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the original point. I would never indef-block an IP. I can see something like a five-year block for an IP that persistently produces nothing but vandalism, even after having been blocked for, say, a year or two, but I would never endorse a longer block than that on an IP. bd2412 T 15:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This applies to a case where a third party screen-scraped Craigslist, and Craigslist sent them a cease-and-desist order AND blocked the IP addresses used by the third party. The third party evaded the block. The judge held that this was a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a United States federal law dating to 1986.

Although it's extremely unlikely that the Wikimedia office would use the CFAA to enforce bans in all but the most extreme cases (e.g. a denial-of-service attack, attempt to access non-public information, etc.), it looks like at least one judge has said that this is a legitimate enforcement mechanism.

References:

• Kerr, Orin (August 18, 2013 7:40 pm). "District Court Holds That Intentionally Circumventing IP Address Ban Is "Access Without Authorization" Under the CFAA". Retrieved August 18, 2013. In an earlier decision, Judge Breyer had indicated that that violating the Craiglist's Terms of Service did not trigger a CFAA violation. See Craigslist Inc. v. 3Taps Inc. — F.Supp.2d —-, 2013 WL 1819999 (N.D.Cal. April 30, 2013). In the new opinion issued on Friday, however, Breyer ruled that the same was not true with 3taps's circumventing the IP address block. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
• Bryer, Charles R. (August 16, 2013). "IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, CRAIGSLIST INC., v. 3TAPS INC. ET AL., No. CV 12-03816 CRB ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS CAUSES OF ACTION 13 AND 14 IN PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT" (PDF). Retrieved August 19, 2013. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 3Taps' renewed motion to dismiss the CFAA claim and the § 502 claim.

davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is a useful piece of information to hold in our vest pocket, just in case the need to point to it comes up. bd2412 T 15:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Admins need to have a chat with Wikipedia Staff concerning TOR use. It would appear, from a recent news article that wikipedia is encouraging tor use. "Until HTTPS is enabled by default, we urge privacy-conscious users to use HTTPS Everywhere or Tor". At the same time: TOR users are blocked from editing. Even when they sign in with a real account. There is an appeals process, in which exceptions are granted, RARELY. I speak not just for myself, as i believe i could be granted an exemption, but on the larger issue. --Paulmd199 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I for one have indeed "spoken with" WMF tech staff about this (including on the Wikitech-L mailing list), and explained exactly why English Wikipedia is in no position to unblock Tor. (Incidentally, it's not just our project that does so.) Basically, when there is bleedthrough or the node hasn't already been blocked by a bot, we invariably see spam and vandalism and almost no useful edits; I'd put the ratio at 95-98% unhelpful edits. We also generally hardblock other open proxies, and even closed proxies that have been associated exclusively with spam/vandalism. Users from certain geographic regions, who have significant difficulty in accessing English Wikipedia through non-proxy/Tor means, and certain bots hosted on closed proxies, can be granted IP block exemption (IPBE). Risker (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The vast majority of people that use Wikipedia are readers rather than editors, and in that case, Tor works fantastically as a privacy solution; there are no restrictions whatsoever on using Tor to read any Wikimedia website. If the readership is what the WMF is primarily concerned with when they decided to switch over to HTTPS (which I assume it is), then their recommendation to use Tor makes perfect sense to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Bot use by blocked users demonstrated that it's very easy for blocked editors to make edits via bots while blocked, even as a good-faith mistake. Although such edits are unlikely to harm content (because the bot controls the edit), there is at least some case that such edits lie somewhere on the spectrum between less-than-desirable and block evasion. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Question about bot access by blocked editors sounds to me like a technical solution is sufficiently difficult that it is unlikely to happen. So I've been trying to think of a constructive solution that is workable.

How about including a constructive, educational statement in the block notices given to blocked editors? Maybe adding a sentence to the standard templates, saying something like "You are not permitted to make edits using bots or other automated tools during your block." (Maybe, however, there are WP:BEANS issues, I'm not sure.) I'm thinking about this less in terms of a gotcha than in terms of helping blocked users who will come back have an improved likelihood of not making a mistake during a block. Thoughts?--Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently blocked a user and noted when issuing it that it was not done solely on my own authority but rather as the result of a community discussion, and further added that a review discussion would be the appropriate way to get it lifted. Several users have suggested that there is no such thing as a community imposed block and no validity to the requirement that the community be the reviewing body. While I am quite certain that community review of blocks is something I have seen many, many times I don't think there is any sort of hard-and-fast rule about when and if they are required when considering unblocking as they are when considering lifting a community imposed ban.

My take on the situation is that I don't really think any admin should be unilaterally undoing any action that is the demonstrable result of a consensus-based process. To do so would be to substitute one's own judgement for the community's expressed will in the matter. If an admin undeleted an article that was deleted via AFD because they personally believed it should be restored regardless it would seem obvious that that admin acted incorrectly, but it seems that may not apply to blocks in the opinion of some users who feel I have overstepped the bounds of administrative discretion by attempting to make a community discussion a requirement for lifting a block that came out of a previous discussion.

Thoughts?

(and could we please make this a general discussion of this issue and not a review of the specific block, thanks) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• I would agree that no admin should do so unilaterally, unless additional information of some sort is presented which wasn't available to the blocking admin. However, I do think that, in at least some cases, it might be possible to lift such a block, such as perhaps the blocking admin wishing to keep the blocked party from revealing the blocking admin's secret plans to assassinate Jimbo and take over or something ridiculous like that. I don't expect to see that sort of thing very often though. Also, in some cases, like if the admin is retired or inactive and a later discussion changes the outcome, I could see it then. And I guess in some cases I could see a block being lifted to allow an editor to address some issue with which they are involved on some other page, although, honestly, they could do that from their user talk page. In general, though, if there has been community discussion which has seemed to give a fairly clearcut result which the blocking admin is acting on, and no further information is presented later, or information relevant to some other discussion from the blocked party is requested for some reason, I can't see it really making sense for some other admin to unilaterally, without consultation on a noticeboard or with the blocking admin if that person is available, lift the block. John Carter (talk) 00:59, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• As mentioned in the other discussion, I think there are two distinct issues. An admin should not ordinarily Overturn a block imposed as the result of community consensus. I would consider that distinct from just unblocking, overturning a block would be to reverse it from the position that it should not have been done in the first place. That the block was the result of consensus should not stop an admin from exercising normal discretion in reviewing, and potentially granting, unblock requests, based on the contents of the request. For instance, if I'm blocked with a consensus that my editing at a particular topic is clearly unacceptable, it may be reasonable for an admin to grant an unblock request if it includes a topic ban on the topic. To make an analogy to AfD, I should not overturn the deletion close of another admin at AfD just because I disagree, there is WP:DRV for that. But, I can write a new article on the same topic, if I can fully address the reasons why the previous version was deleted, and I don't need to go to DRV for permission. Monty₈₄₅ 03:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding unilaterally undoing a block that was the result of a community consensus: I would view this similar to userfying or undeleting a page deleted through AFD: By default, don't do it without a community process similar to DRV. BUT just as it's okay to unilaterally restore or userfy an article deleted for non-notability if the subject becomes clearly notable, it would be okay for an admin to unblock an editor if it was crystal-clear that the reasons that were brought up during the discussion that led to the block are no longer relevant. I would urge any admin who unblocks an editor without a review to make sure there are not other issues in this editor's history that were not discussed in the blocking-discussion that may be relevant. Bottom line: If the unblocking action would be potentially controversial, don't do it without community input or at the very least a second opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:04, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I do a lot of AFC work and there are some editors who get blocked for POV-pushing, etc. once an article makes it into mainspace, but they are not causing problems elsewhere in the project.

While an article-specific "narrow topic ban" enforced with an article-specific block would be best that might be too hard to enforce.

Having a "noautoconfirmed" user-right or block-type that would reduce the user-rights to those of newly-created accounts would be helpful in these cases and it would probably be much easier to code and possibly strain on the server than the article-specific block described above.

Thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Noautoconfirmed" means that the editor has the same project-wide abilities as an unregistered/IP user and a user who has not yet reached the 10 edit/4 days autoconfirmed mark. In other words, it is not a restriction except on individual pages that also restrict all IPs and non-autoconfirmed editors. This is not a reasonable method of restricting an editor. It would require that the "narrow topic ban" article be semi-protected (or possibly being put on pending changes), potentially losing valid edits from others, but also prevents the user from editing any other semi-protected page. Thus this proposed method of restricting the editor would have a much greater impact. Risker (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Clarification Yes, this would only work if the page would be under either pending changes or semi-protection while the editor was blocked or where the editor's behavior involved creating or moving pages that new editors can't create or move. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you should carefully re-read Risker's comment. She was not asking a question, she was explaining why this is not a very good idea. Blocking prevents all potential for disruption outside the users' own talk page until such time as the blocks expires or the user wishes up and submits a reasonable unblock request. It's simple and, unlike this idea, does not impact any other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to ask some detailed questions about what the community thinks is proper, and what is not proper, for a blocked editor to do with access to their own user talk page, with respect to the intent of WP:EVADE. I'm going to link to this discussion at WP:AN, and WP:Village pump (policy). I came to become concerned about these questions based upon what is going on at a specific editor's talk page, but I do not want to discuss any specific individual here. Rather, this is an attempt to pin down what the community consensus is.

Is it acceptable for a blocked editor who still has talk page access to edit their own user talk page to:

1. request review or reversal of their block?
2. respond to comments from other users to them on their own user talk?
3. leave comments, hoping other editors will see them and act on them, to fix simple things that are entirely non-controversial, such as correcting typos or reverting obvious vandalism?
4. leave comments, hoping other editors will see them and act on them, to fix things that are related to urgent matters, such as violations of WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO?
5. initiate bot edits (further information at WT:BAG#Question about bot access by blocked editors)?
6. leave comments, hoping other editors will see them and act on them, to fix things that involve some amount of editorial judgment, but which appear to improve Wikipedia?
7. leave comments, hoping other editors will see them and act on them, to fix things that are unrelated to the reason for the block, but which involve some sort of potential content dispute?
8. leave comments, hoping other editors will see them and act on them, to fix things that are related to the reason for the block, and which involve some sort of potential content dispute?
9. leave comments criticizing other editors with whom they disagree?
10. for an editor who is topic banned, but who is not blocked, to leave comments on their user talk encouraging other editors to make particular edits in the topic where they are banned?

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Here is my own take on it. I think that it's a no-brainer that 1 and 2 are perfectly fine. Number 1 is really the principal rationale for allowing talk page access. Likewise, I think it's a no-brainer that 8, 9, and 10 are inappropriate, and may sometimes be reasons to revoke talk page access and/or extend block duration. I would argue that 3 and 4 should also be considered perfectly OK, because they are a net improvement to Wikipedia. I think 5, 6, and 7 fall in a gray area, where there begins to be some issue of WP:EVADE (as in blocked means blocked), but it also has to be balanced against the extent to which the actions might benefit Wikipedia. Although 5 and 6 are often things that improve content, it also gets difficult to draw a line between what is and what is not subversion of the intent of the block, perhaps opening the door to gaming the system. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• This probably is a conversation worth having, but I would most certainly not like to see any sort fo hard-and-fast rules on when to revoke talk page access. I do largly agree with your perspective on the individual points, and I wouldn't mind if the grey areas were slightly less grey, but not black or white. In other words, this is why we have admins instead of block-bots. Someone might be deliberately pushing the bounds fo reasonable behavior with one of those behaviors, or maybe they just didn't think it through. So there may be more than one reasobnable response in between ignoring it and immediately revoking the talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, hard and fast rules are going to be hard to come by here. For non egregious conduct, it is usually going to be a chain of edits to the talk page, not a single one, that will lead to revocation. Then its as much how the editor is responding to the feedback directing them to cut out some behavior, as it is the behavior itself. Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is what I think should be the case if I were making the rules up:

1-4 yes

5, only edits which either that person could make or which are effectively a null edit or purge AND which have no undesirable side-effects such as stressing out the servers.

6, provided they are in no way related to the block, "broadly interpreted"

7, provided they are in no way related to the block, "broadly interpreted". This means if the block was related to content disputes or the handling of content disputes, then no, unless the blocking admin or an admin aware of the block permits it.

8, no, unless the blocking admin or an admin aware of the block permits it.

9, only if the blocking wasn't related to such behavior or the blocking admin or an admin aware of the block permits it. In either case, the criticism cannot be something that would not result in a non-blocked editor being warned or blocked.

10, no, unless the blocking admin or an admin aware of the block permits it. In the case where the ban was imposed after a discussion and the topic-ban imposed did not specifically allow for it, a discussion with the power to overturn or modify the topic ban would be required.

Given that I can't make up rules on my own, I think the current de facto rules for blocked- and topic-banned editors for the type of behavior that I would not permit is "unless it's over-the-top abuse of the user-talk-page privilage, or the editor is clearly interested only in harming Wikipedia, warn the editor several times, and get at least two admins involved before revoking talk page access."

Remember, if you pull the plug too fast on someone without leaving them an outlet, you increase the chance they will just come back later under another account. If you give them an outlet, you can allow them time to cool down and maybe find another hobby. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

On the whole, Trypto, I'm pretty much in the same ballpark with you. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• 7, 8, and 10 seem to be violations of WP:MEAT. 9 is not allowed per NPA. 4-6 should be a judgement call by an uninvolved editor on whether to carry out the request. 1-3 are ok most of the time. KonveyorBelt 00:54, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Criticizing another editor is not necessarily a personal attack. The blocking admin was too hasty in blocking me is a criticism of the blocking admin, and while probably isn't the most helpful comment, certainly doesn't justify revocation of talk page access. Monty₈₄₅ 03:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• My opinion: 1-4: all fine. 5: fine for non-controversial things they don't really have control over (like citation bot, as was mentioned). 6-7: providing they're asking established editors in good standing, fine (and if the edits are bad, it's the editor's fault who implemented them). 8: not unless specifically allowed. 9: we have civility and NPA rules, defer to those regardless of whether they're blocked. 10: not unless specifically allowed. Pretty close to what's been said already, I think. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, everyone who has commented so far. I'm very impressed with how many of you responded already, and how thoughtfully! At this point (still potentially early in the discussion), it seems to me that, so far, we all are pretty much in the same area of agreement, in that there is a gray area in the middle, where it is important to use discretion, based on the individual circumstances. And I find very helpful the observations that it depends a lot on the difference between an isolated edit, versus repeated conduct defying feedback given in the interim. Where I think it gets tricky to navigate is where the blocked editor is repeatedly acting in the gray area, getting some feedback that they are getting close to the line and need to be careful, and responding that all they are doing is improving Wikipedia, not making disruption. They may have some other editors who are happy to carry out their editing requests, and the edits are, on their face, constructive, but nonetheless advancing one "side" in an editing dispute. I think there can come a point where it is verging into WP:EVADE, and yet still no single edit is anything other than constructive. No one editor who actually makes the edits is making so many such edits that WP:CANVASS or WP:MEAT really seems worth invoking against them, and yet the officially blocked editor is exerting a significant amount of influence, always justifying it by asserting that everything is improving content. How should we (non-admins as well as admins) navigate something like that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• As a user who's been both blocked and topic banned (full disclosure!), I feel I should weigh in on this. In my view, you are conflating the two. As WP:EVADE basically states, there is no such thing as "block evasion" except for WP:SOCK (and WP:MEAT). This makes sense, since blocking is merely a technical measure and does not place any further restrictions on editing than the block itself whatsoever. However, if the original reason for a block is in fact valid (which it isn't always - administrators are human too, you know), it's very likely that it continues to be valid if the editing dispute is essentially continued at the blocked user's talk page. In short, from a strict point of view, I agree only with 5 and 10 being unacceptable, but I also agree with 8 - and 6 and 7 in certain cases - basically being such from the point of view of further blocking. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a very interesting and helpful perspective. I'm struck in particular by the perception that "there is no such thing as "block evasion" except for WP:SOCK (and WP:MEAT)." I wonder whether the fact that WP:EVADE can be construed that way leaves too much as a matter of the blocked editor's discretion, in a way that makes the MEAT part of it difficult to control because of ways that talk page access can be used. Is it really the spirit of blocking, as distinguished – rigorously! – from banning, that as long as the blocked editor can technically still do something while blocked, it's OK for that editor to do that? I think most of us would say no, at least not across the board. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

AFAIK, WP:MEAT is usually applied to new users only. Thus, in my opinion, there is a relatively clear dividing line.

As a bit of a digression, I noticed that you are of the view that 9 is inappropriate. I strongly disagree - in my view, 9 never falls under WP:EVADE, completely separate blocking that a non-blocked editor would be subject to in an identical situation notwithstanding. I'm also uncertain as to why you're unsure about 5 - it seems like a crystal-clear WP:SOCK case to me.

As a final note, WP:EVADE doesn't explicitly state the same things I did. However, my interpretation primarily stems from this: "unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" - I have difficulty coming up with a scenario in which this wouldn't be the case for constructive changes. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks. I intentionally wrote 9 in a broad way, to see what other editors think. As others who have responded here have said, it comes down a lot to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and I agree with that. Clearly, there's nothing wrong with "I think the admin who blocked me made a bad mistake, because of..." On the other hand, I question whether talk page access should remain for someone who repeatedly uses their talk page to make NPA violations against other editors, but I agree that that is covered by NPA without needing to have EVADE cover it separately. As for 5, my own gut feeling is the same as yours. However, when I had earlier discussions about it at WT:BAG and elsewhere, I got an earful to the effect that bots are designed to only make good, noncontroversial edits, and therefore, initiating a bot edit can never be disruptive. So I remain interested in how other editors see the issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Here is a trivial way to trick a bot into being disruptive: Add a fake inter-language interwiki. A bot will come along and replace it with an update in WikiData. Even assuming that bot doesn't touch user pages and user talk pages, the question of "can I trick a bot into doing something disruptive" is definately "yes." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

But you couldn't do that if you were blocked, and it would be obvious it was your fault if you did it while unblocked (or evading). Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

That's right, good point. But it is possible to do what I describe just below while blocked. I actually became aware of all the issues I've raised here because I saw just such a bot edit by a blocked editor. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Another way that I know of is to enter someone else's user name when initiating the bot edit. That got a lot of discussion following the questions that I asked about Citation Bot. Imagine if someone is topic banned, and someone else who wants to get them in trouble enters the topic-banned user's name in a bot edit of a page where the ban applies, and then takes the person to a noticeboard claiming ban evasion. The folks at BAG made it very clear to me that they consider it a waste of their time and effort to design bots so that user names could be verified; my own opinion is that the community may come to want to require them to do it anyway. Anyway, for purposes of the discussion here, I think that it is becoming evident that bot edits initiated by a blocked user can frequently be benign, because bots are usually designed to only make benign edits, but that there are still some circumstances where judgment needs to be applied about whether a blocked user is making mischief via bots. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the best "fix" for this is to not ask for a username anymore, since it doesn't really add any value to have it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted this change twice now. I know the people that are making it are well intentioned, but the next step on this logic is going to be that when someone bulk-reverts a banned or blocked editor, the reverter is responsible for checking each edit and preserving typographical fixes. No. The edits of a banned or blocked editor aren't worth that amount of attention. Certainly, typographical fixes can be retained, but there's no expectation that anyone will take the time to preserve such changes.—Kww(talk) 13:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation. Much broader consensus is necessary to make this change. — Scott • talk 13:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Broader consensus may well be needed, but IMO it should be obtained and the change made. The reverter should be responsible for assessing the quality of edits being removed. Indeed I would favor an addition "While such edits may be reverted, they generally should not be unless they are unhelpful or are part of a pattern of unhelpful edits." Asses the edit, not the editor. DES ^(talk) 14:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That would directly contradict WP:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, both in letter and spirit.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And, as an aside, being made by a block editor directly leads to the conclusion that they are "part of a pattern of unhelpful edits". Otherwise, it's unlikely the editor would be blocked in the first place.—Kww(talk) 14:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it would, and I think that should be changed. I agree it would require a clear consensus. As to your second point, that is simply inaccurate. Many banned editors make both highly disruptive and unhelpful edits as well as many helpful edits. Indeed many editors who have previously be noted contributors have been banned for a particular instance or pattern of misconduct which is far from involving all that user's edits. I for one think we are far too quick to throw out the baby with the bathwater in such cases. DES ^(talk) 16:12, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

A real-life dispute has spilled over to Wikipedia on this page, which led to a block of the company owner, User:Arri416 for personal attacks and harassment. user:Biosthmors accepted an offer from the company to edit the article for pay. If a blocked user pays another editor to keep editing, is that block evasion? The offer was accepted just before the user was blocked and I cannot confirm if Bio is editing under the instruction of the blocked user. CorporateM (Talk) 22:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether it's evasion or not to make an offer before the block is in place isn't relevant: If the payee edits on behalf of the payer and is later informed that the payer is blocked, then he must cease all such editing or he is knowingly participating in block evasion. Ironically, the blocked party may not knowingly be participating if he hasn't had an opportunity to tell the payee "nevermind." Best course of action: Notify both parties and base any sanctions on behavior made after the notification was received (User talk-page notifications are presumed to be received at the next login). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I do not act under the instruction of anyone. My edits are my own. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO, if he is not acting under the instruction or influence of the blocked user, that is not block evasion. OTOH, it is difficult to believe that one editor being paid by another is not in communication with the sponsor whereby the sponsor is providing direction. CorporateM (Talk) 01:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

previous discussion —rybec 17:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

wp:agf, anyone? am i editing wikipedia, or am i on the wrong website? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This policy covers blocking and unblocking. The nutshell only refers to blocking, omitting unblocking. The ending "to protect Wikipedia from disruption" nearly encapsulates our unblocking policy, as it almost implies that the unblocks may occur if the disruptive force is no longer present. I am wondering if a minor reword, or another short phrase tacked on could allow the nutshell to more clearly give hope & direction to blocked users. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

How about

This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked for a time from editing to protect Wikipedia from disruption.

NE Ent 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing "by an administrator" is good, as that is a technical limitation, and not something policy can influence. "for a time" is a bit vague, but I like that train of thought. Also thinking out loud...

This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked from editing [for as long] as required to protect Wikipedia from disruption.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: You undid NE Ent's change, saying you disagreed with it. That change was from:

User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked from editing by an administrator to protect Wikipedia from disruption.

to:

User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked for a time from editing to protect Wikipedia from disruption.

I don't understand what you disagree with. Is it "for a time"? Surely it can't be "by an administrator", because those three words are redundant, as pointed out above. Please explain - thanks. — Scott • talk 10:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You're right, Scott, it's not so much the "by an administrator" but the "for a time". It sounds vague and casual, and I don't see the necessity for the change. Apparently, the motive is to "give hope" to the blocked user. The issue of how long a user is blocked and whether they should be unblocked is covered in the body of the policy, and the nutshell doesn't need to interpolate a phrase that supposedly implies that the block may not be infinite (the usual issue of indefinite vs. infinite when a user is blocked indefinitely). In addition, I prefer to leave in the phrase "by an administrator". It may be unnecessary to experienced users but not necessarily to newbies.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed "by an administrator" again, as blocks can be made by stewards (or anyone else able to do global blocks) and automatically by software (TOR blocks).

Infinite blocks are not in the spirit of this policy, except for rare situations. Somehow that concept needs to be captured in the nutshell. Think of a university IT bod who has been asked by a lecturer to permit Wikipedia editing access when we have blocked their IP. The nutshell should let them know they have found the right page to determine whether the block can be lifted. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked from editing while necessary to protect Wikipedia from disruption.

?NE Ent 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I like that; how about "for such time as is necessary"? Or is that too wordy? — Scott • talk 11:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I like the use of 'necessary' instead of 'required' (thanks NE Ent), but '.. from editing while ..' doesnt sit right with me - the meaning is fine, but that sequence of words feels wrong. I can't put my finger on why. 'for such time' is a bit dated, and is unnecessary (;)). I dont think length is something we need to be worried about, as this is still one of the shorter nutshells around. To throw in a very different arrangement:

This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses that are the source of inappropriate contributions will be blocked from editing when necessary to limit disruption to Wikipedia. A block may be lifted when it is no longer needed to prevent recurrences.

I have used 'limit disruption', as a block does not stop (prevent) someone who is determined, and often doesnt stop even the technically challenged who happen to create multiple accounts without intending to sock, or are given new IP addresses. That said, I dont think 'limit' is the best word. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, "for such time" does sound like something you'd read in a Victorian court judgement. Scrub that. "Limit" is pretty pessimistic :) I think "prevent disruption" is fine; to me, the word "some" is implied. Disruption may be inevitable but we don't have to explicitly say so in the nutshell, which is what "limit" does, in my reading. — Scott • talk 12:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting to be one very large nut.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Shun the passive voice! E. B. White, and Less is more

This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked from editing when necessary to limit disruption. A block may be lifted when it is no longer needed.

NE Ent 23:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC) NE Ent 12:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, the longer version I proposed is still shorter than most of the other nutshells. See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Nutshell. @NE Ent:, there is a word missing in "that make contribute". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I think the current nutshell is fine; none of the above appear to be superior. The main thrust of this page is blocking; unblocking is only one of many aspects of this blocking policy - and isn't a necessary component of a block. Plus, if we're going to add all the little pieces to the nutshell, what about block duration, block reasons, types of blocks, where would it end?

"This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses that are the source of inappropriate contributions will be blocked from editing when necessary to limit disruption to Wikipedia. A block may be lifted when it is no longer needed to prevent recurrences. Blocks can be long or short; for vandalism or spam (not spamalot, for ye Monty Python fans, even if you're blocked with spam. Blocks can be orange, blocks can be blue, I do not like being blocked Sam I Am, please give me those green eggs and ham!" Yes, I like that nutshell, covers a lot.  :)

Honestly, I don't think we need to explain in the nutshell that the blocked can also be unblocked, it's really just common sense. Well, ok, ya got me there, this IS Wikipedia.... :-D Dreadstar ☥ 08:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Forget Wikipedia, in real life there are many irreversible processes. Death comes to mind. In fact the entire universe is progressing irreversibly per the Second law of thermodynamics, so assuming unblocking is obvious isn't common sense at all. NE Ent 12:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a core policy. Editors should stop changing the nutshell unless there is a clear and broad consensus for the change. There isn't.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Tweaking the wording of the nutshell is not changing the policy at all, and the policy on that is clear: "Policies and guidelines can be edited like any other Wikipedia page. It is not strictly necessary to discuss changes or to obtain written documentation of a consensus in advance." . NE Ent 13:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Now there's a misleading quote. How about the rest of it? "However, because policies and guidelines are sensitive and complex, users should take care over any edits, to be sure they are faithfully reflecting the community's view and to be sure that they are not accidentally introducing new sources of error or confusion." and "Talk page discussion typically precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change." Meh.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this message is sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion on the Village Pump located at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 112#RFC: Indefinitely blocked IP addresses which may affect this policy page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the background to this? Does anyone know of any instances where it happened?  Roger Davies ^talk 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

No, however, the only reasonable alternative would be a policy denying clean starts to previously-legitimately-blocked editors either altogether or by allowing only on petition to ARBCOM or some similar "high level" group empowered to "formally expunge" an editor's prior bad edit history. I think I prefer the current system, ARBCOM has enough on its plate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we consider today whether it would be appropriate to explicitly include in this policy, as a blockable type of threat, a threat to quit if the respected editor doesn't get what he wants (whether that's a particular change in an article, respect, reform to RFA, etc.).

I envision a simple uw-type system of warnings, and, if the threats persist after that, then escalating blocks from 24 or perhaps 48 hours up to one year. Going back to argue with other people after posting a resignation manifesto at ANI and the {{retired}} on your user talk page would normally be considered a block-after-first-warning situation, but usually you'd be given multiple opportunities to remove the threats. As usual, separate, widely spaced situations would be treated as if the first hadn't happened, so you could get a set of fake-retirement blocks over article content one year, and still only get a 24-hour block for threatening to quit over admins not handling CSD to your liking the next. Of course, if you remove the {{retired}} banner, strike the threat, or otherwise retract your resignation threat, it would be treated as if it hadn't happened.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: "I propose that we consider today" [emphasis added]: I think that if this is a joke, it's way too subtle, and if you are serious, it would be best to wait until the day after March 32nd just to make sure everyone realizes you are serious. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:28, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that we impose immediate blocks (no warnings) for May -29 jokes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose the addition of the following text in bold to the section Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption-only:

• Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting or attacking a person, company, product, service, or organization.

I have to declare a conflict of interest of my own: I am currently engaged in a dispute with such a user. – Smyth\^talk 12:25, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

[Moved to User talk:Bbb23] – Smyth\^talk 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've seen some new and newish editors out there with warnings, even a final warning for adding unsourced material. Has that now become a valid reason for a block, or is that shorthand for adding unsourced negative material? I remember the huge kerfuffle we had to implement BLPprod so that unsourced new BLPs were no longer accepted, but at the time the most we did to their creators was to remove the Autoreviewer flag, and in one case I think we even had to desysop an admin. I'm quite comfortable that we already have consensus for blocking people who persistently add unsourced negative material, especially if it is unsourceable, quite a few of the blocks I've dished out have been to G10 creators. But I didn't think we had consensus to block people who don't source their addition of uncontentious material, unless on inspection their edits shows them to be adding false information. Has consensus shifted on this? I note that Template:Uw-unsourced3 has been around for a while, but I can't find any discussion about it being changed to threatening a block, and even in the last year or so Template:Uw-unsourced4 has been added. Personally I can see a case for no longer allowing unsourced additions to the pedia, but if we were to do so I'd prefer we start with the editing interface rather than by warning and blocking people. ϢereSpielChequers 20:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone has been warned about adding unsourced material and consistently fails to do so, that's a form of disruptive editing.—Kww(talk) 01:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, of course not. NE Ent 03:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@KWW That's an interesting point, but that would equate doing what people are invited to do with doing what they shouldn't especially if as with these templates we go through the same number of levels of warning. If we were to treat adding unsourced information as "disruptive" then the threshold would need to be very much higher than for vandalism, and more importantly we would need to consistently instruct newbies that information they add to the pedia needs to be reliably sourced. ϢereSpielChequers 08:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

SO if I say Flip Flop on HGTV is phony and give examples,Its censored by somebody who doesn't say I'm wrong, NO,just that I don't cite somebody else who says the same thing??? That sounds like a great way to make Wiki just advertising for schlock like Flip and Flop. And HGTV has made headlines with shows that pretend to be real and are totally scripted and faked. Wiki needs to face facts..shows that scream and complain when people like me point out flaws are then made to be made out to be vandals as one of Wiki's favorite words is used is just manipulation. And really,who would complain about Flip and Flop critical facts other then those with a financial interest in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.116.55 (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Spectators of the editor war need to be blocked infinite (not derivatevly indefinite). Most spectators need to get Wikiholiday to prevent the block. User wars are derivately(you can't need to spectate). So in someblocking tortoises are very spectative(you need to place your bet before starting). √el? 3еЯ 15:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujhj (talk • contribs)

Hmm... what is a blocking policy mean? This goes to administrators' or bureaucrats' abilities. --Allen ^talk 05:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@AllenHAcNguyen: Blocks are issued and otherwise handled by administrators. —LucasThoms 11:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it possible for people to evade blocks simply by going to coffee shops or internet cafes? Some coffee shops allow use of the computer or Wifi hotspot for free and this is a possible method to evade blocks. I think we should also include this in the section "evasion of blocks". There should be a policy regarding this type of block evasion. Warrenkychu (talk) 01:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing special about the use of the Internet at coffee shops or Internet cafes except that they have their own IP address pools. A registered user who is blocked cannot log on to Wikipedia from any IP address, either his or her own ISP or a coffee shop. The use of IP addresses by blocked users, regardless of whether they are using their own ISP or at an Internet cafe, is considered a form of sockpuppetry for block evasion. IP hopping by unregistered editors is a problem for which there is no obvious solution, due to the nature of IP editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes an editor is blocked, and the blocking admin reasonably requests feedback at WP:ANI, and then, while there is still discussion, and no consensus has been reached, and there has not been even time to declare a formal "no consensus", another admin, not the blocking admin, unilaterally unblocks the blocked editor. This has happened twice recently, once within the past few days, and other times also. This sort of WP:IAR unblock is not encouraged by the blocking policy, but it isn't actually discouraged either. Should these unilateral out-of-process unblocks be discouraged? Should the policy be revised to discourage unilateral unblocks, or at least to state that they should only be used when there is an evolving WP:SNOW consensus that the block was incorrect? In both of the recent cases, this sort of unilateral unblock results in some editors stating cynically that the unblocked editors was one of the Unblockables or belongs to the right cabal. Isn't the purpose of the blocking admin requesting a review of the block to get the community to review the block, not just to provide other admins with a chance to unblock. Since blocks are said to be preventative rather than punitive, the discussion of any reblock takes place on a shifted playing field. Thoughts? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

In the third sentence of the Purpose and goals section, I suggest we change "[Blocks] are meted out not as retribution..." to "[Blocks] are used not as retribution...". I like a great vocabulary word as much at the next person, but for a general document intended for a wide audience, I suggest we stick with language that is universally understood and won't require a good fraction of readers to grab a dictionary. Jason Quinn (talk) 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a question about this change, which appears to say that admins may not "review" a block merely because it labeled "checkuser". I don't know anything about checkuser so maybe I just don't get it.... my question is, Before an admin concludes they lack the authority to do stuff, don't they have to at least review the stuff? If that is true, then this particular edit still needs some polishing. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is correct. As an admin, I can NOT review a {{checkuser}} labelled block, for the same reason a non-admin can't review a regular block. Reviewing a block implies you have 1. Looked at all the data relevant to the block, and 2. Considered the rationale in the request. The problem is, admin do not have access to the data and can't possibly view Checkuser data. If we decline a CU block, we are doing so blindly. Additionally, no one should ever decline an unblock where they lack the authority to accept an unblock. Admin can be desysopped for unblocking against a CU block. The big problem is that we have admin who will review CU blocks and decline them, when they shouldn't even be reviewing them, both from a lack of information and a lack of authority. The same holds true for an OS block. A CU that doesn't have OS bits shouldn't be reviewing an OS specific block. In short, if you don't have the bits to have MADE that block, you can't review it.

If I review and decline a CU or OS block, and me not having those bits, what I have done is grossly unfair to the editor as it was done without sufficient information or authority to properly review. Again, this is no different than a non-admin declining a standard block, something we don't allow. Dennis - 2¢ 14:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point and agree to an extent; however, in my opinion, this is too categorical. I believe an admin may decline an unblock when the appellant does not contest the basis for the block; for instance, a WP:NOTTHEM request or, even clearer, a request which only contained profanities. If the editor says "I'm not a sock", then, yes, let a CU take another look, but other than that I don't believe admins necessarily must refrain from declining an unblock request. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, but I think we need to have clearer explanation. If they were to say "Yes, that was me socking and I promise to never do it again" and I unblocked, I would expect a nasty letter from Arb with a reprimand. CU unblock requests are rare enough, that it still only seems "fair" if someone reviews that has the authority and full picture. Let's say an editor really is innocent but pissed because they are innocent, and admin keep declining their requests. We have raked that editor over the coals, taken away their talk page access, forced them into UTRS, all while they are innocent. And all while the people who did that had ZERO access to the data. I can see admin at certain times when they person is just stringing together profanities (a procedural decline, not a decline on the merits), but for anything that remotely looks like a valid request, then no, admin shouldn't be reviewing them. The fact is, CU make mistakes too, and by allowing admin to review, you are taking away the normal process of that CU's work being reviewed by a fellow CU. Once again, like having a non-admin review when they can't see RevDel'ed edits and deleted articles. If we added (in all but the most blatant cases) I could live with that, but admin reviewing CU/OS blocks should be the exception, not the rule. Dennis - 2¢ 16:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Salvio, to address the concerns, I removed the previous addition, and added this sentence instead: "Because admin don't have access to Checkuser data, admin should not review an unblock request or decline it unless the request is obviously in bad faith.". This allows review for obivous bad faith stuff, but an admin can't review to say "No, I believe the checkuser is right" since a non-CU can't possibly know. I've seen too much of that. Does this look better, stopping improper reviews while still allowing for reviewing bad faith requests? This would be consistent with the original intent of the policies, I think. Dennis - 2¢ 13:20, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Chiming in, looks to me like even the ignorant (e.g., myself) will understand this version better at first reading, because it explains that admins don't even have access to the data. I didn't know that until now. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

These things take refining, so I appreciate you raising the initial concern. Even when they are guilty, any CU has the authority to unblock them upon a promise they will stop socking, so we want to be fair to the editor when they make a good faith request, and make sure they are reviewed by someone authorized to do more than just decline. Dennis - 2¢ 13:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I've reverted your changes while this discussion is ongoing. I don't think there's a consensus, let alone a clear and strong consensus, for such a change. Personally, I think the added language is unnecessary as the current language is sufficient. I agree with Salvio that an administrator other than the CU may decline an unblock request.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As I understand the edit, no change in process is being proposed. Instead, an effort is being made to make the explanation of current practice more clear. If that is true, then both Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) are correct in that the current language is technically, repeat technically sufficient. But that doesn't mean it is 100% crystal-clear to any peon editor (e.g., myself) who, for the first time, gets interested in this minutiae. While I appreciate Bbb23's efforts to combat WP:CREEP, in my opinion the true benchmark lies in the field of Usability testing. So far, I'm the only one claiming prior ignorance about Checkuser to chime in. If the world made sense, edits for clear explanatory writing would be evaluated not because the status quo is comfortable, but because the newcomers find the writing to be a better presentation of actual practice, like Dennis' edit would be here. So I applaud the effort to tune up the status quo phrasing so that the status quo practice is instantly understood by blank slates like myself at first pass. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You've made this kind of argument before. Although facially sympathetic, it has significant problems. Let's assume that we change the language so you understand it, and along comes another editor who knows even less than you do about some particular topic and wants the language changed so that they understand it. It's a downward spiral and makes policy way too wordy. That's why we have wikilinks pointing you to other pages that hopefully fill in the blanks. Just as an aside, Dennis speaking in shorthand. It's not that admins don't have access to CU date, it's that non-CU admins don't have access. CUs are admins.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I would hope people would understand the differentiation without having to spell out "admins without CU access" and "CUs who are also admins". This rule isn't really for non-admin, it is really being spelled out for admin, so they they their limitations when dealing with CU blocks. We've had way too many reviews that were improper. Well meaning, but improper. Dennis - 2¢ 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis, the rule should be written for anyone affected. That includes regular editors who - for whatever reason - suddenly have reason to care about a checkuser block. Don't just write for super-users. Write for anyone and everyone who wants to understand this process, even driveby IPs.

@Bbb23, seems to me you have needlessly taken a swipe at my love of Usability testing ("you've made these arguments before") to blindly defend your love of the seemingly "good enough" status quo and disregard of the power of Usability testing. For the project to stay relevant it has to stay fresh. That means setting aside your prejudices and my prejudices, and instead seek the most concise and effective phrasing for every page. One of the most powerful tools is Usability testing. To those who "get" this, blank-slate editors are a precious resource. Heed their feedback and grow an enthusiastic following. Ignore it, and become increasingly irrelevant until you perish. Gee, whaddya know? Wikipedia is bleeding editors. Up to you, B... you can put me down for making such arguments, or try to understand the wisdom that provides their foundation. Up to you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the modification, Dennis; I like your new version better than the other one, but it's still not the wording I'd prefer. I admit I don't really have a formulation to propose, but, in my opinion, the policy should emphasise that non-CU admins ought to exercise particular caution when dealing with unblock requests for CU-blocked editors. If the blocked editor says "I didn't do it", then by all means, leave it to a CU, who can run a second check and make sure that his colleague did not mess up. But if, for instance, an editor has already appealed his block twice and two different CUs have confirmed the results of the first, then there is no need to wait for yet another CU. So, my proposal would probably be something along the lines of: admins, please exercise your best judgement when dealing with CU-blocks and generally try to err on the side of caution, especially when the blocked editor is protesting his innocence. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"Non-Checkusers generally should not review (decline or accept) Checkuser tagged blocks that require access to Checkuser data. For instance, when the editor is professing innocence or is questioning the validity of the technical findings in any way. Admin should limit reviews to those requests that are made in bad faith, are more procedural in nature, or requests that are off topic."

That would cover "This is bullshit" requests, as well as a broad array of obvious cases where it is ok for an admin to decline: procedural stuff. The key is that admin shouldn't be reviewing technical blocks without access to technical data. Common sense says this, but it happens. It is also just vague enough to allow wiggle room for the rare times when an admin has talked with CU (not uncommon at SPI) and has enough evidence to make the call. It does stop the "no, I trust the CU over you" declines, which are improper and unfair to the editor. Dennis - 2¢ 16:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, is that a proposed addition or are you proposing that some of the current language be replaced as well?--Bbb23 (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This would just be added to the current section, just to make it clear that admin shouldn't be reviewing (and declining) certain types of blocks where it is impossible for them to have the data necessary to make a proper determination. I think through bouncing back and forth here, in what I admit has been very constructive discussion, the last proposal accomplishes this, without being too restrictive. If there aren't objections further objections, I would like to add it in soon. It really isn't a change in policy, it is a clarification of what policy is supposed to be. Dennis - 2¢ 16:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I like this proposal! Thanks again, Dennis. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I like it better than the first one as well. I think it balances the rights of the accused, while not hamstringing admin when reviewing blocks that ARE ok for them to review. Dennis - 2¢ 16:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I gotta understand it too! What the devil is a "non-checkuser"???? (( I )) don't have that userright. Do you mean ((me))?? Of course not. You mean - and should say - "Admins who lack checkuser rights should not....." That would be more clear to checkuser newbies like myself, without injecting any fatal wordiness. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's even more clear and 10 words shorter to say "Because admins who lack checkuser rights have no access to checkuser data, they should neither decline nor accept review requests that logically require access to such data. Such admins should limit their review of checkuser blocks to off-topic requests and those that rest on claims of bad faith or procedural error." NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I object to the proposed change. I think it's unnecessary and, to some extent, contradictory as an addition. If there were a clear, broad consensus for the change and I was therefore compelled to accept it, I would (1) tweak it for stylistic and other reasons and (2) suggest putting it in as a footnote.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

To move things along here, although I remain opposed to the change, here is the language I would propose to the footnote if "compelled":

Non-Checkusers should not review Checkuser blocks that require access to Checkuser data, e.g., when an editor is professing innocence or is questioning the validity of the technical findings in any way. Administrators may still decline unblock requests that are made in bad faith, are more procedural in nature, or are off topic.

--Bbb23 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• That is more or less what I just said above, so sure, add it. I don't care about owning the verbage, I just want it clear, and I maintain that policy already implies this in a strong way. The goal is to make it clear that admin can't decline a CU review on the merits because they lack the authority to accept one. Every blocked editor has the right to have at least one review by someone who has access to the data. This is why we don't let non-admin review blocks: they can't see deleted contribs, etc. This isn't an obscure problem, I just reverted one two days ago, and have complained at least a half dozen times just lately. Since I don't patrol unblock requests, I'm pretty sure I've missed more than I've caught. I don't want this to punish anyone, but I do want to be able to point to it and they don't have to read between the lines. Dennis - 2¢ 19:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Dennis, I'll wait to see if Salvio is okay with (a) my language and (b) adding it as a footnote. Footnotes are good for clarifications and examples.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• Aye, I'm happy with the compromise. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: your most recent comment is the first time you have even hinted at the proposed text being "to some extent, contradictory as an addition". You may indeed see something others have not. Usability testing begs you to please elaborate so we can have the most concise crystal clear text possible. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• It's a minor quibble, actually. As you can see, I removed the parenthetical (accept or decline). I think I understand exactly what Dennis is after, but until you read the entire thing, it almost looks like a non-CU can't decline an unblock request. I wouldn't worry about it much, NAEG.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I had already added it before seeing. He strongly approved of the previous, which wasn't much different. This does solve a real problem, and makes it less controversial if you revert a decline, as there is a clear phrase instead of just an implied phrase. Like I said, it is more common than you might think. Dennis - 2¢ 20:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think it has to be a footnote. The haste is because it is an ongoing problem that has been raised at AN and like I said, I've had to revert and explain. It should be self apparent, and admin should never review an unblock if he can't possibly have access to all the data, but it keeps happening. Dennis - 2¢ 20:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As I already stated, I'm opposed to the change period. The footnote is a compromise, and there are other examples where illustrations of a policy's application are described in a footnote rather than the body.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm working on a 'soft block' proposal that is to classic block what pending changes protection is to classic protection. My draft is located here and I welcome any input before going ahead with the proposal. This also involves a new usergroup, with the temporary name of 'moderator', although this is not strictly necessary for it to work. Cenarium (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Link added : User:Cenarium/PCB ! Cenarium (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A SOFTBLOCKER user right, details to be fleshed out, could be a great asset. Draft proposal needs some polish. Keep it up! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the header to pending changes block for clarification. Cenarium (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I was sure this used to be in the policy, but I'm damned if I can find it - maybe it was a dream... Anyhow, as far as I'm aware, there's a general agreement that as well as not reviewing unblock appeals for users they have blocked, admins should also refrain from declining multiple unblock appeals from the same user account (for much the same reason). I've always operated under this principle, and I believe others do as well. Without this, it would require only two admins to effectively ban a user from Wikipedia forever, especially if the reviewer has access to UTRS. However, it doesn't appear that this is actually enshrined in the P&Gs anywhere; there's no mention of the issue here, at WP:APPEAL or WP:GAB. So: am I mistaken, and we should feel free to decline one unblock request after another, or do we generally work to the principle I've described (and if so, should it not be included in the policy)? Or am I just being foolish and missing the very obvious section of the policy that states this? Yunshui ^雲_水 00:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• The only time I would recommend declining two on the same user is if clearly and loudly falls under "what every other admin would do", ie: he is just swearing or vandalising. Even then, I would recommend against it, just because we want to always be open and allow multiple reviews even when they don't "deserve it". Technically, you can remove talk page access and still leave the request open, btw. And from my observation, if the requests are in good faith, but missing the mark, we never limit it to two. I've seen 3 or 4 on a talk page before, which is why we don't have a hard number to lock their talk page. I think it is intentionally vague because every situation is different and you have to rely on the good judgement of admin. As long as there is a shred of good faith and competency, we probably should leave it open. Dennis - 2¢ 03:11, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis. I maybe haven't been terribly clear: I'm not really concerned with talkpage access, but with whether a single admin should decline (or possible also accept) unblock requests from a user where they have previously declined an unblock appeal regarding the same block. This is what I can't find in the policy, and I'm asking whether it should be there or not. I take your point about an exception for declining obviously abusive appeals, but should we not formalise it, or at least mention this as best practice? (As you already know, I'm a big fan of excessive bureaucracy and instruction creep!) Yunshui ^雲_水 10:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

In WP:UNBLOCK I see "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party..." and I interpret that to mean that any new unblock template should be answered by an admin that hasn't been a part of the block/unblock process yet. We would make exceptions for obvious cases, but it seems to me that it is already implied that a sincere block review should always be done by someone who hasn't been involved, ie: a 3rd party. Once you have declined a block, you are no longer a 3rd party for that particular incident, as you have involved yourself in the process. Now, accepting an unblock request after you have declined one is always ok, as that is akin to reverting your prior decline. So I don't think being more explicit is needed and might actually be problematic. Dennis - 2¢ 10:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is now available at Wikipedia:Pending changes blocks, it has been thoroughly rewritten. I welcome all opinions, though it isn't yet the time for a definitive determination of consensus, so this is really about first impressions or suggesting modifications and clarifications. In light of previous PC discussions, consensus should preferably be assessed in an organized RFC, or it gets unwieldy, so I've made a draft for it, I also invite comments on it. Feel free to copy edit and such both of those. Cenarium (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest the "purpose and goals" section is amended to reflect common practice that blocks are commonly given out for accidental tripping of the 3RR and 1RR bright-line rules by experienced editors. Such blocks can be misconstrued as punitive and not preventative when given to experienced and otherwise good natured editors, so this policy should reflect and explain this actual practice. Please see a draft below:

Oncenawhile (talk) 09:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

After three weeks of silence, I'll add this. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

First, apologies for overlooking this good faith proposal!

Second, I reverted it for some more discussion. Specifically, there are various exempt reverts. Shouldn't admins wait a reasonable period for an explanation? Yeah, if an ed claims an exemption it would be a good idea to say so in their edit summary. But summary ex parte blocking seems a tad hasty to me. I think that's true in all instances, but applied to situations where 1RR is in effect it's more true, and in cases where 1RR's applicability could reasonably be overlooked even more so. SUM: To me, summary ex parte blocking (w/o an opportunity to explain) seems like a de facto repeal of the exempt revert language. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• This is a major addition to a core policy and cannot be added without a very thorough discussion, either at the Pump, or through an extended, well-noticed RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Please see Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Blocking_Policy_Purpose_and_Goals_-_3RR_and_1RR_blocks. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

The section on duration of blocks says, "accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;". They may be, of course, but the question arises of whether they should be.

I have struggled with arriving at a comfortable stance re block durations. Lately I've been using WP:Huggle a lot and I've been blocking both anons and registered users not having a history of prior blocks for 31 hours and escalating block durations for users with a prior block history. I've been using Huggle enough that I ought to be seeing and reblocking vandals who return to their evil ways after a block expiration, and I've noted that I've been seeing very few of these. Apparently, a short initial block has been motivating evildoers to either mend their ways, to leave, or to become socks. An indefinite block removes the opportunity for such editors to mend their evil ways.

Perhaps the content quoted above from the project page ought to include some advice discouraging initial indefinite blocks.

This comment grew out of a recent discussion on my talk page. If you look for that without finding it (likely, beginning sometime after 1 Jan 2015), check in Archive 8 there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

To the crux

Perhaps the content quoted above from the project page ought to include some advice discouraging initial indefinite blocks

Suggest adding

.... while still encouraging indefinite blocks for repeat offenders.

That would seem reasonable to me

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

In many cases an indefinite block allows the user to mend their evil ways, by sticking to one account and being accountable. It seems to me this clause is for the types of accounts which litter my blocking logs: eg IwillWreckYourShit (talk · contribs), KillTheJews69 (talk · contribs) and Rappeewomen (talk · contribs). Temporary blocks would be wildly inappropriate for these vandalism only accounts. Warning, education, considering reform or unblock - all a complete waste of time. It would be nice to still differentiate these from overenthusiastic school kids. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Those are good examples, and the word "discouraged" in the proposal still leaves wiggle room to indef accounts with such names.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

The other differentiation there zzuuzz is that the username shows clear intent to disrupt. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Individuals who created throwaway accounts to commit a few random acts of vandalism already have a route back to the community. They can create another new account – one that doesn't have vandalism as its first edits – and enjoy the benefits of a clean start when they're ready to contribute positively to the project. If they were sufficiently motivated to create an account for vandalism, then they should be willing to go to (at least) the same minimal effort to make a positive contribution. And actually, they don't even need to go to that effort—at most, a day after their original block was placed the autoblock will lapse on their IP, and they can contribute anonymously, as well.

You mentioned, anecdotally, that you've seldom seen repeat offenders after 24-hour vandalism blocks; that's to be expected if the accounts are created as throwaways. (And I'll note that each time you do see one of those come back, it represents an added, unnecessary cost to the volunteers who have to clean up the new vandalism and reblock the account.) I'll ask you this—what fraction of those non-indefinitely blocked users come back as positive contributors? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the other problem is that we miss a lot of stuff. (Don't get me wrong—we catch an awful lot of stuff, too. But with somewhere upwards of a hundred thousand edits per day to the English Wikipedia, we aren't perfect and we're gonna let some bad edits – and bad editors – leak through.) If a vandal does come back, we don't always catch them the second time around. The vandalism can be missed outright (and this probably happens more than we would like), or it can be caught by a non-admin who doesn't do the paperwork to request another block, or it may be reverted by a bot. I suspect that a lot of admins don't realize how often a) these editors do come back, and b) how often they get missed on their return.

For example, Wtmitchell, if you look at the first couple of pages of your own blocking log you might be rather surprised. Check the contributions for the first couple of dozen named accounts that received 31- or 48-hour vandalism blocks, and these are some of the accounts that come up.

• Wadupdawg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of vandalism edits on 17 September, and was blocked for 31 hours. He came back and defaced another page on 10 October. This new vandalism was reverted by ClueBot NG; the account remains unblocked.
• Chilli400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of vandalism edits on 29 October, but wasn't blocked. Chilli400 came back and vandalized articles on 30 October, 31 October, and was finally blocked for 31 hours after additional vandalism on 3 November. After that block expired, he vandalized articles again on 7 November, 10 November, and 15 November—after which he received a subsequent 48-hour block. The account remains unblocked.
• Robert herbert johnson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of vandalism edits on 12 November, and was blocked for 31 hours. He came back and defaced more pages on 24 November. The account remains unblocked.
• Gottaknowit5601 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of vandalism edits on 17 November, but wasn't blocked. He came back on 18 November and was blocked for 31 hours after three more bad edits. Gottaknowit5601 came back and vandalized articles again on 20 November and 16 December. The account remains unblocked.
• Domrel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of vandalism edits on 29 October and 31 October but wasn't blocked. He also created a second account – Domrel1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), currently indef blocked – which he used for additional acts of vandalism in November. He returned to make another series of vandalism edits with his original account on 20 November, for which he received a 31-hour block. The (original) account remains unblocked.

In contrast, I didn't see any obvious cases where an account started off with clear-cut vandalism and then moved into constructive edits after a block. Overall, we're actually remarkably poor at "following up" these types of edit(or)s, and when they do come back (rather more often than I expected, truth be told) it's to commit further acts of vandalism. And note that many of the accounts above are now qualified as autoconfirmed, which opens up some new avenues for potential mischief. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought that the default for vandalism only accounts was an indefinite block. If they want a second chance they can always ask for one. IPs are different because there could be a different individual there in a few hours, copyvio, incivility and editwarring are different because there is a realistic chance of reform. But once we have identified someone as a vandal I don't think we should lift the block until we have their assurance that they intend to change. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

That has been my understanding and practice as well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Personally I would indef the users above without further question as vandalism only accounts. The problem as I see it is twofold: 1) Either admins do not sufficiently research the vandals' editing histories, or they are simply not bold enough to make preventative indef blocks; and 2) ASFAIK there is no way of watchlisting a user's edits, a feature I have missed for years as an admin (or if there is one, please tell me about it). 99% of the hundreds of blocks I have made are all for blatant vandalism (immediate indef blocking of sprees or especially egregious edits), or with incremental warnings for persistent vandalism over time that clearly outweigh any genuine edits. I have never had a vandalism block appealed - perhaps indeed because they simpply create another account. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd add that the couple of editors who are former vandals that I have spoken too didn't say that they had been treated harshly by being blocked for vandalism. Edit warrers, civility warriors and others often seem to consider their blocks unjustified or excessive. But has anyone met a former vandal who thought we were too harsh on vandals? ϢereSpielChequers 15:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

A recent edit () by @Bennylin: was just reverted by @Bbb23:, with the explanation too many changes/additions without first discussing them, at least initially on Talk page. Looking at the edit, it appears that there are (at most) four changes, all minor bordering on housekeeping, all constructive, and none making any substantive change to the policy.

1. The text describing the different flags/conditions (anon-only, block account creation, etc.) that can be applied to a block has been slightly expanded to include the actual text from the Special:Blockuser checkboxes.
2. The "Prevent logged-in users from editing from this IP address" check box - previously omitted - has been explicitly identified.
3. The semicolon-separated list of common types of IP blocks has been converted to a numbered list for clarity.
4. A template identifying the WP:HARDBLOCK shortcut was added.

I have therefore restored Bennylin's edits, since they seem helpful and don't break anything. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No issue with the above changes but it reminded me of something related: Regarding the types of block (at WP:HARDBLOCK), I think it would be worth changing "the most common type" to anon only with account creation disabled. Having account creation enabled isn't used anywhere near as often. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades in that the changes proposed were not in any way inconsistent with (or too different) to what was specifically desired in those sections by the community, that the changes were better than the original, and the changes should remain in place. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Support, as the changes add clarity IMO; also support Callanecc's desired change to reflect actual practice.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Blocking policy has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I did not make a spam edit. Can you please unblock me and specify what topic or page or link you are accusing me of . 2601:D:C080:8CC:A1AF:43BC:A5FB:F158 (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This is not actually an edit request. (you are not proposing a change to Wikipedia:Blocking policy). Will reply on your talk page. --Jeremyb (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, your address does not appear to be currently blocked, although edits from your IP address has been identified as a spamming problem at WP:AIV and it may be blocked soon. Someone using your IP address has been repeatedly inserting what appears to be promotional links into various articles (seven of them, to be precise). If that was not you, it may be a good idea to register for an account so that you can distinguish your edits from those of the person who has been doing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Do I remember rightly that we have, or have had, checkusers who aren't admins? If so, the WP:CUBL section should be reworded. Right now, the third set of <ref></ref> tags says "Non-Checkusers should not review Checkuser blocks that require access to Checkuser data, e.g., when an editor is professing innocence or is questioning the validity of the technical findings in any way." Surely there's nothing wrong with an admin reviewing a checkuser block after consulting with, and following the relevant instructions of, a non-admin checkuser. Or to put it a different way, a non-admin checkuser should have the right to be heard when someone asks for a checkuser block review: the CU and admin tools are different, and we ought to listen to a checkuser's input regardless of whether that checkuser has admin right as well. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI: As per Special:ListUsers, there are not currently any non-admin checkusers. Samsara 13:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm opening this section for discussion of this edit by Samsara. I agree with Bbb23 that the wording could be improved, but I am opposed to obscuring the proxy editing aspect. - MrX 11:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How is it being obscured? Samsara 12:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I must say that I personally prefer the original wording as it is unambiguously about proxy editing, which crops up more often than one might imagine.  Roger Davies ^talk 12:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I feel that Wikipedians are responsible for their contributions at all times. puts out a very clear message. Samsara 12:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the previous wording is clearer. --David Biddulph (talk) 13:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

How so? Don't just make statements, give reasoning. Samsara 13:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removing references to proxy editing obscures a very real concern. Many times have I seen blocked users try to circumvent their block by suggesting edits that other users could make on their behalf. Also "at all times" is redundant language.- MrX 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review the edits you revert more carefully in future. The phrase "proxy editing" was not removed. As for "at all times", this objection did not require a wholesale revert. Samsara 13:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsara's first change removed the phrase "proxy editing" and "proxying". After objections, Samsara restored the phrase "proxy editing". I don't feel as strongly opposed to the latest iteration as I did to Samsara's first, but I still think it deemphasizes the issue. On the plus side, Samsara wikilinked WP:V. They added WP:N (the concept wasn't there in the original version). Even assuming some of what has been changed is positive, overall the strength of the interrelationship between the blocked editor and the one doing the blocked editor's bidding has been lost. The opening phrase "Wikipedians are responsible for their contributions at all times" seems like a superficial-of-course kind of line that has almost no conviction. I am not reverting back to the original version because I don't want to continue the edit war, which is unseemly, but I recommend that Samsara revert back to the original until there is a clear consensus on how the language should read.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're making assertions that aren't true. Please review the page history again - the phrase "proxy editing" was never removed. Samsara 15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You're right about that. You put it at the end, and I failed to notice it when I wrote the above comments. Substantively, everything else I said is accurate, and I still object to your changes and the way you went about it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to discuss the changes to policy wording, not "raise objections." Per WP:TPYES, comment on the content, not the contributor. NE Ent 01:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, I fail to see what is so much better about your version. Furthermore, why are you WP:Edit warring on a policy page? The top of the page is clear: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." Flyer22 (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

This change deemphasises the rules against proxy editing which, if anything, should be placed at a higher priority. If I were going to change this policy at all, it would be to make it clear that examining a list of reversions that were made due to a block and restoring them is not an "independent reason" for making the edit. The changes being proposed here are useless at best.—Kww(talk) 00:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

examining a list of reversions [...] and restoring them is not an "independent reason" for making the edit Is this irony now? The bottom line from my point of view is that the status quo wording unnecessarily makes this into a special case of a general principle. The principle is, you're responsible for the merit of your edits. We've never placed a moratorium on edits made by blocked users, and I don't see how such a rule could ever make sense. We do make mistakes, and we may sometimes even block users on erroneous grounds. We should allow someone else to take up the case of a meritorious edit, but they should understand clearly that this makes it their edit and they should expect to have to defend it. I don't see how Wikipedia can reasonably operate otherwise. It sounds to me like you are proposing that an edit, once it has been made by a blocked user, cannot be subsequently made by another user unless they can come up with a completely new reason justifying the edit, and failure to do so must result in reverts and further blocks. That sounds like a rather extreme right wing position to me as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Maybe I'm misunderstanding...? I have trouble imagining that everybody else is reading this policy completely differently from the way I read it. Samsara 00:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, we revert all edits by blocked editors, and, in general, people shouldn't take those edits up and defend them. It's a technical deficiency in our software that permits the blocked editor to make the change in the first place, and we should not undermine blocks by routinely examining reversions and restoring them. We unfortunately have editors that object to our policy of routinely reverting block evasion and they occasionally go on restoration sprees.—Kww(talk) 01:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually we argue about it a lot. NE Ent 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How does examining the edits you're reverting undermine the block? Samsara 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, the purpose of the block is to prevent the blocked editor from making any change to the encyclopedia, good, bad, or indifferent. Wholesale and indiscriminate reversion of his changes helps accomplish that, even if it is after the fact. Going through the edits one-by-one and examining them is exactly what you are supposed to do with a legitimate editor. By going through a blocked editor's changes carefully and selectively restoring and championing some, you are treating the editor as being legitimate and allowing him to edit through his block. I'm not saying that one shouldn't do a cursory check and avoid restoring vandalism, but that's about it. No one should ever systematically consider the merits of a blocked editor's edits.—Kww(talk) 11:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I believe what you're proposing is punitive, and not in the spirit of the policy, or in line with the goals of Wikipedia (building an encyclopedia). Samsara 15:01, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry that you feel that way, Samsara: it's protective, fully within the spirit of WP:Banning policy#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad, and absolutely necessary to help us build an encyclopedia, as no project can survive without the ability to control precisely who is a member of the project. I will vigorously oppose any changes that you may attempt to make which would weaken our system of blocks and bans.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I still don't think anything is being weakened by my copyedit, but I guess we'll just have to differ on that. I also don't see people in the same black and white fashion you seem to, and would note that an edit, once committed to WP, falls under whatever free license is the flavour of the day, and is essentially anyone's to do with (almost) as they please. Throwing away valuable edits just because the contributor did something wrong? I don't see that as useful. Samsara 17:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not only can you not control who is a "member" of Wikipedia, you can't even know who is an editor. NE Ent 01:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It is true the suggested change deemphasizes the rules, which is why is it good. The rules are not important (there's a big rule that says that), the encyclopedia is, and Samsara's suggested change emphasizes that and is better written. NE Ent 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Re It is your job to convince us to change policy!! -- there is a difference between changing policy, and changing the words that describe that policy. NE Ent 01:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Had not really thought about this issue before, but now that I have, strongly support Samsara's version, on the MYOB principle. We can't reach into someone's brain and audit their motivations for making an edit, but we can say that once you click the save button, you own it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:46, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• In my view, Kevin is talking about a different subject than the one at hand. He is addressing the issue of block evasion where an editor may revert the edit of an account (named or IP) who is evading the master's block. The language that Samsara changed deals with the classic situation of a user who is currently blocked and on his Talk page starts discussing edits to articles. He then convinces another user to make a change to an article. It may even be the article that was the basis of the block. That's editing by proxy. As for NE Ent's comment "there is a difference between changing policy, and changing the words that describe that policy", I fail to see a difference in this instance. If I change the wording of a policy, that change may substantively impact the policy or it may not. Whether it does is often debatable. There is enough controversy about the change Samsara is proposing that it should not be made lightly. I suggest the Pump or perhaps an RfC here if Samsara wants to pursue this. I also suggest that Samsara be clear in their proposal the "from" language and the "to" language to avoid the wikilawyering that ensued here about what words were added, removed, etc. That only detracted from the discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's just a form of indirect proxying. I know that others don't see it that way, but directing an edit by making it and counting on sympathetic editors restoring it for you is not substantially different from directing an edit by asking and hoping a sympathetic editor will make the edit for you. Same goal, same people, different only in detail.—Kww(talk) 17:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

And this was changing policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep, what I stated. Flyer22 (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Can blocks also be preventive? That is, can they be for the purpose of prevention as well as preventation? —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Preventive and preventative have the same meaning. There is no such word as preventation, although such a word would be logical, or at least as logical as anything is in the English language.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

preventation, preventative and preventate are valid English words in the sense of violating no norms of phonotactics, but how are they generated? —Tamfang (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

You've lost me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

prevent, preventive and prevention, like many modern English words, are built on the past participle of a Latin verb, to wit praeventum (the infinitive is praevenire). There seems to be no Latin verb whose past participle is praeventatum. —Tamfang (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

So, was there a question about the blocking policy in there somewhere? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, the opening question is a question but its relevance to the policy eludes me. Obviously blocks are meant to be preventative (WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE). Maybe Tamfang wants us to use preventive instead of preventative or maybe they just want the policy rewritten in Latin.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Bingo! I'd say the word preventative must have been coined by a stutterer, if that were not a slur on stutterers. Call me stuffy but I generally prefer a better word over a worse one, especially if the better word is shorter. —Tamfang (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Both forms seem to be correct per reference.com, but I would prefer "prophylactic", myself.—Kww(talk) 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to read what blocking does and could not find anything here. Is this accurate? Did I miss this kind of information in this page? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed it again. You should discuss the changes here first. Then when everything is right and there is consensus, add it in to the policy. -- GB fan 16:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what the section said last.