Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jehochman (talk | contribs) at 19:44, 8 January 2013 (→Should ArbCom, where appropriate, restrict the use of the block button by some admins?: oh, autocorrect, how I hate thee). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is not the page to report problems to administrators or request blocks.
	This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy itself. Report incidents such as block evasion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Report active, persistent vandals at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

The contents of the Misplaced Pages:GlobalBlocking page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy on October 18, 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Use of talk page while blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It seems that we haven't spelled out guidelines on talk page use while blocked. Calvin999 (talk · contribs) has been posting instructions for others to edit on his behalf while he is blocked on his talk page. This flies against the spirit of the blocking policy but I don't believe this has spelled out. One of his buddies has pointed that out, challenging what I believe was proper administrative action by Bwilkins (talk · contribs) in revoking talk page access after blocking and after posting editing instructions. WP:MEAT comes close. I believe this should be added to this policy. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I say that's a good idea, but I believe that is already covered in WP: MEAT. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 20:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I can see why we don't want editors to edit by proxy if they are blocked from editing, but to say "you can only use the talk page for unblock requests", as I've seen a dozen times, is flatly mistaken. Stop them from editing, yes, that is the purpose of the block, to prevent modification to mainspace. If they abuse the talk page to make personal attacks or edit by proxy, warn then block, makes sense. But to limit it to unblock requests only is clearly not within the spirit or letter of any policy. Even indef blocked users are still considered a part of the community, per policy, and putting too many restrictions on the talk page would be inconsistent with that policy. This only alienates editors and feeds into more problems and the loss of otherwise good editors. Many of the best editors have a block or two on the logs, after all. As for WP:MEAT, that is for offwiki communications and wouldn't seem to apply. If we simply view this as bypassing the block by editing by proxy, warn, then block talk page access if forced, it seems pretty simple. But adding "editing by proxy" in the policy somewhere for clarity is worth considering. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom has allowed arbcom blocked editors to participate in good faith discussions on their talk page, see Nobody Ent 21:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I knew we didn't put onerous restrictions on this, just common sense. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean communicating isn't the problem, the specific concern was about advocating proxy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The user did not suggest an edit, they pointed out a problem. Nobody Ent 23:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That is true, although the intent was obvious. That isn't a fine line, and not defined at all. Now that I think about it, proxy editing isn't banned per se, although common sense would seem to say it would be. I have seen instances where it would be proxy editing and it was tolerated, however. In this case, that isn't why Bwilkins took away his talk page access, however. At least the timing says it was his next edit, which I don't completely understand. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I consider that common sense is not enough in this kind of actions. As Dennis says, a user gets blocked to protect mainspace, but their user talk page access should be only revoked if such user abuses of it. How could that happen? If the user commits personal attacks, etc. However, we should spell that in the guideline, so when such actions are needed, they could be properly expressed with a rationale, instead of common sense. —Hahc21 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

And to be clear, I left a msg on Bwilkins talk page, and I have no doubt he acted in good faith based on my previous experience with him, I just don't fully get why the talk page block was needed. I suspect the lack of clarity here is part of the reason. The reason for most talk page blocks are much more obvious than this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, please look at the blocklog - Toddst1 didn't detail Calvin999's block history above, and the context is actually important. On June 22 2012 Toddst1 blocked Calvin999 for violating WP:OWN. He unblocked on Calvin's agreement to abide by 1RR, Calvin broke this and simultaneously displayed the same WP:OWN issues on June 23rd. In this context Calvin999's coordination of edits is further WP:OWN behaviour and in this instance a removal of talk page access is thoroughly appropriate (if it was me I'd have doubled the block length too FWIW).
  WP:PROXYING is irrelevant as that has to do with banned users, WP:MEAT is a grey area unless the behaviour persists. And in the normal run of the mill editors are not prevented from using their talk page for discussions of content or anything else (as long as they are constructive) however where such comments demonstrate the same behaviour that got them blocked (ie incivility, ownership, outing, legal threats etc etc) then revoking talk page access is appropriate and necessary. We don't need to change policy to reflect that as WP:BLOCK already states that "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page" - Calvin999's retention of a "ownership attitude" after being blocked for it constitutes both recidivism and, with his attempt to coordinate edits from his talk page, talk space abuse--Cailil 14:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Extrememly well put, Cailil. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur and have struck out my previous comment. I was misled by Bwilkins statement " the ONLY reason you have access to this page is to request unblock." which demonstrates a lack of understanding of current practice and common sense. Nobody Ent 19:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

that is most of the problem summed up right there, everyone is being misled. Newbies look at that, and so much else and think WTF is this ? Penyulap ☏ 20:27, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Erm, Nyttend appears to have come to a different conclusion than the direction this discussion is going and has restored talk page access. I've left him/her a note on his/her talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend was acting in good faith here, and I still think that unblocking was proper considering Bwilkins wasn't around. I have left a message previously on this talk page as well. Keep in mind, Calvin wasn't talk page blocked for making the edit request. That was almost two days before the talk page access was restricted. It was blocked just a couple of minutes after Calvin said "I have to say I don't think it's fair to condone me for trying to help remove WP:OR. Also, it was reverted half an hour after you responded to me BWilikins, and over an hour after I first presented it here, so who's to say that someone didn't see this? Regardless, it's been reverted now." so I have to assume that this statement was the reason for the talk page blocking unless someone can explain how it wasn't. It was literally 4 minutes after this post. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:06, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Proxy editing

We can agree or disagree with Bwilkins' good faith action with Calvin (please continue in the above thread) but I'd really like to get some clarity as to if proxy-editing requests to articles in general (or Xfd discussions etc) by a blocked user are OK. My admin spider-sense says it is not within the spirit of the blocking policy. If so, I think we should note that somewhere - likely on this policy page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The spirit of a block is to prevent disruption. If a talk page edit is not disrupting Misplaced Pages, it should be fine. Saying "someone please look at this, I think it's OR" should not be a problem. No editor is required to take action; no one is required to read a blocked user's talk page (excepting unblock templates). If I (or any other editor) changes the article then the changing editor is responsible. Nobody Ent 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No—that's poking people. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more confusing it gets. Proxy editing, ie: directing the actions of someone, is one thing, but the more I think about it, saying things like this, just pointing out a problem, may not really be proxy editing. This does need a bigger discussion. Hadn't thought about it much until now, and looks like many of us haven't as well, but it needs addressing so we can all act in a similar fashion, for the sake of fairness. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Poking is when I jab my finger in your chest. If I jab my finger into my chest, that's just making a gesture. Nobody Ent 02:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The more I look at the Sockpuppet/Meatpuppet policy, which was invoked above, the less I think it applies to edits that improve the encyclopedia. I think the problem is that some folks are seeing this as Calvin999/Aaron circumventing his block. But he didn't have a loyal slave to do his bidding, he just said asked for people to fix a problem. Additionally, let's imagine he asked a specific editor instead to look at the problem. "Hey Joe, go fix this WP:OR." Even at that point, it would be Editor Joe who deserves scrutiny. Did he act independently or not? Was it such a no-brainer that anyone would have acted the same? Stretching rules so they apply to these extreme cases seems to go against the intent of the rule, which is to protect against BAD edits, not prevent good edits. Suppose I had an army of sock editors, against whom we could find no bad or problematic edits of any kind? Would we commend that person for their wonderful contributions or be so bureaucratic that we would kick them for having done nothing truly wrong? We're supposed to ultimately be an encyclopedia with no firm rules and no bureaucracy, yet sometimes we seek such precise rules and definitions, and other times we want it all loosely defined so we can stretch the definition like this example. How about we just look for what the best outcome is, and focus on that? Be as consistent as possible, but hey, as the old saying goes, "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth." Let's encourage positive contributions, and handle the rest with fairness and dignity. -- Avanu (talk) 02:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

But when we block someone from editing, aren't we telling them to step away from the keyboard? That's really the whole point of a block, for the editor to do something different for a while (to the extent that every block is a cool-down block). Ultimately I think it will come down to admin discretion though, and a judgement call on the likely outcome of the blocked editor's requests. If they are making a one-off spotting of vandalism somewhere, fair enough. If they are trying to edit right through their block and show that they have a sufficiently numerous cabal that they can effectively ignore a block because what they want done will be done anyway, then the preventive power of a simple block is nullified (there is no reason for them to change their behaviour) and TPA revocation is a reasonable escalation. It should be reasonable though. If I'm working with someone on GA candidate and get blocked in a totally different area, putting a list of sources for onto my talk page should be OK. Conversely, and IMO contrary to NE above, asking for review of OR problems in an article is a little too involved in the wiki-guts, and I shouldn't be doing that while blocked. And what if I post 6,000 lines of javascript? Franamax (talk) 06:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What are blocks for? A block isn't a ritual; it's an action taken to mitigate some known risk of damage to articles, or some other kind of disruption.

• If somebody gets blocked for serious civility problems and continues to snipe from their talkpage then fine, shut that down too; but if they start having more civil discussions on their talkpage then it may be evidence that the earlier problem is going away. If somebody gets blocked for chronic pov-pushing and then use their talkpage to encourage allies or give them pointers, then shut down the talkpage too; but if they direct their passion into suggesting a neutral and properly-sourced edit on that topic, then the encyclopædia benefits.
• If we prevent any kind of talkpage editing other than unblock requests, the meaning of "indefinite" takes one step closer to "forever", because there is less scope for a blocked editor to to give the community broader confidence that they'll behave better in future.
• I think that proxy editing isn't inherently bad. If it's a bad edit (ie. repeating what the editor was blocked for), that's bad. But if it's a good edit, then it's not bad - reflexively stopping those edits too is a bit like reflexively reverting all edits by a banned user, even ones which the reverter acknowledges as positive - hence reinstating typos or vandalism or whatever.

Judicial metaphors aren't totally helpful, but I think that being allowed to edit your talkpage but nowhere else is like being in an open prison: There's more chance for prisoners to interact with others in a normal way which may ease reintegration into society; but for the subset of prisoners who jump over the low fence and burgle nearby homes, or shank somebody in the canteen, well, those ones can be sent back to some high-security solitary-confinement cell and the ability to use their talkpage is taken away. bobrayner (talk) 11:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nobody Ent, nobody is required to do anything.

I agree with Avanu because this is a matter of giving people a guide to what will keep them out of trouble, what they can do, rather than guessing.

If you tell a toddler what they cannot do, and give them an endless list of dont's you always go wrong because they have only their own ideas to guide them. you need a list of DO's for them to follow, and they then stay on course and enjoy life as they grow. The focus on you can't do anything because some sock did that, so were not even going to tell you what you can do is killing the possibility that anyone can use[REDACTED] with what Avanu describes perfectly as "fairness and dignity" I know BWilkins is not nearly as bad as he seems to the untrained eye, but if he keeps going about the right thing the wrong way, it just means 1 sock blocked takes 10 good editors with it, and the sock recycles to take another 10 good editors with it. In the end, he'll have simply nobody but socks left to play with.

Bobrayner uses the phrase 'Judicial metaphors' which may not be perfect, that is true, but they are a fantastic shortcut to understanding, because they are something people already have an idea about. Calling a talkpage a prison cell, saying people can talk to a lawyer there, or say what they like if they don't get out of hand, and if they do, the warden will get the hose and so forth, and if someone wants to visit them and wants to deliver messages, it's ok so long as the letters are perfectly ok, well it's NOT perfect, but it's a fast shortcut to understanding. If some of this was written down in simple guides, then for example wilkins could say WP:PassingMessagesOverTheWall and that page says your trying to be manipulative, while for andy it's like talking to a lawyer, these ideas aren't perfect, but hey, they would put the fire out in a hurry, rather than people just saying "hey that right there is the epitome of hypocrisy" so with no guides, to what is right, or what is the norms, things get screwed up. Penyulap ☏ 15:58, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

While I was blocked for edit warring last December, I requested that an edit that had been in process when I was blocked be completed, because it didn't relate directly to the substance of the edit war, and after I uploaded some of my en images to Commons, I requested that someone add the NowCommons template for me. Edits such as this don't strike me as problematic, obviously. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

What is a block?

I think it is helpful if remember what a block really is, instead of what we think it is. From WP:BLOCK:

• Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Misplaced Pages. Blocks may be applied to user accounts, to IP addresses, and to ranges of IP addresses, for either a definite or an indefinite time. A blocked user can continue to access Misplaced Pages, but is unable to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page.

• Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Misplaced Pages, not to punish users.

Blocks are not prison sentences or punishments, they are last ditch efforts to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, most importantly, main space, the part we all use. We have to remember that blocked users are NOT banned, they are just as much a part of the community as I am now. A block is solely defined as a necessary restriction placed on editing all pages outside their "home" space, temporarily, for the purpose of preventing disruption. That is all. The policy makes it clear that no other restriction is on them. So when do we take away talk page access?

• "Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked", if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including requesting unblock. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page. Emphasis in original

If the editor is highly disruptive or in a way that would warrant a strong warning or a block, then obviously it would be acceptable to block access to their talk page for the duration of their block. There must be abuse, which seems to mean continued (multiple or more of the same) actions that would be unacceptable under unblocked circumstances. However, if the act they are doing while blocked, direct or by proxy, is not something you would otherwise issue a warning for, then policy seems to clearly say it is acceptable because no where in the policy is any limitation on use of talk page given. This wasn't obvious to me at first, but the more I read it, the clearer it becomes. Perhaps all of us admins have been a little quick to recommend taking away talk page access, myself included. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

How can anyone be "disruptive" on their talk page, a page that nobody is obliged to read? Malleus Fatuorum 20:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You've got a good point and unless they are doing something that would get them blocked anyways (i.e. making personal attacks etc) behaviour on the talk page probably shouldn't be considered disruptive and shouldn't result in talk page access restrictions. Making repeated unblock requests, or using other templates that cause the talk page to appear somewhere else on Misplaced Pages (i.e. {{help-me}} or edit requests) could also be considered disruptive. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Disruption" is a word that gets tossed around an awful lot here, but more and more I'm becoming convinced that its meaning here on Misplaced Pages bears no relation to its meaning in any decent dictionary. Except this one. Malleus Fatuorum 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose "disturbance or problems which interrupt an event, activity, or process:" OED would be appropriate. If an editors behaviour causes another editor to stop what they are doing and address it, the behaviour is disruptive. If a blocked editor makes repeated unblock requests, reviewing administrators are forced to address those requests, making it disruptive. My personal attacks message is a bit more round-about, and I suppose it wouldn't be necessary to call it disruption by the OED definition; however, it still is a reason for talk page access to be removed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect (see the dictionary I linked to above), that's a rather naive interpretation of disruption. For instance, if I edit a page and that "causes" the main editor to stop whatever they were doing to look at the changes I've made, is that disruption? If there's a real problem with repeated unblock requests, then address that problem by changing the way that unblock requests are handled. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I suppose under my definition, general things like requesting rollback or making edit requests could be considered "disruptive". I don't think that a change is really needed in the way that unblock requests are handled though. The blocking policy states that "There is no limit to the number of unblock requests that a user may issue. However, disruptive use of the unblock template may prompt an administrator to remove the blocked user's ability to edit their talk page" That instance of disruption is clearly referring to the definition I linked to. Care to clarify how you believe unblock requests should be handled? Are you referencing to the prisoners dilemma referred to above? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The prisoner's dilemma is of course one issue, but I was thinking more fundamentally. Why not centralise unblock requests rather than have them on a user's (perhaps unwatched) talk page? For instance, DYK nominations require the automated creation of a template; if unblock requests were handled similarly then it would be relatively easy to choke their number. Malleus Fatuorum 22:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I use the word only because it is the word we use here. My threshold for what is "disruptive" is very different on a user page than it is an article page, which should come as no surprise. This is why I prefer to use the criteria of "if you wouldn't have been warned or blocked for it before you were blocked, then we tolerate it". If the editor is making genuine personal attacks, legal threats or other highly disruptive edits, that is one thing. If they are upset and saying they think the block is unfair or "is bullshit", then no, I'm not inclined to take away talk access. The last talk page access I took away was because the editor was making personal attacks against another editor, which is something I won't tolerate. I had made the block. If she was calling me an "asshat", it wouldn't really bothered me, I expect them to vent a bit. That is the threshold as I see it. And I think that unblock requests ARE centralized, as a category, although it isn't one I watch so the name slips my mind. But they are centralized and anyone can watch them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. You obviously never check that page, and I very much doubt that other admins do either, so I suspect that the only reviewers of unblock requests are those admins who already had the talk page on their watch lists. Which doesn't seem like a particularly healthy situation to me. I note as well that when I just looked there were only 12 pages in that category, so this canard of causing disruption by raising multiple unblock requests seems to be just that: bollocks. Malleus Fatuorum 23:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just added it as a link on my user page. I think I first saw it on Drmies page. Keep in mind, I'm still new to the bit, there are more things I don't know than I do, and more pages I don't watch than do. But I suspect I will try to peek in from time to time. I have gone there and reviewed maybe 2 or 3 unblocks before, and unblocked at least one. Oh, from my experience at SPI (where there is a lot of blocking going on), having to block talk pages is very, very rare indeed. I've probably done it a few times out of my 186 blocks to date, but I can't claim to be typical, nor are SPI blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence suggestions there at least several admins who monitor the unblock requests -- the first interaction they have on a given user talk page is either accept or declining unblock reviews. Nobody Ent 23:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that many admins don't use it. It is listed in the dashboard. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I would think that several in fact do. There aren't that many backlogged there, so someone is watching it. I'm not sure how many or who, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

What a curious sub-sub-thread this is. How else did you all think unblock requests get addressed? Some sort of adminly magic, which accompanies our preternaturally good health, facial symmetry and charm? To be fair though, there is also an email address to request unblock. But mostly, requesting unblock via the template puts you in a category that people can watch. How else did you guys think it worked? Franamax (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It's also on IRC, #wikipedia-en-unblock (I think), regularly updated by bot. Not that I ever go on IRC any more! Worm(talk) 09:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't and don't think that unblock requests do work, so your question is meaningless as far as I'm concerned Franamax. Malleus Fatuorum 13:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, unblock requests are one of the things that shows up at Template:Admin dashboard. Before becoming an arbitrator, I used to use that as an overview of work to be done on a regular basis, even though I did not routinely handle unblock requests. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break2

Just write up a guideline draft that suggests the usual help me sort of thing, here is a fine example of how to edit while you are restricted, it looks great, and is not going to attract puppetry related comments.

(example copied from User talk:AndyTheGrump)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Could someone please post the response below in the appropriate place (Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Block_review:_Sceptre_and_AndyTheGrump):

• Oppose, this attempt to involuntarily 'request an unblock on my behalf'. I have not requested an unblock, have accepted that my behaviour merited a block, and intended to accept the block without appeal. To use an involuntary unblock as 'fairness' to justify unblocking someone else seems to me to be highly questionable - and more so when the block has little time left to run, and this is supposed to 'balance' an unblock for a continuing refusal on Sceptre's part to conform to WP:BLP policy, and to cease using Misplaced Pages as a platform for a campaign to 'regender' Bradley Manning against Manning's own express wishes. Sceptre's continuing IDHT behaviour should be looked at on its own merits. AndyTheGrump talk 11:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done ✉→Bwilkins←✎ 11:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. AndyTheGrump talk 11:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like Arcandam didn't want you left out. You've definitely been a great sport about your block, and I'm looking forward to you being able to get back to your normal grumpy routine. -- Avanu talk 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

you could ask what guideline they followed, or just use it as an example to draft a guide, or as a basis for policy. Penyulap ☏ 02:53, 2 Jul 2012 (UTC)

This is precisely what should be done. We should always accept good-faith requested edits made this way, unless there's some problem with the edit (e.g. can't understand the request, not appropriate for the page in question, etc.) that would cause us to reject the edit if it were made to the page itself by the same editor while unblocked. Think of it as an {{editprotected}} request. In other words, if you wouldn't complain if I made an edit myself, don't object to my using my talk page to aks you to make the same edit while I'm blocked. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, so we should welcome good-faith contributions by blocked people who are following the blocking policy. Nyttend (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you comment above please in the section talking about TPA? Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of blocks

I see a lot of people saying "blocks are preventive not punitive", which is all well and good, without carefully considering just what it is that blocks are seeking to prevent. Distressingly, I see a lot of editors above who are interpreting a block as some sort of minimal speed bump: a trivial inconvenience that a blocked editor is just waiting out, or something that the blocked editor should be able to 'edit around' as much as possible, as long as they aren't directly repeating the actions they took immediately preceding the block. Unfortunately, I think that sort of narrow view misses the point and purpose of a block.

Check out the last 500 blocks placed by Misplaced Pages admins. You'll notice that the vast, vast majority are long-term or permanent blocks of spam usernames, open proxies and TOR nodes, vandalism-only accounts, and sockpuppets of already-banned editors; only a tiny, tiny minority are of 'regular' editors. In contrast, Misplaced Pages has something like ten thousand registered editors who are 'active' (making at least one edit per day) and most of them are never blocked. You'll be lucky to find more than a couple of these 'normal', generally-productive editors blocked in any given day. A block isn't a trivial thing; it isn't a normal thing; it isn't a usual thing. Blocks shouldn't – and generally don't – come down because of minor errors; they arise when an editor engages in behavior that a reasonable person would understand could be damaging to the project and/or the community. A block is placed when an editor's conduct departs far enough from Misplaced Pages's norms that the editor should not continue to edit until the problematic conduct has been addressed. A block isn't 'preventive' in the sense that it aims to prevent a blocked editor from engaging in personal attacks, or legal threats, or BLP violations, or edit warring only for the duration of the block. The purpose of the block is prevent the misconduct long after the block has expired – ideally, forever – by prompting the blocked editor to (re)consider their actions and approach to editing.

Permitting and encouraging blocked editors to edit by proxy, whether in article or project space, badly misses the point of a block. It discourages the sort of reflection that a block might otherwise prompt, and it encourages the community and the blocked editor to incorrectly perceive a block as a minor occurrence or trivial nuisance. With relatively narrow, common-sense exceptions (for example, where the discussion directly addresses the block itself) an editor who is blocked should not be trying to engage in other project work or requesting and encouraging edits by proxy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You're living in fantasy land. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:BLOCKBANDIFF blocked editors are still part of the community. As noted above, ArbCom is letting a blocked editor use his talk page while ArbCom blocked, and many editors (including some with admin privilege) have interacted with WebHamster (currently indef blocked) . This policy page specifically says talk page access should be revoked for abuse, not use. To claim that attempting to positively interacting with a blocked editor is counterproductive does not miss the point -- treating blocking as a metaphoric solitary confinement does. Nobody Ent 23:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone's "editing by proxy", that means someone else is doing the edits, right? Specifically, someone else who isn't blocked, and is therefore (for now at least) trusted to make such edits? I don't see a problem - it's that person's responsibility to decide whether to make those edits or not; the encyclopedia benefits if they are good edits, and they can be reverted (and the "proxy" blocked if necessary) if they are bad edits, just as in the case of any other edits that "proxy" might have decided to make. Victor Yus (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well-said, I agree.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is an omnibus reply to all the related threads above: I don't believe any codification or new rules are needed here. Many of our policies are deliberately left somwehat vague to allow for discretion and common sense to be used when interpreting them. If you see an admin who consistently does not display either of those qualities, take it up with them, not the blocking policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently common sense is lacking, much like a Vogon's knack for poetry. We've had a zillion paragraphs of debate here on two points that apparently are already supported by policy.

1. A third party can ask for a review of any block.
2. A user can use their Talk page while blocked for things other than requesting an unblock.

So why the long debate? If a group of assumed-to-be-rational people can't agree on something they already agree on, how can we expect consistency from a specific admin? -- Avanu (talk) 18:17, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks

Currently the text reads:

"An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy."

This used to be the case several years ago, but today the threshold to issue indefinite blocks is a lot lower than that. Count Iblis (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

'economy of thought' Penyulap ☏ 18:22, 28 Jul 2012 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Count Iblis. It seems even minor infractions result in indefinate blocks these days. Kumioko (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

• It would also seem that the newer the editor, the more likely an indefinite block is, even when the newcomer has a history of good faith contributions. NTox · talk 01:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

It may be because the rest of the community is as tired as myself in dealing with disruptive editors. They get blocked, come back and do he same type of edits and result in the departure of good editors when the wear and tear sets in. I have seen good people walk away from Misplaced Pages out of frustration with inaction against disruption, Snail-speed Puppet Investigations that can last 9 or 10 days, etc. History2007 (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Only admins may resolve unblock requests

Per ANI discussion I have added the following to the policy, at the end of the Block Reviews section :

"Any user may discuss or comment on block reviews, however only administrators may resolve the review (either declining or unblocking)."

I believe that this accurately captures the AN discussion consensus. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nobody Ent put a little more polish on it, and I tend to agree that the current version reflects consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I support Nobody Ent's polish. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I've added a footnote linking to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Unblock requests being handled by non-administrators so the discussion that led to this wording can be easily found and viewed. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Blocked editor's user page

Discussion at the Pump

Currently, the language in the lead of the policy states:

A blocked user can continue to access Misplaced Pages, but is unable to edit any page, except (in most cases) their own user talk page.

I suggest changing the language to:

A blocked user can continue to access Misplaced Pages, but is unable to edit any page (including their own user page), except (in most cases) their own user talk page.

I'm not crazy about two parentheticals in one sentence. I would also prefer to make the change somewhere in the body, but I don't see anywhere to make it as there is no section on the effects of a block. I'm open to other ways of clarifying the issue. And, obviously, some may disagree with me that it even needs clarification. (The initial impetus for my question at the Pump came here.)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It's been several days, and no one has commented. So, I'm going to make the change. If anyone reverts, please at least provide your rationale here. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated question but can they also edit all pages in their userspace, eg. sandboxes, etc., while blocked? – Connormah (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

No, a blocked user only has editing ability for their user talk page and nothing else: no articles or subpages or project pages or anything else. The ability to edit one's user talk page exists solely for the ability to request a review of the block, and for no other reason. Editors who abuse that may have that ability removed as well. --Jayron32 02:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that might be a little strong. We don't mind blocked users using talk page access to answer questions about copyvios or other serious matters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Strange - I seemed to have blocked someone yesterday and it seemed they were still able to edit their sandbox (though I may be imagining things), see User:DSMACGroup & their deleted edits. – Connormah (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. The edits to the sandbox were all made before they were blocked. You should probably restore talk page access. The sanbox edits were made between 03:15-03:24 13 September 2012, and the block was issued 03:51 13 September 2012. The user made exactly zero edits to anything between when you first blocked them and when you removed talk page access at 13:47. Have a little serving of fish on the way to restoring their talk page access. --Jayron32 03:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Not too sure, but my times are totally screwed up - I have those edits being made at 14 something with the block being at 7 something - I will restore talk page access and probably look into my prefs for time settings... – Connormah (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I use UTC for all of my Misplaced Pages time settings, and use the gadget in the preferences menu that puts the UTC clock on the top of every Misplaced Pages page, just so that I don't make the exact same mistake you just did. Misplaced Pages doesn't handle it well if you try to do things in your local time zone. --Jayron32 03:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I do have the gadget already, the signatures seem to be in UTC, yet the edit times don't seem to add up..strange... – Connormah (talk) 03:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Seemed I had my local time zone and the UTC gadget, I've fixed that now, hopefully this won't happen again... – Connormah (talk) 03:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a problem trying to use UTC and local time zones. Before I became an admin, it was annoying. After I became an admin, it drove me bananas, particlarly at ANEW, so I now use UTC on everything. Not fun for my watchlist, but it's tolerable.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Indef-blocked user status. How long does it last?

What happens when:

• A user is indef-blocked, comes back with several puppets over the next month and they are all indef-blocked.
• The user stays quiet for 6 months or so, and starts again with similar edits.
• A WP:SPI request says the situation is "stale".

What determines "stale"? Is an indef-block in practice for a given period of time and after that the user can freely start again with a new account or two, dance the same dance, add the same outdated references and questionable sources again and again?

It is obviously intended to be indefinite, but is it in practice?

Clarification will be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are probably talking about Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Lung salad. That case is still waiting for administrator comments. Rather than engaging in a dialog here about the blocking policy, I suggest contacting the admins who previously blocked anyone in this case. The 'stale' comment by the CU only refers to his inability to find any usable checkuser data on the original account. The new apparent socks could still be blocked on behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Your mind reading did work. So do I understand that:

• CU has time limits which reduce its effectiveness after a while?
• If CU does not work, behavior based patterns can be used to suggest a sock puppet identification?

As for contacting the admin, frankly I am too tired of all this to do it now - maybe later. Please see my comment above on this page. The overall effort to deal with disruptive editors is far too high... History2007 (talk) 16:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Aren't you an experienced editor (2007)? Some of your questions seem out of place for someone who has been here for a while. Any experienced person should be aware of the limitations of sockpuppet investigations. EdJohnston (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw said: Men are wise not in relation to their experience, but in relation to their ability for experience... And yes, I have been here too long... But that situation was resolved. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct on both points. The usual next question is, "how long do they keep the CU data?", and the answer is "it depends on how irritating the sock is". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think its to be expected that experienced editors don't know about the checkuser limitations. The community seems to have adopted a policy of security through obscurity with regard to the limitations on checkuser data. As a result, those who frequent areas that deal with socks probably have a pretty good idea what the limits are, but many of the rest probably have no idea. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking policy alterations

I am considering making a serious proposal regarding the blocking policy...I've been thinking about this a lot lately and obviously, something has to be done to prevent the blocks/unblocks of registered editors...something that will possibly be adaptable in the software akin to what I worked on when we had semi-protection implemented. At that time, semi-protection was widely panned since we didn't want to be seen as the website not everybody can edit. It was generally revolutionary for its time, the same way a major alteration to the blocking policy/software adjustments might be now. Prior to semi-protection and the development of the vandal bots, the website was literally under seige and it was tough to get article work done. I think the blocking policy is also now something that needs a major overhaul as it simply isn't working, and blocking registered editors just makes for more problems than it solves. I'm still trying to figure out the wording for these adjustments and wondering if I have the time to fight what might be a losing battle and whether something can be done to tweak the block button application. Perhaps a software plug which states that the registered editor has X number of edits and cannot be blocked without consensus. There can be no doubt though that our current set up is broken. Please...before this gets shot down, think a moment about what we can do that might make the blocking policy more realistic and less open to individual interpretation. I really would like to see what others might have to say on this matter.--MONGO 05:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I have just come here thinking the same thing, that there are issues with our blocking policy. I was under the impression that all editors must be warned and given a little time to change before they are blocked (except for legal and death treats). This is my practice even for simple vandalism. Per this though Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Blocking a warning before hand is optional even if the user in question has made tens of thousands of high quality edits and is in good standing within the community.

We spend so much effort trying to attract new editors with variable success. IMO we also really need to make sure we keep the long term editors we have. Long term editors need to be treated at least as good as simple vandals if not better. I propose we change "optional warning" to "It is required to warn a user before blocking them (with the exception of legal or death threats and obvious sock puppetry)" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

At a minimum such a change would have to take account of blp. If someone, registered or not, goes off the rails and starts posting blp-violating material across multiple pages he needs to be blocked immediately. Tom Harrison 14:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The accuracy of medical content is just as important as blp issues and I still warn all people before considering blocking them. It is fairly simple really. Someone makes a few really bad edits, you warn them and revert the changes, someone makes more bad edits you block them temporarily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

As the author of WP:NOTNAS, I'm not sure I'd support institutionalizing that advice. Discretion is important, but so is admin accountability. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This would give some time for accountability and force all admins to think a little before blocking someone. Blocks can seriously hurt the project as they can drive away some excellent volunteers.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While the same could be said of other block reasons, not all BLP violations are the same. There are BLP violations, there are serious BLP violations, and then there are egregious BLP violations. Minor BLP violations happen all the time, such as when a living persons date of birth is in dispute and there are no, or only unreliable sources being used, such a case deserves at lot of warning/discussion before a block should be on the table, maybe even getting to an edit warring block first. Serious BLP violations occur when someone adds negative information that may well be accurate, but that clearly violates BLP due to a lack of citation, or where the article is more negative then is supported by the sources. Such violations still deserve at least a warning before block. Then there are cases where an editor goes entirely off the rails and starts throwing around totally unsubstantiated libelous statements and really nasty personal attacks aimed at the subject, those are the BLP violations where a block without warning may be appropriate even for a vested contributor. The problem is how to draft a policy that provides a consensus requirement for blocks of experienced editors, but still provides sufficient leeway to deal with ongoing conduct that is really egregious, potentially with legal implications. Monty₈₄₅ 15:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue this is attempting to address is the fact that we have users who treat blocking as a "ban hammer" or "block hammer". We need measures to encourage greater though before blocking to decrease the drama fallout that occurs afterwords. I see only a couple good reasons to block someone based on a single edit 1) deleting the main page 2) threatening someones life 3) threatening legal action. All the rest everyone deserves a second chance IMO. A chance to show reason as it is easy to misunderstand a single edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:28, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think at the least, we should mandate that no matter how seasoned an editor is, prior to the block they should always get a notification beforehand. Secondly, any block to be overturned must be done only on consensus via posting at AN/I...but my appraoch is actually more radical than that, as I am leaning towards putting some sort of end to blocking registered editors. I know that sounds off the deep end, but its pretty obvois to me that our current system is definitely broken.--MONGO 01:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the idea of mandating review before every block. An obviously mistaken or abusive block, or one that is clearly ill-considered (as determined by the post-block review) should be undone on sight. This current arbitration request supports my position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit quality and contribution counts should not be factors in a block decision, unless the block is specifically to prevent low quality edits from being repeated. Behaviour, contribution quantity, and contribution quality are three separate things that need to be considered separately.—Kww(talk) 02:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

What I am proposing is simply that established edits get the same warnings as new editors. That their is one standard which is that all people get a warning and a chance to change before being blocked. There are almost no problems that do not deserve this as a minimum. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Standardizations that all get warnings is fine and I generally agree with that proposal, but....its not uncomnon for the editor just warned to then get even more irritated, not surprisingly. I have a lot of faith in most admins, and I'm not trying to single out anything that has happened recently. However, looking from afar at the general trend, there have been an increasing set of blocks that seem to me to have been done with too much zeal. This is an issue I'm still trying to scope out a way to both make the role of the administrator less confrontational, and the end result of controversial blocks less controversial. As I said at the start of this section, there may be a technical manner in which blocks cannot be applied. I've stated in other areas recently that the number and or quality of edits doesn't give anyone the right to violate polices. I have also stated that most usertalk acrimony is best ignored. Still looking at this to see what is going to make for a more practical blocking policy.MONGO 14:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Previous blocks are a warning, though. If I see that someone has been blocked for edit-warring before and I'm thinking about blocking him for edit-warring again, I see no value in warning him again. All it does is start a cycle where the editor edit wars up until receiving the warning notice.—Kww(talk) 15:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Why don't admins simply protect the page for a short duration...post reminders about editwarring on the page and maybe at AN/I. My goal is to try and put administrators in a position where their actions will create the least pain for all involved.MONGO 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Because full-protection of a page is a last resort. I'd block a handful of users rather than fully protect a page in nearly all instances. The goal is to allow editors that behave themselves to continue to edit normally and to get editors that are not behaving themselves to either correct their behavior or go away. The only time I would fully protect a page because of an edit war is if the problem is so widespread that I'd be handing out dozens of blocks. To answer the probable next question, yes, most of the blocks I give in such situations are indefinite, and are lifted as soon as the editor agrees to stop participating in the edit war. For a truly well-intentioned editor, the situation is resolved within hours.—Kww(talk) 17:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And I do the exact opposite. Most pages are only edited by a handful of editors. I would fully protect a page to force people to discuss long before banning a handful of editors. IMO this does much less harm to the editor group. One does not need to single anyone out which is impossible without a thorough review of the case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if an editor is blocked, they aren't going to be hashing out the content dispute on the article talkpage, their going to be posting unblock notices at their own talkpage. I dint like penalizing others and keeping them from editing an article, so its just a thought. All I'm doing right now is seeing what we can do to improve the block policy by starting with feedback here. I don't know if its currently viable to seek out more input or not.MONGO 20:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't/can't "ban" anyone. Saying "you can't edit until you agree to stop edit-warring on article x" shouldn't be a major problem. It's generally resolved within hours, and quite painless.—Kww(talk) 21:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The opposite: it's very painful for people of normal social sensibility. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If it "shouldn't be a major problem", then it can be addressed by talking rather than blocking. Blocking without talking often means blocking without information, and thus quickly overturned blocks. I'm not at all keen on the notion of indef blocks with requirements as a condition for unblock. "Agree to follow policy" is one thing, but admins may come up with out-of-policy "conditions" once they stray from that. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a major problem. We sometimes lose excellent editors over this. It creates massive drama. People deserve to at least be warned before hand. Anyway will start a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Mongo and Doc James on the temporary full-protection vs. blocking a handful of users question. If it's just one editor who is warring against a consensus of other editors, sure, block them for 3RR. If it's just two warring against each other, and it looks like they're doing it in good faith (trying to address each others' concerns, leaving good edit summaries, using the talk page, not attacking each other), a 24-hour page protection and a warning about edit warring beats blocks any day. If it's 4 or more editors, the minor inconvenience of having a protected page doesn't come near the amount of drama and disruption resulting from so many blocks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked on the whim of a single admin

The following thread had been transferred from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Editor Retention at the suggestion of Bishonen (below). --Epipelagic (talk) 02:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is a classic example, fresh off the press, of the current power imbalance that can exist between a dubious admin and a competent content builder. On the one side is arrogance and the sense of being untouchable, and on the other side is the sense of injustice, of being unrecognised, and of hurt. I think this is an important example and cuts to the heart of the editor retention problems.

Long term, experienced editors who have demonstrated overall competence and commitment to content building should never be blocked at the whim of a single admin. Whether blocking is appropriate and on what terms should be decided by a panel of the content builder's peers. Blocking is a useful tool for dealing with vandals and hard core disruptors. It should be used on experienced editors only in exceptional circumstances. Blocking an editor is a deeply humiliating experience, and should never be undertaken lightly, certainly not in the throwaway manner some current admins have. Many editors leave the project after what they perceive is an unjust block.

Over the last few hours there have been a number of these stupid blocks. Some the content developers who were blocked were admins themselves, so the admin system is even biting itself on the arse. As a result, we have lost major content builders, and sorely wounded others.

Here is another example, also fresh off the press, made with no warning on competent content developers, and resulting in the loss of SandyGeorgia.

If these attacks are to continue, they could at least be made a little more workable and benign. Inappropriate blocks made against content developers should be acknowledged by other content developers as wounds that have to be endured by developers. Content developers attacked that way should be marked with awards of honour. Admins will never police themselves, and they are so numerous that they negate any attempts to make them accountable. As a group, they have no will to rationally overhaul the admin system, only to prop up the existing system. The more destructive clowns among admins should be separated from the responsible admins, and treated for what they are by the rest of the community. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting reading, and reassuring to see that one is not alone. I've been given a final final warning by an admin who seems happy to endlessly quote policy yet unwilling to discus how the different policies interact. Edwardx (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it was standard practice to warn editors before blocking them. Does not appear to be done in a number of these cases. Even simple vandals are given this privilege. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. A lot of users are banned with no warning at all and worse...the blocks are a mistake by the admin. There is little to do put suck it up, shut up and scream your head off when the block log is used against you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:32, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that does not sound fair. I could see a few exceptions like "death threats", "legal threats" and "sock puppets" but other than that. Maybe we need to see if we could get consensus around this? Something like "Before blocking a fellow editor one must verify that they have been warned for a similar issue in the recent past" With of course the exceptions above. Otherwise any admin should be able to come along and revert and the banning admin should be warned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I saw a discussion on this very issue the other day. Can't remember where, but it was about warning before blocking.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

IMO it should be mandatory. Do you know where one would propose something like this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I looked through my Watchlist and the discusion is here but only in regards to civility blocks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and a similar discuss has been begun here Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Blocking_policy_alterations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

There was also this editor, apparently topic banned without notification by an admin, after the admin was approached on an obscure thread by another admin. The accosted editor stopped editing for a couple of months. Contrast this to a current disruption issue, where there is a proper RFC/U, but the individual in question is still editing in the topic area. And don't forget the Perth case, where ArbCom appeared to have desysopped an admin without notification that they were being discussed. The solution seems to be that individual editors seem to be getting more and more aggressive in their rhetoric, stopping just short of incivility. (Unless they are truly disruptive, in which case nothing stops them.) This is creating an editing culture that is contentious rather than a collaborative. So what is the answer, an ombudsman? (ombudswoman?) Neotarf (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin can't topic ban someone unilaterally unless there are discretionary sanctions or special sanctions previously agreed to at WP:AN or WP:ARB. For instance, there are special sanctions at MMA currently, so I could topic ban someone from all MMA articles but I have to warn them first. There are some reasons to block without a warning first, ie: socking, gross BLP/vandalism but the vast majority of times, editors should be warned first. Policy doesn't require this however, and it would be very difficult to force admin to warn first via policy for a number of reasons that might not be obvious at first glance. It is impossible to list all the right times to warn first, for starters.

Admin are just as different from each other as non-admin. There is no cabal and certainly a lot of disagreement (and sometimes, vitriol privately) between them regarding how to deal with blocks. Screaming at admin that are quick on the trigger often backfires and makes them dig in. I'm not sure how we encourage more gentle handling by them, except leading by example. More importantly, there are a number of techniques to prevent a block, but it is a lot of work and not every admin is willing or patient enough to learn and use the techniques. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the process can be abused in a number of ways. For example a single admin can impose an editing restriction. For example an editor can be blocked and then unblocked on condition that he avoid a certain area - effectively a topic ban. An admin can use unreasonably wide interpretation of a topic ban to achieve their own ends, and people will be reluctant to get involved (if indeed they can be notified by the wronged editor). All these I have seen occur. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC).

The admin's note on that talk page looked to me like a warning, and the next action from the admin would be a block. The situation seems to have now been contained by a series of comments from several editors, some more congenial than others. And if you look at something like Talk:Men's rights movement, I made one small edit there, to remove what appeared to be vandalism by a drive-by IP, and I got templated by the involved admin and my name placed on a probation list. Reading the probation page, which contains such uninformative and condescending gems as "We actually know when we cross the line; we are all intelligent people", I interpret to mean the admin has broad latitude to define which edits are "bettering the article" and would block me if I edited there again. As a relatively new user with barely a thousand edits, I don't know what to think. I don't see this stuff spelled out in a policy anywhere, or any way to take an inappropriate block off someone's record. This[REDACTED] place seems to have hidden landmines all over the place. One dare not set foot in it without a posse. Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

This is a notification about the status of an article which clearly stated the admin was finding no fault with your edit. NE Ent 00:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. That template was dumped on my talk page in the context of the same admin making uncivil and unsupported accusations against me and others during a 45,000-word RFC that is now archived. Also note that a request for an ArbCom judgment was lodged involving that page, and the same admin. I had recommended, along with other editors, that the requested title change be the lower cased "Men's rights" instead of "Men's Rights", per WP:TITLE, and the request for the title change be made via Misplaced Pages:Requested moves instead of RFC. Note the Byzantine wording of the notification, also the fact that some editors are notified and some aren't. Neotarf (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Many good points are made above, and I urge you to move this discussion to WT:BLOCK, where MONGO has recently started to get the ball rolling on a proposed policy change that would make such blocks as the OP describes a thing of the past. (Header: "Blocking policy alterations".) No sense in spreading the subject over several boards, and proposing changes to the blocking policy — which is what WT:BLOCK does — is more likey to lead to actual concrete change, than letting off steam here at "editor retention" (though that certainly has its uses also, for consciousness raising). Bishonen | talk 02:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

RfC: Warning before blocking

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Currently we state "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking". I propose we change this to "Warnings are generally required before blocking except in the extreme cases of a) legal or death threats b) obvious sock-puppetry" Blocks should never be taken lightly and have a high risk of seriously harming our community / creating excess drama. Nearly all users should have a chance to change their behavior and a single edit is almost never justification for a block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support especially the idea of the anti drama aspect.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Editors should not have to work, as they do at present, with a Damocles sword hanging over them, and no warning of when it going to fall. That is a malignant working environment. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I might be willing to support a finer-grained proposal ("Blocking for X must be preceded by a warning" or "Blocking users of Type Y must be preceded with a warning"), but this is far too wide an attempt. There are a number of cases I can think of off the top of my head where blocking without any or a full set of warnings is not only a decent idea, but is the current standard. Vandalism raids full of multiple editors piling in to destroy an article at the request of someone else, for example. Accounts with libelous names/edits where their mere existence is problematic. Accounts that immediately set off on sprees of such vicious vandalism that it's clear they have no intention of editing in any other way, such as adding hate speech or death wishes (which are distinct from death threats). Narrow your scope and this would be a proposal worth considering, but with its current scope it would harm admins' ability to mop up serious issues efficiently. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The proposal is well-intentioned, but needs refinement. For instance, the "a) legal or death threats, b) obvious sock puppetry" needs to be expanded or at least broadened to include disruption only accounts. So, oppose in its current form, I guess. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, as it makes no provisions for repeat offenders. Blocking without an initial warning for the first block is rarely justifiable, but when someone repeats the behaviour that led to a previous block, there's no need to get locked into a misbehave/warn cycle that can't lead to a block because the editor hasn't been warned for this particular piece of misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support, there's a requirement for some disincentive to the often reflexive and damaging impetus to block. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not that hard to not get blocked, nor is it particularly hard to get unblocked once blocked. NE Ent 01:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose It is traditional to block open proxies with no warning. We have a bot that issues thousands of proxy blocks every year. Needless to say, the bot does not notify the user first and wait for a response. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Some behavior does not merit a warning, and some people know better. Warnings are a courtesy towards those who may not be aware of Misplaced Pages rules, not a "get out of jail free" card such that everyone gets to commit every disruption multiple times. No. --Jayron32 02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above oppose rationales, plus the scenario outlined by the proposal is far too vulnerable to gaming of the system. The primary purpose of a warning is to educate the user about Misplaced Pages Policies such as edit warring, 3RR, BLP, and WP:BLOCK, (among others), once a user has been warned/educated, then blocks may be applied if the user continues the disruptive behavior. With IP's we do look at the timeframe of the warnings because a new person may be using the same IP, but has not been warned and therefore may not yet know the rules. Established users who are familiar with WP:POLICY on blockable offenses should not need to be warned over and over again - this would allow for massive gaming of the system. Admins should have the flexibility to use their judgment in blocking scenarios, the proposed changes greatly reduce that flexibility. The current wording is fine. Dreadstar ☥ 04:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose in the details. Without a doubt I agree that talking to people is FAR better than blocking, but I have some real issues when it comes to "socks". Chasing "socks" is a HUGE waste of time. People move, change ISPs, and anyone with the slightest clue can game the "sock" crap. I'll resist the urge to spill the WP:BEANS, but as long as people are playing the "smack the sock" game, then Wikipdeia is gonna be a second rate site. You deal with things on an account by account basis ... if the edits improve the project - then STFU. If the account is hurting the project .. then you shut them down. FAR too much time and energy is expended on old grudges, returning socks, RTV, and "crap, I just want to edit some stuff". But whatever - you folks do what you want .. idc. — Ched :  ?  04:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as is, although I'd be open to supporting it if it included a few more caveats such as obvious vandalism. The guy who welcomes himself to Misplaced Pages by filling random articles with shock images doesn't merit a mere warning in my opinion. That said, there is a undoubtedly a problem with long-term contributors being blocked for brief lapses in decorum; if we can find some way to distinguish between generally good-faith editors who are having a bad day and the account whose first edits are to put swastikas in high-traffic templates, we may be on our way to a saner blocking policy. 28bytes (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - during high-speed disruption, there's the potential for lots of damage before the block is actually imposed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support in principle, but as always, the devil is in the details. Take for example, this threat. The admin does not threaten the individual who is being disruptive (see WT:Requests for comment/Apteva), but the 28 editors who are trying to stop the disruption. The article is already under Arbcom santions; someone who violates the sanction should be notified on their own talk page and at the appropriate notice board, and given an opportunity to discuss and possibly self-revert, not some generic blanket notification of en masse blocks on an obscure talk page thread. The intention may be good here, but the effect is chilling. Neotarf (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There are plenty of editors out there who don't need warnings because they've already had plenty of them and/or they know what is acceptable and what is not. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Policy already says that blocks are not punitive, so no one has policy support for blocking anyone for a single edit unless there is a reason to believe that it prevents further problematic edits. On the other hand there are situations where it is not possible to give warning's for example when long term problematic editing patterns are discovered (e.g. malignant hoaxing). Policy is fine as is, gives sufficient protection to editors and enough leeway for admins to do their job effectively.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, but we should add something such "Blocks should be preceded by warnings". Should means "it's normally a good idea, and not doing it is generally a bad idea", but it doesn't absolutely require anything. The current requirements are better than the proposal for permitting a necessary exercise of judgement, but a "should" statement would be a good reminder that you need to think it over a little before blocking without warning. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I can think of several cases where warnings are pointless: certain username blocks or vandal-only blocks, for example. --Rschen7754 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support as an uninvolved but concerned member of the great unwashed who was drawn to Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy as a result of a few recent, without-warning, blocks (and unblocks) of others that I personally thought were unwarranted. For example O'Dea (talk · contribs · logs · block log),Drmies (talk · contribs · logs · block log), Scottywong (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs · logs · block log). I have carefully read through the whole of the RfC on Warning before blocking, including all the oppose/support responses. Some oppose rationales stood out such as this one (which I queried here). I know some editors feel violated when such blocks occur to them, such as here and here, even withdrawing from Misplaced Pages taking their excellent tools with them. I accept there are cases where blocking without warning is necessary; I suggest this is covered in the RfC as "Warnings are generally required before blocking ..." (my emphasis) --Senra (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: While the vast majority of blocks should and do follow the warning process, there are numerous situations where a block is warranted without warning. Admin accountability is important and while we have that, we should look at if that needs to be increased, but this is not the way to solve that problem. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much policy-creep. We have accountability, and the editor at the centre of a recent situation is currently in front of ArbCom as part of that accountability. Not all blocks require a warning, we "elect" admins because of perceived judgement, and expect them to acct accordingly. Yes, people occasionally screw up, but that doesn't mean you handcuff admins from acting when and where they need to (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Well intentioned but not helpful. There are as has been pointed out numerous times multiple nuances to blocking and warnings and why warnings are not always required. There are already however times when warnings are required (RFARs etc) and warning is generally good practice but that is very different to the proposed wording--Cailil 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While some no-warning blocks turn out to be problematic, the fact is the vast majority of all blocks are entirely uncontroversial. Saddling admins with such a requirement will not help eliminate the few blocks that turn out to be a problem and is instruction creep, which is bad enough here already. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Well-intentioned, but unfortunately, it is not really helpful. Administrator accountability is important. Put simply, this proposal is not the way to solve the problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - While it is refined somewhat, it is not to the extent that addresses cases that can be extreme. Take the original accounts of Fragments of Jade and Zhoban, for example. Their original behavior did not necessarily fit the criteria hypothetically established by this proposed rule, but their incivility and disregard for consensus were extreme to such an extent that it was abundantly clear that there were no other alternatives. I'd like to endorse a refinement, but I don't see it as being plausible to occur. DarthBotto _talk•cont 05:56, 07 January 2013 (UTC)
• A solution looking for a problem. Unjustified blocks without warning are rare. Justified blocks without warning are common. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose unless problematic usernames is added to the list of exceptions. Some consideration should also be given to whether or not we should say something about "repeated offences" in the policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Prefer Unilateral blocks without warning may not exceed 24 hours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that fixes it either. Accounts that are only being used to vandalize Misplaced Pages are blocked indefinitely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I assumed that we were talking about regulars, previously productive accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't favor timed blocks for accounts at all. If a named account is blocked it's because of a particular piece of misbehaviour, and the block shouldn't be lifted until there's an assurance that the misbehaviour won't repeat.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Kww, a dedicated editor gets blocked over some minor offense after tens of thousand of edits. Years later, after more tens of thousands of edits, he slips up, maybe exhausted from the work he is doing here. You say, further above on this page, that you want to descend upon him, and block him again with no warning. Worse, from what you also say above, it seems you are going to give him an indefinite block, and really make him grovel. How can this behaviour of yours be anything other than punitive? You are punishing the editor in effect for contributing so well... since for most normal humans an occasional lapse over a long period is inevitable. Admins are allowed to make lapses without sanctions, so long as the lapse are directed only at content editors. From where I sit, as a content builder, it looks to me that you want to further ramp up the asymmetric power that admins wield against content builders. From what you say earlier on this page, it appears that this is already your practice, so presumably the block guidelines already allow admins behave in this manner. So to some extent this is already the status quo. Have I in any way misrepresented your position? Do you seriously believe forcing content builders to work in such a threatening environment is really in Misplaced Pages's interest?--Epipelagic (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• So many adjectives and verbs that you could have used, and those are the ones you come up with? When did I ever discuss "groveling"? Or "descend upon him?" "Punish"? "Threatening"? No, I'm not going to block an editor for a minor screwup every 10,000 edits. I don't block at all if I think a warning will accomplish the task. On the converse, I don't warn if I think the editor is well aware that he is misbehaving, either. I don't block accounts for timed periods very often, and that's not because I want or expect anyone to grovel. It's because I don't want an editor to think he is being punished for his misbehaviour and start making decisions like "Well, if I tell Fred to fuck off, it'll only be a 72 hour block" or "I'm going away for the weekend, so I might as well do that again before I go, since the block won't matter." I want them to agree not to misbehave, and to understand that if they won't stop misbehaving, they won't edit, either. All it takes is simple statements like "I agree to stop changing the picture in that infobox without getting consensus" or "I won't keep adding information to articles from a blog that people have already told me is not a reliable source", or something of the like. Look over my block record, show me any blocks where you think I asked someone to grovel, and we'll talk.—Kww(talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It is precisely to the point that the adjectives and verbs you fail to use are the exact adjectives and verbs that you should be using. Content editors on the receiving end of your indefinite blocks, made without warning, will see it this way. It seems like you feel that flicking off a content editor, like you would flick a bug off your shirt, is a minor matter since there isn't a real person at the other end. Long term committed content builders freely give skills and time here, for no rewards apart from the pleasure of a useful job well done. Some work harder than you do. The more they contribute the more likely they are to be punished and humiliated at the whim of some admin who believes content builders should be treated like vandals. Once a content builder gets a block log, he is branded for the rest of time here by certain admins who feel more and more empowered to block and harass him. This is an odious ethos. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If anything you were saying actually reflected my thought process or behaviour, I would agree to use adjectives like that. Since you are arguing with something that I don't do, can I request that you don't act like your issue is with me?—Kww(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, But I am now confused about this difference, which may be apparent to you but isn't to me, between what you say and what your thought processes are. Instead of replying specifically to my query, "Have I in any way misrepresented your position?", you have just thrown up dust about adjectives I have used. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this happen to an editor who was one of the 25 most active editors. Edits requiring thought, too, not bots. Blocked for edit warring when the edits involved removing inaccurate BLP material in a P/I topic area. After that he just got blocked automatically, without talk page discussion. The editor who got him blocked waited, and then reinserted all the disputed material that had been removed during conflict resolution. So two things happened. First, the unfair blocks hurt his relationship with the Project. Second, if he did have some behaviors that needed to be addressed, nobody addressed them and he had no chance for feedback and improvement. A simple vandal would have been given so much more consideration than that. Why do we try to work with vandals, but not with extraordinary and talented editors? --Neotarf (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that attitude, when used against regulars, amounts to forcing the infringing user into a humiliating public apology, and in too many cases it worsens the relationships. If someone is blocked for a first behavioural slip, even serious, I think it is sufficient apology for them to back away and not do it again.

In regards to deliberate and sustained vandalism, or deliberately violating WP:SOCK, the indefinate block, open to the possiblility of talk page or email communication, is the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The effort is to get rid of unilateral blocks without prior warning in nearly all but a few critical situations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• If one has been recently previously blocked this counts as being recently previously warned. Would be happy to clarify that this only applies for the "first block".

• For the same sort of offence, yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• If someone threatens the life of another editor IMO they do not need to do it twice before being blocked.
• I think it is most important if this proposal applies to established editors. But in my practice I even give vandals a second chance. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• RE point 1. My thoughts are to block first for 24 hours, and to raise the issue for discussion at WP:ANI. With a second admin involved, it is not longer unilateral. Threats to kill are not necessarily intended seriously or literally, although here, in public written form, I would take them very seriously and would expect to support an indefinite block until the editor retracts the threat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Too much micromanagement. NE Ent 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I would 100% support this if it said "used" rather than "required". I suppose that would then be a guide - but I am all for guides, and not much for inflexible policy. Rich Farmbrough, 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC).

That would be somewhat of an improvement over what we currently have. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• We talk of applying consistent rules to everyone whether they are a new editor or an established editor. However there appears to be little consistency between how different admins handle a similar situation (ie some warn before hand, some simply block). If admins are truly janitors supporting the community one would expect decisions to be left less to individual judgement and more to be based on recommendations / policies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The devil is in the details.

  Generally agree with Doc James, but I think it is too early to be voting.

  I think it would be helpful if types of cases were divided:

(1) New users who just need to learn some etiquette

(2) New accounts that do not look like serious new contributors (vandals, disruptive socks, spamming SPAs)

(3) Established accounts that behave poorly, badly or unwisely one day, out of character or worse than normal

(4) Established accounts that do something egregious

(5) Established accounts with a history of warnings and blocks, and a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with behaviour norms.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't this proposal create a "freebie" situation? Example: Editor A really gets my goat. If the worst that can happen to me is a warning, I'll just saunter over to Editor A's talk and let them have an earful (or, I guess, an eyeful in internet terms). After my warning, maybe I'll have to revert my comment, but big whoop. I could see this increasing the amount of drama, rather than reducing it. The deterrent factor is decreased by mandatory warnings. The Interior (Talk) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  Most people I think would consider a warning a deterrent in an of itself. If the issue is a long term pattern than it is brought to ANI and community consensus is achieved for a block. The issue is we sometimes need to temper down those who block to readily / easily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I would hope so too, but idealism doesn't jive with the discourse I've seen recently on this project. Practically speaking, though, I can't see this improving behaviour. It may address the problem you're describing. What we have to decide is whether allowing more rule-breaking in return for fewer blocks is a good trade. The Interior (Talk) 03:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• This would create an interesting question about potentially invalid warnings. If I'm warned for something I haven't done, and then later do it, am I entitled to a second warning, or can the previous warning in error be used to justify the block? Does it matter how vigorously I dispute the first warning? Must I take it someplace to be formally overturned? Will I be considered on notice for conduct if I warn another editor for the same conduct I then commit (or otherwise evidence knowledge of the policy I violate)? Currently the question of warnings is not a major issue in that the validity of a block does not turn on them, but this would change that calculus, and will accelerate some drama from the block stage to the warning one. Monty₈₄₅ 13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• As a standard of operating procedure, warnings precede any blocks. However, for posting boilerplates on established editors pages, it shouldn't be surprising if the warned party doesn't tell you where to go. I can think of at least one situation, where an admin warned a long term editor, the editor retorted, the warning admin applied a week long block, the block was reduced to a day, the admin was subsequently desysopped based in part on this incident. In other situations, we have admins doing blocks on established editors, almost immediately being overturned with no discussion beforehand, no warnings, nor consensus for any of these actions. Obviously, the blocking of established editors is almost always seen as controversial by some editors. Now, I know I'm not saying anything we don't already know, but its more obvious than ever that this system is broken.MONGO 15:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• An admin shouldn't place a block that's likely to be overturned. If it's got the point that any blocked established editor is likely to be unblocked, then some admins need to be desysopped or the blocking policy needs to change to reflect practice. Tom Harrison 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  Concur with that. Several issues are worth meditating about. First, civility blocks rarely work. Secondly, blocking established editors rarely solves anything. Thirdly, page protection isn't utilized frequently enough. Fourth, according to the blocking policy which seems to strongly discourage punitive blocks, these types of blocks are generally the type that are most often applied to established editors. Fifth, cool-down blocks are abusive, insulting and solve little. Sixth, the block policy does not reflect reality as Tom mentions. Lastly, if anyone thinks the admins are unable to solve a problem, then assemble a preponderance of diffs and march to arbitration...if the committee won't take the case, then it's time to move on.MONGO 16:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  Not necessarily -- a block could be imposed with the intent to stop disruption. Once the disruption has stopped, anyone can lift the block, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  That word "disruption" gets thrown around too easily. Established editors are very rarely "disruptive" in any real sense; they know what will and won't happen on the WP. And that's why most undiscussed blocks on long-term editors are out of place, and are often at least as "disruptive" as the behaviour they are alleged to be stopping. I would support blocking admins who make ill-considered admin actions, but I know some admins wouldn't like that. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• • Block them all and let Allah sort it out? There is some heated discussion about this particular diff at User talk:SarekOfVulcan#Your threats at AT. In this case, the disruption should have been addressed directly, rather than trying to keep the peace by reinstating the disruptive edit for fear of the disruptive individual throwing a hissy fit. —Neotarf (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
• Will should we just close this RfC and reformulate it after further discussion? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: I think that having a block warning policy is an excellent idea, the devil is always in the details, but I think something like a "generally warn before blocking, except for exceptions a, b, c... which can be blocked without warning" policy or guideline will be very helpful. A side comment: sometimes an RfC is just an endless troll drama that can exhaust the victims for weeks, and having the option of a good hard block first, then discuss can provide a needed wakeup call to the people who may not listen to a TLDR discussion. Montanabw 16:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why not warn and then bring warning to ANI if the problem continues? The problem as I see it, is the wheel-warring policy allows an unblock. Simply change it so that a warning by one admin and a block by another cannot by undone without being considered a wheel war. Limit the blocking admin to one block per user (never to block that user for other than the most severe cases). For an established editor, there should never be a single admin wielding the hammer and that admin should steer clear forever after the block. Don't let ANI be a "no consensus" battleground after block/unblock. Let the 2 party warn/block stand if any admin believes their block is legitimate. Let them defend it and if it's "no consensus", the block stands. There is no incentive to adhere to a warning right now as the offenders know they will be unblocked and no admin will reblock. --DHeyward (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  Administrators shouldn't be drawn and quartered for blocking a repeat offender. I can think of at least two episodes where an admin warned of a potential for a block but said they wouldn't do it because they could be seen as involved. Just for the warning, the admin was then besieged by several compatriots of the warned party with threats of retaliation. It is at that point, that an arbitration case should have been filed. I agree with the idea that blocks on established editors should best be handled by two or more admins, rather than by unilateral action. So one thought I had was that the software be tweaked so that any established editor with at least 500 articles space edits can only be blocked by two admins doing the block within 15 minutes of each other before the block can take actual effect. I know this is grasping at straws a bit...its just one thought I am having regarding this, it probably makes no sense or is even adaptable. Dheyward, this would then make the AN/I reporting mandatory. My goal is to reduce the drama of unilateral blocks, even though we all know that even unanimous decisions by arbcom foster a fair share of drama as well.MONGO 14:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

  • As said above, admins shouldn't be making a block that is likely to be overturned. Nobody is going to overturn a block for a serial vandal. A block of an established editor, however, is likely to be overturned or at least controversial, though the ANI pileon effect can mask the controversy. The problem lies with both hasty blocks and hasty unblocks, so both need to be handled somehow. Just grasping here, but what if an admin could only block or unblock an account once? That seems to be how it generally goes for established accounts already. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideas on advice on blocks, by type of case

1) New users who just need to learn some etiquette.

These users should receive gentle warnings initially, and an initial block should only be long enough to break their momentum in doing bad.

(2) New accounts that do not look like serious new contributors (skilled vandals, disruptive socks, spamming SPAs).

Block immediately and indefinately. For the very few cases where the person is open to change, let them make the next step by posting on their talk page.

(3) Established accounts that behave poorly, badly or unwisely one day, out of character or worse than normal

These users should receive escalating warnings, followed by short blocks to communicate our seriousness. Usually, a brief loss of temper is regained, and we should make more of an isolated incident than it deserves. Forcing a public apology and request for forgiveness from someone who is angry, and maybe even feels arguably justified, is no way to return to harmony.

(4) Established accounts that do something egregious, like threaten harm, threaten outing, off-wiki harassment, or extreme incivility

I think that these cases are frequently far more complicated than may initially appear. I recommend a short (24 hour) block and the raising of the incident at WP:ANI for discussion. Leave it for a second admin, informed by discussion at WP:ANI, to extend the block. Note that WP:WHEEL them prevents a random (or not so random) third admin from unblocking without a demonstrated consensus.

(5) Established accounts with a history of warnings and blocks, and a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with behavioural norms.

This is a very different story to what I think Doc James has in mind and is probably better discussed separately

I think that if an initial block is reduced or reversed, it undermines the credibility of the blocking admin. It makes the blocking admin look over-reactive and unsupported by the community. It would be much better to place a short block and leave it for a discussion as to whether to block longer. If the discussion doesn't support a longer block, the short block expires without the intial blocking admin facing the shame of having their administrative action reversed. If the discussion supports a longer block, there is certainly no shame on the admin who brought it to ANI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes agree that this breakdown would be useful. Incivility however does not requires an immediate block (except when one of a number of exceptions apply IMO). Maybe we should work on spelling these exceptions out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my own opinion is that blocks should only be imposed when nothing else would do. That clearly works for all the emergency blocks required for vandalism, sockpuppetry, abusive usernames, compromised accounts, and so on. Blocking long-established editors is always going to be problematic, and particularly if it's done without any warning. It gets worse when the length of someone's previous block log is used in evidence against them, with no (or little) thought applied to the quality of previous blocks. The fact that someone has ten blocks isn't helpful in making a decision when a closer look at that block log shows that (for example) eight of the ten were really atrocious blocks (violations of WP:INVOLVED; blocked by a sock-admin; blocked by an admin who's since been desysopped for abuse of tools; blocked by one who ended up topic-banned from whatever area they blocked the blockee in ... etc. etc.) And then the remaining two blocks were for genuinely uncivil ranting about bad blocks being dished out ... that's kinda understandable. Really bad blocks should be able to be removed / oversighted from a block log, because if anyone has a history of injustice hanging over them for everyone to see and misunderstand, it is going to be used against them, and people will just assume that "all blocks are good blocks". Injustice sours people very badly. It sours anyone with two brain cells to rub together. It causes immense damage, and drives people away. Other measures are more likely to work better. in the long term: interaction bans, topic bans, page protection, etc. We should become better at thinking outside the box and coming up with something else before hitting the block button, in the majority of cases involving long-established editors. Adding: I'd personally be a damned sight more upset, offended, angry and permanently damaged if someone blocked me unjustly than if they called me a fucking cunt. The swearwords blow over very fast. The bad block never blows over. Pesky (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your final point is a key issue which some admins, particularly those with little experience in content building, do not seem to understanding or care about. It is a key reason why the admin system is terminally flawed. Admins like that should never have the power to block competent long term content builders. In fact most other admins should not have that power either, except perhaps when an editor runs amuck. The decision to block a serious content builder should be made only a panel of their peers. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you support the assertion that admins with less content building in their history are more likely to make bad or controversial blocks? Looking at the two latest big blocking controversies, all 3 of the blocking admins have extensive content building histories. Monty₈₄₅ 15:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• No, I can't support that assertion, and it's not an assertion that I made or would make. I can think of plenty of bad blocks made by admins who are or have been serious content builders. But I'm making two other points.

(1) The first point is that serious content builders should not be blocked at the whim of a single admin. It should be a panel, to reduce the likelihood of idiot blocks made by single maverick admins. At present, far too many of these are happening. Perhaps a small panel to keep things manageable, and perhaps more than one panel. But blocking serious content builders should not be an hourly occurrence, it should be a matter of last resort, and one panel should not be overwhelmed.

(2) The second point is that the panel would consist of editors with non trivial backgrounds in content building, so they are more likely to have some understanding of the psychology of content building and the pressures content builders experience. Some admins with no content building background would do a fine job, and some admins with much content building background would do a lousy job. But, on balance, a panel where every member has a content building background is going to do a more sensitive job than a panel where no members have content building experience. And, importantly, content builders will feel they can engage more intelligently with and have more trust with such a panel.

At present, any maverick admin, perhaps one who became an admin 10 years ago when he was a schoolboy, and perhaps one with no experience in editing or anything much else for that matter, can descend at any time on any content editor, no matter how skilled and dedicated, and block them indefinitely at whim. I speak as a content builder who has no interest in being an admin, but would like to see a workable admin system and a constructive working environment for content builders. I would like to feel proud to be associated with the system here, instead of ashamed. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we have #5 because we let #4 linger. As I stated earlier, change the 'Wheel warring' policy with regards to blocks on an established account with a warning followed by a block by a second admin. Limit it's scope on established accounts (say 72 hours) without consensus. If 'Wheel waring' currently is a 'Third man in' rule and extending a block is considered a 'reversal' then simply make the original block a 1 second block. Second admin can extend to 24-72 hours. Consensus needed for more or to change second admin. I think there are admins that will undo a block as an interpretation of WP:WHEEL no matter how many times it was extended so it may be necessary to spell that out as a true 'Third Admin In' Wheel War rule. A 1 second block can't be reversed, it's logged, and is not disruptive to the editor. The extending admin can note it's an extension of the 1 second block. A 1 second block is also useful for establishing involved. --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A one-second block, unjustly applied, is damaging. As said above, people use the number of blocks in someone's block log to "pass judgement" on them. Forever. A bad one-second block is psychologically damaging. If someone had done that to me here, instead of the unjust admonishment which was struck from the record a week later, I'd have left, permanently. (And this wouldn't be happening.) I bloody nearly left as it was. I haven't been the same since. That shitstorm destroyed 75% of my pleasure in Misplaced Pages, because of the absolute pillockishness of a number of people who should have known better. Gross incompetence, gross incivility, total wrongheadedness, including from a number of admins. Never underestimate the damage caused by injustice. Pesky (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Except the problem today is that the block log is twice as long with block/unblock and twice as disruptive because a 3 hour block (the estimated average turnover time for block/unblock cycle) really pisses people off. A single 1 second block that isn't followed by an extension is easily attributable to "rouge" admins and should be nearly invisible to everyone and should be viewed as much less contentious than a 15 minute wheel war discussion about what civility means and whether it should apply all the while the editor is blocked. Preventing that admin from ever blocking the established user again, is huge though and the log is much easier to record "rouge" than sifting through talk page archives. If your choices were a block for 24 hours followed by an unblock 3 hours later OR a 1 second block not seconded, what would you choose? Obviously no blocks are best but users that aren't blocked aren't an issue here. --DHeyward (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't get over the problem of there being an entry in someone's block log. That's damaging. Taking just one well-known block log, the editor was blocked for "incivility" for calling a group of people sycophants. Now it seems perfectly OK for other people regularly to refer to groups of people as enablers, fan clubs, posses, supporters, and so on, with nary a sniff of ever being blocked for it. They all mean basically the same thing. Does that comply with your sense of justice? – 'coz it sure as heck doesn't sit too well with mine. Until blocks can be permanently expunged from someone's block log, they should be handed out only after very careful thought when applied for anything other than extreme circumstances (such as clear vandalism, outing, threats, compromised accounts, etc. etc.) Is it surprising that people get pissed off when others use the length of their block log against them without even stopping to consider the justness of blocks? Bad blocks shouldn't happen; and iof they do, they should be expunged from the log. You're saying "users that aren't blocked aren't an issue here", but, trust me, a user who's never been blocked could very easily have been wrongly blocked. I've never been blocked – but a one-second wrongful block would have made me walk away, because they're always used in evidence against people by some editors who either can't be bothered to assess quality, or who know darned well what's been going on but find it more convenient to comment on the quantity of blocks. The one-second block isn't a good idea – because it would make people more likely to apply blocks. The same sort of thing happens in the Real World court system – juries will convict without being absolutely sure, because they (mistakenly) think "Well, the guy can always appeal if we got it wrong". What they don;t know is that being innocent isn't grounds for appeal. You have to have fresh evidence or fresh legal argument – "the jury got it wrong" will get you nowhere. Tough. Ten one-second wrongful blocks for incivility will just have people saying "Look, he's been blocked ten times for incivility already; he should have learned by now!" ... when he gets pissed off at the latest eejit who gives him yet another one-second block. Pesky (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

If a person has ten blocks by ten different admins, they should get a look for whatever prize they are looking. I would certainly want to know why on 10 different occasions a different admin thought that person should be blocked. We don't currently have the ability to remove blocks from the log so the question isn't about removing bad blocks. There is no reason that an admin would risk losing his bit over a one second block. Why would they? They would have to be endorsed to get a meaningful block plus they are subject to all the "bad block" sanctions for a bad 1 second block. Further, they can't ever block that established editor again - all for a one second block. I think it would lead to less blocks while still allowing enforcement of the basic rules. You will never cure bad blocks and we can't edit the log. We have out of policy blocks all the time now, we might as well limit them to 1 sec and counsel the admin responsible. Read my block log, it was a bad block that was overturned and the admin lost his bit over poor judgement later down the line similar to that. The overturnings comment is also incorrect but three is nothing to do about it. What comes around, goes around so I am not worried we will ever tolerate abuse of tools. --DHeyward (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

A one-second block would be obviously petty point making. Such games would be inflamatory. As rules of thumb, I suggest that no unilaterally made block should be so long that any other admin could be justified in undoing it (assuming no reasonable response by the blocked user), and no block should be shorter than the time since the editor last edited. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Senra Thanks for the comments as you explain well why I have made this proposal with recent concrete examples. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think it is a good idea to discuss what kind of blocks cause the most problems. It seems the most controversial are blocks on long-term users for civility. I would suggest that "civility" is a bit to vague of a reason, encompassing numerous types of undesirable behavior. I have issued over 2,000 blocks and not a one of them had civility as the logged reason. There is almost always some more specific reason for an admin to block. Admins should also be strongly encouraged to solicit community input before issuing civility related blocks unless threats of harm are involved. This would reduce the number of such blocks that are speedily overturned by ensuring a consensus before the block is issued. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Those are, indeed, the worst. What percentage of "civility blocks" actually make the recipient more civil? I find that the majority of cases of incivility seem to be triggered by intense frustration, and the situations almost always bring themselves to a natural close fairly quickly. Blocks should be preventative, not punitive (always good to remember that one!) and it usually appears to me that blocks for incivility (especially on user talk pages) have an element of "There! That'll teach you!" vengeance about them. The block button should never be hit in revenge. That's not what it's for. The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon. Pesky (talk) 08:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Making the recipient of the block "more civil" isn't the only goal. With someone that persistently attacks other editors, getting them to go away is still preferable to suffering their continued misbehaviour.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Am I right in believing that the entire justification for this recent fad of trying to diminish the blocking policy is because editors have begun to believe that we are too harsh in blocking for classes 3 through 5 there? Because we most assuredly are not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think you are right.—Kww(talk) 14:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Should ArbCom, where appropriate, restrict the use of the block button by some admins?

Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration_motion_regarding_User:Hex. Feel free to comment on any of this here but restrict any commentary on the Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard thread to the question of whether it would be appropriate for ArbCom to act on this request. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

During the RfAr and prior AN discussions, Floq, Hex, DHeyward and I discussed the possibility of Hex restricting his use of the block button to cases of obvious vandalism and spamming. In the end, Hex agreed to not use it at all for a year.

There is a lot of discussion on user talk at the moment about inappropriate blocks, and a succession of threads beginning at Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy#Blocking policy alterations. Accurately diagnosing and dealing sensitively and effectively with anything but the simplest behaviour problems demands good social sensibility, intelligence and wisdom. This mix of traits is rarely found in the average person, and more rarely found here. Most of us recognise that RfA is broken; that it is not a good process for determining whether a person has these traits; and that we frequently give the block button to people constitutionally unfit for deciding when to use the block button. (I have no idea whether or not Hex fits that category, his may simply be a case of inexperience.)

Would you please consider, where appropriate, in future cases, restricting the use of the block button by some admins?

(Slightly off-topic for this board but ...) The community needs to decide whether automatically giving the block button to editors who have a genius for page protection, RevDel or AfD is really such a good idea. I think not. The block button needs to be treated as different from other admin permissions because the effects of blocking a content editor can't be undone like a bad RevDel.

Kww said in the abovelinked blocking policy discussion, arguing in favor of the Judge Dredd approach (him deciding who's the trouble-maker on an article talk page, rather than protecting the article), "Saying 'you can't edit until you agree to stop edit-warring on article x' shouldn't be a major problem. It's generally resolved within hours, and quite painless." In expressing this sentiment, or lack of sentiment, he enunciates nicely the problem. He and a number of other socially incompetent admins don't even know about the emotional impact of a block - particularly an unjust block - on content editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Before I respond to your question, Anthony, please remove the (as far as I can see) unprovoked personal attack towards Kww from your comments at once. Thank you.

Now then. I do thank Hex for agreeing to a voluntary restriction in this manner, as I do believe it helped diffuse and resolve this situation much more amicably; had he not, I doubt that a case would have been opened anyway in the lack of evidence showing a pattern of misuse of the block button and/or other misconduct (such as that at AN), but in doing so he helped to reassure the community that such an incident will not recur and at the same time more-or-less gave those calling for a desysopping what they actually wanted. As to whether ArbCom would forcibly prevent someone from using a particular facet of the admin tools... I'm not sure. I know we have in the past forbade admins from undertaking actions with respect to a particular topic area and/or user; this more-or-less amounts to a topic ban, something that is routinely done by both ArbCom and the community at large. I do not think, however, that we have forbade any admin from using any particular tool project-wide before. Nor do I think it is terribly likely in the future. Doing so creates a "partial admin;" a notion which has been proposed to and rejected by the community on a number of occasions. Our project's adminship is set up in such a way that for the community to grant a user access to the tools means they are trusting that user to use all of the tools appropriately and knowledgeably in all situations, or at the least recognize when they lack the knowledge or ability to use the tools appropriately in a particular situation, and then refrain from their use. Our community has made clear on several occasions that they see the admin tools as an all-or-nothing setup; for ArbCom to overrule this and impose our own definition of what a particular administrator can and cannot do would be, I believe, a violation of the community's trust in us.

Anyway, this was a long version of me saying that I personally would not support any motion to deny access to the block button from an administrator without removing the rest of their tools... at least, until the community demonstrates that they as a whole would support such a notion. If individual administrators take it upon themselves to restrict their own use of the tools, that is their decision, and one that the community has trusted them to make wisely. Hersfold 04:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed my commentary on Kww. I came back here to do that, actually, without having seen your comment, because it was redundant, and would likely generate unnecessary heat, not because it is a personal attack, whatever that is. We need to be able to discuss frankly and openly the merits and demerits of, particularly, our admins and arbitrators. I have to go out again so will read the remainder of your comment when I get back. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthony, looks like some of that commentary is still there as I write this :P

Hersfold, regarding "Our community has made clear on several occasions that they see the admin tools as an all-or-nothing setup", I'm not sure that the community is so clear about that any more, and I think there would be wide support for Anthony's suggestion. I certainly see it as sensible - the problem of block-happy administrators, as it relates to community morale, community calm and editor retention (and thus, just tangentially, encyclopedia-building), is far more important than the rather detached meta-principle of administrator toolsets being monolithic. Arbcom frequently clashes with the will of the community on all sorts of matters; I suggest this could be an example of arbcom actually doing what the community wants. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm back. Yes, I deleted the redundant introductory comment. Kww's own words make it very plain he's not socially sensible enough to be trusted with blocking anyone but very obvious spammers and vandals, and this is a necessary example that clarifies the point of my comment here. Contrary to Hersfold's apparent belief, it is permitted to discuss the competencies of admins and arbitrators. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's still there. It would be nice if Anthonycole would actually read the whole discussion, and recognize that the quoted statement was in regard to editors that had already been previously warned about the edit war or blocked for edit-warring and were continuing to edit-war. Those editors can be presumed to know full well what our policies on edit-warring are and what to expect when they are violated. Understanding that when such editors begin edit-warring again that warnings aren't useful is actually a sign of cognitive skill on my part, and not a lack of social sensibility. If editors don't want to be be blocked for edit-warring, then not edit-warring is a first and necessary step.—Kww(talk) 06:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I read the whole discussion. You have, sadly, missed the point, and I suspect you're constitutionally incapable of getting it. Blocking content editors hurts them. It is not painless. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is being discussed elsewhere? It would be better to make a statement here stating how the discussion elsewhere relates to this arbitration action, and then link to the other discussion and invite participation there from here. As opposed to dragging the discussion over there, to here. Carcharoth (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The question of whether ArbCom should, where appropriate, restrict the use of the block button by some admins is not, to my knowledge, being discussed elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So the entire post above can be collapsed to "Would you please consider, where appropriate, in future cases, restricting the use of the block button by some admins?"? This noticeboard talk page isn't really the right place to ask that. Having said that, I'm not entirely sure where the right place to ask would be. It is, as Hersfold notes, something you would likely need to propose somewhere to get community consensus on it (hint: starting such a discussion is only the starting point, you need to publicise it widely enough that enough people take part that the change sticks and isn't reverted when people previously unaware of the discussion start turning up and objecting to it). And then take things from there. I doubt we (ArbCom) will (or should) unilaterally start changing practice without such a discussion. And here is not really the right place for that discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am addressing the question to you (plural), and this appears to be the right place for that. I'm unaware of anything that would prevent you from acting on this request, should you wish to. Can you please point me to what constrains you? There's a lot of policy here that I haven't read. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You say Kww is "constitutionally incapable of getting it" about the harm done to folks who are blocked and their 'emotions'. I say that you don't get it that people are responsible for their actions. They hurt themselves by (omg, key word, pay attention) earning the block. Boo hoo hoo if they don't like accepting responsibility for their behavior. Cry me a river.--v/r - TP 19:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I moved this text to Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to copy it.  Roger Davies 08:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable for Arbcom to restrict for periods of time the aspects of the tools that have brought disruption to the users editing. Why not? Admin X is restricted for one year from his page moving work that has caused disruption and community complaints, he/she is however encouraged to continue their good mopping in all other areas. Such a resolution would be far better for the user and the community than completely losing an otherwise beneficial Admin - Youreallycan 09:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• Absolutely. ArbCom should be allowed to restrict any manner of changing the Misplaced Pages site, including blocking and other admin actions, as necessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not vote. I like this from Roger Pearse: "The system of appointing admins is very broken indeed. Those chosen keep out the most obvious spam, but they also keep out the sort of contributors that Misplaced Pages should be desperate to attract and retain." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the wisdom of doing do, I think its clear Arbcom does have the authority to restrict the use of the block button. As for whether an admin who can't be trusted to block properly should be allowed to retain any admin tools, I'm not really sure. Monty₈₄₅ 14:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Echoing Monty - arbcom CAN do whatever it likes. It doesn't need our approval. The comments from the Arbs above don't say they do - they say creating a new user group of partial sysops has not been approved by the community that's a different topic. Further a sysop who continually abuses the block button should be de-sysoped. Also just to clarify how is this thread connected to the blocking policy? What exactly is proposed to be changed?--Cailil

No, I don't think that's true. There are plenty of admins here who do a fine job in AfDs, RevDel, etc but who don't have the social skills necessary to effectively use the block button in any but the most elementary vandalism and spamming cases. I don't see why we should bar them from contributing in areas that fit their skill set. This may be the wrong venue; can you recommend a more appropriate one? This may be the right venue, though, because the discussion above concerns how to deal with problematical blocking. We can do that by more tightly prescribing how you admins use the block button, but we should also address the competency issue by restricting the use of the button by admins who repeatedly demonstrate incompetence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That is an understanable, and well intentioned reaction to what recently happened, but ultimately it doesn't help. RfA is for assessing competence with the block button before editors are sysoped. RfC and ArbCom are the venues for raising concerns with sysops who abuse the tools. Such abuse is already not allowed under this policy. And sysops who are found to have been abusive are admonished or desysoped. Also it's not clear what changes to this policy you're suggesting beyond "unbundling the bit" which is not part of this policy. Perhaps WP:ADMIN is a better venue? But TBH it really depends on what you're suggesting and how you word it--Cailil 18:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

They certainly have the power. It's going to take an Arbcom case where you can demonstrate a pattern of bad blocks that would result in a sanction against an individual admin. You can see from the RFC above that there's not a lot of support for changing the blocking policy to mandate more warnings. As for me being your example of social incompetence, you can feel free to review my block log and discuss any where you have grave doubts about the appropriateness of the block. When I look at your block log, though, I see some early ones that look pretty questionable, but I also see a couple that look to me like the blocking admin was doing a fine job (I know that you profess not to understand what the meaning of "personal attack" is but surely anyone with the social skills necessary to effectively edit Misplaced Pages would understand that this edit would result in a block, especially since it was your fourth such block). I'm hard put not to see your contributions here as being motivated, at least in part, by a desire to live without fear of being blocked for personal attacks, secure in the knowledge that policy had been modified to ensure that you were only warned about unacceptable behaviour instead of actually being expected to modify it.—Kww(talk) 18:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• The Arbitration Committee has the authority, for good cause, to desysop an administrator. I can imagine circumstances in which an administrator has displayed poor judgment in one area, e.g. blocking, but is doing a good job elsewhere, such that I would prefer to restrict his or her use of blocking rather than to desysop outright. The fact that I don't recall a case where this was done suggests this is not a common scenario, but I don't see any reason to say a priori that it's not a remedy that could be voted where warranted. (I will add that the interpersonal back-and-forth above is not helpful.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a parallel, didn't one of the cases surrounding Hammersoft restrict his ability to delete image files, while leaving all other admin functions intact?—Kww(talk) 18:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
• By definition administrators have clue. If an admin screws up blocking, they can be asked to stop blocking, and that will be sufficient. There is no need for formal process. If they can't take friendly advice, then they don't have clue and shouldn't be an administrator at all. ArbCom should not micromanage administrative rights. Jehochman 19:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR blocks

A frequent reason that good-faith editors with otherwise unblemished records get blocked is for 3RR violations. I am not proposing here to change either the intent or the letter of the three-revert rule. However, I've often thought (and occasionally implemented on the rare occasions I close a report on the EW noticeboard) that to block a good contributor from editing anywhere on the site for 24 or 48 hours because he or she got caught up in a dispute on one particular article, is overkill. Wouldn't it be sufficient, in many cases, simply to instruct the editor that he or she is not to edit that article (or perhaps that article and any related articles) for the appropriate time period?

I am aware that this restriction cannot be enforced by the software; there isn't any way I'm aware of to leave User:A unblocked but to disallow User:A from editing Article X (short of protecting it so that no one else can edit it either). Thus, this remedy couldn't be used in every case; if an editor is clearly out of control, a regular block might be required. On the other hand, I would think that most reasonable editors who are told "that's four reverts—in lieu of blocking you, you're not to edit Article X for 24 hours" would abide by the restriction. And if User:A ignored the restriction and edited the article again (especially if he or she reverted again), User:B would presumably report the breach back to the noticeboard and a regular block would follow.

It seems to me that this approach would retain the purposes of the 3RR, without sullying block logs unnecessarily, and without losing the good contributions the blocked editors might make on other topics, and while perhaps allowing the editing dispute to be discussed on the article talkpage without waiting 24 hours.

I'd welcome thoughts on this. If anyone thinks this should be cross-posted somewhere (e.g. the WP:AN3 talkpage), please feel free. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

So giving admins the ability to impose a "page ban" of a limited duration, with blocking being the result if violated? Hmm, maybe. Though still thinking about it. - jc37 18:57, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one I wrestle with as well, especially since you see editors caught up in it where they are clearly doing what they think is necessary to protect the article, and what they are reverting may not be clearly vandalism, but is pretty sloppily sourced or inappropriate. Despite the brouhaha above, this is one of the reasons I favor "indef until you agree to stop" blocks. It doesn't keep the block log clean, but does allow the good faith editors to get back to editing rapidly. In general, though, I try to walk away from a 3RR dispute with all blocked or none blocked. The only times it goes asymmetric is if I warn everyone to stop and one continues while the others heed the warning.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment