Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Old/relocated discussion

• Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Bans and blocks
• Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Clarity in Policy Discussion - whether admins may decide the merit of legitimate edits, ambiguous language, the role of admins in editing, sysop vigilantism and the rarity of de-adminship.
• MediaWiki talk:Blockedtext, about the message that appears to blocked users.
• wikipedia talk:username, about what usernames are appropriate, and whether sysops should be authorised to block inappropriate usernames on sight.

---

Thanks for reworking this page Martin. The new version's great. The only problem is that Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion still states that "pages created and edited solely by a banned user..." may be deleted instantly. Is the disappearance of this from the blocking policy today meant to suggest that sysops may not delete such pages? Is it also the case that reverts of potentially valid edits by banned users may no longer occur? I can see advantages for both allowing this and not allowing it, but the banning and deletion policies should at least be consistent with each other. Perhaps different policies for different banned users would be appropriate. Edits by Michael, for example, are allowed to be reverted without consideration as to their validity, whereas edits by DW should not be?

Other than that, the only changes I would suggest are re-adding the link to dealing with vandalism, and having a new section on how to unblock a user (a question that gets asked quite a lot). Angela. 02:50, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the stuff about deleting pages by a banned user because it wasn't strictly related to blocks. I think it still applies (until/unless someone edits Wikipedia:Candidates for speedy deletion to remove that section).

I've put it on a seperate wikipedia:banning policy, and (re)marked it proposed. Martin 23:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

distinction?

Is there a need to distinguish between banning and blocking? They have always been the same in my mind. If a sysop blocks a user, they have also banned that user, whether that is for 24 hours or indefinite, and the block log shows that reincarnations of "blocked" users are re-blocked when they appear, making it seem more like a ban than a block. Calling it blocking instead of banning just makes it sound more circumventable. I can see that it is possible to ban without blocking, but the opposite is not true as a block is also a ban. Angela. 13:18, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think there is a distinction. Obviously, we block anon proxies, open proxies, bots, without banning the users behind those proxies. And we range block whole ISPs sometimes, but that's without banning every person with that ISP.

I'd also say that anti-vandal blocks aren't really bans (though persistant vandalism is grounds for banning, eg Michael). If a random vandal circumvents a block and starts contributing sensibly, nobody cares. This, even though their original account might have been banned for a period of months or longer. Does that make sense? Martin 13:34, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I guess. Angela. 20:53, Apr 5, 2004 (UTC)

Disruptive users

Proposed 9th April 2004

The fact that a username may contain a word that was once used in the username of a previously banned user should not be taken, in and of itself, to be cause for blocking, although it may be blocked if it is likely to cause confusion by virtue of being extremely similar to another user.

This is common sense - nobody believes the opposite. Some folks don't feel the word "troll" is appropriate in usernames, but this is a single case, not some strange general rule that would see us ban the word "of". Martin

Proposed 9th April 2004:

Above paragraph to read: The decision as to what is an inappropriate name is to be made by voting as with Votes for Deletion unless the name is, contains, or is likely to be interpreted as profanity, blasphemy, libelous (or otherwise illegal) or personal abuse.

...does not include normal behavior such as expressing an opinion in a poll, or voting. It also does not include NPOV violations or bullying (i.e. not reaching an agreement on an article's Talk page): see Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution.

user accounts that perform a mixture of valid edits and disruption should not be permanently blocked in this manner

Martin 21:33, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that giving extra powers to any subgroup of wikipedians needs appropriate checks and balances to sustain the open and democratic culture of WP. When you give easy banning to admins, you need to simplify the revocation (suspension) of admin privileges. Alternatively, the banning should not block the user from editing/posting, but rather mark his edits as questionable. The biggest threat to Wikipedia are not the trolls (they are dealt easily with and are nothing but a mere annoyance), but limitations to freedom and superfluous privileges for admins (even though it might not look this way right now).Paranoid 22:40, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

See also wikipedia:dealing with trolls

Guanaco made this "official" today - I just thought I'd put a note of this date of change, because it might confuse ongoing discussion of the point. I have no opinion on the act of making if official. Martin 16:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Email proposal

I propose that the blocking policy should state that any sysop who chooses to block users must have an email address set in their preferences. This policy has been in effect for some time at the Simple English Wikipedia without objection from the sysops there. This prevents the problem of someone being affected by a block but not able to contact the person who blocked them. The "You have been blocked" message has always suggested that the blocked user contact the sysop who blocked them. Until now, there has been a link to that sysop's user page, but this is fairly pointless when the blocked user can't edit. The only way to contact someone when you are blocked is via email, so sysops should be contactable by email, and a link to Special:Emailuser/sysopname should be included in the block message. Angela. 14:30, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I would support that. I guess I'll go re-enable my "Email this user" to compensate... Martin 14:48, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It certainly seems reasonable to expect a sysop blocking a user to be contactable by that user. If this is the only way to ensure that, then fair enough. --Camembert

Support. However, the message should also link to board.wikipedia.org and the wikien-l mailing list. JRR Trollkien (see warning) 15:56, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I'm not sure how useful such a policy would be. There's no way of ensuring the sysop really uses that email account, so emails to it might be ignored, which is probably worse than not having the email address available in the first place. Maybe a separate mailing list or message board would be more useful than emailing an individual sysop. It would keep them off Wikien-l, which is not an appropriate place for it, and also means the list could be one that doesn't require registration, allowing blocked users to send to it immediately. Accidentally blocked users would get a faster response than if they emailed one sysop, and it also gives them a place to complain if they don't feel they should have been blocked. Angela. 15:47, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Why isn't wikien-l suitable? It'd get a prompt reply (better than a board, which I expect nobody would bother reading. Lists that don't require registration get swamped with spam, so that's not really an option.

Regards enforcability, well there's the honour system (we're meant to trust sysops, right?), and any user who gets no response from the blocking sysop can easily escalate it to wikien-l. Martin 17:08, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Blocking by Non Admins and Non Arbitrators: Good or not?

Why can't ANYONE be the judge? "Independent contributors OUGHT TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE TO BAN OR BLOCK!" I complained to an Arbitrator recently over the Paul Vogel issue. However, I was upset at the time because said Arbitrator removed my "vote" on some issues on account of my not being an arbitrator. However, perhaps there are misgivings: would you really want the banned user Michael voting to block an enemy while in disguise? Would you want a deadlock to occur over a ban? On the other hand, everything is out in the OPEN when one holds a vote, and people's comments on bans ought to be heard on the same page as other people, whether they are sysops, admins, arbitrators, or not. To not do so, in my eyes, smacks of elitism, as folks might ignore any non-arbitrator or non-admin opinion. Your call. I mainly asked for commoner suffrage because I feel non-arbitrators and non-admins should have some say in deciding whether to ban someone, even if they have a little less weight than arbitrators, or admins. Rickyrab 21:21, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Everyone does have a say - via the quickpolls page (where appropriate), the request for comment page, and of course in the matter of setting Wikipedia policy in the first place, and by means of the more usual methods of enforcing rules and guidelines: bold editing, peer pressure, persuasion, discussion. Even for cases in arbitration, there is the talk page of the arbitration page in question, the mailing list, IRC, the evidence page, etc. If you want to influence the arbitration decision, I suggest providing evidence as the best way to do that. If you want to influence community opinion, there are loads of ways to do that, some subtle, some blatant, but the arbitration page for a case is not one of them. Martin 21:45, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

The reason is that this would undermine Cabal power. It is a little known fact that a small group of Cabal members are RIGHT NOW in the process of voting themselves the power to ban anyone they like, just because they want to. You won't get a say. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 21:52, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Your call on this - is there a Cabal at work? If there is no Cabal, then what about Jimbo Wales' "enlightened dictatiorship"? (Sorry, Jimbo, but I had to ask.) The point of the matter is, sometimes folks want to stay in power because they are afraid of all the barbarians milling about, banned users and other unsavory characters in the dark, waiting to hijack Wikipedia and skew its POV. On the other hand, there IS the fact that all folks have opinions, and thus all folks would like to voice them. Troll Silent is wrong about nobody getting a say; one has a say any time one discusses something, and I am discussing something right now. Rickyrab 22:04, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, you are right, you have a say, but it won't be listened too unless you are part of the governing cabal. There is a rapid and disturbing trend to centralize decision making in the hands of Administrators, who used to be simply that, people who administered the community's decisions. They are now setting themselves up as judge, jurry and executioner on just about every issue that matters - who to exclude being perhaps the most important one. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 22:06, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Together with mediation, arbitration has been set up to do the job that previously was done by Jimbo alone (it's been set up with Jimbo's support and blessing, in case that's not clear). Whereas before he alone had the final say on whether a user was banned or not, now a group decides this. If you want to call that a "cabal", that's your privilege, but we are to a large degree trying to follow the wishes of the community, and the current system is surely less elitist than the old. If you don't like the idea of the arbitration committee, feel free to register your distaste at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy ratification vote.

Troll Silent's comments are, I think, somewhat wide of the mark. Administrators have no more power now than they have had in a long time; the arbitration committee is not "little known", it has been widely advertised; the committee's power stems not from the declarations of its own members (what sort of power would that be?) but from Jimbo and from the ratification vote mentioned above; and everybody, part of the "governing cabal" (whatever that is) or not, will be listened to, and I see no reason to believe that they won't. --Camembert

No, the new system radically changes the role of 'administrators' who, under the old system administer the decisions of the community. Under the new system they get to decide who can and can't edit Wikipedia based on their (not the community's) view of behavior and name. There is no history of the Cabal listening to people. The current closed vote by four Cabalist on whether they can immediately block anyone they like is a good example. Yes, we have a voice, no, we will not be listened to. I challenge them to put it to a community vote. I know they will not. Troll Silent, Troll Deep 15:32, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. --Camembert

Definition of hard ban

Just a note that this page doesn't define a "hard ban". Unless I missed it somewhere, it might be a good idea to add the definition. Wmahan. 05:57, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy describes bans, and the difference between those and blocks. Angela. 07:45, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I still don't think that page is clear about "hard ban"--is there any other type of ban? I was wondering because several pages, such as User:Michael, link to Wikipedia:Bans and blocks with the text "hard ban". Wmahan. 04:42, 2004 May 12 (UTC)

Once upon a time, I proposed a "soft ban" mechanism, to be enforced without blocks, but it didn't catch on. At the time, I created the phrase "hard ban" to refer to the existing ban mechanism. Martin 19:06, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

A proposed restriction on sysop/admin privs

The use of the special rights, that sysops/admins have, should be restricted (by rule or by convention as this could not be automated) to disputes in which they have no other part. Wikipedians get upset when, in a dispute, one of the participants in the dispute uses their special powers to enforce their point of view. A fairly recent example: A user (not me) was blocked for 24hrs by the same sysop at whom the user swore. That is an abuse of privelege. In the UK, when a neighbour throws rubbish into a policeman's garden the policeman is supposed to call the police, he is discouraged from arresting the culprit himself. This is probably not a new suggestion. Paul Beardsell 15:42, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

This already applies to protection. See wikipedia:protection policy. I'm not sure it's necessarily a good idea to apply the same principle to blocking though. Often the people most likely to be blocking an IP are the same admins who have been attacked by that user, simply due to the number of times a blocked user will return to retaliate against those sysops. It's not always going to be clear in such cases whether a particular admin would be considered too involved in the issue to block the IP. When your user page is being vandalised every few days, it's hard to keep track of which IPs have attacked you in order to know that you shouldn't block them in future. Angela. 07:42, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

As Angela points out, there is already a policy for page protection, and there is already an extensive policy for deletions. The trouble with blocking is that "official" policy is so much at odds with what is actually going on that it is not always followed. I believe the solution is to come up with a clearer blocking policy and then deal with any remaining problems on a case-by-case basis. UninvitedCompany 13:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

There should be no personal involvement the FIRST time a sysop blocks a user. The return of the user, with accompanying abuse directed at the sysop, should not knock the sysop out of action, after all, they are the one who noticed the problem that resulted in the block. Users who engage in personal attacks in this context must bear the burden of their own actions. Fred Bauder 13:44, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

How do you know whether it is the first time or not when they come back with a different IP or different user name? Also, are you suggesting that if a user turns up with the name User:Fred Bauder is a troll and does nothing but vandalism, then you should not be allowed to block that user? Angela. 02:41, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think you will always be able to devise circumstances which would require a different approach BUT sysops/admins should usually refrain from using their special powers in a dispute to which they are a party: They should be admonished that they should not ordinarily use their special powers in such a situation. It should be in the conventions / rules / code of practise. Paul Beardsell 02:51, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but how do you define "a dispute to which they are a party"? Does vandalism of pages they have edited make them a party to the dispute? I don't see how such a rule is sensible or enforceable. Angela. 05:51, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes you will not be able to decide that issue for sure. And other times you will. Vandalism of a page that a sysop has edited is obviously not usually a "dispute to which they [the sysop/admin] are a party". But where there is a dispute especially of a personal nature it is often (or usually) inappropriate for a sysop/admin to ban the user with whom the sysop/admin is having a dispute. A sysop/admin should be admonished to use his/her special powers where he/she is sure it will appear to all reasonable fellow Wikipedians that they are doing so impartially. I am not suggesting a rule, necessarily, but a sentence in a code of practice. Will you, Angela, at least admit that generally sysops/admins should behave how I describe? Paul Beardsell 13:38, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I can. If a user is doing nothing but simple vandalism, I am going to block them, whether or not they have insulted me personally. Such a policy is just going to lead to increased traffic on the requests for review of admin actions page as every banned user claims the sysop was somehow involved in whatever he was banned for. Angela. 23:51, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

If "a user is doing nothing but simple vandalism" (my emphasis) then they will not have insulted you. What I am saying, and I thought I really had made this clear, is if a personal dispute is underway between two users and one of them happens to be a sysop then the sysop should not use their sysop powers in that instance. Angela, will you agree with that proposition? Paul Beardsell 12:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

What if that vandalism consisted of blanking my user page and writing insults on it? That is simple vandalism, but your proposal would mean I could not block that person. Angela. 00:35, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

In such a circumstance Angela, wouldn't it be adequate to protect your user page and ask another sysop to look at the user's actions and consider a ban? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:12, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No, the protection policy would suggest I couldn't protect my user page as it is clearly a page with which I am involved. I really don't see the need for this addition. If someone is doing simple vandalism, they should be blocked. Insisting on this new policy just means the requests for de-adminship page gets dozens more users complaining that they were unfairly blocked by the person whose page they were vandalising. I can't take this policy seriously at all. Why on earth do you want to give vandals this opportunity? Angela. 12:31, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Paul - given the particular instance you cite (and without knowing the details), it seems to me that merely swearing at another user, while inappropriate, does not warrant a sysop deciding to block that user. Certainly I can see nothing in wikipedia:blocking policy to support such a block, unless there were other circumstances you've not mentioned. If so, this block is already against our policies, and I see no benefit in adding another policy for it to be against. Why add more rules when "vigilant" sysops don't even follow the existing ones? Martin 01:01, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, if we decide to extend current policy to allow sysops to unilaterally block for making personal attacks, then a rule that such blocks may only be applied by sysops not involved in the dispute might make sense. I'm not convinced that allowing sysops to block in such cases is terribly useful (just remove personal attacks already). Martin 01:15, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Good admins should read and intelligently apply agreed policy. Good admins would change their behaviour which contravenes policy. Let's not forego the crafting of good policy because the policy is not being followed by some. That is a different problem. Paul Beardsell 12:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't think it's a good policy. What I'm trying to do is understand why you've proposed the policy, and work out a better solution. In your example, it seems that you descibe an admin going against existing blocking policy. It seems to me that the best solution to this is to have a word with the admin and get them to follow policy over that sort of thing. Is that clearer? Martin 01:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Martin, in another example I was recently witness to a dispute where one party backed down stating that the person he was arguing with was using his sysop status to give his argument (which had nothing to do with the duties, priveleges or powers of a sysop) extra weight. The sysop was not actually doing that but he had just said that his decision was "final" as if he had that right and he wasn't correcting the misapprehension either so I intervened to press the sysop to acknowledge that his sysop status gave him no special status in the dispute and relucatantly he did so. The argument then proceded on its merits. My point is that the role / power / privelege of the sysop is misunderstood by many sysops and non-sysops. I really cannot see why you and Angela are against having as a policy something with which most reasonable wikipedians would agree: That a sysop should not use his/her special powers or his/her heightened status to hold sway or to lay down the law in an argument about content: There all wikipedians are equal. When a wikipedian does not act in the accepted fashion then a sysop should intervene. But what superhuman gift accrues a wikipedian when he is annointed sysop that (s)he can fairly judge in a dispute in which (s)/he is embroiled? Let's have a guideline in the policy. Paul Beardsell 03:27, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"A sysop should not use his/her special powers or his/her heightened status in a dispute in which they are involved". Without a doubt this is reasonable. If a user feels that another user is being abusive, and simply removing the offending material is not enough, asking another sysop to take action seems very reasonable. Mark Richards 02:10, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And do we now have a consensus? Or nobody who is prepared anymore to vocalise disagreement. What do I do next to get a sentence such as the one in quotes by Mark Richards adopted into policy? Paul Beardsell 18:09, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No. Sysops don't have heightened status, and the powers aren't special. Wording aside, existing policy pages are already clear on this as it stands, and I have seen few situations where an actual misuse of admin capabilities occurred. Consider that the most frequent use of admin capabilities is deletion and the second most frequent page protection and editing of protected pages. Policies are extremely clear in these cases. For quite some time we have suffered a surfeit of unfounded complaints about admin behavior. No sense giving these people another lever. UninvitedCompany 01:46, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I disagree UC, I don't understand how you can argue that admins don't have powers that other users don't, but never mind. There is clearly percieved heightened status and perception of powers, at least from some people. If you think that admins don't have this, then I don't understand why you would be opposed to them not using them in disputes that they are involved in. Mark Richards 02:38, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the role / power / privelege of the sysop is misunderstood by many sysops and non-sysops

Policy can't prevent such misunderstanding. We already make it clear on wikipedia:administrators that sysops have no special status beyond their ability to use "special powers" as narrowly allowed by policy. Specifically:

Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility

Your intervention on that page was good, and solved the problem. Your proposed change to when sysops can use their sysop powers would not have made any difference, as sysop powers were not used. I don't believe that what you proposed solves any problem we actually have. Martin 08:52, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that they don't have any special authority, and also agree that there is a lot of confusion about it. A policy that says that there is none, and that it shouldn't be used in disputes they are involved in should not cause any problems! Mark Richards 22:01, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Unblocking poll

Moved from User talk:Guanaco. Guanaco 00:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Why are you unblocking all of those people? Some of them (The Stick, for example) were major vandals and troublemakers. RickK 23:28, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm basically clearing out old spam on the block list. These people won't ever come back again under those names, so there's no point in leaving the usernames blocked. The block list needs to be a relatively short, easy to read page that is free of spam. I'm leaving the user and talk pages intact. That way, if they decide to return, they can be blocked on sight if they continue to vandalize articles. Guanaco 23:39, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, if they're stupid enough to come back under their old names, it makes it easier to distinguish them from genuine new users, so we can re-block them quicker (and hence get the IP auto-block). So it's good on two levels. Martin 00:07, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I thought the IP auto-block kicked in every time a user logs in under a blocked account. If not, that should be coded up anyway. anthony (see warning) 21:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that's a good point. The same thing also means we can easily show that for 99% of these cases, the blocked user has never re-logged in to the same account. So it's purely about keeping the block list short. Martin 19:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't like this, it makes me feel uneasy, as if we're throwing the jail cells wide open and letting everyone out. Dori | Talk 01:15, May 24, 2004 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with opening jail cells if the inmates have already escaped through the window. Their IP addresses were auto-unblocked, so they were already free to come back and cause more problems. Since we're opening the jail cells and repairing the windows, we can deal with more vandals without building more jails (having a cluttered IP block list). Also, as Martin said, if they're still wearing their jail suits (keeping the same username), they'll be easier to catch and reblock. Guanaco 01:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I won't unblock any more of these until this is discussed since a couple people have expressed concerns. Guanaco 01:33, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the poll. It refers to "Sockpuppets of banned users", but the people you are unblocking are not just the sockpuppets, but the actual banned users themselves, such as the stick. There is already confusion between bans and blocks, and I'm concerned that unblocking these accounts will make people think they are unbanned, as there is no longer a record of the fact they were banned, meaning sysops have no right to reblock the account if it is used again. Angela. 01:08, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

TheStick was never actually banned. He was just blocked indefinitely. Sysops always have the right to block user accounts that do nothing but vandalism. However, I realize now that User:TheStick should not have been unblocked. I will reblock User:TheStick and leave the rest unblocked.

The poll only pertains to sockpuppets, and the main usernames will be left blocked. Guanaco 02:19, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Your belief that this user was never banned is what worries about sysops unblocking users that they know nothing about. This problem occurred recently on another Wikimedia wiki where a new sysop made a large number of unblocks, all of which had to be remade, because he was not aware of the reasons for the initial ban and/or block. Erik's email to the mailing list about TheStick stated he had banned the user. Martin's post to his user page suggested he was banned, and the current notice on user:TheStick, which states he would need to appeal to Jimbo, certainly seem to suggest he was banned as simply "blocked" users have never had to do this. The danger in unblocking sockpuppets, which is what the poll below claims to be about, overlooks the fact that not all sysops are going to know which account was the "banned" one, and which were sockpuppets. Unblocking random accounts without an awareness of what they were blocked for does not sound a sensible idea. Angela. 03:19, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

A potential complication, I think, is that some usernames blocked as sockpuppets might not actually be sockpuppets. At the moment, if somebody comes along and acts like BannedUserX, we block them on the assumption they're a sockpuppet. But it might not actually be the same person behind that username - it could just be somebody getting their kicks by imitating them. Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with such blocks (there's no way to be sure if it really is a sockpuppet or somebody else, and in any case, somebody imitating a banned user is being a massive tit and deserving of all they get), but it does mean that if you later unblock those not-actually-sockpuppets, you might not be doing what you think you're doing.

Whether this is an argument in favour of unblocking these users or against it, I'm not sure, but I thought I'd mention it, because I didn't want to be the only person getting confused by it.

That slightly nebulous point aside, it seems to me that if the only benefit of this is to have a shorter block list, that's not a very great benefit for something so controversial. --Camembert

---

Sockpuppets of banned users and persistent vandals should be unblocked once there is no longer an IP block (eg. #1111) in effect and the vandalism spree is over. Guanaco 00:03, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Support:

• Guanaco 00:05, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
• Mark Richards 00:15, 25 May 2004 (UTC) - Keeping them in place serves no purpose.
• Martin 00:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC) (with the obvious proviso that they and and should be speedily blocked in the highly unlikely event that they return "wearing their jail suits". Also, keep the original account blocked to assist with transparency, and deal with folks too stupid to create a new account. Perhaps mention sock puppet accounts on the user's user page.
• Drbug 10:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC) - outdated records tend to be a problem in computer systems.

Oppose:

• Maximus Rex 00:16, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
• Angela. 03:19, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
• Tεxτurε 03:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC) (In response to Angela's comments above)
• anthony (see warning) Why in the world would you want to unblock a banned user? Guanaco and Martin have good ideas, but the proper way to make the list easier to read or add IP auto-blocks is through code modifications, not by unblocking.
• BCorr|Брайен 00:07, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Not part of policy:

• Just making one thing explicit - while I think Guanaco has the right idea, I'm opposed to anything being added to the policy page about it - I think sysops need the flexibility to be able to enforce bans as they see fit - this might mean blocking every sock puppet indefinately, or just for a while, or something else. I don't think we want to tie our hands either way. Martin 19:34, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
• Guanaco 01:16, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• I have to agree with MyRedDice (Martin). Ilyanep 03:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Comments:

• I like the idea of listing sock puppets on their main user page. It will make the damage easier to discover and undo. - Tεxτurε 00:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
• I think that we should forgive and forget, if the new incarnation commits no sins, don't go on a witch-hunt. If the behavior is the same, then the remedy can be too. Mark Richards 22:10, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I think we should look at unbanning users after a certain period of time, maybe under some sort of probationary period, but as long as they're banned they should continue to be blocked regardless of what account or IP they're using (to the extent this is possible). anthony (see warning) 21:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Blocking a user from just one specific page?

What do you all think of this idea? It seems that there might be cases where a user merits being blocked from an edit war on a particular page, but they should still be able to quickly and publically contest the ban, or to work on other non-controversial projects. Or would this power get overused? --Atemperman 01:50, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I suggested this on Meta. See m:MediaWiki feature request and bug report discussion#Page protection improvements for my comment. Guanaco 01:56, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Self-blocking to enforce Wikiholidays

Users may sometimes wish to block themselves or request that they be blocked for a temporary period to enforce a Wikiholiday. This should not be done. Blocking is intended to remedy vandalism and disruptive behaviour, not compensate for a user's lack of self-discipline. Self-blocking by IP address should never be done, as it is highly likely that the block will target a proxy server used by many other users, causing unnecessary disruption.

Why was this added? Where is the discussion? Was there any consensus for this policy? —No-One Jones 13:20, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who added it, but I support the change. Such blocks are a distraction to people who follow the block log, have the potential to cause trouble because of the IP autoblocker. But, the more compelling reason to avoid them is that they are essentially a vanity usage of an administrator-only feature, drawing undue attention to a Wikiholidy. UninvitedCompany 14:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If an admin wants to be blocked for a wiki-holiday, they should have to ask another admin to set the block, just like every other user. Though admins have more responsiblity than the general population, we should try to refrain from giving admins more priviledges. --H. CHENEY 15:41, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It was added by ChrisO in this edit. I support the policy. The content already indicates some of the reasons for not self-blocking, and I also agree with UninvitedCompany's arguments. --Michael Snow 16:32, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a good policy, and I agree in particular with Cheney's note about priviledge visa-vis responsibility. The ability to block usernames was created solely to target repeat vandals, and authorised by Jimbo as such, so self-holiday enforcement isn't right, I think. It also isn't very effective, as admins can (and do) unblock themselves when they find they lack willpower. Martin 19:54, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that anyone should be blocked or allowed to self-block for a wikiholiday. Blocking is a tool of last resort - it's the single most drastic sanction that we can impose, when no other choice presents itself. It shouldn't be cheapened by sysops using it for what are frankly trivial reasons, particularly as there are other ways of achieving the same goal. For instance, users could use blocking software at the client end or even (is this really so hard?) not visiting Wikipedia. Any action at the user's end is not going to affect anyone else. Any action at the Wikipedia end, such as a block, has a real chance of affecting many innocent bystanders.

This problem came to my notice when I found that my entire ISP - or at least its proxy servers - had been blocked by a newbie sysop, whom I won't name here. It's not the first time that I've accidentally been blocked, but every other occasion has involved vandalism. Blocking an entire ISP in order for one user to have a self-imposed wikiholiday seemed to be totally pointless, and not a little selfish. (I should add that I don't think the sysop in question was being selfish - he simply didn't realise that he was blocking his ISP's proxy, not his personal IP address, which would have been a dynamic one anyway). So I had a look at the blocking policy page, which already disallowed blocking for wikiholidays: "The situations when sysops are permitted to block users are given below. Blocks should not be used in other cases." The non-permitted "other cases" thus included wikiholidays, but this was not clearly spelled out. Hence the addition of the policy.

There seems to be general agreement that we do need to have this rule - should we take a vote on it or just put it back in (it seems to have been edited out)? I note that the current version still bans blocking for wikiholidays, as it did originally, it just doesn't spell it out. I suggest that to avoid any ambiguity it should be spelled out clearly. -- ChrisO 21:37, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I reinstated it for now, which seems to be the general feeling. I hope Mirv will respond to some of the comments here to indicate whether he finds them convincing or not. Martin 23:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

... and Tim's removed it again, with the summary "[...] not discussed and which a number of people (judging by a recent IRC discussion) are strongly opposed to".

James F. (talk) 08:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

These blocks aren't bad per se but they are dangerous due to IP auto-blocking. They should not be used. 80.229.39.194 10:39, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what he thinks we're doing here, then... :-/ Also, since when has "a recent IRC discussion" constituted a policy forum? - an unrecorded discussion, to which people weren't invited and of which probably 99.9% of Wikipedia editors weren't aware? If people have comments to make, pro or con, they should be raised here in the usual way.

As I've said before, the existing policy already bans self-blocking, albeit indirectly: "The situations when sysops are permitted to block users are given below. Blocks should not be used in other cases." If self-blocking is to be permitted, the policy should say this explicitly. If it is not permitted then it should likewise be spelled out explicitly. Ambiguity is in nobody's interests. -- ChrisO 10:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My goodness. I think IRC is a great thing, I think MeatBall:GetARoom is a great thing, but it isn't appropriate to reference a private, unarchived discussion as the sole support for something like that. UninvitedCompany 19:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - I've asked Tim to send people to this thread if they raise concerns on IRC. -- ChrisO 20:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's up to the people who block themselves to be responsible when doing so. Many people have broadband internet these days which means that they keep the same IP address as long as their modem is switched on, or even permanently. Sysops wishing to do this should be careful not to block their ISP's proxy or a modem in a dial-up pool. -- Tim Starling 00:30, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Rather than allowing admins to do unnecessary and potentially disruptive self-blocks and asking them to be careful in doing so, it seems to me to make more sense to ask them to not use self-blocks. With the best will in the world, people will make mistakes. Martin 21:45, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This should have been more widely advertised as it is quite a major change to the policy. You could say that Wikibreak blocks were never allowed, but the precedent would suggest otherwise and there will now be many sysops unaware of this. As this page has had over 180 edits in the last month, it is unlikely many have followed each change. There have been dozens of sysops who have blocked themselves so it's surprising to see none of them commenting here. Other than the danger of blocking people with the same IP, how is self-blocking any different to protecting your own user page? Protection is supposed to be used as a last resort as well, but sysops regularly protect their own pages without reason. Angela. 02:18, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Angela. I don't support self-blocking, nor do I support protection of one's own user pages without compelling reason. Both actions have been tolerated in the past -- there just hasn't been any community objection because these are actions that don't require consensus to take and because, until recently, there haven't been any practical problems created as a result of them (As you may be aware a recent self-block resulted in inadvertent autoblocking of another user). Perhaps the discussion should be more widely publicised. I consider self-blocking and protection of one's own user page to be rather self-aggrandizing which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Administrators, which implies that administrators should maintain a low profile ("no big deal"). UninvitedCompany 16:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, Angela. I'm afraid it simply isn't true to say that "it is quite a major change to the policy". The policy already said that blocking for any reason other than the ones listed was not permitted. This disallows self-blocking. If self-blocking is to be permitted, that would constitute a change to the policy. Saying that it is not permitted is merely reiterating the existing policy more clearly. If some sysops haven't followed the policy in the past it doesn't follow that a change of policy has taken place - it certainly hasn't been discussed! -- ChrisO 16:37, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It still seems like a change to me. People doing something and everyone accepting that would imply that it is allowed, regardless of what some policy page might say. If this does go in the policy, what's going to happen when a sysop breaks it? If the Protection policy and the frequent protection of sysops' user pages in violation of that is anything to go by, nothing - so what's the point of a non-enforced policy? Or maybe people feel more strongly about this and will unblock self-blocking sysops and list them at RFC etc? Anyway, I'm not opposing it as such, but for consistency, the same sort of thing should be applied to protection and deletion if this does stay in the policy. Angela. 06:08, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is really an issue between two ways of policy formation - existing practice and written codification. In this case they appeared to conflict, so we had to have a discussion to resolve the issue. I think we have at this point, we'll just need to work on changing people's habits to match. I don't think that should require anything more than pointing out the current policy to someone who self-blocks, and asking them not to do it again. It might not necessarily apply to protection and deletion, because those don't have the same effect on other users as self-blocking does. --Michael Snow 15:46, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've looked through the block log (back to 24 May) for instances of holiday self-blocks, and come up with:

• user:Guanaco
• user:Mirv
• User:Jfdwolff
• User:AndyL [reason given was (self-block: need to finish non-wiki work), which, if not technically a "holiday", is in the same spirit. added by —No-One Jones 23:41, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)]

I'll drop a note on the relevant talk pages, asking them to come here and look at the reasons we've given here for preferring that admins do not use self-blocks. Hopefully they will be persuaded that what we've said is reasonable. If not, I hope they will at least explain why they feel they require the ability to self-block. I'd also be interested to know why admins require the ability to self-block and non-admins do not. Martin 21:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really have a strong opinion on this, but I agree with Angela that disallowing self-blocks is a major policy change. If we want to make such a change, we should more widely advertise it. Maybe we should create a page like Wikipedia:Recent policy changes or something. Guanaco 23:38, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I seem to be doomed to repeating myself on this one (do people actually read the policy before commenting?): self-blocking is already disallowed. I repeat, self-blocking is already disallowed. It isn't among the valid reasons for blocking listed by the existing policy. The policy hasn't changed by virtue of it not being followed by a few people. If self-blocking is to be allowed, that would be a major policy change. -- ChrisO 07:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think the justifications for this policy are reasonable and outweigh the only reason (raging addiction) for these self-blocks. I have no objections; indeed, my main reason for objecting was the complete lack of discussion which preceded the addition of this section. (Whether users should be able to request their own blocking is another question, which may need further examination.) —No-One Jones 23:48, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ChrisO drew my attention to the repercussions for other users sharing the same IP range. Until the software supports the blocking of a username without blocking the IP range concomitantly, I think self-blocks should not be allowed (regret causing trouble, e.g. to ChrisO himself). JFW | T@lk 14:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks to the three of your for commenting. Guanaco - is it OK if we just draw the attention of sysops to this as and when they use self-blocks in this manner? It affects such a tiny proportion of Wikipedia, it doesn't seem (to me) worth bothering everyone with. *shrug*. Perhaps I should go through the block log archives for older instances? Martin 21:07, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think Martin has the right idea. It's not like we're going to de-sysop the next person who self-blocks. Just call their attention to the policy, now that it's being stated more explicitly, and say "Please don't do that again". --Michael Snow 05:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why not change the software or find some other way to create a separate category of blockage for wikiholidays? It's not like this is a rare phenomenon. 205.217.105.2 15:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

mix of vandalism and productive edits

HCheney suggested that "a mixture of vandalism and productive edits" implies that only one productive edit is necessary. I feel that "a mixture" implies a decent proportion and intermixing of both (and reverted accordingly).

HCheney apparently desires some way to block users that perform such a mixture, and I don't have an objection to that. The safeguard that blocks should not be used against isolated incidents seems to me to be a sufficient guard - looking at past incidents where this would apply.

Comments? Martin 11:00, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't interpret "mixture" as implying one good edit means the user can't be blocked. I don't think we need to fret about wording. Admins should use their judgment. theresa knott 11:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Martin 12:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Lir has made a productive edit for several months. I block Lir, and a lynch mob forms. We should make it clear to admins that they will be attacked for blocking obvious trolls and vandals, if the said troublemaker was productive at one time. Heck, the only way we blocked JRR was because of the association to hardbanned user EntmootsofTrolls. --H. CHENEY 04:23, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Has this happened or are you saying if you blocked Lir a lynch mob would form? It seems to me that Lir is a bad example because Lir is clearly not an obvious vandal. We have an AC for cases like Lir. In fact since Lir is currently being investigated by the AC it seems to me that S/he should certainly not be blocked unless s/he went on some mad vandalism spree, that reverting/page protection could not sort out. Lir needs to be able to edit the AC:Lir/evidence page to defend himself.

As for other contraversal blocks. Obviously if an admin acts unilaterally and contraversally then it only but right that s/he be prepared to have the block questioned by the rest of the community. I don't see this as wrong and I don't see it as a lynch mob. How many admins have had their admin status removed in the last year? How many admins have had any sort of punishment imposed by the AC? theresa knott 20:35, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

example - mixture

We have the example where JRR added category tags to over a hundred articles. Worthwhile work, but pretty clearly a smoke screen for the several dozen more problematic edits. I have some concern that the wording may allow a troublemaker to game the system in this way, but policy isn't an exact science. UninvitedCompany 01:46, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's why there is little point in fretting about the wording. No matter what wording is chosed, there will be people who try to game the system. If on the balance of evidence sysops decide they are vandalising, then we can block them. If the case isn't clear cut we let the arbitration committee sort it out. theresa knott 20:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please block Guanabot

User:Guanabot is not functioning correctly. See Wikipedia talk:Bots and the pages referenced there. VV[[]] 20:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. theresa knott 20:22, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:-) VV 08:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks which place users in danger

I have added this as it is the policy which has been followed in the past with the approval of the arbitration committee and Jimmy Wales. Fred Bauder 20:21, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks in general

I'm musing here, but could the section of the page on disruption be modified in some way to allow short term (1-3 days... a week at most) blocks for repeated personal attacks on the part of any user? I think that such "cool down" periods would be very useful in ending edit wars and reducing the number of pages that seem to exist chronically protected. Obviously this would have to be a heavily limited right, but I feel as though personal attacks are, quite frankly, just as bad and destructive as vandalism, except that they require months to deal with because currently the only means of blocking due to personal attacks comes via the arbcom. Snowspinner 03:52, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

• I totally, totally, totally agree with you here. blankfaze | (беседа!) 13:49, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As another note, this policy, should it go in, should explicitly forbid blocking due to personal attacks against yourself, or even possibly due to personal attacks in a dispute you're involved with. Snowspinner 14:11, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

I support that proposal, and its caveats. Perhaps you could suggest it on wikipedia talk:no personal attacks? I am thinking it might work better as a seperate section. Martin 19:44, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No particular objection from me, blocking for egregious cases involving personal attacks is apparently becoming accepted practice (the case of K1, for example). The caveat certainly belongs as part of this - I think it might be appropriate to raise the larger question of whether all blocking should be forbidden when the admin is involved in the dispute. --Michael Snow 18:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What if it's a personal attack and vandalism? Would a sysop still be able to block the user for vandalism even though the vandal had attacked them? Angela. 01:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I have raised this before and Angela objected similarly and, in my view, unreasonably, then as she does now. Note I have (mildly) but deliberately personally attacked Angela here. And this mispeling is deliberat vandalism. In a more serious but similar circumstance the sysop would contact another sysop and say "Hey, look, this is one of those extremely rare cases Angela was always banging on about, please block this vandal who is also attacking me." The other sysop can then either (i) block as requested or (ii) reply, "No, you misinterprete that as vandalism, possibly because you are being criticised personally and criticism of the type you are experiencing does not seem to warrant blocking. Your personal involvement seems to be swaying your usually excellent judgement." Paul Beardsell 07:22, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think my default position (Quite open to change) is that it would be allowed, because I'd hate to make sysops have to go find help every time someone defaces their userpage. I mean, the real issue to me is that if a user is clearly vandalizing and making the occasional personal attack, yeah, anyone should be able to block them. If the vandalism is a pretext for blocking when the real reason is a personal attack, that's another matter entirely. But there's no good way to rule on that, and so my inclination would be to err on the side of giving sysops authority but trusting them not to misuse it. Your mileage may vary, and, as I said, I'm open to having my mind changed. Snowspinner 13:32, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

I cannot block someone should they deface my user page, why should a Sysop be able to block someone should the Sysop's user page be defaced? Each of us should have to appeal to a(nother) Sysop. What is all too often being forgotten is that Sysops have no special priveleges: They have powers which they are allowed to exercise only to the common good. A Sysop should always be in a position to say: "Like it or not, what I did I did in the honest belief it was in the common good." When a Sysop acts in a dispute to which (s)he is a party this "honest belief" is always going to be in doubt. A good Sysop will always NOT act as a sysop where they have an interest or where it might be thought they have an interest. And anybody with the necessary judgement to be a good Sysop should also be able to see the logic of this argument. And those who cannot need to see it written as a rule/guideline. Paul Beardsell 17:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You also cannot protect pages (such as your own user page) or delete pages (such as your own user page or sub-pages). By electing users to admin positions we entrust them to act appropriately and if they do not they can be censored, punished, or have the admin privileges removed. No one is above public review. If a vandal defaces several user pages and the admin blocks them it is not uncommon for the same vandal to log in with a new IP in order to vandalize the admin's user page. In this case there is no disagreement or fight between vandal and admin so there is no conflict of interest and the admin should be allowed to block this new IP for the same vandal. (Just one example of why it should be allowed.) The idea is to trust the admins are not abusing and if they do bring it up for public review. If the admin is not trustworthy they should not be admins. - Tεxτurε 17:26, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And the tiny percentage of sysops ever censured nevermind stripped of their priveleges shows either we are extraordinarily good at choosing sysops or that there is something wrong in the state of Denmark. All I am asking is that good behaviour be codified. And that using one's sysop privs when one's objectivity could be in doubt should be noted as not being good behaviour. Paul Beardsell 19:15, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe sysops should protect their own user pages, and current policy is that they can't delete their own user pages (they should mark them for speedy deletion like anyone else). The reasons are much the same as those given for why admins should not self-block if they're leaving Wikipedia for a while. Martin 19:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that admins shouldn't protect their own user pages and would like to point out to Paul that to my knowledge at least one admin has been censured for deleting thier own user page. In fact admins are routinly advised by the community. Well at least I am anyway, and in return I've contacted loads of other admins with comments on their behaviour, I'm pretty sure everyone does it from time to time. Of course you don't get to see these mild rebukes because they are done on talk pages or by email, but that doesn't mean they are not effective. Most admins take advise on board and never need to be publically censured. Having said that, I don't have a problem with codifying good behaviour as long as it is done well. But we do have to be practical and flexible, Texture's > argument above has to be addressed.theresa knott 22:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What I meant to do was simply to get people to admit that even Sysops sometimes need advice and guidance. There is nothing in what Texture says above which is against the advice I wish all Sysops to receive. Paul Beardsell 08:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that good behavior is codified. Policies are in place that define what an admin should and should not do and how they should do it. The email discussion list and many talk pages are full of refinements and discussions about how to make those policies better. (I haven't found the reference to a policy saying that admins cannot delete their own unused subpages but I'm looking for it. I don't think I've ever been contrary to it if it exists but I'd like to locate the directive. I've been aware of the self-block advisory but never do that anyway.) Many admins have protected their own user page from vandals and I see no problem with that. I have received comments on my own actions and I try to take that into account. It makes me a better admin. - Tεxτurε 23:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no reason to think that Texture is not an excellent admin. I am not making a comment about Texture. But Texture seems to want to leap from the specific to the general: Just because it works for him says not much about Sysops as a group. What I am proposing would not change Texture's behaviour one jot given that he is a good Sysop. Paul Beardsell 08:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

No, some good behaviour is codified. The user page issue is nothing but a red herring. Surely everyone agrees with the assertion that using one's sysops priv when one's impartiality could be regarded as being in doubt is a bad thing. Sysops should be in no doubt about this but some evidently are from this discussion. Also I have previously given two examples where it would have been useful to point at just such an assertion in the guidelines. I simply want to have in the blocking guidelines text something like:

It is inadvisable to block a user where your objectivity is likely to be regarded as being in doubt. This perception is likely to be the case where you have been party to the dispute leading to the block. Vandalism of a Sysop's user page or a bad edit of an article must be handled by that Sysop in the same way that every other Wikipedian must cope with such issues. Possibly this may culiminate in an appeal to a(nother) Sysop for assistance.

One of my goals here is to keep a rein on the natural tendency of anybody with authority to end up abusing that. Another goal is to ensure that Sysops identify fully with other Wikipedians by having to cope with issues in the exactly the same way as other Wikipedians. The customs etc of Wikipedia must be to the benefit of all editors, not just an exalted minority. When a group of Sysops say they are happy with a feature or a custom or a rule of Wikipedia then this carries extra weight if the Wikipedia they experience is the same as that experienced by non-sysops.

Paul Beardsell 08:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A Test Case

I blocked Adam Carr unilaterally, without going through the arbcom. I see no reason to wait for days or weeks. Isn't one insulting use of profanity enough?

• You are a f#####t

A swift block is SO MUCH BETTER than an arbitration procedure.

• Starting arbitration gives the user attention.
• Arbitration makes it a HIM vs. YOU thing.

• Instant block deprives the user of attention.
• It makes it a HIM vs. THE RULES thing.

Public schools in the US that try "conflict resolution" rather than "sending rule-breakers to detention" have not shown a track record of improving discipline, morale, or even good grades.

Schools with swift and strict (though fair and/or mild) restraints on rule-breaking tend to have better morale, and often long waiting lists of applicants. Why not try it here? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 15:42, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

Because (a) this is no school, despite the number of school kids editing, (b) Adam is not American, (c) Experiences with conflict resolution in schools outside the U.S. are exactly the other way 'round (e.g. Switzerland), and (d) you shouldn't work so hard to live up to your reputation of "shoot first, then talk"? :-) Seriously: AC has had some verbal run-ins with other editors, who didn't use only kind language either. If you feel that his behaviour was a problem, open an RfC and try to get him on a "no personal attacks" parole. (Or is he already?) Then you can block him. Remember, you're a janitor, not the headmaster. Lupo 15:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Confusions within this policy

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses ... using sock puppets

How are IP addresses using sock puppets? Can sock puppets be banned? Or can only non-logged in sockpuppets (which can not exist) be banned? The policy at the moment is unclear on whether Disruption is a bannable offence for all users, or only IPs and new users. Angela. 22:33, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Why is Jimbo Wales given so much power over Wikipedia? I find it offensive. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 17:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Because he started it and has never chosen to reliquish such control. It's one of the five m:Foundation issues for Wikipedia. uc 17:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I understand that he started it, but is there no one above him who can take this choice out of his hands? No one else has this kind of power. — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 17:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Among other things, I believe he provides all of Wikipedia's bandwidth. I'm certainly not entirely comfortable with one individual having a lot of power over this sort of project, but he seems to be using it reasonably. I would imagine that he mostly only needs to make unilateral decisions on large policy matters and time-critical things. I would also imagine that in a project like this, the number of unilateral decisions that need to be made goes down with time, as there are more sysops and more precedent.

If you're going to have sysops at all, though, you have to think about things like "If a sysop abuses their power, what do we do about it?". It might not be better, but it's a lot more simple to implement, if there's one individual who can deal with things like that. Otherwise, you either need infinite ever-shrinking levels of higher and higher bureaucracy, or you need the code itself to handle things like "sysops voting to remove other sysops".

I don't think that Jimbo is beyond criticism by any means; I imagine that if he were consistently making arbitrary or poor decisions, people would talk about it, and eventually there would be some sort of fight. I haven't had any personal interaction with him, but given what I've seen of this site, I'm sure he'd be more than willing to listen to disagreement on a specific decision.

Basically, I think that Jimbo Wales is very similar to Linus Torvalds: he has a position of power, based on communal respect. People are comfortable with this, because they know that if he ever begins to unilaterally abuse his power, there's nothing preventing us from starting a project of our own, with all the same material. — Creidieki 20:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

People who take an interest in blocking policy, or who have noticed the provocative attitude taken above by Mr. Grinch, may want to look at a proposal for community-approved blocks on this user pending possible Arbitration Committee action. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/33451. — Michael Snow 06:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. His attitude is not provocative, and this would be a valid discussion if started by any other user. — 64.12.117.21 21:05, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is a valid discussion. Jimbo has power because this is his project - he pays for all the bandwidth. He is gradually reliqishing his power though. The AC now handles banning decisions for example. However the nice thing about the GFDL is you can always fork. So if you don't like Jimbo being in charge, you can create your own version (a number of people have done this already). Theresa Knott (Hot net streak!) 21:30, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize that Jimbo provided the "bandwidth" for Wikipedia. I've withdrawn my objection for now — [[User:33451|Mr. Grinch (Talk)]] 12:12, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"for now" :-) I'm with you, there is an issue here. A benevolent dictatorship is often the best type of government to have. Unfortunately the benevolence cannot be guaranteed, and neither can my spelling. Paul Beardsell 14:24, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In theory, the community might decide that they wish Jimbo to lose some of his existing powers to ban users. If this becomes community policy, then as an arbitrator I'll be entirely happy to apply that policy, and I imagine most sysops will be similarly happy to enforce community decisions on the matter. So in that sense, the community has some power over Jimbo. Additionally, the Wikimedia board, which is partially elected by the community, has power over Jimbo. However, this is all very theoretical - as folks have said, everyone's pretty comfortable with the role Jimbo plays on Wikipedia. Martin 17:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Presumably some thought is being given to the succession. Jimbo Wales's patronage and influence has been very beneficial: What needs to be put in place should he lose interest or become otherwise unavailable? Where is the proper place to discuss this? Not in this article. Paul Beardsell 12:23, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That shouldn't be an issue since Wikimedia has a Board of trustees. Section 2.3 of article IV of the bylaws explains what happens if one board member becomes unavailable. We would need to find a way of raising an additional $26000 a year for the bandwidth and rackspace though. Angela (disclaimers) 21:25, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Removed from page, because it's not a policy:

Personal attacks

This was a proposed policy. After two weeks of discussion and voting at Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks, 54% of 67 comments supported it, making consensus extremely unlikely. Those who wish to have a policy for this which may achieve consensus are invited to propose a changed policy which addresses the concerns of the other 46% of the community.

At their discretion, and only after warning the user, sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce a “cooling down” period for users who repeatedly make personal attacks. Blocks made under this policy should be short term – one to three days normally, and a week at most. Sysops blocking under this policy may not block users for making personal attacks in the course of disputes that the sysop is involved in, and especially not for personal attacks made against them, unless the personal attacks also constitute clear and unambiguous vandalism (e.g. replacing their userpage with “U SUCK!!1!1!!”).

— Kate Turner | Talk 18:36, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Warnings

Is there a policy somewhere talking about warnings? Do warnings have to be written? For each block, does a separate warning need to be given? User:Grap

Hello Grap (I've taken the liberty of signing for you, you can do it yourself by typing four tildes ~~~~) I don't think we have a formal policy as such, but general practice is to warn vandals a couple of times before blocking in case they are newbies test out the software. There are exceptions though - if vandalism is very clear and deliberate, we recently had someone vandal out recent changes page by putting a "you have new messages box" on that page and then directing people offsite to an abusive page. He was blocked without warning as there is no way he could have been just trying things out.Other examples is if someone vandalizes, gets blocked and then comes back with a different IP and vandalizes again. They usually don't get a warning and the block is usually for longer. As for the second part of your question. It depends. If the IP is static (they have broadband) then no a second warning is not usually given for a second block. If the IP is an ISP's proxy then yes, we have no reason to suspect that a second lot of vandalism is the same person, so we warn again. Also we don't extend the block past 24 hours because it will affect too many innocents. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Editing while blocked

If a user is blocked for 24 hours for violating the 3RR, and the user continues to make edits while under the block (by not logging in, but making it clear that it is the same person), what should be done? Should the IP he is using be blocked for 24 hours? Should the user's account be blocked for 24 hours past the last illegal edit made? What is the standard procedure? (This is, of course, not hypothetical.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 19:53, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I continue to believe that blocking people for 3rr violations is problematic because of problems with sockpuppetry and ban evasion.

The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block. However, these policies have never been followed consistently. I suppose we could do the same thing with 3rr blocks, since without doing so, the effectiveness of blocks as a tool to affect user behavior is lost.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are not bans. It makes no sense to block an IP/account that is not making bad edits. If a user is blocked for vandalism and evades the block to help with Wikipedia:Cleanup, it would be counterproductive and wrong to revert the cleanup edits or to block the user. If the user returns and continues to vandalize, the user should clearly be blocked. This has been the policy at least as long as I have edited Wikipedia.

This applies to 3RR violations as well. If the user comes back to revert (or vandalize) the article for which the user was blocked, the user should be reblocked, but if the user begins to make constructive edits, blocking is unnecessary and harmful. Guanaco 21:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The system automatically blocks IPs used by blocked users. It's only necessary to block each IP manually in this case because the user concerned appears to have a dynamic IP. Proteus (Talk) 08:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be short term to produce a change in behavior or provide temporary relief, so if the 3RR rule is not being followed, it's better to escalate to the community or the arbcom and have a ban of some sort considered. Might want to try blocks for up to 7 24 hour tries, I suppose, but beyond that, the 3RR guidance is doing its job and indicating conduct which the community or arbcom should be considering for a longer term solution than temporary blocks. Jamesday 20:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Static IPs

Static IPs aren't exempt from changing their IP. They just have to renew their network lease by running Winipcfg.exe or similar programs. Vacuum c 03:16, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

That's not necessarily so. I do that and I get back exactly the same IP. Including after power off for several days. It's more common for DSL users to be able to change than cable users, though. Jamesday 20:54, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Where should Controversial blocks be discussed?

I am concerned about the indefinite block of User:Dnagod. Please have a look @ Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wrongful_block and let me know if that is the right place to discuss it. I left a note @ Wikipedia talk:Controversial blocks as well. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Blocking anonymizer's proxies is an affront to free speech rights

• The right to anonymous free speech is protected by the 1st amendment of the US constitution.

• Anonymity--the ability to conceal one's identity while communicating--enables the expression of political ideas and the practice of religious belief without fear of intimidation or public retaliation.

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 1995.

Some Wikipedia members (sysops) have implemented a policy to routinely block users that choose to post using an anonymous proxy (Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Anonymous_and_open_proxies)

These members of Wikipedia have decided to block the ability of people to the right of anonymity giving reasons related to the need to curb vandalism of articles.

These are not sufficient reasons to limit my liberties and the liberties of others. The WP community is strong enough to withstand vandalism, without resorting to these measures.

Case in point: On February 9, User:David.Monniaux blocked IP address 168.143.113.125 (anonymizer.com), a respected and paid service for anonymous browsing. This IP address was used by hundreds of WP users that wanted to protect their anonymity. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=168.143.113.125. The steps taken by David Monniaux in blocking of that IP address have been disputed by me. (Talk:French_legislation_against_cult_abuses#Controversy_with_an_anonymous_user.

I kindly request Wikipedia editors to re-open the debate about the right of the people to contribute to Wikipedia while protecting their rights to free speech, and to curb sysop powers to utilize blocking policies.

Copies of the above have been sent to:

• The Electronic Privacy Information Center http://epic.org/
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/
• The American Civil Liberties Union http://aclu.org/

--38.119.107.72 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is not the U.S. government and I don't see how the constitutional protection of free speech implies that it has to permit access to its servers through anonymizing proxies. Indeed, I don't believe it has to permit anyone to edit the articles here; if it decided that it wished to prohibit access by any IP address beginning with 132.216 (like mine), it would be well within its rights to do so. However, I am not a lawyer. Perhaps the ACLU or the EFF can explain why this policy is unconstitutional. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 00:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The aforementioned blocking policy was not set by the Wikimedia Foundation. It was set after a short discussion on the WikiEN-l by the following users User:Tim Starling, User:Arwel Parry, User:Charles Podles, User:cprompt, User:Delirium, User:Jimmy Wales, User:zero 0000, User:Rich Holton, User:Anthere and User:Erik Moeller.

The only policy that exist reads (my highlight):

This membership shall consist of all persons interested in supporting the activities of the Foundation who have contributed under a user name to any Wikimedia project prior to the election ballot request deadline. The only other qualification for membership shall be the creation of a user account on some Wikimedia project. Volunteer Active Members shall have all the privileges of active members except for voting for the Contributing Active Member Representative. Each Volunteer Active Member and each Contributing Active Member shall have the right to vote for the Volunteer User Representative to the Board of Trustees. [1]

Also, from Wikipedia:Introduction, (my highlight):

Don't be afraid to edit pages on Wikipedia - anyone can edit, and we encourage users to be bold! Find something that can be improved, either in content, grammar or formatting, then fix it. Worried about breaking Wikipedia? Don't be: it can always be fixed or improved later. So go ahead, edit an article and help make Wikipedia the best source for information on the Internet!

If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to assert that the right to free speech is not a standard they uphold, they should re-write their policies and let users Volunteer Active members know. --38.119.107.72 00:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--38.119.107.72 00:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that you join in the discussion on the Wikipedia mailing list. You may find the beginning of the relevant thread here: [2]. I recommend reading the replies, especially this one, first. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 01:54, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see the points being made:

• Wikipedia is a "private" project, and not obligued to protect free speech.
• No one has any right to contribute to Wikipedia;
• Editing WP is a privilege given to users granted by a private organization, and may be revoked at will.

If this is the case, then make darn sure that these statements are on the home page of Wikipedia, are clearly stated upfront in the "about" Wikipedia, etc. WP's statements as they are written on the ::::Wikipedia:Introduction are misleading.

How does one joins the discussion at the mailing list? --38.119.107.72 04:31, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To sign up, just follow the instructions on this page. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:42, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some clarifications:

• Note that I am not referring to the blocking of open or free proxies. These probably need to be closed to avoid vandal bots. I am talking about blocking subscription-based anonymizer services.
• Registering a user name with Wikipedia hides my IP address from other WP users, but not from sysops.

--38.119.107.72 04:45, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we don't block suscription based anonymiser services then vandals will use them, and they will end up being blocked for that reason. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually it does hide your IP, which is very visible right now, from sysops. I'm a sysop (see the list) and I can't see the IP of any logged-in user. Only those with access to the server logs can do that. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 04:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. To take this a step further:

1. who are thosepeople with access to the logs? Who appoints them and what privacy guidelies they abode by, if at all?
2. can sysops ask these people to disclose IP addresses of users? If so, under which circumstances?
3. Are there any guidelines regarding the disclosure of IP addresses associated with users to third parties?

--38.119.107.72 16:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. Only developers have access to the logs.
2. No. Sometimes the arbitration committee asks developers to look at the logs and see if two accounts are by the same user - but even then the developer will often state that user A has the same IP as user B but they will not actually say what the IP is.
3. I don't know, but if there aren't then there bloody well should be! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1. The Wikipedia is a private entity, not a government agency, and does not have to give anyone free speech.

1. You can always create a Userid which does not identify you. RickK 06:09, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is a private entity, not a government agency, and does not have to give anyone free speech

Then you need to make WP policies known upfront. The way that WP is promoted, and most definitively the way that it works, gives a misleading sense that this is a project owned by the people that contribute to it, and the extraordinary level of discussion on controversial subjects makes is by default a public forum. Add to it the fact that WP works by consensus. Is there a consensus on blocking anonymized IP addresses? Don't think so. The decision was taken after a short conversation on the mailing list. Where is the line between "driven consensus" and "driven by WP policy"? IMO, as WP becomes more known and more popular with users and readers alike, WP needs to be much more upfront and public about what this project is, what are the guidelines for users and maintainers and make clear distinctions between "policy" and "consensus".--38.119.107.72 16:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. I've added something appropriate to the section marked "Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy".

Re privacy - see meta:draft privacy policy. Martin 19:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Thank you Martin, Theresa, RikK, and Charles, for your useful comments. In summary, this is what I have learned in this exchange:

• Contrary to popular belief, WP is owned by a company (Wikimedia Foundation);
• The work that we do as editors is a privilege bestowed on us by the Foundation, and it can be revoked at their will;
• The Wikimedia Foundation has not published guidelines (terms & conditions) for these privileges;
• There are a lot of gray areas regarding consensus policy set by editors and policy set by the Wikimedia Foundation;
• Privacy policy (e.g. disclosure of user's IP addresses to third parties) is non existent;
• Sysops cannot see the IP address of a user, only developers can. The ArbCom may request that the developers lookup a specific user IP to check for sockpuppets. This seems to be a "consensus decision", rather that written policy;

The need for privacy and respecting anonymity is and will continue to be crucial aspect in the development of the societal aspects of the Internet. That is why projects like Tor (supported by the EFF) will continue to evolve and provide ways to browse, comment, and contribute to projects like WP while protecting an individual's right for anonymous free speech. -- 38.119.107.72 03:47, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• WP content is owned by its contributors and licensed under the GFDL.
• WP brand, servers, server logs, GFDL "publisher" rights, donations, grants, etc are owned by the charitable Wikimedia Foundation.
• Typically, the community decides whose editing rights to revoke, not the foundation.
• Wikipedia policy is one big grey area. Very little policy is set by the foundation.
• Wikipedia privacy policy is a similar grey area. Like many Wikipedia policies, it is in perpetual draft.
• Almost all written policies are the result of consensus decision.

I am glad you are passionate about anonymous free speech. On Wikipedia we are passionate about writing an encyclopedia. If you wish to gather support for a change in policy regarding anonymous proxies that are not open proxies, you would more likely succeed if you concentrated on the benefits to the encyclopedia, rather than the benefit to the societal aspects of the internet.

If you wish us to have a formal privacy policy, I would recommend hiring a lawyer to review our situation and draft a formal privacy policy that takes into account our particular situation and needs. One of our major needs is easy understanding by non-lawyers, as the community is hostile to legalese that is too long or complex for it to understand. This draft can then be submitted to the Wikipedia community for review and modification. The drafting lawyer would probably need to be involved in this discussion. The modified draft could then become part of our written policy.

Hiring a lawyer might take some money, but I'm sure someone as dedicated as yourself to the cause of online freedom will be happy to cover the necessary expenses.

Thanks for your help.

Martin 00:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What this means is that indeed there is a gray area in respect to policies. The issue is that sooner or later, Wikimedia and the community of editors (to which, FYI, I belong as well) will have to make an effort to remove some of these gray areas and provide some clarity. It was all great when WP was a small little project. Not anymore.

Your bullet points above, present a situation that is not sustainable. The lack of policy will sooner or later become a liability and jeopardize the whole project. I am surprised no one is seeing this. --38.119.107.72 18:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VOTING! Do you want public accounts to be mentioned in Blocking policy?

1. No. I dont want them to be mentioned, and also I dont want them to be blocked at all. Aeropus I of Macedon 17:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2. Yes, I would like them blocked. Thryduulf 19:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aeropus I of Macedon, I would say this poll is a bit premature. So far no one but you has been in favor of public accounts. If the idea earns more support, then perhaps this issue could be revisited. It would help if you could explain the benefits of a public account, since all I can see are disadvantages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:10, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I dont think so. Many people like public accounts, lets say cheesedreams for example. Anyway, lets see if there is rough consensus, please vote in the poll. It is a policy that you cannot change a policy before rough consensus is reached. Also you cannot change blocking policy and mention public accounts while there is an active ArbCom case for the same issue. I am sorry but I will revert again blocking policy. Aeropus I of Macedon 06:26, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aeropus, thanks for your reply. It is true that CheeseDreams posted her password, although I don't think that she intended hers to be a public account the way you seem to. But in any case, if you look at the addition, it is merely describing convention, not what must be followed—and it is true that convention is to block public accounts. You yourself have mentioned this, as numerous of your previous accounts have been blocked and it occurred on the bugmenot accounts before you joined Wikipedia. Could you explain what benefit you feel public accounts give that Wikipedia's current scheme doesn't offer? I've asked you this question numerous times, both on your accounts here and on meta. It's currently sitting on your talk page as well. The rest of us only see disadvantages—perhaps if you could show us why they are helpful, we could do things differently. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:33, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just saw that you responded on your talk page. I will respond there. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom injunctions/resolutions

Would it be a good idea to have an addition to this policy so we are explicit on whether sockpuppets created to get around injunctions/resolutions should be blocked or not, and if so for how long? I propose: Users believed to be sockpuppets created to get around an injunction or ruling by the Arbitration Committee should be blocked for 24 hours per offence pending confirmation of identity. If it is confirmed, or is blatently obvious, they are a sockpuppet of a user subject to an Arbitration Committee injunction or ruling they should be blocked indefinitely If the "blatently obivous" is disputed then confirmation should be sought and a different administrator can remove/shorten the block as apropriate. Thryduulf 02:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apostrophes

According to The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.), "Capital letters used as words, abbreviations that contain no interior periods, and numerals used as nouns form the plural by adding s." Examples given include "IRAs" and "URL's" (and "1990s", for that matter). It suggests "To avoid confusion, lowercase letters and abbreviations with two or more interior periods or with both capital and lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s." Therefore, I am removing the apostrophe from the plural "IPs". — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:31, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

128.135.222.242 (talk · contribs) is a vandal and not a serious contributor, has been reported, --SqueakBox 00:35, May 4, 2005 (UTC) I should probobly note that this IP is from a UChicago DHCP lease (one that would remain assigned to one system for approx. 365 days though) And while the user may have been abusive in the past, it will have moved to a new user by now.

Abuse by Admin User:SlimVirgin

Apparently this admin thinks that "reverting" a phrase while changing other things in an article violates the 3RR, when, looking at Wikipedia's definition of revert, it definitively means changing back to a specific previous version. J. Parker Stone 04:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

You were engaged in complex reverts, were reported for it by one editor, and other editors confirmed that, in their view, you had violated 3RR, which the diffs showed when I checked them. The problem with system gaming, Trey, is that it's easy to miscalculate, which is what you did here. Far better to stop editing-by-revert and start making last contributions. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:01, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

This is the wrong place to discuss this. Trey - take this to WP:RFC or WP:AN/I. -- Netoholic @ 05:03, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

Ammendment

Note: this has been cross posted to WP:NPA, WP:BP and WP:AN#Personal attacks on controversial pages.

I would like to propose that the following message box be added to articles deemed controversial and where there is a history of editors making inflammatory remarks and personal attacks:

The very first article I would add this to is Jihad. Last year I had my first taste of just how bad things could get, now after a year I have gone back and found the article in just as bad (if not worse) a state with even more inflammatory comments and personal attacks which have caused editing to come to an almost complete halt. Warnings do not work here, with at least one user being blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin, but who has just created a sockpuppet account and also started editing anonymously. I feel that the only way to deal with this sort of bad faith is to give a global warning on the top of the talk page and then start blocking those who feel the need to make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support this. A number of Islam-related talk pages have been reduced to chaos recently by anon IPs, sockpuppets, and some regular users making personal attacks. We can block the ones who've made no useful contributions for disruption, but we can't block editors who've contributed properly in the past. Even short blocks of a couple of hours until they'd calmed down would help a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I realise this is going to sound bad, but these policy changes require modifications to two policies. As such, it's going to make discussion hard to follow if we discuss it on three locations! Can I suggest we use WP:AN to discuss this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:32, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good user, bad IP

When users have made many legitimate edits, there should be a way of noting this so they can edit from any IP - this should be reversible, in case they start making inappropriate edits. Despite what some people think ("Rarely, however, that vandal may share the same IP address with another person trying to edit Wikipedia." - Wikipedia:Contact_us), students like me find the lack of such a feature annoying when there are vandals at their schools! Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 08:59, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

Responding to blocks

Blocked users cannot edit any page, including talk pages. This makes it difficult to respond to blocks. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 12:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Blocked users may edit their own talk page. This is a feature recently added to Wikipedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:04, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

And they can email the mailing list and any admin. [[smoddy]] 14:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Protection of admins/extra-Wikipedia activities

I recently blocked a user for disruption to Wikipedia. Soon after I blocked him, he email-bombed me about 120 times with the term "FUCKER". Now, I know that it was from him and I know that he did this in direct retaliation for me blocking him. I strongly believe that there needs to be a new addition to this policy concerning blocked users and the admins. Because this is extra-Wikipedia, I can not block him for that reason. However, what does one do when this happens? It's obviously in direct retaliation for a direct Wikipedia action. Such activity should NOT be taken lightly (in fact, such activity is illegal).

I am not sure how to propose this addition so that it fits. However, something NEEDS to be done. Such behavior is unacceptable. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 19:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Report him to his ISP for violating his AUP, or to whatever authority makes this conduct illegal. I don't agree that any reaction is necessary, however. Who was harmed by this behavior? Kelly Martin 20:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Linuxbeak was. It is annoying and unfortunate that not a lot can be done. I think some sort of policy leading to in-Wikipedia punishments for harrassing a Wikipedia administrator would not be unthinkable. Ben Babcock 20:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How was he harmed? He had to delete some emails. Geez, I delete hundreds of emails every day. Big deal. Life goes on. Kelly Martin 21:19, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, it is harrassment and spam and should be fought against. Secondly, it is a waste of resources for Linuxbeak's email provider, as well as the email provider of the offender. Thirdly, it is actually illegal: emailbombing is a crime that can led to jail time. Linuxbeak is just doing his job as an administrator, and that should not be a reason he must suffer a deluge of spam in his inbox each day. Ben Babcock 21:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realise that it is harassment, but illegal activities should be sent to the relevant authorities. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If he's already blocked from Wikipedia, then we've done all we can. If he continues, it seems to me that the only solution would be to disable the "email user" option in your preferences for a few weeks. — Dan | Talk 03:14, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, wikipedia provides plenty of options for protecting your identity. There's no real need for the email link to be enabled, or you could point it at an email address that requires a particular subject to allow email through. (I might add, back in the day when I was an IRCop on DALnet, we had no user cloaks, and our IP addresses were in full view of everyone, including all the crazy users we autokilled/klined. We managed to survive, through a combination of protection software and reporting the most serious offenses to the user's ISP.) I'm not really sure what you're asking for, but if you're saying that admins should be allowed to block (or extend a current block of) users who harass admins off wikipedia, I don't think that's a good idea. One amazing aspect of Wikipedia is its transparent process. It's very difficult to hide actions on Wikipedia. If there's a question of why a user was banned, an admin can point to an edit or an action. Blocking for non-project issues loses that transparency, and I think that would be an unfortunate loss. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 07:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"email user" may need a rate limiter. r3m0t ^talk 10:05, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

A possible inconsisency in the policies and practice: 3RR blocks are not bans

I think I found an inconsistency in the text of this policy and the way it is used in practice.

Before coming here I asked at the village pump and at 3RR.

Here's how I understand the text of the policies:

• extending a block timer is only applicable if the user has been banned See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Penalty for evasion
• blocking a known sock is only applicable if the user has been banned
• an admin cannot ban a user on his own. Either a vote, the ArbCom or Jimbo is needed for a ban. See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban
• when a user violates the 3RR the admin can decide to block the user, but that is not a ban

Therefore (if I understand correctly):

• the block after a 3RR violation cannot be extended (since it's not a ban)
• the known sock of a banned user after a 3RR violation block cannot be blocked (since it's not a ban)

I think this is an inconsistency and probably an oversight on the part of those who created these policies.

Other users told me that the policies are not interpreted this way, and admins do extend blocks and do block known socks of 3RR violators even though the blocking policy doesn't give them an option to do this.

Of course, I might have misundersood something. Could you help me clarify this?

Thanks, nyenyec ☎ 02:50, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

GFDL issues

Should a provision be added to permit blocking of users who reject the GFDL, or claim not to license comments under the GFDL, as User:Pioneer-12 has done? He's the only such case so far, but it may be wise to codify our policy on this sort of issue to ensure that our content remains freely usable by mirrors and whatnot. — Dan | Talk 17:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocking a person who constantly upload no source and/or stolen drawings

User:T1v37r is constantly uploading (and inserting into articles), drawings and photographs without indicating source -- especially in the case of the drawings, they seem to be stolen from a variety of Harry Potter fanartists: Two of these artists I've managed to identify, the others remain unknown to me. He's been warned several times, but he's never responded and instead keeps on doing it.

I'm an admin but I've never blocked anyone before, and I'm wondering whether I should block him immediately. Thank you Aris Katsaris 20:57, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Blocks of administrators

Recently there has been controversy involving blocks of administrators.

Blocking an administrator accomplishes little, since administrators can unblock themselves. Blocking an administrator does send a message, but that message can often be better sent by leaving a note on the administrator's talk page.

I propose the following policy change:

• That administrators, being highly respected Wikipedians, should hold themselves to a high standard, and never engage in behavior that would merit blocking.
• In the rare instance when an administrator inadvertently violates policy in such a way that a block would otherwise be called for, a talk page message stating the nature of the problem may be left in lieu of a block. The {{lieuofblock}} template can be used to make sure that the serious nature of the message is clear:

• Administrators receiving such a message are expected to cease potentially problematic edits until the matter is resolved.
• In those extremely rare cases where an admin lacks the self-control to respect such a message, {{m:Stewards}} should be contacted to temporarily remove administrator status prior to placing a block, since a block will not otherwise be effective.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:01, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I like this proposal alot, and i happen to agree. --Phroziac (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

While in some cases discussion and consideration of alternatives like page protection are preferable to blocking willy-nilly, I'm concerned that a specific policy instructing administrators to use "courtesy" notices with each other instead of blocks gives more fuel to those who want to snipe about cabals.

I also do not agree with the implication that blocking an administrator accomplishes little. It may be technically ineffective, but I find it very effective in social terms, because it may expose when an administrator has not properly understood the ethical use of administrative privileges. --Michael Snow 19:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I see arguments over what counts as "controversial edits". Ultimately it is an issue of treating everyone equaly. An editor would be blocked so an admin must also be blocked for the same actions. Most admins do not unblock themselves and I can only recall two block wars caused by admins unblocking themselves. Unfortuently due this being a new experence to most of those involved they tend to be messy.Geni 00:11, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe that we have a de facto situation where admins cannot be blocked effectively. I believe that it is better to acknowwledge that and deal with its ramifications though a mechanism such as this than to try to make blocks that are technologically ineffective. If we really are going to go around blocking admins, we should probably fix the mediawiki bug that permits self-unblocking. Since mediawiki never really contemplated the idea that admins could be blocked, things like deletion and protection should be checked as well since they are likely still available to blocked admins. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a horrible idea. Block admins who violate policy, and if they unblock themselves, they need to be de-admined. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 22:55, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see the same problem that you are trying to solve. No admin should unblock themselves. If they do, they should be de-adminned. Nevertheless, a comment in the blocking policy to the effect that warning clearly good-faith users is better than blocking them would be a good idea. I have done this myself in the past. It is far better for the community and for individuals. [[smoddy]] 23:10, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the blocking rules for admins ought to be any different from regular users. Yes, we should first attempt to establish communication and assume the user is acting in good faith. We should do that for any user; perhaps we give a little more opportunity for explanation from someone who has a history of good judgment, admin or not. Not actually blocking, as mentioned by Michael Snow, does give the appearance of cabalism. And the problem of some people being too quick to block in lieu of communication for any user is a nasty one, but not solved by making special rules for admins.

Should it be necessary to block an admin becasue s/he has been engaging in behavior destructive to the wiki, then we should block — and despite it being technically possible for an admin to ignore the block, it's completely inexcusable for that person to do so. Someone to whom we have given adminship because s/he has been deemed trustworthy ought to know and respect soft security better than the average user. Not only that, an admin would certainly know where to seek other opinions if a block has been imposed unfairly. Someone who cannot respect a block and go through the proper channels to lift it — even if it seems to have been placed unfairly — is not suited to be in a position of trust. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well, not a lot of support for this one. My main reasoning, from a FairProcess perspective, is the prinicple that the presence of power should be made explicit. If admins have the power to de-admin themselves but are expected to respect the block voluntarily, how is that any different than admins having the power to disregard a talk page message but be expect to respect it anyway? I see little difference. Part of the problem is that we have been suffering a plague of punitive blocks against good users, admin and non-admin alike. Perhaps that problem should be solved directly since this proposal lacks support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 07:06, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I see the idea has already been shot down, but I'd like to kick it while it's lying on the floor, bleeding profusely.

What you want is the strongest possible proposal for admins never ever ever ever to unblock themselves no matter what. You've been blocked by someone who's being a dick? Too bad. Mail the other administrators, whine on your talk page, prepare an RfC while you're offline, but do not unblock yourself. I would even support altering the software to make it impossible for any user to unblock themselves. Heck, I would support removing adminship from anyone who lifts a block on themselves, instantly, as part of normal procedure, regardless of mitigating circumstances. If administrators can ignore blocks, they cease being contributors to Wikipedia, for all contributors can be blocked if they are disrupting Wikipedia's functioning. Administrators are trusted to know what is and isn't disruptive, but administrators are human, and make mistakes. If being an administrator is no big deal, then blocking one shouldn't be, either.

You don't want people to treat administrators specially, you want them to treat all editors who are not acting in bad faith equally. What Uninvited's proposal would do is record a de facto situation as de iure. Bad. The status quo needs changing, not justifying. Be conservative with blocks. Be extremely unwilling to hand out blocks to people who are acting in good faith but being damn fools. Be more than happy to lift blocks from people who promise to not do whatever they were doing again. Don't be afraid to finally block someone if there's no other way, but don't take the easy way out and block someone for not respecting your authoratay. Mind you, Uninvited's proposal isn't actually bad. All that needs to be done is remove the part where it says this is special procedure for administrators. If you want this, apply it to everyone. JRM · Talk 12:21, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

"whine on your talk page" - not possible. See "Responding to blocks" below. Brianjd | Why restrict HTML? | 12:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Please review: http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FairProcess

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)