Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Remove discouragement of cool down blocks from the policy

Proposal to remove the bit about cool-down blocks from the policy. For once, I agree with Kurt Weber, his comments here. Cool-down blocks happen all the time, though not expressed literally as a "cool down block". All temporary blocks, especially in an edit war are basically a cool-down block. It makes no sense to keep it in the policy - sometimes such blocks are needed to stop further disruption, and since most admins would ignore the policy, it should be removed. Al Tally ^talk 19:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about removing it altogether, but it needs to be amended since its apparent that this happens rather often. Now is as good a time as any to explore this option. Policy should reflect current or common practice, no? — _Maggot^Syn 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

While I can appreciate the sentiment, I strongly disagree. Cool-down blocks do indeed happen frequently, and they are a mistake and improper. "Cool down" requires, first, a judgement as to the mental state of an editor, and that is risky business on-line, looking only at text. It's not uncommon, when I calmly describe a situation on-line, I'm not upset at all, someone will tell me I shouldn't be so ... angry, judgmental, arrogant, whiney, you get the idea. They imagine my mental state then want to change it. Rather, blocks are only allowed to protect the project from disruption. And that's about behavior, not the emotions of the user. We don't know the emotions, and the emotions are actually irrelevant, mostly.

So the problem with a "cool-down" block is that it involves mindreading the user. Bad Idea, often wrong. We block for behavior that is a danger to the project. If possible, we warn first. But we should never block a user because of an imagination of their mental state, in itself. Normally, we warn and if the behavior continues, we block. It is that simple. The policy is correct. Being "hot" is not against policy. Incivility is against policy. Enforce policy, not emotional state.

If a user says, "I'm so angry about this that I could explode!", do we even warn? "Don't explode, you will be blocked." No, we don't. Anger isn't the problem. The problem is "You piece of ****, scum, liar." Or edit warring or vandalism. --Abd (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll just quote myself from the other cool-down-block discussion a few sections above: "As far as I remember, the whole point of that policy was that you're not supposed to block people with a reason that they should "cool down", because that sounds incredibly patronising. Pretty much every non-indefinite block on a registered user is a cool-down block in a sense." - Bobet 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Abd: I'm not sure where this is all coming from. Where did either of us say anything about emotions? I wouldn't propose we block editors based on what you think they feel. My only point was that we need to adjust the wording to reflect what actually happens. Otherwise, there will be a question about it every so often, and this only leads to confusion. I'd also not suggest cool down block be used as a reason, yet when someone is being incivil, warned multiple times, and blocked for it, this does in fact represent a type of cool down block. I could give other such examples, none having to do with emotion. — _Maggot^Syn 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hotheadedness is indeed quite a detriment to Wikipedia. When someone gets his temper up and is unable to restrain himself from continuing to edit (as we've all seen happen quite often), blocking him just for that is a perfectly appropriate response. "Cool-down blocks" only inflame the situation if they're not applied evenly and fairly, or if they're so short that they do not in fact give the individual in question enough time to cool down. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Then the user's conduct verges on disruption. So thus, according to this policy, disruptive users should not be blocked anything but indef because otherwise it would be a cool down block? Remove it. --I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 02:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Many legitimate blocks may also have the effect of cooling the user down, but they should not solely serve that function. That is, we don't block people just for being angry. We block them if they get angry enough to lash out with some personal attacks, for example, or if they turn green and start blanking pages. Blocking is always with regard to conduct, and only that; otherwise you risk fettering the environment of vigorous debate. --bainer (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. Sort of. We block because an action is taking place after warning, thus leading to sufficient fear that the action will be continued, and it is a harmful action. Essentially, we block to protect the project. Period. The anger is irrelevant. That's my point. As I understand a "cool down" block, and this is what the policy prohibits, it is a block issue on the theory that the problem is the editor's emotions, and that giving the editor a "time out" will let the editor "cool down." The policy claims that this doesn't work, and that's correct. It is telling the editor what emotions the editor shouldn't have, that an editor with such emotions can't function here. And that is, quite rightly, seen as offensive by the editor, thus the editor gets even more angry. Instead, if the editor is blocked for blanking those pages, the editor can easily understand that, and it isn't personal. Angry? You can be angry. Maybe you have good reason to be angry, or it's just your way of working it out. Vandalizing pages? No. Not okay. Stop, and if you continue, you will be blocked.

Now, when you warn an editor, it *often* happens that the editor gets angry. Few like to be told what to do. So should we then block the editor because they get angry, so that they have time to cool down? No. We can block if they ignore the warning and do the deed again. The anger is irrelevant and, in fact, if we respond with anything that seems like it is punitive -- for getting angry -- it will usually increase the anger. "Cool down blocks" do not refer to the effect of blocks, and I'm not convinced that blocks ever work to cool editors down. Rather, we start with small blocks and escalate if needed because it is part of the warning process, which gives the editor time to realize the seriousness of the matter. But many editors just get angrier because they were blocked. It is not at all reliable for cooling the editor down, and that is what the policy recognizes. Just thinking about this, brainstorming a little, being able to block someone without getting them angrier would be a special skill.

The problem isn't blocks for vandalism or obvious offenses. A vandal doesn't get angry from being blocked. I was a prison chaplian, and criminals don't get angry for being prosecuted and jailed for committing common-law crimes, they know it's wrong to steal. They get angry when the police lie about their case, sometimes when the laws are unfair and discriminatory, when the deck is stacked against them before the parole board, and so forth. People get angry here when they think they are doing the right thing and are blocked for it. And it may be possible to work with such people in a better way than simply blocking them.

This much is clear: it isn't fair to block someone because they are angry. It is almost certain, as well, to increase their anger. It's fair to block them for doing damage.--Abd (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. We have always pretended to believe that blocking was not punitive or reactionary, but merely preventative. Let's take our noble slogans seriously for a change. 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that cool down blocks should be kept. It is a very easy and important way to make incivil or users who are very mad at the time undercontrol. I oppose.Gears Of War 14:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You oppose what, exactly? You sound like you're of the opinion CDBs are a good idea, so you're opposing that they be removed from the policy? Please be clear. Thanks. Al Tally ^talk 14:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am opposing to removing cool down blocks from the policy.Gears Of War 15:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So when you said "It is a very easy and important way to make incivil or users who are very mad at the time undercontrol" what did you mean? If cool down blocks were kept in the policy, we wouldn't be able to do that. Al Tally ^talk 15:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm lost :P.Gears Of War 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Gears, cool down blocks are currently discouraged by policy, this is a discussion to allow them. _{1 != 2} 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that explains alot. Okay, I oppose discouragement of cool down blocks.Gears Of War 15:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I support your opposition to the discouragement of cool down blocks. _{1 != 2} 15:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The idea that cool down blocks do not work is an opinion and it is not supported by the actual practice of admins and the results of those practices. A cool down block prevents further disruption of used in the correct circumstance. Also "cool down" blocks can be for the benefit of those the blocked person was heating up, not just the blocked person.

Independent of my above arguments, our policy should reflect our best practices and not dictate it. They are indeed out of alignment, and I agree we should modify policy to better match how we do things. _{1 != 2} 14:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand. If we remove the cool down block, that would make it un-usable, I wnat to keep them.Gears Of War 15:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm glad this is finally getting more discussion. But, can we amend it to better explain all of this? Because currently, it doesn't say what we are saying on this talk page :) — _Maggot^Syn 14:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully support a change, not necessarily a removal though, I will draft something soon. _{1 != 2} 15:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite by Until(1 == 2)

Okay, this is my draft of a rewrite. It is not so black and white, it encourages the use of intelligence and discretion. The rewrite takes into account the wide variety of circumstances and instead of trying to make a concrete rule gives advice to those seeking to consider such methods. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

---

Cool-down blocks

Sometimes an editor may get very upset and because of that cause disruption. A block for a few hours may give the editor enough time to regain his or her temper and deal with the issues in a more productive way.

Please be advised however that sometimes this tactic may further upset the editor. Consider the danger of the editor becoming more angry due to this block, and weigh that against the preventative value of the block.

It may not always be possible to avoid upsetting an editor due to a block, but effort should be taken to avoid it.

---

Comments, suggestions, etc

I invite your input on this, and any suggested changes. _{1 != 2} 15:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks good on first glance. Al Tally ^talk 15:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Other than a few minor tweaks, copyediting for typos and such, it looks far better and is a step in the right direction. I'd recommend waiting of course, possibly for a few days until other editors catch wind of this. Until then, silence is consent. Nice job so far Until 1 != 2. — _Maggot^Syn 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I made a slight spelling correction. On the whole, I think what this comes down to is whether policy is descriptive (which I always thought was how it was) or prescriptive (which is currently how it reads). Although cool-down blocks are currently "prohibited", they happen fairly often. So to make our policy more in line with reality, I believe something should change. I think this re-wording is a good step in that direction. Mahalo. --Ali'i 15:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No I think we all can agree it needs to be descriptive. How to properly characterize is where I see the discussion leading. — _Maggot^Syn 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I like it. On a slight tangent, I think there should be something in there about how the blocking admin should be sure that he or she is cooled down before they do anything to "prevent" anyone else from being disruptive. As in Cool Down.then maybe, Block. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The change seems to miss the point of the current version. It just says you should consider blocking people when they're being disruptive, which is obvious and already covered on the page. The current version means that you shouldn't block people when you think they're angry, if they aren't doing anything disruptive. While blocking is supposed to be preventative and not punitive, blocking someone just to cool them down is insulting, since it assumes they're hysterical and unable to control themselves. - Bobet 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You can read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Giano for the drama that led to the cool-down block policy in the first place. - Bobet 17:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this change and agree that the current policy towards cool-down blocks is unrealistic. —  scetoaux (T|C) 17:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Starting from the premise of not trying to fix something that's not broken, I disagree that the current policy makes erroneous presumtions and I don't see the need to change it and open to subjective interpretation what miscellaneous disruption means other than specific examples already defined within the policy. Whether my next claim can be verified or not may be debatable but I think the number of cool-down-blockees that actually cool down and resume in a more productive manner than they did pre-CDB will be greatly outnumbered by the number of established editors that get infuriated by a permanent black mark in their block log because someone thought they were hot headed and so graciously granted them some time to cool down. Can you also imagine RfA ramifications for someone with such a mark on their record? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I can also imagine equal or greater RFA ramifications for somebody that continues to edit while hot-headed, heading in the direction of edit wars, drama, uncivil behavior, etc. that may be far worse than a little bit of text in a block log. Obviously a user would be warned that a cool-down block is forthcoming if the cool-down doesn't happen soon. I fail to sympathize with one's aspirations towards adminship if they were to fail to heed such a warning. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars, uncivil behaviour and many other things are specifically explained in the blocking policy. Anything that's defined specifically as a blockable offence does not need a more broad definition. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But if it can be prevented before it goes too far, why not do so? Policy isn't supposed to dictate to us the only acceptable ways of doing things. I reference the wisdom of another policy that seems to have been forgotten: Ignore all rules. It states "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This gives editors and by extension administrators more leeway in what to do with their tools. Blocking to prevent any of this behavior serves to lessen the block a person encounters when they do become uncivil or start edit warring or whatever, and it serves to lessen the drama that unfold, and it serves to lessen any damage to Wikipedia. It is not unreasonable to believe that cool-down blocks may be effectively used towards these three ends. —  scetoaux (T|C) 18:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Like scetoaux, I support a change and concur that the current policy on cool-down blocks is unrealistic. — Athaenara ✉ 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

• (Expanding on my comment): I've informally reviewed many requests for unblock and responded to them from time to time. From what I've seen there, most users who were blocked for disruptive editing or incivility actually respond somewhat positively to their block: they want to be unblocked, but they understand the rationale for the block and even find themselves agreeing with it to some extent.
  The escalation of rage in response to a block is far more rare, and the policy should not be designed to cater to that. — Athaenara ✉ 20:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"You were chosen for your judgment. Use it, dear administrator." For some editors, a short block may prevent them from harming the project. For others, the short block may make things worse, (ehum, Giano). I agree that this is a gray area that calls for judgement, not a strict rule. Jehochman ^Talk 23:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Policy should never take the place of an administrator's best judgement, regardless of the situation. —  scetoaux (T|C) 03:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's a bold and crazy idea... take the section out of the policy altogether. Here's my train of thought: blocks are used to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia. They are never in response to a user, they are in response to a user's actions. The policy already spells out many user actions for which admins can/should block. We really shouldn't be "cooling down users" we should be preventing destructive activities. The net effect of both things is a block which expires at some point in the future, but the difference is in the mindset used to apply the block. Why BEANS admins with things they shouldn't do, especially when those things are outside the scope of the policy to begin with? Livitup (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the suggested re-write makes it clear that it is to be used to prevent disruption, so I don't see what you are objecting to? _{1 != 2} 12:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a small grammatical change to the proposed text. I hope you don't mind. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. America69 (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I support the rewriting as realistic. Cool down blocks, however named, are an important methods of keeping things civil. We usually call them "preventing further disruption" but we would do better to be straight-forward about it. DGG (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this discussion late, but I feel that the current language of the policy should be retained. I think that blocking is only appropriate for actual violations, such as substantial incivility, edit-warring, etc, but not simply to "cool down" the debate. In many instances the effect may be the same but there are important differences. There is too much possibility for abuse or at least for perceived abuse here in terms of stifling legitimate debate and blocking editors in good standing who have done nothing wrong but actively participate in a debate. It is far too easy to misuse such blocks or at least to give an appearance of misusing them. This will increase the amount of drama rather than decrease it.

Even where some party behaved badly, it is much better to block them for a specific violation they committed. Otherwise there will certainly be complains about fairness, about whether the cool-down blocks are applied fairly and evenly (Why did you block me and not the other guy?!). Good standing editors who get "cool-down-blocked" will get unnecessarily riled up and those who have really done something wrong will have an extra issue to complain about. Also, think about the effect of having the cool-down blocks in the block log of a good standing user: people will certainly view them as undeserved and unjust blemishes on their record, this stuff will be brought up and debated needlessly during RfAs, etc. Nsk92 (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Lets face it cool down blocks aren't helpful and you aren't really going to "cool down" someone by blocking them. Heck if you blocked me so I could "cool down" I'd be one very mad person. The policy should remain as is, and not be changed. --Chetblong^Talk/_ARK 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. I believe that if CDBs are banned or discouraged then there needs to be prevention CDB by another name. One reason could be given for a block, when in reality it's meant to be a CDB. If CDBs are to remain being blocked or discouraged, how will that be enforced? --SMP0328. (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think some other, less punitive, tool, is needed to encourage cool-down that could be used by admins and other users. E.g. a new warning template that could be placed on the user's talk page. As for actual blocking, if there is a blockable infraction committed, e.g. incivility, a short block could be given with incivility as the stated reason. It could also have the secondary cool-down effect. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I see a reason for CDB to be rewritten but I don't think they should be encouraged or allowed. I think CDB should be sure to state that blocks should only be provided if there is damage and disruption to the project, not based on a user's emotions. That seems to be the heart of the blocking policy. Block only to prevent further disruption to the project. Short blocks should obviously be allowed and of course may have the effect of "cooling down" an editor. To me "cool down block" sounds like "things are getting a little heated so I'm going to block you to let you cool off for a little". I don't think that should happen. Blocking should only happen to prevent further disruption after violations and disruption has occurred, not to cool down editors. Obviously an administrator should use common sense and each case is unique but at its heart blocking should only be used to prevent disruption. I don't support removing this bit from the policy, I think it should be rewritten to more clearly state the definition and reasons why they should not be used and perhaps in which cases short blocks should be used.  Orfen  ^T • _C 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly oppose any rewriting that would permit explicit cool-down blocks. Essentially all blocks are cool-down blocks in that they are a time-out for the editor to reflect and modify their behaviour. Once the editor agrees to modify behaviour, any block should be immediately lifted.

The problem with an explicit CDB, as Abd and others have stated well, is that it requires the admin to form a theory of mind with respect to the editor in question, i.e. to form a judgement as to whether the editor will benefit. This goes beyond the defined function of an admin, who are selected in part for their dispute resolution skills, but certainly not for their mind-reading ability. The further problem is that admins, like all of us, will be deficient in understanding their own mind and will thus confuse their own feelings and assessment with those of the subject editor, resulting in an injunction to someone else to "cool down" when perhaps the admin themself should take a walk around the block. Franamax (talk) 04:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A problem with cool-down blocks is that some Admins have been known to use them, to simply stifle discussion. And as such they end up not really cooling people down at all. Even if it appears to be the right thing to do, I don't think most people who have been subjected to such a block cool down at all (and I say this after having been subjected to one, despite it not existing). They simply get angry. If there is vandalism, etc., then there are other reasons to put in a block. If an Admin simply doesn't want to spend time discussing an issue, they are better off to stay uninvolved. Nfitz (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way - say we have a very angry user who posts some very angry, but not ad hominem, responses to other editors on talk pages while discussing changes. This editor in my opinion would not deserve even a warning, much less a block - as long as they're providing constructive criticism and making neutral edits, there is no issue, even if they seem hotheaded. To be calm can be a useful way of facilitating positive edits, but is certainly not a requirement of editors. To block someone who is apparently angry before they commit a visible offense is preemptive blocking, which we do not practice. Dcoetzee 09:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Having read all recent RfA's for the last month and a half or so, any explicit change to the Cool-down block rule would appear to be contrary to the spirit and the letter of the rule, which, standing as an unambiguous single-sentence assertion, does absolutely no harm. Any change to the rule which would imply anything even close to the opposite of the current rule would be to completely change the face of the argument.

And besides, the very notion of using cool-down blocks is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia as a community. How is being blocked going to cool an editor down in any way? If anything, being blocked will enflame the user further.

Of course, in the more practical sense, whether cool-down blocks actually take place or not is another matter. How many times in a block log have we seen wording to the effect of, "Blocked for 3/6/12/24/31/48/100 hours - please calm down and come back to this situation with a clear head." The two cannot live side-by-side and the fact that I have seen them do so in the past... does worry me greatly. Thankfully it seems to be happening less and less often these days.

Having read a previous argument, however, I would like to ask the following question. Say a newly-appointed administrator - in the style of Robdurbar, goes mad with power (though without the out-and-out vandalistic intent) and decides to do things (s)he shouldn't with his/her new powers. Making the (untrue) assumption that Robdurbar may have received a 24-hour block prior to being permabanned, would this be classed as a "cool-down block"? I suppose my interpretation of the phrase cool-down block is a much more expansive definition than others'. Bobo. 14:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The block would be in response to specific wrong-doing, as a preventative measure to avoid future damage. Like any block, it also gives the blockee time to consider their actions and decide to reform. It would be a cool-down block only to the extent that all blocks are cool-down blocks. The problem arises when a CDB is explicitly issued to prevent theoretical damage, or when an admin makes a psychologists decision that "this will be good for you". Franamax (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool Down Blocks: Alternative Proposal

I'm not an admin, just an experienced editor who has warned plenty of people and reported plenty to AIV and ANI. Reading through the discussion above, I can see three views coming through:

1) If an admin thinks someone is getting angry, they should take this into consideration and be more likely to block them, in the expectation that they will cool down.

2) If an admin thinks someone is getting angry, they should take this into consideration and be less likely to block them, in the expectation that this will inflame the situation.

3) If an admin thinks someone is getting angry, they should ignore this completely as you cant assess someones mood accurately over the internet and editors should only be blocked based on what they have actually done. (i.e. incivility, vandalism, personal attacks etc)

Personally I would prefer #3 as the policy that should be adopted; reasons being mood second guessing could be patronising and inaccurate, and blocking should be objectively just. AndrewRT(Talk) 19:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin either, I agree with #3. It's plain to me that AndrewRT is getting over-emotional here and needs to sit out for a few hours. All I see in his edits here is angry, angry, angry ;) Imagine the discussion, recrimination and block-warring resulting from discretionary CDB's sanctioned by policy! Franamax (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the second sentence of the policy states it the best: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." It seems almost as if by using a "cool-down block" we are punishing users which I don't think is the heart of this policy. Blocking should only be done to prevent further damage or disruption to the project. Perhaps the section on cool-down blocks can be expanded upon but I do not think they should be encouraged, used, or make it open to interpretation. Yes, each situation is different but I think blocking should only be used to prevent further disruption and not to let someone cool down.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for everyone

A lot of people seem to think that the current status quo is that cool-down blocks are "banned", and the proposed rewrite of this would make them "allowed."

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is, these so-called "policies" do not ban or permit anything. There is NOTHING anywhere banning or permitting anything on Wikipedia. All these so-called "policies" do is merely reflect what is already happening. So the question is not whether or not cool-down blocks should be permitted, but whether or not they're being made. If so, then the simple fact is that this so-called "policy" must be updated to reflect that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 03:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying but the way it is written at the moment is it says that these should not occur. I'm sure cool down blocks do happen but I don't agree with it. I agree with the current way the policy is written, they shouldn't happen. I am not sure I agree with your definition of policy however. It says that a policy is "a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus." It seems that if consensus is that cool-down blocks should not occur then the policy should reflect that they should not occur. If consensus says they should be allowed then the policy should be changed to reflect that. I think the decision needs to be made not if they occur and it should be changed if they do but I think the decision needs to made if these should occur. If not the policy shouldn't be changed, possibly could be reworded but remain unchanged at its core. If there is consensus saying that cool-down blocks should be allowed the policy should be written to reflect that. To me by that heading it doesn't sound like the page is there to show what is occurring in some instances but what the community decides should occur throughout the project.  Orfen  ^T • _C 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, put another way, policy does not reflect the application of WP:IAR, it reflects the current understanding of how to apply rules. Kurt, you seem to think that cool-down blocks happen - can you present an example or two? Could any admin present an example of a block they made for the explicit purpose of letting the editor "cool down" as opposed to a block for specific policy violation, albeit with the accompanying admonition to step away from the keyboard? Franamax (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kurt, policies don't just reflect what is happening at the moment (or in other words, consensus), they also are "a widely accepted standard that all users should follow", guidelines are what you are talking about. So yes the question is whether or not cool-down blocks should be permitted, not whether or not they are being used. I also ask the same thing Franamax is asking, where have CDBs been used? --Chetblong^Talk/_ARK 17:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that template is problematic--it's wrong. It leads people such as yourself to have a totally incorrect understanding of what "policies" on Wikipedia actually are. Please ignore it. It needs to be either changed or eliminated altogether, but that's another battle. Those of us who have been around for awhile know what these "policies" are really intended to be. Please learn from us. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, Franamax, I know you're waiting for a response from Kurt but I seem to have a hole in my pocket any my last two cents keep falling out.

Cool-down blocks are a very dangerous thing to explicitly open up to individual interpretation. A hot-headed administrator involved in a heated dispute handing out a cool-down block to the other person is not just insanely hypocritical, it would also completely miss the point of the stated goal. Of all people discussing this issue here, who is willing to honestly admit that if you comitted absolutely no blockable offence but an administrator deemed a CDB neccessary, that you wouldn't get infuriated by a permanent black mark in your block log because someone thought you were hot headed and so graciously granted you some time to cool down? Who can honestly say, after being labelled "hysterical and not being able to control oneself", that you would come back "more productive" that pre-CDB? If you can honestly answer yes to both of those questions, you're a bigger man than I am. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My two cents

Right, lets suppose that once upon a time an editor on climatology pages has been adding his own personal etymology for the term "cyclone". This editor claims that the term "cyclone" comes from the words "sigh" and "clone". That is, a cyclone is a big rush of air, like a sigh, and a cyclone is a copy of this rush of air, that is, a clone of a sigh, or a "sigh-clone" or "cyclone".

This editor has no sources for his folk etymology. He edit wars to insert it, and it is removed. He argues for it on the talk pages of the articles. People tell him it violates WP:NOR and WP:RS and WP:V repeatedly, which he ignores. After telling him this 28 times in a row, ZZ, a well known editor who writes about climatology on Wikipedia, and author of 26 pieces of featured content, tells him,

Wow that is shockingly incorrect. Do you do this on purpose?

Several admins are disgusted that ZZ would have committed such an egregious offense and he is issued with a cool down block. The word that offends them the most is the word "shockingly" in ZZ's post. A very heated thread is generated on the Administrators' Noticeboard about this. No one asks why ZZ wrote this statement. No one chastises the editor who had been spamming the climatology pages with the unsourced etymology of "cyclone".

This is why we shouldn't have cool down blocks--Serviam (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to argue that we should have them. We should have them as honey traps to identify administrators who would commit such an egregious error (I'm assuming the description is correct and that there isn't something truly important missing, so this is about principle, not the specific incident). Then we can arrange for their education, and if that doesn't work, and they don't get it, for the removal of their buttons. And the block log for that user can be fixed. There is no shame in having an improper block on one's record, particularly if it is corrected (i.e., annotated). I've often said that if you've never been blocked, you don't get WP:IAR or you aren't trying hard enough. I've never been blocked, yet, but I've only been really active for nine months. (I'm not serious, plenty of people try very hard and aren't blocked, but, usually, long time very active editors who confront serious problems eventually run into some admin with a quick trigger finger. Fortunately, the hole can be patched. It's when it some obscure editor nobody knows or cares about, that the damage is truly severe.

And, seriously, again, we should not have "cool down blocks" except under WP:IAR. The language here should discourage blocking for any reason other than protection of the project, and "cool down" can have that purpose, but ... it shouldn't be said; as noted, it's an insult. Instead of "I'm giving you 24 hours to cool down, get a grip," It would be, "From your recent edits I fear that there is an immediate risk that you will continue to be what appears to me uncivil or disruptive, and I am blocking you briefly to prevent this and possible damage to Wikipedia or the Wikipedia community. If my impression is incorrect, please respond here and hopefully I will be able to unblock quickly and with an explanation, if we can agree that this block is unnecessary. Or, if you would prefer an immediate second opinion, place the unblock template, etc., etc." Both of these prevent immediate damage. Which one is less likely to cause ongoing damage? --Abd (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Abd, to your last paragraph: the language employed doesn't really change the situation. A CDB is a CDB, and it shouldn't happen. Your suggested wording doesn't disguise the fact that the admin has formed a theory of mind in regards to the subject editor and that is the problem. Whether you word it for a child or an adult, you're still sending them to the bedroom for a time-out. The better way would be for the admin to just leave a note saying much the same thing, ending with "please be careful, you may find yourself blocked if your behaviour gets worse".

As far as invoking IAR with regards to blocks - very dangerous territory, better have a pretty good explanation, much better than just "I thought it would be a good idea". I recall the_undertow quite recently saying something like "I've never seen an admin action under IAR turning out well".[1] Ironically, TU very soon after went on to demonstrate that precise point. Franamax (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivlity in response to blocking

Proposed addition, drafted roughly only, because this situation is not uncommon and we don't say anything about it:

Incivility in response to blocking Users who respond to blocking using incivilility or personal attacks should not usually have their blocks extended by the blocking administrator beyond a small amount, nor should a reasonable extension of a short block be allowed to escalate into a repeating "uncivil->block->more uncivil->more block" spiral. Especially, repeated extensions can foster a view of punitive retaliation and push a stressed user in undesirable directions. Some forebearance may be needed. Either the incivility should be disregarded or discussed, or if exceptionally problematic it may be best for an uninvolved administrator to replace the block with an indefinite block, pending agreement that such behavior is never acceptable, or agreement to mentorship, followed by a reduction to a reasonable length or a full unblock.

Thoughts on this as a rough idea?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

way way to long. If it needs to be included at all should be shortened to "Incivlity in response to blocking should generaly be disregarded".Geni 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

or "Incivility in response to blocking should not be acted upon by the blocking admin." –xenocidic (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to xenocidic's suggestion as a proposal for a change in the policy. It goes beyond current practice (where admins can react to incivility of users they have personally blocked), but it's a compromise I would be willing to follow. The main drawback I see is with vandalism-only (or troll-only) accounts that are identify themselves with comments they make after being blocked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What about something in there about "consider protecting the user talk page to prevent the incivility before deciding to extend the block duration"? Franamax (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a good idea. Prevents a user from appealing the block. I don't think that incivility on a user talk page of a minor vandal account is a problem. Who is going to see it? To me, it is pretty clear that an admin shouldn't personally block for perceived incivility toward that administrator, period. Unlike what has been implied (as in the Tango block of MONGO), this doesn't create a loophole for a vandal. If a user commits some infraction not involving the administrator, that user may be blocked for the infraction. If the user is, say, given a warning about an infraction, and the user then insults the administrator, the administrator may still do whatever the administrator would have done without that insult. The insult is irrelevant, except in one way: if the administrator's response is clearly out of line to the offense committed, then retaliation may be suspected. I.e., user is warned for canvassing. User responds uncivilly. User is indef blocked, when a repeat offense on the warning would have merited a 24 hour block, normally (user had no prior blocks). (In this case, there was no repeat offense, nor was there threat of such, and the block reason was "trolling," so this was clearly improper retaliation, but the excessiveness of the block would have shown that even if the block reason did not.) Admins should largely ignore insults directed at them, but if they are sufficiently disturbing, they would then act as any other user: ask for support at AN/I or the like.

Users should, within reason, be able to blow off some steam on their user page. Editors who do the service of warning (administrators and non-administrators) should put on some armor, few like to be told what they can do or not do and some people will get hot for a short time. Where this seems to go beyond reasonable limits, i.e., the response gets positively nasty, then an independent administrator can be involved. "This is the stupidest, most idiotic action I've ever seen, and you are an incompetent jerk!" -- I would ordinarily accept on the user's own Talk page. Not anywhere else. But .... there are insults that I would not care to give an example of that would be beyond the pale. Still, the one insulted shouldn't ever be the one to block based on that; and, as usual, never say never about WP process. In an emergency, an admin reasonably concerned about danger to the project, in a case where insulted severely (not merely criticized), could issue a short block and immediately take the matter to AN/I for confirmation and possible extension. It's dangerous, though. We all make mistakes when we are personally angry, and it's hard to avoid the anger when one is the target of a dedicated insult.

The issue of vandals is a red herring. We block for vandalism; defiance of warning may be a reason for proceeding immediately, but the cause is the reasonable fear of continued vandalism. This is *not* for any edit which is possibly made in good faith, even if a BLP violation or other violation of policy. --Abd (talk) 21:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember, there is a maillist for unblock requests. This would need to be noted if the blocked user-talk is protected, that they do still have a reasonable way out.

I don't like just restricting "ignore incivility" to only the original blocking admin. This leaves open the "gotcha" scenario - Admin A blocks User X, X responds with WTF, Admin B now jumps in to slap down X. If X is allowed to vent a little bit, then they're allowed. B should have just as thick a skin as A here. There is always the option of not viewing the talk page; or removing edits; or warning; or protecting. Jumping to increased block length is a display of power - but the blocked user has already learned the lesson of unequal power, there's no need to pound it into their skull. Franamax (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And now that I think about it a few seconds more, while CDB's are not a good idea, CDPs might actually be a good thing. User is blocked and is responding poorly on their talk page; uninvolved admin now says "you've been sent to your room for a time-out - now I think you should stop shouting about it for a little while". To me that's an acceptable escalation, rather than extend the block because of the reaction to being blocked, stuff a sock in their mouth for some portion of the existing block. This would come into play only when the user is going over the top, I could give an example but Mummy told me never to say that stuff :) Franamax (talk) 22:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like a policy in reaction to a single event. In the past if you keep violating the same policy while blocked your block gets longer. I suppose protecting a persons talk page is a productive response, but I think it is a terrible idea to let them vent on their talk page. Admins should not be insulted and abused for enforcing policy, and they should have some means to prevent it and not just be told to grin and bare it. I do agree that lengthening a block is not preventative except that it may a deterrent, to discourage the behavior that led to the block. _{1 != 2} 21:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, yes, if you violate the same policy, you are blocked longer. But there is an exception: if you are blocked for incivility toward another user, and then you allegedly insult the administrator, you can't properly be blocked longer by that admin, on the theory that it was a repeat offense. Admins are a bit like judges and a bit like police. Any judge who is personally insulted by an offender would recuse himself or herself in a trial over that incident. Police officers may not arrest a person based on a personal insult, they may only arrest on their own discretion if they fear actual harm to themselves or others, and the "hurt feelings" of the police officer aren't "actual harm" in this sense. Police officers are trained not to take it personally. Admins should be likewise, and are, in fact, warned about this in numerous places. A lengthened block is a possible outcome for additional incivility, but the issue isn't the block, it is who applies it. Not the now-involved administrator. Until(1 == 2), see [2], says a number of worrisome things, ending with: Well I also don't understand it, so I should not be using my bit either.(21 May 2008)) He was correct, he shouldn't, at least not where he has become COI, and he stated that he didn't understand that. I hope he's figured it out, but the comment above, in this context, makes me continue to worry about it. It was the inability of Tango and Physchim62 to understand the problem that led to their desysopping, not the bad blocks themselves, for if COI can't be understood, the admin cannot be trusted not to repeat the error.--Abd (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So to prevent an admin from blocking me I need only insult the admin? Admin: "If you don't stop doing this I will block you", User: "You are a turd sandwich", Admin "I can't block you now, I will go fill out some forms to get an admin you haven't insulted to deal with you. Please don't also insult that admin or we will have to go find another". Sorry if I sound sarcastic but I think it a bit unreasonable to allow users to take action that makes an admin involved beyond their control. _{1 != 2} 06:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am trying not to make this an issue about a particular person or incident, because this is policy and is meant to be wide sweeping. _{1 != 2} 06:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If the admin blocks for the incivility toward themself, it could be iffy. The admin can still block for the original bad behaviour, if it continues. That's my interpretation, anyway. Franamax (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) So to prevent an admin from blocking me I need only insult the admin? No. Whatever gives Until (1==2) that idea? This is the argument that was raised and rejected in the ArbComm case that this editor didn;t understand. Let me tell this story the way it would come down with a sane administrator. Warnings, by the way, shouldn't be personal as this admin made it in the example above. It should be more like what I suggest below, passively stated; it doesn't matter who does the blocking, and there is no guarantee of blocking. The warning notes the risk, it warns, it does not threaten. Already by saying "I will block you," an admin has made it personal, a contest of wills, a challenge. So, the dialog:

WARNING: If you repeat (this action, diff), you may be blocked. See WP:policypage. Use your Sandbox for test edits, ask for help, if I can be of any assistance, blah, blah -- boilerplate standard warning admin has created or chosen. (WhateverFloats)

This is civil, not insulting, purely warning and informing. The user can take it or leave it.

You are a turd sandwich. (BigFootInYourFace)

If the admin feels like it, a "serious joke" might be made that is personalized: Unappetizing, I'm sure. Don't bite the sandwich. Unsafe. Sometimes even an aggressive user will laugh in response, and the whole situation is defused; but then follows the boilerplate that this admin has prepared for the contingency of uncivil response would follow:

Thank you for sharing your opinion, please do not disregard the warning. In addition, it is possible that an independent administrator will see your response as uncivil. I don't, because this is your user Talk page and I understand that you might be angry, nobody likes to be told what to do, so I don't take personal offense, no matter what you say here. (WhateverFloats)

You have been blocked for {action, diff) after warning (diff). If you have any question about this block, you may still edit your Talk page and I will be watching it. In addition, you may ask for another administrator to review this block, blah, blah, standard boilerplate block message. (WhateverFloats)

Now, did the admin block for uncivil response? It's possible to allege that, but the record shows no basis for it. The argument presented above is, quite simply, a false argument has been made that rules against COI blocks prevent, or even merely inhibit, administrators from doing their job. I've seen, though, quite a few warnings and blocks, by administrators, that violate civility rules and block policy, and these do a great deal of damage, sometimes damage that can't be undone. I don't think that incivility in response to a warning on a talk page is even worthy of a separate warning or action, usually (beyond the arguably friendly notice I showed above, which was boilerplate, and incivility in response to a block is even less important, because even more understandable). All the user does by being uncivil is, as I noted in my imaginary dialog, complicate the case for the user if the user cares about getting unblocked. If the user doesn't care, all the more reason to make no fuss about it. As to dealing with individual personalities vs. the general principle, sure. However, the example I noted was striking given the argument presented here, and that is what I do, point out what is obvious to me when I see it. If I'm wrong, no big deal. And if I'm right, maybe, no big deal. --Abd (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) this edit was written in response to the edits above, and I respond to the additional post of User:Until (1==2 below. That user moved this response to the end, which reduces the clarity of issue/response. I reverted that and am increasing indent to make it more clear. --Abd (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And if the original behavior was incivility? The very act of continuing their disregard of policy benefits them. If an admin blocks a person then it can be reviewed by the community. _{1 != 2} 16:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's of course, the crux, this was the case with the Tango block of MONGO. It's really pretty simple to resolve. The original incivility was toward editors other than the admin, and repeating that behavior would be incivility toward editors other than the admin. Being uncivil toward the admin who warned or blocked is a separate matter complicated by COI, and it is an issue that the admin should not judge. It isn't the "same offense," and, in fact, there are never two offenses that are the same. Gratuitous incivility toward the general community isn't the same as incivility in the context of disagreement between an editor and an administrator, in this case over the legitimacy of the administrator's action. "Same offense" was a judgment in the mind of Tango, who was apparently unable to distinguish and recognize his own COI. It was a Talk page offense, where standards are looser, because it is only semi-public, it's not like article talk or policy space, etc. There was no emergency, no reason to act immediately without consultation. If Tango was offended, he had the complete right, like any user to take it to AN/I or elsewhere. If he wasn't offended, then the argument that "administrators shouldn't have to put up with this crap" doesn't apply. Admins, in fact, should expect some "crap" when they use their tools to restrain editors. It simply goes with the territory, and an admin who can't handle that shouldn't be using the tools for those purposes. Protect and unprotect pages, review and close XfD's, lots of stuff that still needs to be done.

Any editor may warn. And, indeed, it's not a particularly efficient use of admin time to be issuing the warnings. If an editor makes a civil and friendly warning, and gets crap in return, then, when the uncivil user repeats the action, an admin will check to see if the user has been warned, and see the uncivil response, and might take that into consideration, blocking for (original action) and (incivility.) That's up to the admin, who, if not involved, has no problem with the COI rules. It is really so simple that what is hard for me to understand is what is supposedly not clear about it. I could speculate, but that would take me into the mindreading realm, and that tends to piss people off, as it probably should. --Abd (talk) 16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a policy that will effect everyone, to base it off of one event is not a good idea. What this really gets down to is conflict of interest vs the appearance of conflict of interest. _{1 != 2} 17:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No. It is conflict of interest, period. However, with conflict of interest rules, it is also true that avoiding the appearance of COI is important, for that appearance damages the reputation of Wikipedia and Wikipedia administrators.--Abd (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

<--I read this and genuinely wonder how many of you are parents. You send the kid to his room for misbehaviour - then you leave him there and back off. You don't sit outside his door waiting for him to stomp his feet again then shout "okay, that's another half hour in there!" - and nobody else should be doing it either. The objective of blocking is to de-escalate situations; further punishment (and that's what it is) by extending blocks or protecting pages does not de-escalate. The initial block circumscribes the damage that can be done by the blocked editor - the very most they can do is shout on their talk page. They cannot damage the encyclopedia if they are restricted in their activities. I'll go further to say that editors with whom the blocked user has come in conflict before should not be posting on the blocked editor's page, regardless of their intent. The amount of baiting of blocked editors is really quite sad to see. (And I am not referring to just one person here, I've recently seen it on the talk pages of at least five blocked editors - someone there pushing their buttons, whether in good faith or to deliberately provoke isn't always clear.) Mind you, I do not believe all blocked editors should be treated in this way. Those accounts blocked after they've shown they're only here for vandalism, who have not made a single good edit - throw away the key, they aren't here to make an encyclopedia. Roving IPs writing "Nigger" on five consecutive articles in 15 minutes - nope, no need to worry about them; leave them blocked for however long, protect the page if you feel you must. Blocking committed editors who have demonstrated they have something to add to the project is a very different thing. Treating them the same way one treats a random schoolboy vandal only demonstrates the admin's poor understanding of the concept of community. Geni's solution is the right one - simple and to the point. Risker (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Risker's argument is basically sound, and far better than anything else I see here. I'd personally go a little further than Geni did. "Incivlity in response to blocking should generally be disregarded. If it bothers you, stop watching that user's talk page, even if you are the blocking admin." GRBerry 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback sought

Feedback is sought on if, when and how to better manage this spiralling sockpuppetry/ip misuse case. We need someone experienced in this field to advise on a possible range block. Thanks, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Query

Hello, where may I pose my complaint for an administrator's violation of the statement "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." ? I have recently been insistently threated by User BalkanFever to be banned for punishment due to variance of opinions on the article Aegean Macedonians. Please visit my personal discussion page. [3].

Thanks you. In expectance of your response.--Dimorsitanos (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest bringing it up directly with the administrator first and if that is unsuccessful, WP:AN or WP:AN/I. BalkanFever is not an administrator, if that is who you are talking about. –xeno (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Some talkpoints

Hello, I'm the blocked user Fredrick day - I thought that my experience with our blocking policies might provide some insight how from the perspective of the blocked user, there is really no reason to change underlying patterns of behaviour. Using myself as a casestudy - I was blocked for harrassement and incivility and using a "badhand" IP to vote in AFDs - I was caught out and blocked. I then do a bit of socking from IP addresses. Four months later, I create a new account and start editing as Allemandtando - I edit for six weeks or so before someone works out it's me and gets the account blocked - the account is blocked for socking not for anything else. The same happens with my next account prisongangleader - blocked as an obvious sock as mine.

Now here's the rub in regards to policy and where it doesn't match the reality. The policy page states that

Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern.

so in effect, the block of my socks is to remove the disruption caused by their existence not their actions. That fine but it's not really written that way in policy because as far as I can see - it wouldn't match policy because blocking for existence not action would equal punishment not prevention.

This leads onto the second problem with policy as it is currently used - my block as Fredrick Day account is "forever", that's as much sense as I can get out of people when discussing it with admins and other people involved. I can get no real information beyond some vague advice to "sock on the quiet and don't get caught" or "just go a way for a bit or something". So by socking, my punishment becomes "forever plus a day" and then "forever plus two days" and so on - so the blocks become meaningless because there is no incentive to stop because my original punishment is vague and inspecific.

The other problem connected to this, that as time drifts, the details of what people were originally blocked tend to become confused in people's minds and the original blocking admin may no longer be on hand to make clarification. So this is my suggestion - that when a block is effectively a ban, admin should be encouraged to lay down criteria at the time of the block that outline a road back to the offender - nothing too detailed - literally a couple of lines that say "your block is at least six months - and after that time, if you apply for an unblock and it was permitted, you'd have to agree to stay away from user X, and agree to mentorship for a period of 3 months". I think something like that would reduce a lot (but of course not all) socking and evading to people who are blocked "forever". --87.113.75.200 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A whole university blocked forever

Who would be specialists if the researchers in universities are excluded? The administrators of Japanese edition of Wikipedia blocked whole Hokkaido University forever since September 2007.

The given reason for the block is that somebody attempted to abuse Wikipedia by the address and they cannot specify a single IP because the university is a place like a internet cafe. What? This situation seems more like a punishment based on the administrator's personal emotion.

However, since I am not allowed to edit any part of the Japanese edition of the Wikipedia, I cannot even raise a discussion there.

Is there any way to work around? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.232.243.14 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried to create an account from another location and edit it whilst logged in? –xeno (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, xeno, for the advice, but it did not work. More precisely, the IP is blocked regardless of the log in status. Maybe every time I want to edit an article, I would need another location. 202.232.243.14 (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the discussion note, blocking seems done ad hoc by personal decision of an administrator. Talking about the Japanese Wikipedia, who gave the power to such people...202.232.243.14 (talk) 05:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

As all Wikipedias are more or less independent, I doubt you can change the situation here. You might want to use the different location you used to create an account to post a complaint to the Japanese Wikipedia equivalent of ArbCom and try to resolve the matter there. The only other way, if that one were unsuccessful (which I doubt), would be to take it to the Wikimedia Foundation directly and ask of them to overrule the Japanese project's decision. But I recommend discussion on the Japanese Wikipedia first. So#Why 12:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you So#Why, and xeno for all those advises. Now I get access for editting pages by logging in, so I started to discuss with an admin. Now I feel like I may get blocked again, but this time personally, because somehow he has very strong opinion against unblocking many Universities, giving me a sarcasm for disagreement, and he seems so upset for the discussion. I will do my best to resolve the problem there, but if my effort turns out to be in vain to get blocked, I will contact the Wikimedia Foundation with the outlines, following to your advise . (previously 202.232.243.14) Powerloanx (talk) 04:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Progress: I was told by the University's system admin that the University was unblocked since August 4. "However, the Wikipedia's admin is so upset for my critical comments" , he said. "He does not want to me to write any more, so please pretend that he persuaded me successfully by not to write, which is his will, and otherwise he says he will block the whole university again. That is also the consensus among the admin group there." He added that they block many other major universities including Tokyo University, Nagoya University, Keio University　for unlimited time. Maybe it is the time I should quit. Powerloanx (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down blocks I

I have reverted the edit of User:Sceptre [4] who removed the section discouraging cool-down blocks with the edit summary rationale "to stop legitimising a piece of policy that the only use of is to trap candidates at RFA".

There was no consensus for Sceptre's removal of the cool-down block prohibition and I personally strongly disagree with such removal. It is true that a single user (Kurt Weber) keeps asking a question about cool down blocks in RfAs and keeps voting oppose when people say that cool-down blocks are unacceptable. However, the mere fact that this single user keeps doing it is not a good reason to change the policy. This policy provision serves a larger purpose and, as RfA discussions invariably show, this provision does in fact have broad consensus. In fact, even if the provision is removed from the policy, Kurt will keep asking his question and will keep opposing, so the RfA situation will not really change anyway. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The only use of that section of policy is to trap candidates at RFA (and it isn't just Kurt who asks the question). As Al tally said a month ago, cool down blocks get made all the time - they just aren't noted as such. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I do not believe that the only purpose of this provision is to trap RfA candidates. There are sound policy reasons to discourage blocks whose sole purpose is to "cool people down" and these reasons are often discussed in RfAs whenever the question of cool-down blocks comes up. In my observations, the question is almost always gets asked by Kurt, he essentially always opposes but his opposes on these grounds basically never generate other opposes. There is no reason to believe that the RfA situation will change if the provision is removed from the policy: he will keep asking and opposing on these grounds, and the others will (correctly) ignore his opposes. Nsk92 (talk) 12:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll bite. What are these "sound policy reasons" you speak of? —Giggy 12:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I am with Sceptre in this case, but just because the policy does not mention any reasons for discouraging cool-down blocks. I think, as Giggy asks, if you can name those reasons, I might be persuaded to think otherwise, but currently I have only seen CDB in discussion when it's RfA-time... So#Why 12:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, if they need to be repeated, I'll repeat them. Blocks are appropriate for actual infractions (such as incivility, edit warring, etc). Giving a block simply to prevent the debate from heating up (but before any such infractions occur) will surely only have the effect of inflaming people who have gotten "cool down blocked". They will, rightly, resent it and view having been blocked as very unfair. In fact, it will be very easy to abuse "cool down blocks" or at least give the appearance of having abused them in order to stifle the debate and accusations of censorship will fly. This will increase the amount of drama, not decrease it. There will also be complaints about fairness: why did you "cool down blocked" me and not my opponent? If both get blocked, users in good standing who were simply legitimately participating in a debate will be upset too. Also, as a general matter, blocks of any kind are viewed as blemishes on one's record. If people start getting blocked not for any actual violations but to cool down the debate, people will rightly resent it as having their WP record unfairly blemished. When such people become RfA candidates, the matter will be debated endlessly (did they deserve or block or not? Should it be viewed as a point against them? etc). As I said, just more drama. The bottom line is: blocks should be given for actually committeed offenses. In many cases such legitimate blocks do have a secondary cool down effect, but giving a purely cool down blocks is a bad idea. Nsk92 (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, such a more detailed explanation, should replace the current 1-sentence-section. I am with you by the way, even if my former comment might seem to say something else. I think we have many policy-based reasons to block people already. We would have to argue in that section that CDB effectively circumvent those policies, as every block has of course a cool-down effect (as was mentioned before).

The policy has, imho, to be rewritten to remove the CDB-section and then simply added at the top "blocks are only allowed in the following situations:". Everything not listed there is then automatically not allowed from the policy and there is no section actively forbidding what is already forbidden anyway. So#Why 13:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Surely you're joking! ;-) Blocking is a powerful tool. As an analogy, Let's make up some pretty rules for chain saws (dangerous powerful tools irl). "chain-saws may only be swung in the horizontal plane". Ok, bzzzzz.... whoops! I just cut 3 people in half, because I didn't look what I was doing, but that's ok, I swung the saw in the horizonal plane, so I'm cleared of all wrongdoing. Or say the opposite happens, say someone walks right at me, and I lift the chainsaw in the vertical plane to avoid hitting them, and yell "watch out!" ... omg! I'm a rulebreaker!

Obviously, that's not how the use of chainsaws is legislated in real life.

Coming back to the use of blocks: you're supposed to use them when it helps the encyclopedia. Putting hard limits on what can and can't be done is silly!

In practice, I've typically either used blocks to prevent vandalism and spamming, or on the other end of the spectrum, to do peculiar and creative things, relevant to the situation (both with varying amounts of success). You're supposed to use the tools responsibly to improve the encyclopedia, not use them according to rigid rules. Do you understand the difference?

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Peculiar and creative things?" I didn't see them listed in WP:NAS - but I'm sure eager to hear about them ;-)  Frank  |  talk  15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

As with enforcement officers in any context, I hope you can understand how the rest of us might be deeply unamused at someone boasting of exercising "creativity" in the application of the powers granted to them. Particularly something as severe as blocking. Admins are custodians of the rules and the spirit behind those rules, not mural painters. Ford MF (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cool down blocks should be explicitly discouraged becasue they are a bad idea. In any dispute, silencing one party (via blocking, or deletion) is a very bad mechanism of dispute resolution. Authoritative intervention doesn’t work in the long term, except with children. Blocks should be used for actual actions, not for perceived temper. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A CDB is inappropriate for the same reason that personal attacks are inappropriate on Wikipedia (as in real life, in both cases). In the same way we "comment on the content, not the editor", a block must be to protect the encyclopedia, not to gain the upper hand. If an editor is being disruptive, it may well appear a block is to "cool them down" - after all, they aren't listening to the warnings they're being issued - but that's not the policy reason for blocking someone, and it shouldn't be.  Frank  |  talk  13:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Frank. Even if we remove the section discouraging cool-down blocks, Kurt will find new ways to trap candidates at RFA. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 13:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, there is really no reason to think that Kurt will stop asking his cool down block question even if the provision is removed. It is, rather, more likely, that he will keep asking his question, people will keep answering it more or less as they do now, Kurt will keep opposing based on those answers, and Kurt's cool down block opposes will keep essentially getting ingnored by everybody else (in the sense that they do not and will not generate other opposes). Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I would add that whether or not a CDB is acceptable, either as a matter of overall WP policy or as a matter of rhetorical debate, has nothing to do with one editor's optional question in any RfA discussion(s).  Frank  |  talk  13:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's unreasonable to assume that blocks do not (or cannot) have a cooling-down effect - I mean, seriously, how many times have we told a blocked editor to take a deep breath and step away from the keyboard for the duration of their block, or to take the time of their block to calm themselves and consider how they plan to avoid such problems in the future? Blocks need to be tied to very specific violations of policy; "Getting pissed off" is not one of those, but "Getting pissed off and edit-warring" would be. Perhaps there is language that would clarify the matter. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the importance of the word "solely" in the policy which people seem to read past. Of course a block for, say, making personal attacks is likely to have the effect of enforcing some cool-down time. Indeed, in many cases it will probably be a desired effect. The point is that blocks should not be applied solely to cool someone down; that is, blocks should not be applied just because someone is angry or heated at a situation, if they continue to express themselves within policy (ie, without being uncivil, or making personal attacks, etc). --bainer (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(multi-e/c)Perhaps the problem is that the policy page doesn't adequately explain what a cool-down block is. Perhaps there are cultural nuances of meaning that are not clear to those who "weren't there at the time"? If we're not all imagining the same circumstances, it's not surprising that our opinions would differ.

Consider the situation where a user is clearly angry and is being egregiously and continuously incivil to other editors. I think most admins would consider it appropriate to block this user for a short while, to prevent further disruption - perhaps allowing an early unblock request if it is clear that the user has for want of a better term cooled down. Confused yet? If this isn't a cool-down block, I think the policy page needs to be clearer about what is. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"...and is being egregiously and continuously incivil [sic]..." then they get blocked for incivility. Likewise if their anger spilled over into any other form of disruptive behaviour. They should not be blocked solely for being angry or worked up at an issue; it's when anger/passion/etc escalates into unacceptable behaviour that they may be blocked. --bainer (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel is correct though, that's what I said before as well: If the policy would clearly explain what CDBs are in context of the policy and why they should not be used, emphasizing on the word "solely" again, I think we would have less discussion about them. So#Why 14:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this... if a provision for discouraging cool down blocks is removed, I give it about 30 seconds before someone lays a CDB down on Kurt Weber. Whether he realizes it or not, there are many good reasons for discouraging CDBs. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me say this about that - as an admin whose candidacy was opposed by Kurt - I would be right at the front of the line to question such a block, and I might even block the blocker. CDB policy or not, such a block of Kurt would be strictly punitive, which is even worse.  Frank  |  talk  14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the archives of this talk page you will see that there is plenty of objection the prohibition against cool down blocks. I don't think it has enough consensus to be policy, it also goes against our best practices instead of reflecting them. Chillum 14:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with you Frank. Sanctioning CDBs effectively green lights punitive blocking, and that's a bad thing. No question it would be controversial, but a little Wikilawyering is all it would take to defend doing it. Worst case scenario a massive blocking wheel-war breaks out amongst the admin corps as everyone applies CDB's to anyone suspected of being in this cabal or that clique, and within a few hours only one admin is left standing. It would be Wikidome... Which may actually be Kurt's desired outcome in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, you're over-analyzing. "Get a life" and all that. If you block someone and tell them it's purely "to cool you down", well, in some cases it might work, but in a bunch of cases they're going to EXPLODE and yell at you. So if you don't like being yelled at, just Don't Do That, m'kay? --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC) There are ways to prevent people from yelling at you, like e-mailing them your phone number/skype addy, but you might not always want to do that. :-P.

I like to warn the user repeatedly until I am quite sure that they are acting in bad faith or profound cluelessness, then block indefinitely, with a statement of what they can do to get unblocked, should they wish to edit again. Cool down blocks are entirely stupid, most of the time, but I wouldn't want to write that into policy. It takes a clue to be an administrator. You can't legislate cluefulness. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Zigzacktly. Clue++ . Just erm... iirc, aren't you supposed to use incrementing blocks, starting at 24 hours worst case for first offence? Sometimes people fix their ways, and you do have to give them every chance. (Yes I know how tiring that is %-) , but I've learned that it's worth the small effort it takes! ) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is really a "supposed" to in this case. It is up to admin discretion, which gets back to that pesky clue thing. I personally avoid 24-hour blocks, in favor of 31 hours. I finally figured out (once I got the mop) what that was all about. It's on the list as a built-in length, so it's easy to pick. 24 hours ensures that the middle-schooler will be right there in the same class tomorrow to do it all over again, so that's why I tend to avoid it.  Frank  |  talk  15:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay folks, I don't think any wants to allow blocks just to "cool down". But many people think the current wording is overly restricted. I suggested this before and it got a lot of acceptance, then sort of veered off topic. So, what do people think of this wording:

---

Cool-down blocks

Sometimes an editor may get very upset and because of that cause disruption. A block for a few hours may give the editor enough time to regain his or her temper and deal with the issues in a more productive way. Such a block should only be done to prevent further disruption.

Please be advised however that sometimes this tactic may further upset the editor. Consider the danger of the editor becoming more angry due to this block, and weigh that against the preventative value of the block.

It may not always be possible to avoid upsetting an editor due to a block, but effort should be taken to avoid it.

---

I think it reflects the concerns while dealing with the fact that one rule cannot work for every situation. Chillum 15:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the problem is all about what the block is called, rather than the circumstances. So something like... When blocking an editor who is angry or upset, administrators should avoid using terms such as "cool-down block", as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation. The purpose of the block must be to prevent disruption to Wikipedia, and this must be made clear to the editor who is blocked. ... maybe? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it seems that admins do "cool down" blocks everyday and everything is fine, but if you call it a "cool down" block then there is a problem. Chillum 16:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 'cool down blocks' can, do and should happen - but they should be given in order to prevent the angry person damaging Wikipedia rather than to make the angry person cool down. If the contributor in question, while clearly angry, has not done anything actually worthy of blocking - then don't block them. If they're making personal attacks because they're angry, then warn and subsequently block them for the personal attacks, not the anger. The blocking policy really exists to prevent rather than punish - you block in order to stop damage to the encyclopedia rather than to punish crazy users. "Avoid cool-down blocks" specifically for the purpose of "cooling down" is simply a special case of this. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 10:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

So if I oppose every single editor who subscribes to WP:IAR on RfA, eventually I can influence someone to get it {{mfd}}-ed? This removal makes no logical sense to me. - Mailer Diablo 14:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Mailer, that argument does not make sense to me. Can you explain how that is related to the current discussion? Chillum 14:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• Everyone opposes an RfA when candidate's answer shows that he/she fails to respect policy formed by community consensus. One opposes an RfA just because he disagrees with the policy and is in direct opposition of everyone else's. A few admins refuse to respect community consensus and imposes "cool down" blocks. It is the process, not policy that is broken. If we delete policy just because we have controversy being generated over at RfA quoting this policy (for or against), then it is as good as endorsing WP:KEEPOPPOSINGITTILITGETSDELETED. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggested a modified wording, not a deletion. And I am not making this suggest in response to any RfA questions, which I find only tangentially related. Others have drawn this connection, but I see that as no reason not to proceed with this attempt at reform. The fact is we do use cool down blocks as part of our best practice, the only thing this policy does is make people avoid the term "cool down" block. It is my hopes that the new wording I have suggested offers a more sane alternative to a blanket prohibition, or an out right free for all. Chillum 16:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably late for the discussion; I'm referring to the original action of deletion of the entire section. [5] Discussion and gaining of community consensus on modifying policy is definitely welcomed. Apologies if I did not make this clear. Anyway I've just found the original discussion leading to the addition. You might find it useful in the modification. - Mailer Diablo 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has come up at least 5 times. I would like to see it put to bed for a while. The last time I gave my suggested wording several people liked it, and nobody really objected. I posted it again in this discussion and have not gotten much response. I wonder how people would react if I boldly added it in place of our current wording? Chillum 16:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't seem to add up, particularly when it concentrates mostly on "disruption". - Mailer Diablo 17:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes disruption is caused by someone getting hot under the collar. Sometimes a block for a few hours will give them the time to calm down. This must be done carefully to avoid making things worse, and sometimes should just not be done. What is missing? Chillum 17:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Second sentence suggests the use of CDB, which makes it look more like it should be fitted under "when blocks should be used". Furthermore, "Disruption" section would have provided for the justification an admin needs to block without even mentioning the word "heated" once.

The original discussion appears to suggest circumstances where CDBs are applied to heated debates where policy is not contravened, which suggests failure to assume good faith on the blocked editors that say for example, they are a having civil discourse despite being intense. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think my wording makes it clear that blocking someone who has lost their temper should only be done if they are being disruptive. The point of this wording is not to allow something we already do(block people for being disruptive in the hopes they will calm down and not be as disruptive later) while making it clear that there must be real disruption, and giving advice on what sort of issues to consider when doing that.

I am the first to agree that people can get as hot as they want if they don't act disruptively, and I don't think anyone is suggesting blocking a person simply for being angry. The block must be preventative. The problem with the current wording is that it is contrary to our current best practices. If you can come up with any suggested wording that deals with your concerns I am more than willing to consider it. Chillum 17:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I said last month, and from the looks of it, Mailer Diablo approves of it:

The change seems to miss the point of the current version. It just says you should consider blocking people when they're being disruptive, which is obvious and already covered on the page. The current version means that you shouldn't block people when you think they're angry, if they aren't doing anything disruptive. While blocking is supposed to be preventative and not punitive, blocking someone just to cool them down is insulting, since it assumes they're hysterical and unable to control themselves.

To put it simply: your version doesn't address the concern that resulted in the "no cool-down blocks" thing in the first place, and is completely redundant to the rest of the policy. - Bobet 17:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Exactly.

"I don't think anyone is suggesting blocking a person simply for being angry" -> That is the spirit of what the wording meant when it was first added in 2006. No blocks just because someone is feeling angry. No more, no less. If he disrupts or hurls personal attacks, there's existing clauses (and that's better justification) well-covered and provided for to use instead. - Mailer Diablo 18:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The very words "Such a block should only be done to prevent further disruption" are in my wording. It was always my goal to make it clear that you should never block someone "only" to cool them down, it must be to prevent disruption. If you can suggest a clearer way of saying that then I will certainly consider it. Chillum 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

If it is not for the purpose of preventing further disruption how can it be a cool-down block? In the case above, if someone is expressing anger to the extent that a cool-down period is warranted, its because the further expression would be disruptive. I think two phrases are synonyms. Can any admin more experienced than I explain, or give a sample?.DGG (talk) 04:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This section (above) is relevant here.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen several times in this discussion statements along the lines of "cool-down blocks happen every day" and "CDB's happen so we should change the policy to allow them". I still haven't seen an example. Can an admin give an example where they made a block for the sole purpose of cooling someone down? Can anyone point to an example where any admin has done this? Do people do this but they won't admit it because it's against current policy? Aren't they crappy admins then? Even so, will just one of those crappy admins step forward and give an example?

I'd really like to see this settled. Use IAR to justify an example please, I promise I won't shoot you. Otherwise we have two choices: wait until every admin but one says other people do CDB's, then we'll know it must be that one last admin; or conclude that maybe it's not that CDB's regularly happen but instead that some people wish they could happen. Franamax (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocking to force an individual into "time out" to calm down makes a direct judgment about an individual's percieved state of mind and violates the Wikipedia spirit of comment on the contribution, not the contributor. The policy certainly should not be changed just because of its ongoing misuse to snipe at RfA candidates. I repeat what I said in an earlier discussion about that: the problem is not the CDB policy, it's the trick question. Change the standard question to one which is designed to guide and clarify, not to trap the unwary. "(i) Please explain your understanding of the existing Wikipedia policy on cool-down blocks. (ii) What is your own opinion of the policy, and how can you envisage working with it as an admin?." All sensible candidates will look at the policy before answering, so you know they understand the rules as they stand, which is ostensibly the purpose of the question. You'll also get a useful insight into the candidate's approach to policy vs WP:IAR from their answer to part ii, perhaps enough to mollify Kurt, though I doubt it. By all means ask "to CDB or not to CDB?", but the RfA aspect is a red herring. Karenjc 16:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

When a user is blocked, he/she/it can still edit his/her/its own talk page right? But if the person insults another user, or threatens another user, on the own talk page, is there any way to prevent the person to edit the own talk page? Now I'm suggesting to enable the editing talk page while being blocked function in the Malay Wikipedia, but an admin brought up this problem of enabling the function. Can anyone please help? Thanks a lot! --אדמוןד ואודס_{自分の投稿記録} 17:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

If a blocked user is using their talk page for disruptive editing, the solution here at en.wiki has been to full-protect the talk page so that only admins can edit it. Obviously, that should only be performed as a last resort to prevent further disruption, but it is 100% effective. — Satori Son 17:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)