Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Blocking Notice Templates?

I don't know if this has been discussed in the past, but would it be better to create a series of standard fill-in-the-blank templates in order to explain the purpose and rationale of a block? It would certainly help to ensure that the message is constructive instead of being counter-productive, and that emotions are limited in the message.

A similar model could also be applied to warning messages.

Karn-b 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Shared IPs section

This section is not newbie friendly - I have a vandal to report but cant find how to "Whois" or "reverse-dns" from the linked pages. If you want beginners to help with vandals then this needs to be easier. (And helping with vandals might be a good way to interest potential admins - or vice versa). SmithBlue 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a rewrite of the blocking policy, and the main thing I want to do is separate the "how-to" stuff like this from the "when-to" stuff, which is all that really should be in the policy. I've started to create a detailed help page on blocking and unblocking, it hasn't been copied across here locally yet (Uncle G's 'bot does that every few months) but it's at m:Help:Block and unblock if you would like to help with it, or make suggestions for how it could be improved. Ultimately I think that all of the technical and instructional material should be moved there.

In addition, explanations of these sorts of things could be added to the pages where the reporting takes place, at Administrator intervention against vandalism for example. --bainer (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about blocking a user

I'm a new admin who has a question about blocking. When and why should I click "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from" when blocking a registered user? - Gilliam 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you want the user to be able to immediately start working under a new account then you deselect the button. It is the case for:
  • Username block,
  • Blocking of a misbehaving bot,
  • Blocking role accounts,
  • Blocking compromised accounts, etc.

• In the most other cases the autoblocking is the preferred option Alex Bakharev 10:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

sorry, I apologize in advance because I'm not a huge wiki-editor (barely any of one at all!)and my not be posting this in the right place. However I just wanted to say that I was disappointed that school IP addresses are always blocked. I have my computer at home log me in to all websites automatically so I never remember my passwords, so when I find mistakes on Wikipedia, I could do nothing to change them. I never have time when I am home. Isn't there something we can do to help school IPs? Bfissa 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They receive warnings most of the time... Short of magically making school kids more mature, what did you have in mind? Leebo⁸⁶ 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone who has been stalking or harassing you

I suggest that the blocking policy be updated to prohibit admins from blocking users that have been harassing them, stalking them, engaged in a content dispute with them or in any other way involved in a fight or disagreement. Even when the behavior clearly warrants a block in the eyes of any reasonable admin, I think that a neutral admin should block the user to avoid even the appearance of abuse. The blocked user or an observer may have a different standard for what warrants a block and it may appear to them that the admin is abusing his or her authority. In addition, these situations can cloud an admin's judgment and lead to a truly unjustified block. I think that blocking users that you have had heated confrontations with in the past should be discouraged, but ultimately left to the admin's discretion. In the rare case of a user doing extreme damage, like using a bot to vandalize a large number of articles in a short time or doing something that may crash the site, a non-neutral admin would be allowed to block the user for a short period, no more than 24 hours. Afterwards, he or she would have to put a notice about the block on the Administrators' Noticeboard. A neutral admin could then extend the block, if necessary. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if an admin believes that a user has been stalking or harassing him/her, there is no reason for the admin not to block the user immediately for some duration. At that point, the user may instantly appeal the block to other admins, and the other admins, upon proper consultation with the blocking admin, plus others if necessary on AN/I, may reverse the block. In general, I think that stalking/harassing is such a serious offense that it must be stopped immediately, regardless by whom, and investigated further once stopped. As someone who was wrongly blocked for 'disruption' I know well that being blocked is no fun, and at the time that block made me (briefly) re-think my committment to this project - getting turned down on appeal did not help either. But despite that, things were properly sorted out later, with no lasting damage. I cannot see how stopping what appears to at least one admin as harassing/stalking will cause permanent damage to the project, given the near immediate review by others. Crum375 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

While I agree with Crum375 with the issue of blocking those who are stalking/harassing you, Kjkolb also has a very valid point. In the event that an admin is in a conflict over content, naming and other content related issues, then there should be rules in place to prevent that admin from blocking, and instead have a number of other administrators look at the situation from a neutral point of view.

We are human afterall, and an unjustified block by an angry adminstrator would be against the spirit of wikipedia. Moreover, it should be a group of administrators, lest that admin decides to ask a known friend to help him/her. Karn-b 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with that point. With over 1200 admins, there is never really the situation where the involved admin is the only one on Wikipedia. It's inevitably wise to have fresh eyes on the situation, and will usually only take a couple of minutes longer. If the admin involved feels there is no option but an immediate block, it would be very wise to immediately post to AN/I for a block review. Risker 14:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several admins block extremely disruptive editors and then immediately to to AN/I for a sanity check (and I've heard this happens on IRC as well, though that's not germane). I've never had a problem with that tactic, since the definition of 'harassing' is slightly vague. I would not want to mandate that no admin can ever block someone they personally have received harassment from, as that would very quickly become a troll tactic and be ignored anyway (and rightfully so). 64.126.24.11 14:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

I spotted a few grammatical inconsistencies in the article. Most of the article has correct use of the singular/plural. eg "if a user does something bad then HE/SHE can be blocked" (emphasis added) is correct. Or "then THAT USER can be blocked" is also correct. But "if a user does something bad then THEY can be blocked" is incorrect. MIxing singular with plural. The fact that it is widely used colloquially doesn't validate it. Especially since the rest of the article has correct usage. So I have corrected a couple of those. Davidpatrick 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Singular they --Random832 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of block duration

I've noticed some admins disclose the duration of a block and some do not. Is there a policy on this? I can see where disclosing the block duration is appropriate for a non-anonymous user, but in the case of an IP vandal it almost invites them to come back at time T + epsilon for continued foolishness. Apologies if the topic has been covered before. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning/Blocking

I feel that it takes too much to get blocked and banned on wikipedia. I think people are given too many chances, and as a result there is too much vandalism for us too catch all of it. --Savant13 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It depends on which Admin is involved. I have seen some very excellent editors being blocked for very little. Gold♥ 15:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Notifying users of blocks

moved from WP:AN/I#Blocking

I've noticed a tendency on the part of many admins not to leave a notice on Uses' and IPs' Talk pages when they block someone. This can mean that other editors leave pointless warning notices, not realising that a block has already been imposed, and other admins can pointlessly go through the beginning of the blocking process before discovering that they're wasting their time.

I've been leaving friendly requests on the admins' Talk pages, and so far everyone seemed to have seen my point. Today, though, for the first time an admin has responded by insisting that there's no point leaving a notice. Aside from the fact that it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy, is there any guideline or policy on this? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive always known it to be a courtesy. The only time I dont is when I indef block a sock or block evader. Then, (and this may be wrong. I delete there page to deny them, any gratification). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Ligulem#Blocking, where this started. I have seen a lot of other admins blocking IP's/throw away attacker accounts with 20 attack/vandalism only edits *not* posting messages on their talk. Now, Mel Etitis requests me to always post on talk pages to notify "users". --Ligulem 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The blocking process": The block log is right on the blocking page, at the bottom. So for me the "blocking process" is hitting the block link and there you are. On talk pages, I would have to wade through the history of the talk page to check if a user has removed a post from their talk page. A user's talk page is not a block history. --Ligulem 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent examples of other admins blocking anon users without leaving a post on their talk: Neutrality, RoySmith, Ryulong, Trebor Rowntree, Mikkalai, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ilmari Karonen, JzG. --Ligulem 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow everything that Ligulem says, but the list of admins who have done the same thing is irrelevant to the question as to whether it should be done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many block templates and I personally try to always leave one on a talk page after a block, but I didn't see anything in the blocking policy that stated that this is necessary. IrishGuy ^talk 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's listed under the "Instructions to admins" heading, using the word "should". We can debate whether that means it's required or not, but I think most of us would agree that not leaving one should be the exception rather than the rule. Please leave one (excepting obvious trolls or sockpuppets, which I don't think really require them); it takes less than 20 seconds and it's helpful to pretty much everyone. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information: If you dig into my block log, you will notice that I've only blocked IP's and vandalism/attack only accounts without notifying the user. As I noted on my talk, I haven't and I do not intend to *not* notify users I block that do have some minimally reasonable edit history (I have never block a user of this kind so far). I really fail to see why I should notify a throw-away vandalism only account like User:Chrissu1989. BTW these kind of users regularly remove block messages from their talk pages. So what does that mean if you don't find a "blocked" message on these kind of talk pages? --Ligulem 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that is says we should, but it doesn't appear to be mandatory. The reasons are for other other editors will be aware that the user is blocked...which is a good and valid reason. Should more adming use the warning messages? Probably. But I don't think it necessarily makes them remiss in their duties to not do so. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could perhaps this be done automagically?DGG 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant quotation (thanks Bbatsell):

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments." Wikipedia:Blocking policy#How to block

I must say that I don't really understand "should" except as pointing out that it's mandatory; is there another meaning besides the prescriptive?

Could it be done automagically? The problem would be that there are different reasons for (and different periods of) block. Perhaps there could be a default message that could be overriden when the block is applied?

I see this as just one example of the general lowering of courtesy levels here; increasing numbers of editors fail to use edit summaries, for example, and it's surprising how many tag all their edits, no matter how extensive, as minor. Most simply ignore polite requests to use summaries, and some react with hostility and aggression. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I read "should" as "recommended". Mandatory is exactly that...mandatory. As I noted, I do use the templates and that is because I happen to think they should be used. But I am not going to judge others as being discourteous if they don't throw a template on the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I really feel attacked by your postings here and on my talk. I suggest we move on and I do post a message for each and every block I shall issue in the future. Ok? --Ligulem 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've applied {{block}} to the talk page of User:Chrissu1989, the most recent block I issued [1]. If there is a better template to use for this kind of case, let me know. Thanks. --Ligulem 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I normally use one of {{test5}} or {{test6}}, which have only optional parameters. It's largely a matter of taste, I think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I frequently don't bother, as commented above for throwaway accounts which are blocked within 10 minutes of being created it seems wasted effort (Or IPs which has a talk page full on warnings and block messages). I check their other contribs and tend to sort those out, so I can't imagine why anyone else would be coming along significantly later to leave them a message or warning. There is a possibility that someone will be looking at the user concurrently and that's where the collisions occur, however in the short timescale around the events it seems a good possibility that crossover will occur anyway. I often go to a page and find someone has just warned them for something I reverted, it's not a problem just a wasted trip. Similarly I get collisions where blocking, or get to the block page and see they have just been blocked (since it shows the log at the bottom of the block page, can't say I go back and look for a block notice). As above I can't say either of those is a big deal and when many people working on things, such crossovers are a good probability. i.e. I think people are going to get wasted trips to pages or post redundant messages regardless. --pgk 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's a difference between shrugging off a wasted trip for yourself, and editing so as to cause wasted trips for others. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As above I if someone does say 5 edits in a 10 minute time frame after creating an account and then gets blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account, it seems most unlikely that someone will be coming along later to post a message. Have you had cases where you've gone to post a message on such an account a significant amount of time after the event? And if so how frequently does this occur? If all their edits have been rolled back I'm not sure what purpose anyone has in deciding to visit their talk page, I would see this as a rare occurance.

If the visits occur at roughly the same time as the block, there is a good chance that there will be some crossover and one or other of those involved will have a wasted trip, this seems particularly the case at the moment where I often see contrib histories etc. lagging quite significantly, I can't see how that can be eliminated.

This isn't some new phenomena, I certainly haven't changed by behaviour in this regard for quite some time and you are the first and only person to mention the issue. Don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying the situation absolutely never occurs, I just wonder how significant an issue it is and if the amount of effort expended "solving" it outweighs the detriment. My own observation and cynicism suggests it's something we are very good at on wiki, spending huge amounts of time solving problems which don't "really" exist. --pgk 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a data point, I've noticed the lack of block messages as well and have found it can result in wasted effort when vandalfighting. In my view it's not wise to make vandalfighting more difficult or frustrating, unless there's a good reason. JMHO. Raymond Arritt 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)T

Thanks for the further evidence of the issue. Can you give a bit more background. Are the users blocked in the few minutes before or is this a significant amount of time after the blocking? I ask this since as with many I use multiple browser tabs when doing this, so If I'm going to warn or leave a block message I can be that I open talk pages in a fresh tab and carry on with other things coming back a short time later, this is the crossover I mention and indeed does happen to me quite frequently. I'm not sure why we would give those doing anti-vandal work any more or less consideration than others, but from a anti-vandalism point of view which is more preferrable to you, that vandals get blocked promptly or that you save a few seconds not warning someone who just got blocked? (The two needn't be mutually exclusive, but there are going to be trade offs at times.) --pgk 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Many editors revert vandalism and don't bother to follow up on the vandal's Talk page, nor check all the vandal's other contributions; I often – especially when it's a vandal on whom I'm keeping an eye – follow up for them, adding warnings or blocks. It's impossible to tell without actually starting the blocking process whether someone has blocked or not. I've often come across cases in which other editors have left warnings after blocks have been placed but not mentioned, and even more often I find myself wasting time on the start of the blocking process only to discover that someone else has already done it.

In short, not taking the few seconds to place a block notice can cause other editors inconvenience and irritation, and the instructions to admins say that it should be done (which, pace Irishguy, in normal English is a prescription, not the expression of a mild preference). Sorry if I sound tetchy, but once admins have been alerted to the fact that this causes inconvenience to others, I'm a bit surprised at the continuing argument. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of inconvenience to others cuts both ways. If I raise that it is an inconvenient for me to add the block notice in certain circumstances then you of course should be bending to me, so not as to inconvenience me? As I say above the number of people raising this has been very small and hence trying to scope this issue doesn't seem unreasonable. If you believe that your inconvenience outweighs the interests of everyone else concerned, then I think there is little more to discuss here. --pgk 13:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "scope this issue", but the rest of your comments are surely mistaken. Consideration for others should trump self-interest. Using edit summaries, providing sources, using correct formatting, signing messages, etc. — ignoring all these would doubtless make editing quicker for the individual, but that's not a reason for doing so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope, i.e. when does the problem occur. Does it occur for every block done, or is it a specific circumstance. Yes I agree your self interest should come second to the interest of the many admins who in certain circumstances don't put block messages on pages. --pgk 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindest to ignore this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can give an example which just occurred of the issues of crossover and scoping. User:Creek eek, placing {{indefblockeduser}} on a range of user pages, this is an ongoing troll if you look at the histories of the pages involved. Started at 13:52, blocked at 13:53 (UTC), after blocking I looked at other contribs and rolled back (in multiple tabs). I then went to the user talk page to add an {{indefblockeduser}} tag to that user. Edit conflict with someone adding a warning, redo - edit conflict with the user blanking that warning. Finally place the tag, within a minute or two someone else added to WP:AIV. Now this is obviously frustrating because multiple people are picking up on the same thing, there isn't much which can be done about that. At the same time I can't imagine why anyone would be going back later to look at this page, the user in question is in no doubt about what they are doing, the block notice isn't useful to them. All the edits were rolled back quickly. Was going through those two edit conflicts to the place the message a complete waste of time? To me yes, is not doing it likely to be inconvenien to others? --pgk 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were watching one of the articles involved, I'd see activity, check, and discover reverted vandalism. I might then go to the vandal's Talk page to see whether a warning was left (as I've already pointed out, that's often not done), and see no new warning, but a string of previous ones. I'd then decide either to give a warning (which would, unknown to me, be pointless), or to apply a block (only to discover that one had aleady been applied). This has happened to me on a number of occasions.

But there's no point my going on; you've decided that the slight convenience of your not having the courtesy to say what you've done outweighs the inconvenience that you cause to others, and evidently nothing that I say is going to change that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the system so that a block notice goes on the talk page automagically when the block is made? Such a thing ought to be possible, what with this being the computer age and all. It would save effort and frustration for all concerned. Raymond Arritt 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And you've decided the slight inconvenience to you outweighs the inconvenience to the many admins who do this. However as I have already said, my intent was to discuss the matter and scope the issue - how broadly it is felt an issue and in what circumstances is it an issue. That's the way things work around here, when there is a disagreement we discuss and try to find a compromise/consensus to the way forward. Your declaration above that you merely stating you felt inconvenienced by it should mean everyone would run off and do as you asked, is what started this part of the thread. Clearly if 100 admins don't warn for 10 blocks each and yet only you have a problem, and it occurs for 10 of those 1000 blocks, the cost benefit seems quite simply not in your favour. OTOH it maybe that those 10 are pretty specific circumstances, or it may come out in the discussion that many people find this an issue. From your description above it seems that you don't trust others reverting to consistently warn properly and that is the real root of this problem. --pgk 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I can't see how having a notice automatically added as a part of a block will add any more work for an admin; quite the opposite if anything, since the notice would be added with no effort on their part. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my response wasn't intended to go with your post. Reading back I guess some of the basics aren't clear either, the real point here is that either side declaring the other is being "selfish" and not considering the inconvenience of the other party(ies) is not really helpful, as it is of course a matter of perspective. Hence the need for some discussion to work out minimising the impact on everyone. The automatic message is a reasonable idea, though perhaps a simple marker which will tell people at a glance of the current blocked status, whilst still encouraging more comprehensive messages where appropriate. --pgk 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it useful when the "blocked" messages are left and almost always post a note or template myself, with one important exception: when the username itself is harassing (e.g. User:JohnSmithIsABadPerson (bowlerized example)). In those cases, I don't leave anything and I delete the userpage if it exists, because leaving the page with that name can actually perpetuate the harassment. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

New addition... unilateral action disruption.

I just added this... I think it will be invaluable:

• Unilateral actions to close discussions early against concensus, disrupting the community by forcing additional debate and conflict, and is blockable.[2]

Thank you. - Denny 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that inappropriate early closure of a DRV by an administrator is part of the rationale behind an imminent 10-day (!) arbcom ban. Milto LOL pia 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is far too bold. Decisions from the Arbitration Committee do not make policy. The decision was made in a very specific context. There is a difference between the ArbCom or the Wikipedia community deciding to block, and a single administrator doing the same. The other entries in the list cover blocks which are regularly made and broadly supported. On the other hand, somebody who closes a discussion inappropriately is likely to be a regular editor, probably an administrator, and such a block will always attract drama (like the cool-down blocks mentioned further down). Changes to policy, and this one in particular, should be discussed for some time and not made in reaction to a highly charged case. For all these reasons, I reverted the addition. If you want to discuss this, by all means do so on this talk page or the Village Pump, but I don't think there is a consensus for the point you added. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment. The decision you cite doesn't even say anything about blocking based on WP:SNOW. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

XfD/deletions/unilateral to disrupt

would there be any merit to adding that initiating XfDs or unilaterally deleting pages that are hot-button or controversial could be seen as disruptive/blockable? Thinking specifically about the Brandt & Essjay messes. Note that someone just now (less than 24 hours later) sent the Essjay article back to AfD for poor reasoning... - Denny 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there would not be any merit in doing that. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies and Requests

I would like to apologize for this IP Addresses vandalism of this website. This is a school, and I am a student, and I would appreciate having our IP address blocked from editing content, but not blocked from viewing content. Thank you very much. 209.7.218.5 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This page really never says that editors should receive a warning before placing blocked, although it is implied is some areas. Is that intentional?--BirgitteSB 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every block requires a prior warning. Some cases require instant blocking, to prevent further damage. Crum375 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But the policy clearly says which blocks don't require warnings without ever talking about the general principle of warning before blocks.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is in general up to the discretion of the blocking admin. Often the warnings are issued by other editors, not necessarily admins. In the case of WP:3RR for example, we encourage a warning to be issued to new editors who may not be familiar with the policy. I think overall the warnings, like the blocks, should be done with common sense, according to the specific case. Crum375 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is, where is in any guidelines or policies does it say that editors should be warned about their behaivor? Or, where does it say it up to the discretion of the admin? Reading the policy there is clearly an implication that warning is the standard and the X, Y, and Z are exceptions that do not need warning. But I looked at a bunch of policies and guidelines and I cannot not find any general dissucsion of the principle of warning. Everything I read seems to assume there is a general principle, but where is it?--BirgitteSB 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't really anywhere, except in the headers of some process pages. Perhaps this page needs a bit of editing to reflect that, or Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings should explain their thoughts on some policy pages. >Radiant< 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)