This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Seems to me the section "Altering block options" is obsolete, since it's no longer necessary to unblock to change any aspect of a block. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Shonuff. --Jayron32 17:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Nobody has ever given me a "sofixit" before! (I tend to at least raise the issue before making anything other than utterly trivial changes to policy pages.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

User A violates 3RR. User B files a report on user A. Admin C fully protects the article. Admin D rejects the request by User B that User A be blocked, on the ground that such a block would be punitive given that User A the article has now been protected. And User B is blocked in response to the report of User A. Is this how Wikipedia rules are supposed to operate?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This hypothetical is based on something that really happened.[1] If someone would please comment on the hypothetical then that would be very much appreciated. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

User B is not supposed to be blocked in this situation, if I'm correct. If the users are edit warring on multiple related pages, then blocks would be better than article protection. The general argument I see from admins for blocks is that just two edit warrers should not prevent the article from being edited by others.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it would be useful to put something into the policy about this. Incidentally, User B ended up evading the dubious block, and got banned.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

We generally try to avoid being so detailed that we remove any flexibility for administrators to utilize their own judgment. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

- I think your exchange here is sort of besides the point. Blocking is a big issue on Wikipedia, since it's the way we kick users off when they're disruptive for other reasons, so it must be governed a little more strictly than things like the protection and deletion policies.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• Without addressing the specific incident (which is probably not an appropriate topic for a talk page designated for discussing the policy itself anyway) I don't believe it is useful or desirable for the instructions for admins to be overly detailed and specific. We don't need specific rules for every conceivable situation. Making knee-jerk additions to policy because of one specific incident is the type of bureaucratic thinking that makes Wikipedia overly complicated and less user-friendly. Each incident where an admin is considering a block is taken as an individual case, and that is as it should be. If someone made an error in one specific case, take it up at WP:AN or some other appropriate venue. (And please stop sniping at each other here). Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  If there are no existing rules that might discourage or disallow the scenario I described, then that's what I wanted to know. Thanks. I'm disinclined to bring up the issue at ANI if this was completely within admin discretion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

  Well, that there are no rules that prohibit it does not mean that it is "completely within admin discretion". There are all kinds of stupid things that admins could do that aren't explicitly forbidden by rules. causa sui (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at a recent case of a user who has been blocked a large number of times still getting very short term blocks. To make sure users are blocked for a sensible duration if a user has been blocked more than 3 times without being unblocked over the past year then any further block should be at least a week in length. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ecX2) Although I understand the concept, each block is still separate based on merits/requirements. Blocks are not punishment, they're preventative. They're typically also escalating in nature. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The thing is that in reality the block terms don't escalate in nature. TreasuryTag is still getting extremely short duration blocks even though he has a massive block log. MickMacNee generally only got very short blocks before being blocked indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bwilkins - block durations are set as the minimum period the admin judges necessary to stop the disruption. While the duration should escalate sharply if the editor keeps being disruptive (especially in the same way or soon after the last block has expired), I don't think that a mandated minimum would be helpful. In individual cases where editors are given inappropriately short blocks, you can ask for this to be reviewed by other admins at WP:AN or WP:ANI. Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Agree with Bwilkins. As I stated at WP:AN, mandatory sentences are a bad idea. They add another level of WP:CREEP and take away discretion from the administrator putting the block. Not to mention that they create the extra burden of checking and analysing the block log. There also is plenty of potential for abuse. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose principals are worth following so next time I see an inappropriately short block I'll make sure to contact you guys to get the block length extended. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I want to support the idea that mandatory sentencing is a bad idea (which is why I think 3RR is bad policy - or at least it should have a discrtionary element). On the other hand, if you want to introduce it as a strong guideline I still don't think it's a great idea - admins should have more discretion like that and community standards will evolve how they will. Egg Centric 12:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets see whether this principled stance works in reality. If I notice a user doing the same behaviour over and over and still getting a short block I'm going to contact you guys. Going for the principled approach is a good way to do it if it works. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What you're better off asking is more to do with the escalation process. It is often held that if block #1 is for 3RR (24hrs), and the next block is for NPA, it's 24hrs again, but the next 3RR would be escalated to 48hrs - but only if it happens fairly close to the first one. So, some people hold that the block only escalates if it's for the same offence. This means that in theory, someone could get about 12 x 24hr blocks, but realistically, the whole concept of disruption eventually kicks in. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can think of a good proposal along those lines I'm all ears. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• A principle imparted to me by Uncle G that I do use on occasion, is an escalating block structure of 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year. I use it where repeated small blocks have been ineffective, and usually for either repeatedly displaying either the same offence (particularly socking - once is a misunderstanding, twice shows a need for caution, after that....) or different offences at the same article or set of articles. And I warn the editor before I block them for the first time that once they embark on this course of disruption, and have hit my radar, they are committed to it. Haven't had to use it often,wouldn't swear that it always works. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• I think that time-limited blocks, of whatever length, should be deprecated. Because blocks are preventative rather than punitive, they should last for exactly as long as they are needed to prevent trouble, which is normally until the blocked user convinces us that they understand what the problem is and won't repeat it. It is unlikely that this will coincidentally happen at the exact moment the block is scheduled to expire. Time-limited blocks, especially short ones, provide an incentive to simply wait them out rather than to come to terms with why one's behavior is deemed inappropriate by others. And discussions about what sort of misconduct is "worth" how long a block are indicative of an unhelpful punitive mindset, in which the "punishment" must fit the "crime", rather than a preventative one - not coincidentally do we often hear the term "time served" in block discussions, which reflects a thinking rooted in criminal procedure. On these grounds, I suggest that we shift to applying indefinite blocks by default - except perhaps for routine 24h blocks of first-time edit-warriors, which serve as a sort of yellow card. But at the same time we must stop thinking of indefinite blocks as infinite blocks, i.e., the equivalent of a death sentence. They should be understood as temporary measures that should be easily lifted as soon as we are convinced that the problem is resolved, and should only rarely (with persistent repeat offenders) last infinitely because no admin can be convinced to lift the block.  Sandstein  17:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument, but a massive break with established practice, and with significant risks for abuse. Who is going to do all the argumentation and evaluation to lift the blocks? Note that the blocking admin is not usually in the best position to have a calm and reasonable discussion with the blocked editor. I don't think this is practicable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

• There are two reasons I think time limited blocks should be standard. Having indefinite as the standard adds a lot of strain on the admins who will be charged with many more unblock requests. Having the blocks expire after a time is much easier. Second, I don't want a situation where blocked users need to go through a humiliating round of apologies in order to be let back. In most cases, the short block has sent a clear enough message for the editor to "get it". Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) I think Elen's principle seems about right. The issue with applying indefinite block for first time offences is that they force people to lose face over relatively minor infractions which they are probably happy to not do again without any need to push - I'm sure there are plenty of users who get their first block and stop behaving badly.
• With regards to using indefinite blocks for the third offence or whatever - at that point they probably do have to show they can behave - and while fairly extreme its got to be healthier than letting people get 24 hours blocks until Arbcom blocks them indefinitely. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

As a practice, it's often a good idea to escalate block duration if shorter blocks are ineffective. Eraserhead is right that some disruptive editors don't mind continually reoffending and "doing the time" is worth it to them if the blocks are never longer than 48 hours. On the other hand, enforcing mandatory sentencing is a bad idea. We're not going to go around trouting admins for using their judgment and deciding not to escalate block length due to context and specific circumstances. If you see a disruptive editor who is not reforming due to ineffective block durations, consider watching their contributions and blocking them yourself next time. That way, the responsibility is on your judgment (which is subject to review) and not a bureaucratic rule that you can pass the buck to ("hey, my hands are tied"). Regards, causa sui (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

• I was wondering whether it is possible to request amendments to this policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepdish7 (talk • contribs)

There's no central authority in control of the policy, so there is nowhere to submit such a request. :-) You can actually edit the policy yourself! But it is a good idea to propose changes here and see what other people think before making them, especially if they might be controversial. What did you have in mind? causa sui (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think he's already tried that in WP:ANI, unsuccessfully to the point of being blocked for disruption. He'll have to actually understand a few simple policies before trying to tackle changing this one. Here's hoping he actually reads over the next 31hrs (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone has just edited (diff) to permit unblocking one's own account "in cases of noncontroversial self-blocks". Perhaps this has consensus. The policy already allows self-unblocking in rare unspecified circumstances. I was once in a big argument with an admin (and others) who, realising they were were in the wrong, very honourably selfblocked for 24 hours. Was this noncontroversial? Yes, because someone else might well have blocked them otherwise. No, because deliberate self-blocking is controversial. Anyway, they should not then have gone ahead and self-unblocked (and in this case they did not and they stayed blocked). Views? Thincat (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidents such as you describe are quite rare and probably do not need to be detailed at all in the policy, when an admin blocks themselves it is usually an accident. Admins are generally free to overturn their own actions if they later believe them to be flawed, I don't see why blocking yourself, which is a pretty silly thing to do in the first place, should be an exception. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, no, I wasn't thinking things like this should be covered in the policy statement. What I was meaning to suggest is that in "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable: ... to unblock one's own account (except in cases of noncontroversial self-blocks)" that either the part in () which has just been added should be removed again; or "noncontroversial" should be changed to "accidental". Thincat (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I basically agree with Beeblebrox. The important points here are (1) avoid instruction creep and (2) admins are generally given leave to reverse their own sysop actions when they change their minds. causa sui (talk) 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia functions by identifying users on the basis of usernames and IP addresses. That is fine when you have someone with a large desktop computer locked into a home or office setting with lots of heavy machinery and wires.

But modern technology has changed all of that. Now, almost everyone has laptops, notebooks, smartphones, and iPads, and they can be moved around just as easily as a pad of paper between hotspots and other wifi connections all within a short drive or walk of one's residence.

The so-called "mobile editor" is not a problem when it comes to good faith editing. But if one's intention is to be disruptive, they can get away with murder and commit just about anything without the act being traceable.

The IP address is different with each wifi connection, so one could do all different things in different locations, with no known connection. One can easily sign up for as many accounts as they want just to be disruptive. Yes this violates policy, but how can it possibly be stopped?

Most of the vandals I have come across are using either IPs or new accounts. But it is very likely they have done it before just a stone's throw from where they are. This especially could be the case in an urban area where there are coffee shops at every corner, apartments and offices with unsecured signals, and in some places, public wifi sources. Not to mention, smartphones that use 3G signals can change IP addresses and ranges every few minutes. Sebwite (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Blocks and bans still work even with these ultra-dynamic IPs, the reason being that we use things called range-blocks. If a phone is vandalizing from addresses from 229.96.8.0 to 229.96.8.255, for instance, we would block 229.96.8.0/24, and boom, all the mobile devices there are blocked. If IPs are still too wide for that, we semi-protect articles.Jasper Deng (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

An IP range block works if one stays in one location (home, office, etc.) and resets their modem or something like that. This will keep on pulling up an IP from the same range. But when you bring a wifi-enabled device, such as a laptop, notebook, tablet computer, or wifi-enabled smartphone into the range of many wifi-connections, each wifi connection in a different area has a totally different IP address. It is therefore possible to go around to different coffee shops, libraries, or even piggyback a lot and get connected with quite a large variety of IP addresses, all within a short distance. Sebwite (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the situation you describe is possible, but is likely employed by a fairly small percentage of Wikipedia vandals and trolls. Account blocking is still extremely useful in preventing much of the disruptive editing here. — Satori Son 16:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And if that isn't effective, we can use semi-protection.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Meh, on Talk:Roman influence in Caucasian Albania two banned users were having a dispute because yet another banned user had moved the page. Socks are caught, but too late sometimes. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

My impression is that the tile of that section is misleading. I think the "normal" process to rename a user is Wikipedia:Changing username (mentioned at WP:UNC), not WP:Clean start. But the section title reads as if it's talking about the former not the latter. Perhaps change it to Recording in the block log after a "clean start"? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

In an effort to make this policy clearer I see there is no current mention of unblock conditions. Thus I propose to add the following: Sometimes when a user has been blocked multiple times a set of specific conditions is set for them to follow as a condition of their unblock. These should be linked from their user talk page while they are in affect. Additionally administrators should take them into account when considering blocking users who are subject to unblock conditions.. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No. Cart before the horse, too prescriptive, etc. causa sui (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

What is "the horse" in this case? And if it's "too prescriptive" why does ANI get so much discussion. User conduct isn't that big an issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:58, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand a little more how are people going to be able to be bipartisan (your stated goal above) without something concrete to rely on? If everything has to be built on first principles each time then there needs to be a lot of discussion just to get off the ground and agreeing something sensible is much harder. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

When are we going to see at least encouragement in this policy for admins to negotiate a bit harder with established editors in question to avoid blocking in the first place? Mediation is a joke on en.WP; admins—at least more of them than currently is the case—need to be prepared to take this role more seriously. Tony (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right that improving mediation is well worth doing as well. A 24 hour block (or longer if you aren't popular - depending on the feeling of the blocking admin) that may or may not get overturned at ANI with enough discussion is not the solution to all problems. I agree that earlier mediation is one tool we should use more. However we will need to go both ways. We are far more likely to be able to do more mediation if there is less conservatism towards any policy changes.

If we wasted less time discussing problematic users on ANI with clearer and more prescriptive policy then we could spend the huge amount of time saved with more early mentoring. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The word mediation isn't even mentioned in the policy. Often, aggrieved parties are happy with an apology, and I see instances where the admin doesn't even suggest this. Apologising first time up by an editor who "doesn't really mean it" has a symbolic meaning, and in some cases will have a longer educative effect on the apologising editor (knowing the community expects more functional behaviour). Often it won't work, but it's high time the policy cited the option, as an encouragement for admins to step in and make peace where they see it's feasible. Tony (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

If you propose new wording including the word mediation I will, in principle, support it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC) Spun mediation section off into its own section. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• When will we see encouragement for for admins to negotiate a bit harder with established editors to avoid blocking? Good heavens, Tony.. when the most prominent admins apply the principle to themselves, possibly? I never meant to bring up this done-to-death example again, but when I see the way you put it.. would you like to relate your general point to this admin's block of this user in 2009? (Arbcom case here, here and here.) AFAIK, the admin insists to this day that it was a proper and well-applied block, nor has any member of the then arbcom contradicted him in public (though compare of course the ArbCom Leaks links above). Discussing marginal "wording" changes in a policy while ignoring the big elephants dancing in the room may be a harmless pursuit, but I don't think it's a useful one. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 23 October 2011 (UTC).
  • If making small changes is discouraged on principle then we can't make big changes. I don't know anything about Jimbo's block of you in 2009, but my interpretation of the current blocking policy is that basically anything is within policy (unless you are more popular than the blocking admin in which case very little is within policy). The only realistic way that will change is if we are able to make small but continued improvements without people complaining about them.
  • Rewriting the entire policy from scratch sounds great but as it wouldn't be harmless you'd have to have a massive discussion and the chances of getting agreement is basically zero. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I support all of the posts thus far in this thread. Bish, yes, the small might seem like fiddling while Rome burns, but the devil's in the detail and the larger-scale (and harder to gain consensus for) changes. If people support an insertion of this type, we could toss around some wording. I'm time-stressed in RL right at the moment, but this is important enough to deal with while the topic is hot. Tony (talk) 07:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Why is it hot? Have mörser, will travel (talk) 08:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe a short mention encouraging sensitivity, something like this, would be okay: "Blocking a user often has negative consequences on editor morale and may contribute to Wikipedia's poor editor retention.[cite] Prior to blocking, consider that diplomatic solutions such as mediation may resolve disruption without the harsh and alienating connotations of a block." causa sui (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Sounds good - though I'd lose the bit on editor retention unless you can cite it. Be bold. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's actually not very good advice. Being bold is a great idea when improving an article. As is indicated in the notice at the top of this very page, it is not a good idea when making changes to one of our most critical policies. Substantive changes should have consensus before they are made. I know that isn't the easiest thing to do, but it the smart thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll wait for more people to weigh in before making changes. There are clearly several interested parties and it would be good to have them sign off before implementing any changes. causa sui (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't really see this particular change as having any impact beyond making the policy wordier. It is already enshrined in policy that admins are expected to proceed with using their tools only when they are confident that using them is the proper course of action. A good admin will never block a user, or take any other administrative action, unless they are sure. If they aren't sure, they will open a discussion. If they are pretty sure, they might do it and then open a discussion. A bad admin will do whatever the hell they want. Asking them to be more sensitive isn't going to fix that. I would add that it seems somewhat contrary to WP:NOTTHERAPY and WP:COMPETENCE. While those are essays and not policies, they both have broad based support, NOTTHERAPY in particular is generally treated as a de facto policy. Sometimes we have to block people knowing full well that it is going to make them very upset. Sometimes you suspect they may be mentally ill, or senile, or developmentally disabled, or good-old-fashioned stupid to the point where they honestly cannot see the problem with their editing. Blocking them is really no fun, but sometimes it is what has to be done. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

If we are to have a policy that people can rely on in discussions then we are clearly going to need to make the policy clearer - and therefore undoubtably wordier and more deterministic.

As you can see from the above discussion there is little agreement on what the word "punishment" means - a lot of people think it means retribution and others such as myself disagree - saying that something is covered in other policies (and an essay which you consider a de-facto policy, if you went through the formal steps to make it a policy at least some people will disagree) isn't going to deliver good results for the whole project. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is disagreement, and that is probably definitely a good thing, because it means everyone is critically engaging on the issue using their own best judgment, and not slavishly following orders carved into policy. The edit I proposed above tried to carry on in the tradition of policy being a guidebook, not a lawbook. But I tend to agree with Beeblebrox that it would be better to say nothing than add what I suggested. I know you think it ought to be more like a lawbook but that is not a majority view. causa sui (talk) 16:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that if people just use their "best judgement" and you give them no serious guidelines is that you land up with indefinite blocks for first time offences and people getting 24 hour blocks for their 33rd offences and all sorts of other nonsense. Some of our best contributors have fallen down on the wrong side of this stuff and had to leave the project permanently because of it - which is hardly good practice.

You land up in a situation where non-drama lovers find it basically impossible to complain about a block (as basically nothing is explicitly against policy) and drama lovers being able to complain about any block (as basically nothing is explicitly acceptable as per policy). This is what leads to ANI having 724 pages of archives and damages the project hugely.

More determinism doesn't mean we say "first time edit warriors must be blocked for 24 hours if they make more than three reverts" it means saying something like "for first time blockable offences people should generally be blocked for less than a week unless there are particularly unusual circumstances" or even less than that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

And with regards to the majority view in the discussion on punishment there is almost universal opposition - and while that change would follow actual practice (which is why I like it) that change would actually make the policy more up to the admins best judgement and be less deterministic. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:36, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Just opened a thread there regarding renaming of users with long block logs. Wikipedia talk:Changing username#Could we/should we do something different with repeatedly blocked users? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Converted to a formal RFC [2]. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And... cancelled. Never mind, these are not the droids you are looking for, move along... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption as well as the intentional undermining of a collegial collaborative writing environment (which is yet another form of disruption). Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption by experienced editors who intentionally take it over the line and exhibit contrition only when they get into trouble for it, such as when they are taken to a noticeboard.. [3]

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption as well as the intentional undermining of a collegial collaborative writing environment. Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption by experienced editors who intentionally take it over the line and exhibit contrition only when they get into trouble for it, such as when they are taken to a noticeboard. [4]

I'm not sure why this level of detail belongs in the beginning of the policy. I propose:

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption. Blocks may be instituted for immediate protection from editors who refuse to stop disrupting as well as to deter future disruption. [5]

Am I missing something on why the self-described bold edit has been restored almost in its entirety?

If the additional detail belongs in this policy at all, it belongs later in the article, likely in "Common rationales for blocks." --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Well calling the original edit bold wasn't really correct on my part, my apologies, there was unanimous support from people who mentioned it in the above discussion on the blocking possible at the time the content was originally added.

With regards to why the change should be included is because it makes the policy clearer. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I see a closed discussion that says no consensus, and comments specifically about removing the material. --Ronz (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above was closed on the 26 October whereas the original text I "boldly" added was done on the 18 October, and it is quite reasonable to presume that the closure applies to the original idea which was clearly soundly objected to. The objections in the above discussion to my addition only came after the content had been added.

The point at which the content was added on the 18 October was after the discussion had been declared "over" by an arbitrator and other users, so given the second wording was unanimously supported and had its own section it seemed perfectly reasonable to add it.

On Hans Adler's talk page I proposed some smaller changes to this wording than you have made which I felt were non-controversial and kept the edit to make the content less wordy and even between the two of us we weren't able to agree on something. How making the policy less clear is deemed reasonable - when even a tiny number of editors cannot agree about the meaning of relatively small changes is beyond me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

And here is a link to the original discussion about the content I "boldly" added on 18 October. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Not much discussion on it, but at least I understand the claim of some consensus.

"If the additional detail belongs in this policy at all, it belongs later in the article, likely in "Common rationales for blocks." Am I overlooking some discussion on the need for the minutia? --Ronz (talk) 21:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I basically agree with Ronz (and I missed this original discussion). There is some WP:TALKEDABOUTIT going on here. The quoted passage is very wordy. causa sui (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)With regards to the first claim, it had significantly greater support than any other change made to the policy this year - very little stuff gets a lot of discussion unfortunately.
  • I think moving the content to "Common rationales for blocks" would be sensible - it is legitimate to say that it is wordy. And the content would still be present for additional clarity if needed in a given discussion. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

So, we've agreed to my proposal, as long as the other information in included in the "Common rationales for blocks" section? --Ronz (talk) 05:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes. I think its definitely worth merging the two paragraphs at the top of the Purpose and goals section once this is done as there is a fair bit of obvious duplicate content with your version with the older sentence. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have not followed this page, and am missing the background, however...

Instead of:

Blocks are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project from disruption.

how about:

Blocks are used to protect the project from disruption, not as retribution.

I'm trying to thing of another way of expressing "editors who refuse to stop disrupting". Ultimately, we don't care whether an editor refuses anything—it's the disruption that needs to stop, and we know that it has stopped when (a) a sufficient period of disruption-free editing has occurred, or (b) the editor has stated they will not continue the behavior (they don't have to agree that it was "disruption", they just need to provide a plausible statement that they understand that other editors do not want the situation repeated, and they agree to not repeat it. What is this sentence trying to say anyway? Is the point that an admin can issue an immediate block without warning, if disruption is ongoing? Johnuniq (talk) 07:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I like that. But I'm happy to do the first thing first and then this new proposal second. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I think this Bold removal of this content is unacceptable - especially after all the criticism of bold edits. If you guys want to remove the content and not just move it, all the people who originally commented in support (and opposition) should be contacted at the very least or the discussion should be listed on WP:CENT. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the discussion (in which I did not originally participate), I see no clear consensus to implement it in the first place, and renewed opposition now that more voices have weighed in. There definitely is not consensus in favor of this text, which was introduced recently, and we tend to favor the status quo in policy. So I would suggest that adding it, not removing it, is the bold edit. causa sui (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I would opine that not much gets talked about because the policy is good enough as it is. causa sui (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If the policy was truly "good enough as it is" then it would be quoted frequently in discussions like the one on treasury tag. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

That would require a second condition - that people thought the purpose of the policy is to resolve disputes. The lack of citations is evidence not that there is something wrong with the policy, but that that is not a majority view. causa sui (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

If its purpose isn't to provide a basis for solving disputes what is it for? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I should think it would be obvious that its purpose is to provide basic guidance to admins on when it is and is not appropriate to block a user. Emphasis on basic as it is not possible to anticipate every possible situation, which is why we have WP:IAR. Disputing a block is outlined at WP:UNBLOCK, and dispute resolution is at WP:DR. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

So if we were discussing whether a block of a given user was appropriate which policy/guideline would you say should be quoted to backup ones arguments? WP:UNBLOCK is basically an FAQ of the unblock process - it doesn't cover anything about whether a block is appropriate in a given set of circumstances. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The point is, you don't always have a pre-written policy which covers in detail every possible situation. There are an infinite number of reasons why it would be necessary to block a person, and in starting a finite list of examples, we will necessarily come across a specific situation at some time in the future where an existing concrete list of reasons will be inadequate to block someone who really needs to be blocked. The simplest, broadest guidance is best here "Blocks are given to stop ongoing disruption or to prevent future disruption." Period. Once we start defining the terms in exhaustive detail, we make the policy less and less useful because we start to exclude situations which we do not anticipate, but which will inevitably arise. --Jayron32 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Well obviously it isn't practical cover every possible situation. But it should be reasonable to expect that I should be able to use points from policy to argue in favour of certain things with regards to user conduct. No policy on Wikipedia covers every corner case, but it is definitely possible - when discussing article titles for example - to backup arguments with the policy. In comparison when you have a user conduct issue there is little reference to policy.

WP:IAR means that if the policy doesn't cover some specific case where it would be useful then you can use that instead - but a significant majority of the time it shouldn't be necessary to invoke it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

And to reply to a point I missed, if a policy succeeds in providing guidance about whether it is appropriate or not to block a user it should basically by definition be possible to quote it in a discussion about that said block to justify it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, is user A being disruptive now? Does it appear to a reasonable person that user A intends to continue the disruption? Would a block stop user A from being disruptive, and would other less severe methods be similarly ineffectual? If the answer to all three is "yes", then a block may be appropriate. The current policy is sufficient to cover all of that. --Jayron32 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue, which is clear from following any of the discussions on ANI is that people don't agree about those points. Your "reasonable person" doesn't exist. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

• I really know you're editing in good faith here. Really... but we are somewhere in between WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:TALKEDABOUTIT, which is WP:DEADHORSE. There are only so many ways different people can explain this, and we definitely can't camp out the talk page to voice daily opposition to every possible suggestion for how to make policy more prescriptive. causa sui (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The only reason this is a continued issue is because you guys haven't yet managed to present any serious counter-argument to my points. I've bought up a reasonable number of examples to backup my point and you guys have bought very little to the table beyond blindly asserting that the current policy works fine.
  • If you guys can't make more than 1-2 points before backing out of the discussion consistently you should be reconsidering your position. Compared to any other discussion on this project the amount of back and forth here is significantly lower than WP:DEADHORSE territory. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Your position seems to be that if you keep proposing, and indeed making, changes to this policy that eventually something will stick. Nobody but you sees the need for the majority of changes you have proposed. Perhaps it is you who should rethink their position. Blocks are always going to cause controversy, that's just the way things go. No amount of tweaking the policy wording is goiung to stop disagreement about specific blocks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously you are never going to be able to eliminate all controversy. That is an impossible goal for any policy. But you could at least have a useful framework that can be used in discussions - and that clearly isn't currently the case. If there isn't a framework that can be used in discussions what's the point of having a policy at all?

Additionally it is also not obvious that a significant percentage of the community is happy with the current policy - plenty of other people have suggested changes.

Finally I haven't "continued to make" changes to the policy - the only positive change I have made recently was in response to a significantly larger bold change made by another user. I am also perfectly willing to change my mind on things if logical evidence is presented. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The framework is a) is the person being disruptive and b) will the block stop the disruption. If people disagree about either of these points in a specific case, there is nothing you can add to the policy to make the disagreement evaporate. People do not disagree about when to block, they disagree about whether a person is ultimately helpful or harmful to the project. That is the core disagreement. If some random person is blocked, and if someone disagrees, they generally feel the person is a net benefit and not a net harm to the project. THAT is the source of disagreement, not about what "offenses" merit what "penalties". Just about whether a person's behavior is harmful or not, and whether a block is a response which will stop that behavior. There is nothing extra you can write on this policy which will provide any clarity because you are getting at people's opinions about another person's behavior as it relates to building the encyclopedia. There's nothing in the policy which can give guidance on that. When a popular but polarizing figure is blocked, it will always generate controversy because people will have differing opinions about whether the block helps or hurts the 'pedia. That's not a policy issue, it is a human nature issue, and you can't change human nature with additional policy guidance. The guidance is perfectly sufficient because it makes clear that blocking exists as a last resort to protect the project when other methods don't work. If people disagree that a block is necessary, no change to this page will make that go away. --Jayron32 03:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. With regards to your first statement if people disagree about which title is the most appropriate there is nothing you can do to make the disagreement evaporate either - but by having a coherent policy at WP:AT you make it so that less disputes reach that stage of people being unable to decide which article title is the most appropriate.

With the article titles policy and a case like Burma vs Myanmar people have gathered data showing the usages by different sources - and certainly I am convinced that its roughly equal between the two names and so are at least some of the other more neutral participants in that discussion. You would be unable to do the same thing for user conduct in even a simple case - and Burma vs Myanmar isn't a simple naming case by any means.

We could easily add minimum block terms for peoples 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th blocks and maximum block terms for people's first and second blocks to make sure blocks are handed down vaguely consistently and that blocks don't go straight to indefinite where that isn't necessary.

We could make it clearer what "last resort" means to make it less likely that blocks will be handed out inappropriately.

We could add greater focus on mediation and treating first time blocks as a learning opportunity rather than going straight to indefinite blocks.

We could improve the rules around unblocking so that things like this Arbcom case become less likely. Hopefully Arbcom will go and make some policy with regards to that case by fiat (and they basically have no choice but to do that if the case is going to achieve anything), but it would be far healthier if the community was able to come up with something sensible without arbcom having to come up with all the ideas.

Ultimately by having a clearer policy you make the easy cases easier. If you leave a few difficult borderline cases to need large amounts of discussion, ultimately it doesn't matter as if its a borderline case it doesn't matter which way it goes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, what's the whole point of your non-sequitur here? This is the page for discussing changes to the Blocking policy, you spend the bulk of your comment discussing disputes over article titles. That's an entirely unrelated issue, and I fail to see how bringing it up is relevent in any way. Perhaps you could clarify? --Jayron32 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I provided a whole bunch of suggestions on what we could do to improve the policy. The article titles policy is merely bought up as an example of a policy that manages to be functional. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is your are making the dreaded "apples to oranges" comparison. The article titles policy is largely about style issues: how to make decisions between what are ultimately arbitrary choices; wikipedia needs some policy for deciding all sorts of ultimately arbitrary style issues: How to use commas, how to organize the subsections of an article, how to properly format a title etc. etc. Those issues are served well by highly detailed policies. The deal is this policy doesn't deal with style issues, it deals with behavior. And behavior is ultimately in the eye of beholders: no matter what line we draw it comes down to the opinions of observers to decide if the line was crossed by a user. You simply cannot legislate this sort of thing. Where it is quite easy to devise a detailed policy for formatting an article title, it is another thing to influence the opinions of people over the behavior of others. It will always come down to what people subjectively feel about a person's behavior. Some stuff is obvious, bright-line behaviors, things like WP:vandalism and WP:3RR and the really blatant stuff. But when a user is displaying subtly antisocial, incivil, or otherwise showing a longterm pattern of "not playing well with others", then there is no actual policy guidance to decide when a block is necessary. Ultimately, it will come down to a community discussion and consensus over such issues, and those discussions require subjective opinions of the community members regarding the behavior of the user in question. No matter what additional guidance you provide here, it will still require the community to decide whether the behavior of the subject is "bad enough" for a block, and as such providing too much guidance is actually countermanded by the core principle of the blocking policy: guidance starts to look more and more like a list of offenses for which one can be punished, and as such, isn't what blocking is supposed to be for. --Jayron32 21:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) To counter the obvious counter-argument, that this change would be WP:CREEP I don't see that at all as it would make the policy significantly more useful. If we were to follow Jayron32 argument that the policy should just provide a few basic ideas which admins have to interpret broadly and that all discussions that are remotely controversial will just go to ANI anyway I'd have thought we could achieve that with vastly less than 4500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of WP:DEADHORSE is that it is appropriate to terminate a discussion not when we have 100% agreement, but when it's obvious that a proposal has been rejected. Your suggestion that you will stop making proposals when you have been given "logical reasons" reads like a declaration that you intend to discuss this ad absurdum until you are convinced, and when others decline to discuss it with you, you interpret their silence as consent. This amounts to little more than filibustering. Consensus can change but I doubt the utility of continuing to ride this merry go round until it actually does. causa sui (talk) 20:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Taking silence as consent is perfectly reasonable if the person you are discussing with bows out after the first comment. That clearly doesn't apply indefinitely.

Asking you guys to present a better quality argument is perfectly reasonable as it might well cause me to change my mind. If you guys don't have any better arguments to present and aren't going to change your minds then you are right there is no point in continuing the discussion. I actually thought Jayron32's argument was fairly strong, even though I disagree with it at this stage - its obviously something that has to be taken into account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Silence = consent when drafting policy is also a minority view. You can take my future silence on it as my lack of consent for revising that consensus. ;) causa sui (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Meta's got a discussion going from a blocked user who makes the following claims:

• He didn't actually commit the violation named in the block log (he was indef'd for socking), so the block is invalid/doesn't count/can be ignored.
• It's perfectly okay for him to keep editing as an IP despite the block, because his IP address isn't "an account".

It might be worth expanding the section on block evasion to explain the concept so that even this user will be able to understand it. (I'm not watching this page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. If Wikipedia is not therapy, policy most definitely isn't. I'm always wary of the practice of writing policy with the worst troublemakers in mind, instead of the good-faith new users who just want to learn and understand how we do things around here and why. I know where you're coming from but extensive experience in this area has left me utterly pessimistic about reforming bad behavior by bad editors through wording changes in policy. causa sui (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

All we need to show that person (the blocked user) is WP:GAME or a Meta version of it.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I've started at discussion at WP:AN#Unblock template - user friendly? but perhaps I should have started it here. This template is hard for users - new and old - to use given the problems I've seen with it and my problems in fixing them. Any suggestions as to how to fix it? EyeSerene's made one suggestion but I don't know if it's feasible. Dougweller (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been made in this thread. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It's customary on policy pages to discuss changes on the associated talk page and gain consensus, per WP:BRD. Nobody Ent 02:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of (and some large) changes to this policy today. I saw a couple comments on the talk page - but not directly related to these changes. Could somebody give me the cliff notes version of what's happening? Was there an RfC or something I missed? — Ched :  ?  02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Looked to me like mostly copy editing (rearranging sections). Nobody Ent 02:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

While the changes may look large at first sight, each individual change is small. The way the diffs show may give the impression that some changes are large, but they are not. Just read the edit summaries to see what happened. I could have done the changes in fewer edits, but I did one error and I intentionally made a restructuration gradually to ease reviewing. Otherwise, it would have been preferable to do the work in fewer edits. --Chealer (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, all; an RFC has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Adoption_of_new_unblock_appeals_tool to seek input regarding the implementation of the Unblock Ticket Request System as a replacement for the unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org mailing list. Comments from all users, especially those who have experience in reviewing blocks, would be greatly appreciated. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't block evasion, by its definition, socking?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

No. An IP resetting his IP to avoid a block or a user logging into an alternate, unblocked account isn't socking, but it is block evasion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But doesn't that constitute the use of multiple accounts to evade sanctions, which is part of socking?--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Eraserhead1 and User:Nobody Ent both did a rollback losing several changes today in 479561842 and 479582181, both unjustified. The former was misguided and I reverted it, however I didn't revert the latter for now. The edit summary refers to here, but there is no justification here. I asked the editor to justify on his talk page. Unless a justification would come, it needs to be reverted too. --Chealer (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Chealer, my justification is that you seemed to make a very large change that was difficult to see what was going on. Please can you make your changes more slowly so we can use the diff tools effectively to see what's happening.

I took a diff of your changes and I couldn't see what had changed in a timely fashion.

You can't just edit war over policy, and all I'm asking is for you to make the changes more slowly - as I said in my edit summary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I also think it was poor form that you only gave me three minutes in the middle of the night to respond to your talk page request. I should have been given at least 24 hours, if not 48. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick perusal of the policy on the use of rollback does not show me that as one of the valid uses of the tool. Maybe I'm missing something at 5AM. I can understand undoing such an edit, but not rollback (oh, and I agree - attempting to discuss an issue means actual discussion, not a driveby-then-off-to-see-admins) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting." Nobody Ent 10:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding. Slowing edition so that it can be checked is not a request. This was meant to explain how changes can be "checked plausibly". What you probably want is to check each change individually by using the "prev" links on [9]. If you consider that as implausible, then ask for more detailed edit summaries of the specific changes you find hard to analyze. --Chealer (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eraserhead1, please see Slowing edition so that it can be checked. --Chealer (talk) 17:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a look. I agree with your structural changes. I'm not sure about your other changes. I want some time to think about it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done the first set of structural changes. I'll go and do the rest in a couple of days unless there are any objections. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(←) I do not believe "slow down so that I can check them" is a good reason for rollback. I endorse the series-of-small-changes approach taken here. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Reminder (per Aaron):

Rollback may be used:

• To revert obvious vandalism and other edits where the reason for reverting is absolutely clear
• To revert edits in your own user space
• To revert edits that you have made (for example, edits that you accidentally made)
• To revert edits by banned users who are not allowed to edit (but be prepared to explain this use of rollback when asked to)
• To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page...

I would urge anyone who is using the rollback feature to brush up on the Wikipedia:Rollback feature guideline. I'd hate to see anyone get in trouble or lose that ability over a simple misunderstanding. Peace — Ched :  ?  18:42, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Meaning depends on context -- the preface to the above list clearly says "it has the disadvantage that only a generic edit summary is generated, with no explanation of the reason for the change. For this reason, it is considered inappropriate to use it in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected." Then, after list, the guideline notes: The above restrictions apply to standard rollback, using the generic edit summary. If a tool or manual method is used to add an appropriate explanatory edit summary (as described in the Additional tools section below), then rollback may be freely used as with any other method of reverting.

As the edits in question all had a reasonable edit summary, the rollback prohibition clearly is not applicable. Nobody Ent 22:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've seen you around enough to know you know what's going on Nobody - wasn't questioning anyone - just saw the "Rollback" post - thought I'd mention it so a newer user or something didn't get their butts in a bind. Carry on ... (In other words, Ched didn't take the time to research anything. :)) — Ched :  ?  23:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe "slow down so that I can check them" is a good reason for reversion of any kind. Once the person is finished, I go back and you review their edits. There's no problem with the wrong version being on the page while I'm looking. What is proposed as acceptable (reverts any edits "you" have not yet approved) is not how it's meant to work. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The top of this page clearly states: "Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page." I don't mind Chealer being bold -- I'm frequently bold myself, but Eraserhead was entirely correct to revert the edits if there was any doubt as to consensus. Nobody Ent 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll continue to disagree, I'm afraid. If one says "I read and checked this, and I don't think it has consensus" that is clearly acceptable. But to say "I'm reverting because I don't have time to read and approve these edits" is not acceptable. I'm stepping away from the horse now. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm staggered that anyone would think differently. Beggars belief really. Malleus Fatuorum 02:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

And as for the more general question about rollback, it's surely got to be the most useless bauble in the history of baubles. Nobody needs it, it's just an "I gave it and I can take it away" attempt at control. Malleus Fatuorum 02:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

That could be misinterpreted, but the context makes it pretty clear that this is talking about policy changes, not about simple restructuring or rewording: "The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow.". I clarified the template anyway. --Chealer (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that we couldn't check your rewording as you made a whole bunch of changes all at the same time. In a few days - once everyone has got used to the new layout and we know there aren't any issues with that, you can start making your content changes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Don't include me in your "we". If you (singular) don't know how or don't have time to step through a set of diffs, just step aside and let someone else do it. Did you really think you were the only one able to prevent the total collapse of the encyclopedia? Franamax (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

There is still the issue that it wouldn't necessarily be easy to revert the changes individually. Wikipedia's diff algorithm is quite poor. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand what you just said at all. The point of making lots of small changes is that it makes it easier to revert out bits? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Eraserhead, you used rollback inappropriately and your request that changes only be made the way you want them to be made is not reasonable. You made a mistake, numerous users have tried to explain it to you. So please, stop tap dancing around the obvious, own up to it and move on, Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for my later comments, it wasn't acceptable and was bringing up points that were unreasonable, it was possible to check the diffs - and something in the end I did. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Are blocks punishments? --NoObsceneUsernames (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, but sometimes are. causa sui (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Under "Setting block options" the policy says: prevent account creation will prevent accounts from being created by the account. How can an account create another account? Does it mean will prevent accounts from being created on the blocked IP address? Victor Yus (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Some people may be reluctant to provide too much information to this query per WP:BEANS; but I'll say this much. If you look at WP:SOCK you'll notice that we've had a need in the past to address issues where an editor is acting in an unacceptable manner, they were blocked, and they simply stated editing under a different name to carry on that same unacceptable behavior. The technical aspect of "prevent account creation" is simply a measure used to [at least attempt to] prevent this from happening. I'm not sure that fully answers your question, but I hope it explains the concept and the WP:BEANS non-answer. — Ched :  ?  13:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So is my original interpretation (that it means will prevent accounts from being created on the blocked IP address) basically correct? In combination with the following sentence, which implies that the "blocked IP address" is the last IP used by the blocked account (if it's an account rather than an IP that's being blocked), provided "autoblock" is not unchecked? (I don't really need to know; I've just seen "account creation blocked" on certain block log entries, and have been trying to work out what it might mean - without doing the experiment of getting myself blocked to find out.)--Victor Yus (talk) 14:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If I understand your question .. yes. Sorry for the delay - I hadn't checked back here. — Ched :  ?  17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, accounts can create other accounts via Special:UserLogin/signup. The "account creation block" prevents this. It is normally only disabled when the username is inappropriate (e.g. a spammy username) so that the user can create an account with a more appropriate username. The autoblock prevents other users from editing from the IP, and it also prevents further account creation from that IP. Hope this helps. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but is there any difference of consequence between "an account creating an account" and that user first logging out and then creating the new account? Victor Yus (talk) 06:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This might not be the correct place to post this but I am lost. I have basic knowledge around Wikipedia's administrative pages and I find reaching someone to solve a problem is confusing, fruitless and time consuming. I have been a wikipedia user for years. I am a Syrian citizen and I live in Syria, and most of my contributions to Wikipedia are about minor articles regarding my country. Now, my government has been blocking wikimedia for years now and thus we can't view Wikipedia properly because all images and illustrations are messed up. That is why we all use anonymizers to bypass this problem. When we do this, we are always banned from editing as collateral damage. Right now, I am using my original IP address to write this and believe me it is not pleasant. I have contacted an admin whose blocks I often encounter and he/she seems to be busy these days. My appreciation for his/her concern stands true regardless. Please, I need this problem fixed. Check my IP address and confirm that I am connecting from Syria. Why can't an admin unblock a username? Too complicated? (not being sarcastic here as I am not knowledgeable in that matter).

Thank you and I apologize if I misplaced this post. I just really REALLY want a solution for this. REMcrazy (talk) 18:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Egg Centric 21:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I also will respond to the talkpage soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello.

I am proposing the addition of a link to Block (Internet) in the lead paragraph on the bolded word. Thank you. 69.155.128.40 (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Y done Penyulap ☏ 06:48, 17 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Discussion (following close)

That was some of the bizarrest logic I've ever seen. (To be more specific, it seems to assume that "should consider..." means "must and always will...".) Victor Yus (talk) 08:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have hard rules. So while we strongly suggest things, we rarely "mandate".

That said, presumably a block of a malfunctioning bot is an indefinite one. And afaik, common practice is that when blocking any account indefinitely, an admin either makes it clear why indef, or notes the criteria for unblocking (or both).

However, I do note that this does not seem to be directly noted in the blocking policy (except somewhat in the section I noted in the close).

As it's fairly common practice, I presume it could be boldly noted in the policy. But I think I'll wait to add it til others have seen these comments, in case anyone has concerns or suggestions. - jc37 23:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

But even if it is common practice, we shouldn't phrase our instructions to potential unblockers on the unspoken assumption that it definitely will have been done. (Particularly when some people seem treat those latter instructions as the prescriptive type that people might be "punished" for breaching.) I would have thought that when blocking a bot, which can make many edits a minute, speed would be of the essence, so the blocking admin might well not want to spend time spelling out all the conditions - and in any case probably has better things to do than type out the obvious. Victor Yus (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems only common sense. If I found a bot that needed to be stopped, I'd stop it, then look at conditions, etc. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I was taking it for granted as "common sense" (as you note), but afaik, typically when blocking any account, the button is pushed, and then the reasons for it (and the criteria for unblocking) would be noted (if they weren't already made clear).

Blocking being preventative not punitive, etc etc.

Though of course, notes, warnings, and other such things often happen before "hitting the button".

Besides all this, this obviously does not preclude review of the block by another "reviewing admin". Even if the blocking admin neglects to leave such info following a block, there's nothing stopping the bot owner from placing an unblock template request (or emailing, etc.) This discussion was specifically focused on the situation where admin bot owners unblock their own bot, as well as the question of common practice of unblocking their own bot when they felt that whatever was causing it to "malfunction", was repaired.

I suppose the shortest way to describe the consensus gleaned from the discussion might be that there was clear consensus that an admin bot owner, may only unblock their own bot if: a.) it was malfunctioning and is now repaired, but b.) only if the blocking admin established that as unblocking criteria. There was fairly clear consensus that "presuming" this to be true was inappropriate.

There were a few that expressed the concern that a blocking admin may be (let's say) "neglectful" to provide this. But that simply did not have consensus to over-ride the concerns about "presumption".

Incidentally, I'm treating this thread as a "request for clarification of a close". And am responding in that light. - jc37 15:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion. More people, if anything, seem to be of the view that one can make the commonsense presumption that if the reason for a block was a malfunction, then repair of the malfunction is a ground to remove the block without further bureaucratic time-wasting, and regardless of whether the blocking admin spent the time to spell out this (usually obvious) fact. Victor Yus (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

In cases where significant doubts regarding the innocence or guilt of an editor exist in the community, forcing the editor to make admissions of guilt as a prerequisite to unblocking could punish innocent editors, or reward guilty ones in an innocent prisoner's dilemma.

I suggest this addition to policy, as I don't think wiki-justice is perfect.

_{disclaimer: I wrote the article.} Penyulap ☏ 10:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that an editor be forced to do anything, so there is no need to add that suggestion to the policy. In particular, it is not a good idea to link to an article that introduces a range of concepts that are unrelated to the policy. A proposal along the above lines should be raised at WP:VPR with some examples showing that extending the policy is necessary (as opposed to covering a theoretical possibility). What would be desirable is that an editor seeking an unblock should provide an outline showing an understanding of the problem, and a plausible explanation of how future problems would be avoided. Johnuniq (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If there is significant doubt, then that is cause for an agf unblock. But what are the circumstances in which significant doubt could arise? For a registered account, there can be no doubt that the account actually made the edits in question. It is open to the blocked editor to make a case that their edits were not, in fact, disruptive. This does not require any admission of guilt and will result in an unblock if the argument is accepted. If the blocked editor claims they did not make the edits because their little brother/friend/cat did it, then I am afraid the reaction would be to extend the block to indefinite as a compromised account. On the other hand, if it is the view of the reviewing admin that the editor is indeed being disruptive, as Johnuniq says, a believable assurance that it won't happen again is needed before unblocking. The only plausible circumstance the "I didn't do it" defence makes any sense at all is for IP editors either on a shared IP or WP:DUCK blocks of dynamic IP ranges. In the majority of cases this defence is merely trolling. Good faith editors caught in this kind of block using school or library computers should be strongly urged to open an account. The point Penyulap seems to be missing is that blocks are not meant to punish anyone but rather to protect the encyclopedia. While we do our very best to limit collateral damage to good faith editors, this is not a good enough reason for an unblock where we believe the damage would continue once unblocked - unless the collateral damage is extensive such as a too wide rangeblock. SpinningSpark 15:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The point you're missing is that in reality blocks of registered users are very frequently intended as a punishment for some ill-defined "disruption" or other, a concept idiosyncratically defined by each individual administrator to suit the purpose; to believe otherwise displays an unbelievable degree of naivety. "Disruption" so far as Wikipedia is concerned quite simply means "an opinion I don't agree with". Malleus Fatuorum 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Malleus, you may possibly be right, but the problem you describe is not being addressed by this proposal and is not a solution for it. As I said, "significant doubt" should simply result in an unblock. Whether or not there is significant doubt is a matter of judgement. If the reviewing admin believes there is significant doubt it would be utterly perverse to demand an admission of guilt first. Do we have any examples of that happening? As far as I am concerned, unblocking will happen when the blocked editor credibly undertakes not to continue with the actions that got them blocked, regardless of whether or not they "admit" to those actions being "wrong". SpinningSpark 17:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But that makes no sense if the blockee considers they've done nothing wrong, and is exactly what the prisoner's dilemma is addressing: "I agree to say whatever it is that you want me to say so that I can be unblocked". Malleus Fatuorum 18:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I frequently see blocked editors argue that the block is unfair, even though they have been made aware of the policy the are breaching. What they are really arguing is that the policy is unfair. They may be right, and I don't require them to agree that it is fair, just that they will not continue to breach it until such time as they, or someone else, can get it changed. This is an entirely different issue to admins blocking for non-policy reasons. Making a policy aimed at admins who don't take any notice of policy does not strike me as a solution that is likely to work, nor is it the problem that is being addressed by the proposal. SpinningSpark 18:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But you're failing to address a key issue here; how is "disruption" to be measured, and by whom? The blocking administrator, who in many cases is simply saying "I don't agree with this, and if you don't stop I'll block you"? Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much. Nobody Ent 21:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Since when was policy an end in itself? causa sui (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, policy is not an end in itself, but administrators have no authority to make up policy themselves, most especially blocking policy. To answer Malleus' point, this policy page gives details of what is to be considered disruption. If you think that needs tightening, by all means make a suggestion, but your point seems to be that some admins are going to ignore it anyway so it would seem the problem you are bringing here, if it really exists, is not going to be solved on this policy page. SpinningSpark 10:16, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Should a blocked user be forced to take sides when a dispute has broken out over the original block, rather than examining the original block on it's own. Would removal of the block pending further bad behaviour by the banned editor be a better standard of proof than punishing integrity by creating the dilemma. Excluding requirements of admission in disputed cases and examining further behaviour on it's own would solve the problem, but appeals do not always succeed in a manner that is 'perfect'. Penyulap ☏ 22:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As explained above, no one is forced to do anything. No, we should not remove blocks simply to see if the user repeats the problem. The reason we have many problematic users is that their first couple of blocks were removed too quickly, without due reason for the unblock. If a blocked editor does not provide a convincing request for an unblock (see outline by SpinningSpark above), they should go to another website until the block expires. Unblocks where the user has not expressed any understanding of the problem only encourage a belief that the user was fully correct all along, and that they should repeat their behavior. Johnuniq (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Force is exactly what the discussion is about, I'm wondering if you want to investigate the issue in detail this time. Penyulap ☏ 12:30, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

No, this is all about Rich Farmborough, who was banned from using AWB, used AWB and got caught out, and is now facing the consequences. That's the fact, everything else is a ridiculous smokescreen. The guy has even put his hands up and said he's done it, and apologised. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it's hard to argue with that logic, except that Rich is not claiming to be innocent, or likely to, and then there is the appeals process, and Rich is cool with making apologies as am I. I don't think it applies to him so much as actual innocent editors in general who may be blocked by mistake. I don't want to address any single incident, if that were the case I would tailor my strategy to the case in hand rather than taking the sometimes longer route of adjusting policy, and then gaining retrospective application of it. I wish to clarify if we are comfortable working under the assumption that all blocks are correct and justified in all cases, and as a result, we should ask blocked editors appealing the block that they make admissions, which, if they are innocent, would amount to lies. Such a policy filters out honest people, keeping them out of wikipedia whilst rewarding the editors who are happy to lie to us, by welcoming them back to the project.

Also, although I can see the future, and maybe I just forgot that I foresaw Rich getting banned, in the future, at the time that I edited the policy page, I figure you may be mistaken where you are saying "No, this is all about Rich Farmborough".

Obviously, something brought the flaws in the policy to my attention, (there is no button to click that says 'fix this policy' omg, I have to make one for my talkpage, what a laugh !) The matter that alerted me is the block appeal here I made for someone who quite a few editors thought was innocent of any wrongdoing. In fact, I think a few suggested he was doing a good thing. That block appeal is no secret, I mention and link to the page and article which I was quite surprised did not exist on english wikipedia, so rather than write some essay I figure do something more useful by documenting the concept itself, and link to that. I mentioned that I was looking at the possible flaws of unblocking policy and guidelines, and I also linked to the article I wrote, you can find both links here.

You've been here on wikipedia longer than I have Elen, so do you think it is more useful if I illustrate the concept using an essay or an article ? Maybe as an article, people won't consider it properly, as they have an ingrained mindset that the concepts they should apply exist only in the wikipedia world, and not the real one. I see ‎SarekOfVulcan has nominated the article for deletion as soapboxing, I invite you to comment on that discussion as a critic. Penyulap ☏ 14:38, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, so this comes from your desire to support an editor who was blocked for throwing rude epithets at Japanese editors. Nice one. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I seem to have missed the bit where you provided a diff to where Histiographer was asked to admit guilt. SpinningSpark 16:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Spinningspark,... there is no diff given as this has only an incidental, if any at all, relation to that case. This is about the future effects of a possibly flawed policy.

Elen,...Not at all. That case has basically closed and it was thoroughly examined. It did however raise interesting questions, for example there were editors who suggest that the banned editor was guilty, as you seem to have noticed, and there were other editors who made comments such as this

• ..looks to me like someone ... attempting attempting to show empathy, ... the proper response isn't a block, but some wikilove.
• I highly agree, has the blocking admin been contacted?
• I very much disagree with you. This block is significantly out of proportion. ...a block is not warranted here, a warning is.
• [the banned editor was giving] Good advice, if accompanied by stronger language than necessary.
• A week would have been defensible, not three months
• ..looks...more like a user tired of edit wars who is giving out good advice to fellow Koreans.
• I would be inclined to view his remarks as basically meaning "Don't let the Japanese trolls get you down". The parenthetical remark literally means "Don't throw bait"

The user was banned in the end, however it does raise interesting questions, the obvious question is, what if, in future, someone was innocent ? naturally there is the superficial response 'nobody is innocent, everyone banned is guilty' idea, the logic of which is questionable. The more mature consideration is to accept the fact that mistakes do occur, or at the least, are possible. That being the case, would demanding an admission be in effect filtering out the hypothetical 'innocent editors' who cannot lie, whilst rewarding and welcoming those editors who are most willing to lie, and do it convincingly.

So, is it a good idea to have a policy which, hypothetically or not, filters out the good editors, and is more inclined to collect the people who are unwelcome in the community ? Penyulap ☏ 16:46, 1 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how many times we have to say this, but blocked editors are not required to admit guilt. Historiographer is not banned and will be able to edit again once the block expires. No one is maintaining that mistakes never get made, that is why there is an appeals process. Historiographer is able to use that process at any time. SpinningSpark 17:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not maintain a prison system. Nobody Ent 23:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Exile.

Change your socks and climb back over the wall. Climb ? well, it's a walk, or a gentle stroll really. Why can't I get Chief Wiggum out of my head here ? I thought Indonesian prisons were lenient by comparison, but then again, if wikipedia ran a prison, HA! Still, it is the same concept, exile. Pointless to make it 'indef' too, should be like 5 years or something, so we can get back the ones who do mature. Penyulap ☏ 06:18, 3 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I wished I'd seen this when the discussion was still active - I agree we have some problems that are captured in the innocent prisoner's dilemma article. We may not be operating a prison system, but we take actions that remind me of it. I added an item to my to-do list, to work on an essay opposing indef blocks (with technical exceptions), the motivation was very much in line with the thinking that we have adopted a prison mentality.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Propose adding the following under the Purpose and goals section (that section is near the top of the article):

While each situation is different, editors should be able to have a reasonable expectation of the response to a given breach of Wikipedia protocol. Inconsistent blocks for similar behavior lead to editor and administrator confusion and resentment, which can affect the long-term morale of an editor. The rationale for the block duration and scope should be consistent with the action and consistent with the expectations of other administrators and editors for the given situation. If in doubt, ask your fellow editors or administrators for advice.

I'm a fan of admin discretion, but I'm not a fan of unfair application of rules. In addition, some blocks seem to exceed the necessary scale to be 'preventative' and seem to cross into the threshold of 'punative', which is supposed to be avoided.

In addition, this frequently stated rule of thumb about a doubling cube approach to defining new blocks seems to have a veneer of objectivity, but seems to ignore the block policy requirement that blocks be 'preventative', with blocks frequently exponentially increasing, not based on a rational connection to the offense, but based on a false premise that exponential increase of blocks is somehow in line with prevention rather than simply punishing a user out of proportion to the actual offense.

I would suggest that certain actions have a suggested block length, and that administrators work together on some framework of standard and consistent and fair block lengths and communicate these clearly to one another, as well as to regular editors. As always, administrator discretion should still be at work, but administrators should have a clear reason for departing from a pre-established block, ban, protection, or 'other' guideline.

I believe that this kind of approach to discipline and corrective action will lead to a more positive environment for editors and admins alike, since it will be a much more objective and standards-based approach than having each admin be his or her own guide for whatever is reasonable. -- Avanu (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if consensus will develop to adopt such guidelines, but I think that the guidelines need to come first. Monty₈₄₅ 04:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Avanu some of these ideas may not exist in policy but do in practice. The doubling cube rule of thumb is usually only applied when there are persistent problems (of the same kind or that spill over from broadly, the same conflict). There are almost defined block times with regard to 3RR (24 multiples) except in the case of recidivism. Violations of WP:OUTING or WP:NLT are indefinite.
Being a sysop requires as much competence as it does discretion we don't always get it right and when we don't it gets corrected quickly (furthermore we test how competent a user is at RFA).
For me, again while this is well intentioned it makes a core mistake - codifying blocks into mandatory lengths makes them punitive (a defied punishment for a defined action), leaving them at the sysop's discretion doesn't - a sysop will always lift a block once the user accepts that they erred and agrees to abide by wp:5. This practice takes time to learn (after that's why we have advice for new admins) but it doesn't need to be codified beyond what is already written into policy.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding in a number of posts in recent days about WP:BLOCK and the rest of policy, many posters imply that everything should be here - it shouldn't. Each policy has its own wording on what measures to take in the case of violation: eg. on WP:NLT, users breaking the policy "will not be allowed to continue editing until it is resolved" (ie an indefinite block).
The only instances in which a block is not preventative is when it is to enforce a ban or if it's mandated by ArbCom rulings (ie ArbCom blocks or Enforcement) these are as the big red box on WP:ARE says: "designed to be coercive" (see WP:AEBLOCK for more info). Blocks (not AEBLOCKs) that exceed the normal rubric are always overturned and can always be queried at AN. Further policy on policy about policy is only instruction creep--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The pic is from Alan's talkpage, and it is by far and away the essentialist focal point of the project. Policy pages exist for new editors to follow, not to serve the luxury of the admins or established editors. Using them as a concealed control will all end in tears. Penyulap ☏ 20:09, 7 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Penyulap, you've already had warning to stop casting aspersions and abusing the talk space. You're crossing the line here. Nobody is concealing anything - it's time for you to take a step back and drop the stick--Cailil ^talk 02:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What I see from your comment is your looking at the proposal from an admin perspective, the assumption they should know everything and so on, nobody is suggesting that there needs to be more policy just for the admins, you may be right there, but does that address the the issue being raised ? What I can see is the proposal is to help all editors, not just the admins, so I suggest you could re-read the proposal and see how it would help the regular non-admin editors, because you don't seem to have addressed that at all. Penyulap ☏ 04:05, 8 Jul 2012 (UTC)