Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 18#Unblocking bot accounts

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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=306113495 here], [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34392 here] and [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34394 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 [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34392 Leaks] [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34394 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Changing_username&diff=458526573&oldid=458336493]. 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.. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&action=historysubmit&diff=456240108&oldid=456121507]

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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&action=historysubmit&diff=458355339&oldid=458354642]

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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&action=historysubmit&diff=458354642&oldid=458347051]

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)
• {{ec}}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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&action=historysubmit&diff=458339489&oldid=458338723 positive change] I have made recently was in response to a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABlocking_policy&action=historysubmit&diff=457230850&oldid=457220931 significantly larger bold change] made by another user. I am also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AChanging_username&action=historysubmit&diff=458532506&oldid=458530815 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)

:::::::{{ec}} 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 [http://toolserver.org/~unblock Unblock Ticket Request System] as a replacement for the unblock-en-l{{@}}lists.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)

• question Is there any expected time frame for this RfC? Meaning, 7 days? 30 days? The reason I ask is that my time on wiki is spotty, and will be for the next couple weeks; but I do want to throw my 2-cents in. At first blush, I'm inclined to support for many reasons, but agree that the couple opposes do have valid points. I'd like time to review and research a bit before committing a definitive support. (or oppose). — Ched :  ?  18:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

:*As long as it needs... --Jayron32 18:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• As per previous similar proposals on AN, this one also has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. I suggest early closure, because it's already proving to be a waste of time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• :Calm your liver. If it passes it passes, if it fails it fails, but its been open 20 hours and 8 people have commented. I wouldn't call 8 people "the community". Give it a few days. Seriously. If you don't like it, vote oppose and get it over with. But don't feel the need to prevent other people from discussing proposals you don't personally like. --Jayron32 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• :: Thanks for your kind concern for my health. I've already !voted support in case you didn't notice. Based on the preliminary discussion, I just don't think this going to have the necessary support to make a policy change. The WP:V 1st sentence change was rejected even though the !vote was 2:1 in favor. Good luck. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
• :::I'd also say that in general avoiding immediate commentary one way or another is the wisest course of action - that avoids any possibility of losing face if one want's to change their mind. Giving people a chance to think about this properly is probably sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• : I'd also mention that we are into the weekend now and I can easily imagine that many editors do less editing during that time due to items they may want to engage in in their real lives. And yep - WP:V is indeed a very tough audience. (also - thank you Jayron32 for a very well designed proposal.) — Ched :  ?  22:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

{{anchor|Montanabw}}

• Comment: I see a need, perhaps for three different things here. 1) A default status in general when, AFTER DISCUSSION, there is no consensus - i.e. if no consensus, then unblocked is the default. In principle, I like that and support the need for a default standard. BUT there is also 2) Blocks used on people actively and currently being quite disruptive -- vandals or real mean-spirited, attacking sorts. These need to not be subject to wheel-warring and unblocked too hastily, as sometimes the disruption starts right up again. It's good to give these sorts of things a few days to sort themselves out, give everyone time to weigh in, and be sure that the "consensus" reached is a real one and not simply a dogpile in one direction or another. BUT 3) Then we have the long term blocks, which usually are for users with a lot of experience but also a lot of baggage -- not the immediate vandal-type abusers who need (and deserve) fast, firm short blocks (which often reform those sorts quickly or they leave quickly). These longer term discussions are probably are the most in need of the default concept, that, summed up, may mean that if there are 10,000 supporters on one side and 10,001 opposes on the other that after two weeks of yammering around and around with no clear consensus in either direction, just everyone repeating themselves, the default is unblock. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• Seems very sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• : I also see a lot of sense in these comments. Geometry guy 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
• ::Sounds good to me, but it's going to be tricky to word it as policy. How exactly would you describe the difference between situation 1 (where the user should be unblocked) and situation 2 (where they shouldn't)? Something like 'where there is no consensus on whether a block is appropriate, the user should be unblocked, except when they are likely to disrupt Wikipedia'? That seems a bit like begging the question, particularly if the question of whether they will disrupt Wikipedia is the very matter there was no consensus about... Robofish (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I still feel like this is a solution in search of a problem. Further rules (even soft cultural ones) should arise when there is a need. Can we please list some blocks that were perceived as problematic? Not discussing the blocks themselvs, please, just listing them so that we can see if they are worth discussing. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

:See WP:AN and WP:ANI. It's a rare day where there isn't a thread on one or both of those noticeboards asking for a review of a block; if there isn't one today, check the archives. You'll find thousands of such discussions. --Jayron32 01:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

::More rules won't stop bad judgment. If a block needs to be discussed, don't do it. Blocking is a last resort, to be used only when other options won't work, and when it is obvious that the block is correct. Jehochman ^Talk 01:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

:: Respectfully, Jayron, that's a non-response. 1) The simple presence of threads asking for review of a block would not indicate that there was a problem with first-mover's advantage. 2) The burden of proof is typically on the person making the claim. If you say that this is an issue, it's best if you don't just wave your hands and say "look there!" Particularly if there are thousands than it's no burden for you to provide an example. 3)There's nothing I see on ANI or AN right now that falls under "first mover." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I can pull up one right now, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement started over exactly this issue, and is exactly the kind of block that results in contentiousness. Indeed, many of these sorts of blocks end up at ArbCom eventually, which only shows that the community has not, as yet, devised a way to deal with them equitably. See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FCase&action=historysubmit&diff=462191040&oldid=462182911 this case which was declined] titled "Unblocks and enabling". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling is yet another one. There are many such ArbCom cases and ANI threads where the community doesn't show the ability to be able to decide how to handle when a long-term, polarizing editor is blocked. The idea behind this is that, when there is no consensus to block, a person should not be blocked. Period. It would head-off a lot of problems which clearly exist. I understand that you oppose this idea, Aaron Brenneman, and I would feel fine with you voting oppose, but I find it troublesome that you seek to short-circuit the discussion by refusing to acknowledge an open problem. --Jayron32 04:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: To be fair it is possible that, like me, he is thinking about how he will comment before committing to !voting one way or another.

:::: I have to say I do prefer Montanabw's wording as it addresses the actual issue without affecting anything wider. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

::::: I think his wording is great as well. This discussion is intended to be a starting point, and not an end, and I certainly don't have any attachment to my wording or to the final result of the discussion per se, but it is important that we have the discussion as a community, given the obvious problem. I'm most concerned with resolution, not necessarily any particular resolution, excepting solving the problem in a way that works. --Jayron32 14:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: Jayron, please consider how the tone of your response affects the way debate continues. That aside, if we only have two examples, do we really think that this is a problem worth discussion? Further, I am able to disagree with you that there's a problem (which I have not, please note, done) without it being somehow disruptive to the discussion. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

::::: One of those examples led to over 100 people commenting on an Arbcom request - its clearly a problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::: Again, that's handwaving. How any of those "over 100" commenting raised the issue of first mover? What is the "it" that is clearly a problem? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

:::::::The case is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement Nobody Ent 01:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• I also like Montanabw's views. I think she says things well. — Ched :  ?  04:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How would the examples given above have been different if the "no consensus on blocking means unblocked" guideline had been in place? For the civility case, are we talking about Hawkeye's block? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

: No, Thumperward's. And here's the problem: a principle that "no consensus on blocking means unblocked" would have added further support to John's unblock, because there was certainly no consensus for the block. However, the very process of undoing another admin's action, while the issue remains a bone of contention, can itself be disruptive, as it turned out to be in this case. This is one reason I proposed shortening no consensus blocks, rather than simply undoing them. Geometry guy 11:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

: Another ongoing example is Wikipedia:ANI#On-wiki_harrassment.2C_POV_editing.2C_and_off-wiki_attacks. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

::Is it really better to have to argue about whether to block or unblock her, rather than having a definitive answer one way or another?

::While there are some technical issues with the unblock its fairly clear Arbcom is looking at them, and I'm not sure the unblock per-say is that problematic, especially given the person it affects seems to have been happy to give another chance. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone considered the irony of having very detailed processes in place to delete articles (including discussions being open for 7 days), but to revoke an editors' access to wikipedia requires one blocking admin and "no-consensus" at ANI? We should propose to re-write the deletion policy so that the first admin to delete it gains first-mover advantage, and require undeletions to go through ANI/AN. 204.50.172.132 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

: I've thought about this, and I think we need to be more discriminating. It's true that AfDs last as long you say they do, but we also have WP:CSD. Even in the sanctions arena, we already have a distinction like that. Bans of all kinds (topic, interaction and even site ban) normally require community consensus (or ArbCom decision), except in WP:AE "free fire zones" (I mean WP:Discretionary sanctions). There is an obvious philosophical disagreement between those wanting the entire Wikipedia to be a free fire zone for admins, and those who think long-term content contributors should be shown more deference. ArbCom has inclined more towards the latter lately. I think a practical step towards mitigating this conflict would be to detail some types of "infractions" for which AE-type (first-mover advantage, "speedy") blocks can be imposed. And also detail other types that would require AfD-type consensus to be established first (disallowing first-mover advantage), making the decision making process for those similar to that for bans. For instance, WP:close paraphrasing would probably fit in the latter category. Thoughts? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

::In general, ASCIIIn2BMe / MontanaBMW's ideas are good. The most difficult situation might be Montana's #2 which an editor under discussion is continuing with questionable behavior while the discussion is ongoing.

::The Afd is false analogy -- articles are inanimate passive things; editors are people who actively change the encyclopedia. Nobody Ent 11:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

::: With regards arguing the false analogy fallacy, the expectation is not that two items are completely alike, but rather they share enough qualities that we can draw inferences from one item to another. For articles that do not assert notability there is speedy deletion, and for people who are immediately disrupting the encyclopedia - there are immediate blocks for disruption/vandalism accounts. For established articles where the notability is asserted, there is a discussion that occurs prior to action being taken. If a user is not actively disrupting the encyclopedia, there is no reason for a block until consensus can be reached. However, I don't think the solution is to block users when discussion can still occur, and rely on ANI to bring forward a consensus where it clearly isn't structured appropriately for it. 204.50.15.4 (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

:Arguably, articles are more valuable than editors to Wikipedia. Articles are our core content: getting rid of an article directly affects the Wikipedia product in a way that getting rid of an editor doesn't (not directly, anyway), which is why it usually requires consensus in a discussion over at least several days. To put it another way, articles are essential to Wikipedia; editors are disposable. (This may sound like a somewhat extreme philosophy, but when you think about it it's a fair description of how Wikipedia works.) Robofish (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

:: Actually, a recent essay, Wikipedia:Wikipedia does not need you, argues the same point. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::: Rebutted by an even more recent essay Zeroth law of Wikipedia. Short version: who writes the articles? Nobody Ent 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

::::I've addressed this issue in my !vote. WP has no rules but two: (1) those imposed by office actions (laws) and by ARBCOM and (2) those which the community's consensus puts upon ourselves. Leaving (1) to the side, since methinks nothing can change it, we're left with our own rules. The overriding rule is freedom of action (we default to unblock, keep articles, non-compliance with BS stuff) unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. And whatever rule is adopted (be it by block or deletion or some policy/guideline etc.) it remains binding only so long as the consensus to keep it remains. We know consensus can change. WP:CCC. This is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY where you need 2/3 to override a veto or some such mess. A rule than cannot demonstrate a current consensus is no rule at all; nothing is kept in place solely because someone got there first. Article titles are moved around (the first author's title - even if it had consensus at the time - may not be where it ends up); categories come and go (the first editor's organizational ideas - even if they had consensus at the time - may not be retained); many of the various policies and guidelines, etc., were established without much discussion or evidence of consensus (especially as they are freely editable and it's hard to be bound to a contract which is altered after you've signed); and finally, blocking. The blocking policy is just one among many of WP's policies - no more magical and mystical than any other. So, we should default to unblocked. But, from a practical point of view, most blocks are not very controversial; and I expect few will be overturned by a lack of consensus - especially, if the blocked party continues the behavior that got them blocked after unblocking - we should at least make the words match the reality. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

In order to address the valid concerns expressed regarding hasty decisions I propose the following modification:

:"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion). If a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking nor an administrator unblocking in response to an unblock request."

With regards to the unblock the intent to to allow a legitimately blocked editor who posts a good unblock request -- "Yes I understand I screwed up, I won't do that anymore" to get unblocked.

If this is reasonable, then I'd suggest the next step would be to strike through the original proposal, notify all previous participants and revote. Nobody Ent 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. I think you need to specify that if a block is being discussed on a noticeboard, unblock requests must be put on hold pending the outcome of the discussion. If ANI is heatedly discussing a block of user:Foo, admin Bar should not swoop in and make a one-person decision as to whether to block or unblock Foo - a discussion is ongoing, and it's no single admin's place to supplant the outcome of community discussion with a unilateral opinion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

::One condition in the unblocking section is "a commitment to change is given." Are you suggesting modifying this, only allowing unblock with consent of blocking admin, or something else that I'm just not getting?

::Would that imply a burden for an admin reviewing an unblock request to do a search on noticeboard(s) before applying an unblock? Nobody Ent 18:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

:::I think (and this is more or less just taking shape in my mind as we discuss it, so feel free to ask more questions if they occur to you) I'm suggesting that we draw a line in the unblocking policy between uncontentious blocks - which can easily be reviewed via template by a single admin, and unblocks granted if a commitment to change, etc is given - and contentious blocks - blocks that are the subject of ongoing discussion, blocks where the blocking admin opposes an unblock, etc, where a unilateral unblock, via template or via just happening upon it, should not be granted due to the possibility that it would be in defiance of community discussion. This should, ideally, call for no little or no more effort on the part of the unblock-reviewing admin than usual, because a user whose block is being discussed on AN or ANI would have an AN/ANI notice on their talk page - the reviewing admin, who can already reasonably be expected to survey the contents of the user's talk, would then see that and be aware that the block is being discussed. Similarly, if the blocking admin opposes unblock or wants the user to make further concessions before unblock, that will often be found on the blocked user's talk page. Yes, this isn't perfect, and it's not unexpected that an admin might miss that discussion is ongoing, but my expectation is that if an admin unblocks and then discovered that the community is reviewing whether an unblock is warranted, the unblocker would restore the block on the basis of "oops, potential for community consensus trumps my own thoughts on this issue; it's inappropriate to short-circuit that process".

In short, if the community is on the case, the community has dibs on deciding the block's fate; no admin ought to step in before that and single-handedly moot the community's discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

::::That makes sense as far as my second point -- as I never personally block/unblock my understanding is somewhat abstract. I guess the expectation that given a reasonable "commitment to change" consensus would likely shift pretty quickly to unblock. I've struck the last phrase from the proposal. Nobody Ent 19:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(indent) Same objection as before - How have we shown that this is enough of a problem to require more instruction creep, more layers of complexity, more opportunities for disruptive Gnomic-like discussions? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

: Have you paid attention to the recent civility case at Arbcom? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

:: Yes. And it's been pointed to several times in quite vague terms. I haven't looked in a few days, but it's closed now so if "first mover" was important, it'd be somewhere in the principles or findings of fact at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Proposed decision, right? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

:::In a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=461298281#Unblocks_and_enabling declined arbcom case] the committee told us explicitly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=461298281#motion_9:_Ball_is_in_community.27s_court the ball is in the community's court], suggesting as one alternative a "community led Rfc" Nobody Ent 10:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

:::The current policy results in Black swan events; while relatively rare, they consume [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=467564070 significant wikiresources]. It will be too late once the next event occurs, as comments are then interpreted as biased towards/against the editor and admins in question. It is best to strike while the iron is cold. Nobody Ent 12:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

:::: Only one committee member supported the "balls in court" thing, though, am I correct in that? (Two opposed two abstained.) And the second link you've provided is the civility case prior to rename, correct? Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding your answer to the question. I'll try to rephrase: In your edit to this page of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy&diff=478177530&oldid=478173389 01:39, 22 February 2012], you explicitly pointed out the Civility_enforcement case as an example of why this change was required. Is that still your opinion? How do you reconcile that with the fact that (unless I'm missing something) nothing on first-mover's made it into the final product? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

::::: If this policy or equivalent was in effect, John doesn't do the unblock which leads to Hawkeye7 not doing the reblock and it's possible the issue could have been resolved without an ArbCom case. Nobody Ent 02:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion). If a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking."

; Support

Hopefully allows us to move forward while addressing concerns previously raised. Nobody Ent 16:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

; Oppose

• I find this more palatable than it was in its initial form, but I still can't side with defaulting to unblocking due to the ease with which "no consensus" can be gamed by a few people overwhelming a thread with heated commentary, or friends-of-blockee piling in to protect them. I could support "if a block has been imposed, a time period of 24 hours must pass before unblocking due to no consensus. This does not preclude the block admin from unblocking" as a stand-alone change to the policy, but I can't support the rest of the content proposed here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

; Discussion

• So, assuming we adopt this proposal, what's preventing an admin from blocking someone every 24hrs while this "no consensus" situation exists? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

:That's covered by existing practices Nobody Ent 03:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

:: I was tempted to reply that it doesn't apply to admins. Seriously, if your fix for a policy flaw in a hotheaded area is a change that requires common sense in order to avoid abuse, then we're better off with no change at all. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

:I definitely support the simplest change as suggested User:Fluffernutter. I think there is value in making the most conservative change first, and I think this change should resolve the worst of the current behaviour which is clearly extremely swift unblocking after a very short time. Even if the 24 hours isn't followed strictly 16 hours or so is still probably enough. I think this change should solve 80% of the problems which led to this being discussed, and further changes can be done later if necessary. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• FYI, this contravenes current policy at WP:CONSENSUS: "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." I'm going to leave a note there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• :Not really. WP:Consensus merely gives some simple examples of what other policies and guidelines say to do if there is no consensus. WP:Consensus does not establish what the correct response should be. If this policy changes, then WP:Consensus will be updated to match it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
• By the way, I've deactivated the RfC tag because the listing has expired. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines&diff=next&oldid=479668482] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines&diff=next&oldid=481556360]. Clar voter fatigue at this point, so this should be tabled as "no consensus for anything". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Eraserhead1 and User:Nobody Ent both did a rollback losing several changes today in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=479561842&oldid=479560877 479561842] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&diff=479582181&oldid=479581851 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Blocking_policy&action=history]. 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)

{{undent}} 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)

{{Outdent}}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)

{{editsemiprotected|answered=yes}}

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)

:{{tick}} 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harry_Houdini&diff=482285777&oldid=482231916 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=495456103#Block_review_requested_for_Historiographer 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=495456103#proposed_ban_duration_of_14_days 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)

File:Matthias stom young man reading by candlelight.jpg
that we should consider on each and every edit we make to Wikipedia..

]]

:::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)