| Revision as of 16:32, 28 September 2006 editTyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits →Living people on user pages: I think it is best to keep it in the context of BLP.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:07, 29 December 2024 edit undoYamla (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators147,876 editsm Reverted edits by 2601:18D:77F:74D0:A9D5:D7EA:5E3E:37F9 (talk) to last version by YamlaTag: Rollback | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Policy-talk}} | |||
| {{shortcut|]}} | |||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:BP|WT:BLOCK}} | |||
| {{tmbox|type=content|text={{center|{{large|'''This is not the page to report problems to administrators<br/>or request blocks.'''}}}} | |||
| This page is for discussion of the ] itself. | |||
| {| class="infobox" width="270px" | |||
| * Report incidents such as block evasion at ''']'''. | |||
| |- | |||
| * Report violations of the ] at ''']'''. | |||
| !align="center"|]<br/>] | |||
| * Report active, persistent vandals at ''']'''. | |||
| ---- | |||
| * Report violations of arbitration remedies at ''']'''. | |||
| |- | |||
| }} | |||
| | | |||
| {{WikiProject Policy}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{merged-from|Misplaced Pages:GlobalBlocking|18 October 2012}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Block on demand|25 July 2016}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=4|units=months|index=/Archive index}} | |||
| *] | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| *] | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 24 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index | |||
| |mask=/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| == Block policy adding request == | |||
| I request add this in policy: | |||
| Unblock request should be review by another administrator (not the blocker). | |||
| == Bothering good editors == | |||
| This probably won't fly on wp-en, but on wp-de apparently it's acceptable to block someone if they're disturbing good editors and keeping them from contributing at their normal rate. Since we are writing an encyclopedia, not creating a community, this makes sense... if some account appears, contributes no content, and just goes around antagonizing well-meaning editors, right now it is difficult to block them if they know "the rules" and are careful not to make actual personal attacks, violate 3RR, do anything that fits under disruption, etc. | |||
| It may help for the unjust administrator to make malice block and block the appear. ] (]) 07:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Why not allow blocking of people who contribute nothing or essentially nothing to articles, but contribute a great deal of argumentative comments? --] 13:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's already there: "]" This is the policy on the English Misplaced Pages; the Chinese Misplaced Pages may have different rules. ] (]) 07:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == PBLOCK community consensus == | |||
| :I'd be wary of doing this due to the potential for abuse. I think the existing ability to block for disruption or community ban for general stupidity covers these problems. ] 03:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ''Partial blocks may be used at the discretion of any administrator in accord with the rest of the blocking policy, or community consensus.'' | |||
| :I agree with ] on this. It would be very hard to define any clear rules, and users would probably waste more time dealing with arguments than simply reverting bad editors in the existing way.--] 18:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| What does this mean? Is it simply saying that a community discussion can result in a PBLOCK, or is something further intended? If the latter, I'd like to amend the sentence to ''Partial blocks may be imposed at the discretion...blocking policy, or may be imposed by community consensus.'' ] (]) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Google Web Accelerator == | |||
| I was recently getting messages saying I was blocked because somebody was using my IP address for vandalism; I found this wholly unlikely because my IP is static. If I clicked "Edit this page" several times, I'd be allowed to do so. Moreover, the IP address listed was not my own; I used some DNS tools and the IP is used by Google. I found that by disabling Google Web Accelerator, I haven't run into any problems, though it could just be a coincidence. Perhaps this is worth noting somewhere... more official so that other users can benefit from this. If its already been mentioned, then I guess I just didn't look hard enough. --] 04:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the correct solution is to use "Don't Accelerate These Sites" feature within GWA and add WP to the list of unaccelerated sites. Obviously GWA will pick up blocked IPs over time so this step will be needed for all WP users who elect to use GWA (until Google figures it out and automatically removes WP from its acceleration list). ] 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :See also , which implies that GWA is ''illegal'' as a way to access WP, since it effectively anonymizes the user's IP. Comments invited. ] 22:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've always understood it to mean that partial blocks may be placed in any way that a full block can be - i.e. in circumstances articulated in the blocking policy or in any other circumstances if there is a community consensus to do so. That would mean your proposed change would not alter the meaning but may clarify it. ] (]) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'd have to agree wholeheartedly on this. I was thinking about what the implications were, and allowing GWA didn't seem all that good of an idea. If it is indeed the cases of using GWA, I think this should be made much more public so other users can find out about this. --] 22:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::When partial blocks were the new hotness there was much fear of the unknown which got hashed out at ]. One of the questions was "Should partial blocks be limited to community consensus only?" That got voted down nearly unanimously, and the "discretion of any administrator" language came out of that RFC close. ] ] 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::PS, I can't think of any reason a discussion at ] or ] couldn't end with "There is broad consensus by the community to ban User:Foo from Some Namespace (or from some specific list of articles)". The community passes bans like that all the time. Bans state the will of the community. Blocks are just a way to technical way to enforce a ban. If the community banned somebody from (for example) a namespace and that user violated that ban, I suppose an admin could then impose the corresponding pblock to enforce the ban, but I think it's more likely they would just block the user completely; that's usually what happens when users disregard community-imposed restrictions. ] ] 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see anything needing changing; admins can make unilateral partial blocks (e.g. in cases of edit warring) or at the close of a discussion where consensus is achieved (e.g. an article subject who can't be neutral on their article). ] (]) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblocks of a global block == | |||
| The Google Web Accelerator sets the ]: HTTP header, which indicates the user's original IP address. Is the MediaWiki code not making use of that fact? Obviously you don't always want to trust X-Forwarded-For, since a hooligan could set their own on non-proxied connections. But you ''do'' want to trust it for known proxies. --] 03:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Reading the most recent ], do we feel like current blocking policy covers the situations where we would unblock someone on enwiki who is blocked globally or do we need to hash out new language for it? I genuinely don't know how I would handle such a request which maybe reflects that this isn't the normal area I work or maybe reflects something that needs clarifying. Best, ] (]) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| GWA doesn't proxy POST requests, so it can't be used for vandalism. The problem comes when a blocked user requests an edit page with GET, then the autoblocker will block the proxy. Subsequent requests for edit pages from the same proxy will show a block message. A POST request would work just fine if the user was able to download the form to post. Indeed we do use the XFF header for known proxies, see ], but at the moment, we don't have a list of GWA proxies. -- ] 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:Yeah, I saw that. To be honest, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where we'd want to locally unblock somebody who is globally blocked. Accounts don't get globally blocked without a good reason. ] ] 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | ||
| ::Given how new global blocking is, I'm not sure I have a sense of what people will get globally blocked for and thus not sure how often enwiki might reach a different conclusion about it. Best, ] (]) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing I am sure about is that having two different features named "global block" and "global lock" is guaranteed to create confusion. ] ] 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::There is a plan to merge global locking into global blocking (though the name may still remain on-wiki) at {{phab|T373388}}. Not planned for the short term though. ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 17:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::One thing to note is that global blocking for accounts was developed so that there would be a way to prevent ] from editing on all wikis. If you lock a temporary account it just allows the user to get a new temporary account on their next edit. ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 17:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Of course not for en.wp at this time, but I think about cases like Malnadach and Slowking as perhaps illustrative. There may be less difficult cases also, perhaps global blocks will come first for VOAs or other not-difficult cases instead of locks and they'll be able to appeal on particular projects. ]] (]) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I just want to mention that we already locally unblock global IP blocks with existing policy. ], and admittedly has a different flavour. Personally I think we should cross whatever bridge when it happens. And it should by default go in front of the community on a noticeboard (do we need to actually write that? I don't know). The only thing we shouldn't be doing (and I don't know how relevant that is here) is to undo an office action, but I think that's probably adequately documented under the office policy. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wonder what should happen with the "request glock" feature of ]? The SPI templates support flags for this, and User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js (which I guess is orphaned at this point) has functionality to make the requests on meta. Should we switch that over to using gblock instead of glock, or expose both options? ] ] 17:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Or maybe ]! ] ] 17:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::We will need to consider this for temporary accounts, as global blocks is the only method to prevent them editing cross-wiki (global locks don't work as I've mentioned above). ] <sup>'']'' | '']''</sup> 17:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I generally agree with Zzuuzz that this should be handled on a case by case basis. However I would say that rather than {{tpq|by default go in front of the community on a noticeboard}} that local unblocks should only happen as a result of a consensus at a community noticeboard (I don't have a strong feeling about which board), and I do think it worth explicitly saying this. When there have been enough of both global blocks and local appeals of global blocks that we have a reasonable feel about why they get applied, what grounds people appeal them on and what the response to the appeals is, we can amend the policy to reflect what is and is not controversial in practice. To that end it might (or might not) be worth explicitly marking it as a temporary policy that will only apply to the first say 10 appeals with a mandatory discussion to keep, remove or amend at that point (such a discussion need not be more heavyweight than a "This seems to be working well, we'll mark it as permanent unless anybody objects in the next week" or "in practice these are uncontroversial, does anyone object to just replacing the policy with a note saying whether to accept, decline or discuss is an individual admin's discretion?"). ] (]) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Here's the thing. As Roy mentions above, global blocks are different than global locks. So I agree with what @] and @] are saying about global locks - they need either community input or ArbCom concurrance. Global blocks are a whole different new thing and my gut tells me they should be handled more like a normal unblock - given that the user might have done nothing wrong on enwiki before being globally blocked even - than an unlock where sometimes they need community input but normally not. Best, ] (]) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If it turns out some or all local appeals ''are'' uncontroversial then we can remove the consensus required provision when we know that, but until we do know who is getting blocked, who is appealing and what the community attitude to those appeals is, I'm not confident that individual admins will know enough to know what is and isn't going to be controversial, what is a reasonable grounds for appeal and what isn't. If some appeals are uncontroversial then consensus to unblock will develop quickly (I'm not proposing a quorum, minimum discussion length or anything like that) and nobody loses. ] (]) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think if we start with the highest cost option - everything must be community reviewed - it's unlikely we would ever go back to a lower cost option. I appreciate the work Izno and Roy are doing below in getting this onwiki so we don't have to talk hypothetically. Best, ] (]) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I put a request in the ear of a steward to move onwiki the discussion stewards are having about global blocks, so perhaps we won't have to just "come up with something" without considering the dimensions they'll be thinking about. :) That feels like the primary blocker to thinking about the problem. ] (]) 22:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've also been interfacing with some steward ear today. From what I can tell, they're as unsure about all this as we are. ] ] 00:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocking IP addresses == | |||
| I've just stumbled across this discussion and it explains why I've been getting these random blocks showing a variety of IP addresses for some time (I'm on a static IP address as well). It would be '''really''' useful if this information could be posted somewhere more visible than this. Happy to do so if someone could point me in the right direction. Thanks --] 18:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I have come across an indefinite rangeblock which has not been cancelled although 16 years old. The range is 66.197.128.0/17. Can it be removed? ] (]) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Block length == | |||
| :That IP address belongs to Netflix. Nobody should be editing from there. I'm not seeing any reason to lift the block, would you mind elaborating why you think this is necessary? --] (]) 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The IP is unable to reply, as it was used by ] to evade their ban. ] (]) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I have changed the section which states that the maximum block length for static IPs is one month to say that it is indefinite, as this seems to be the general consensus. I have seen static IPs blocked indefinately on several occasions and ] exists.--] <sup>]</sup> 09:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| ] | |||
| == Role accounts == | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Blocking policy}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Is there something about role accounts somewhere? I cannot find it at the moment; some help would be nice :-) --] 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :There is something about ''Public accounts'', which is not quite the same thing. The authority for role accounts is ] which says that role accounts are ''not officially sanctioned'' and are ''likely to be blocked''. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 18:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Extend the blocking templates to give more information? == | |||
| Would it be an idea to add more information to the block templates? For example, ] currently reads: | |||
| :<div style="clear: both"></div>{{{1|] }}}'''You have been temporarily ] from editing for vandalism of Misplaced Pages.''' Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of ] are considered ]. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. <!-- Template:Test5 --> | |||
| This gives no information on when the block expires, with no indications on how to find out, or mention that the user can still edit their talk page, or tell the user which edit they have been blocked because of. ] does some way towards this, by telling the user how long they have been blocked for, but it's still not ideal, or in common use. The rest of the blocked templates are no better. I'm not sure of the best place to ask this, as it's not tied down to a single template. ] 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Why not try {{]}}? I love it. --] (]) 17:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I hadn't seen that template. It's better than the others, but not there yet. It should really link to this page, and preferably note how to contest the block (see ]). Also, I'm more after making this a common thing, something that will be used in the majority of cases, rather than something that the odd admin will do. (Note: I'm not an admin. I can't block people, so don't use these templates myself. I just see a lot of them on my wiki travels.) ] 17:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Please note that I've also started up a (more in-depth) discussion about this at ]. ] 22:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm in favour of at least an optional duration parameter on ''all'' block templates. <b>]</b> 10:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Proposal == | |||
| I propose that admins should only issue blocks in cases of vandalism and 3RR. For blocks for personal attacks, incivility etc., a fast process managed not only by admins should be established, something like AfD. Currently, admins issue far too much punitive blocks, and block for minor incivlities or personal attacks, whereas the policies only speak about "extreme" cases. Admins will however never follow these policies strictly (for themselves) because it is easier for them to block right away. It has become a common practice among the admins not to follow the policies, and any reference to the non-punitive and only-in-extreme-cases rules is likely to be called wikilawyering. A good example of that practice is the Friday/Zoe conflict, see AN and AN/I for your reference. Zoe issued a punitive block, for an userbox - which can never ever be an ''extreme'' violation of anything, Friday undid his/her mistake and Zoe threatened to wheel-war over the issue. | |||
| I will not discuss the reasons for the need of virtual "muscles" that is evident in what many admins do here, I just suggest that their powers be lessened. <br> | |||
| Please sign with your four tildes under Support or Oppose.<br> | |||
| '''Support''' | |||
| #Ackoz 20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC) for the reasons given above. | |||
| '''Oppose''' | |||
| #'''Strong Oppose''' Personal attacks and incivility are disruptive, and a block usually will put the person in line and saves us time from trying to resolve lost causes and get back to editing and improving WP. --] 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose''' All those editors debating the issue in an AfD-like forum would be better off working to improve content and fight vandals. The blocking cases are usually very straightforward, and this is a big reason why we have admins. In the case of a mistake it can be easily corrected. The Zoe/Friday case resulted in a misleading and potentially dangerous template being improved. I see no need for big changes. ] 21:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. This is a bad idea, I think. By the way, ]. --] (]) 18:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. This would all take too long and risk wasting a lot of everyone's time, in my view. A short sharp shock often does the trick, and there are mechanisms for putting things right if one individual admin is a bit hard on someone.--] 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #:The rules used to be like what I said, but got changed as admins wanted more power. This creates two categories of users. Fair enough. ] 09:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #'''Oppose'''. To be granted admin status, editors have to have gained the trust of the community, which would include trust that they can make a judgment on when it's appropriate to block. If a block is inappropriate, it can be undone by another admin, though that should be after discussion with the blocking admin, or at ]. Admins who repeatedly make inappropriate blocks will eventually be taken to ], and can be desysopped. It's not something that happens frequently — certainly not frequently enough to justify such a proposal. | |||
| #'''Strong Oppose''' Agree with ]. Neither personal attacks and incivility nor vandalism and 3RR is helpful to Misplaced Pages, being instead extremely disruptive and hindering to contributions by good-faith editors. ] 10:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == policy on the "community ban" == | |||
| As the policy is ], a community ban comes about by: | |||
| #an editor is blocked ("a user....finds themselves blocked") | |||
| #there is supposed to be a way of showing that there is "widespread community support for the block" and notice of the block is given at ] | |||
| #If there is community support for the block then the user is considered banned and is listed at ]. | |||
| In practice, community bans do not always follow the written policy. Practice now seems to include this path to a community ban: | |||
| #someone suggests at ] that a ban be imposed on a Misplaced Pages editor. | |||
| #If there is consensus at ] for such a ban, then the newly banned editor is listed at ] | |||
| #The banned editor is blocked | |||
| This second path to a community ban seems very different than what is in the written policy. I think an effort needs to be made to put it into written policy. | |||
| I think an effort should also be made to have a simple way to trace the history of each community ban back through what should be a totally transparent process of establishing community consensus. As things stand, it is difficult to trace back through to the origin of some community bans. For example, ] seems to provide an example a decision to ban an editor that was made while the editor was not blocked. In this case, I can find no discussion or notice of the ban/block at ]. Part of the problem in making sense of past community bans is that many banned users edit from multiple accounts. | |||
| Another way that practice seems to have diverged from the original intent of the written policy is in terms of judging community consensus. A specific recent example of a community ban is . In that case, the community ban was suggested at 18:21, 24 July 2006. The community ban was put into effect at about 21:54, 24 July 2006 after one other Wikipedian agreed to the "community" ban. If establishing "widespread community support" for community bans is no longer relevant, then the written policy should state this explicitly. --] 18:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Your point is well taken. Community bans should meet the standard of broad community support. I found the posting for the PoolGuy ban on AN at . It appears that one Admin proposed a ban at 05:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC). Only one other Admin stated support just eleven hours later at 14:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC). After that the first Admin imposed the permanent ban within 1 hour and 20 minutes at 16:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC). | |||
| :You are correct that ] was not blocked at the time and was editing with one account as ArbCom had suggested. PoolGuy was asking for attention to an issue that ArbCom had not addressed. The banning resulted in PoolGuy's issue not being addressed, and as a result of his persistence in seeing the issue addressed he continues to post the issue in numerous places to seek Admin attention with no end in sight. | |||
| :It appears that this turned into an example of ]. By banning PoolGuy the Admins created the situation they were trying to avoid. Addressing the issue brought up would have resolved it, without the need for taxing Admin time managing a banned user, when the banning was rushed without adequate discourse to determine if that was the best option of dealing with the user. This is another great example of users and Admins who do not follow written policy actually creating more issues than they resolve. ] 01:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ahh yes, the PoolGuy example. If I recall, he's vandalized ANI, he has about 100 sockpuppets, spammed dozens of userpages, and harassed those that had to deal with him. I've watched him bug pschemp constantly. I'm not surprised that he's yet to find an admin who really wants to unblock any of his accounts. He was under sanctions by the arbitration commitee, and under probation against disruptive editing of articles. His sockpuppet, GoldToeMarionetee picked up where poolguy left off (rather than peaceful editing) by spamming a couple dozen user talk pages with requests to vote stack. 3 administrators were in favor of a ban, along with the bunches of other ones who've had to block his floods of sockpuppets that probably agree by enforcing said community. There's no reasoning with poolguy, as he's yet to accept the block of a his alternate account who exhibited the same behavior as before with disruptive editing. He got his chance when the arbitration committee gave him a free pass to create a new account and peacefully edit, and blew it with attempt at votestacking immediately with the new account. ] 20:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Explanation of general blocking principle == | |||
| The language used here is taken directly from the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy (http://wikimediafoundation.org/Privacy_policy). These are the same conditions under which CheckUsers may reveal personal identifying information about an editor; it stands to reason that these same conditions are conditions under which blocks are appropriate. ] (]) 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Support without reservation. The wording seems a little broad if you don't have that context, though. Perhaps a footnote might be in order? ++]: ]/] 03:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Seems pretty pragmatic, and considering it's in the Privacy Policy, it's actually been ratified by the Board. - ] 03:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| As it is certainly not the most common type of block given out, I've bumped the section down from the top of the list where it previously resided. In addition, I've changed the name from 'General blocking principle', which I think implies it is more all-encompassing than it is in actuality, to 'Legal protection', which seems to more accurately describe its origins (the privacy policy). Feel free to comment and/or revert. ~ ] 11:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :No, that's entirely wrong. This is a general principle under which many blocks proceed. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be blocking people, and certainly should not be editing the blocking policy. ] (]) 14:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then out of complete honestly I admit I am not certain as to its implication. Could you perhaps give an example of its use? ~ ] 15:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I've reorganized the blocking policy to help clarify matters. Most of the "laundry list" of reasons given before are really elaborations of three basic reasons for blocking (blocks for disruption, blocks for protective purposes, and blocks pursuant to bans), and I've restructured the lists to reflect this better. I will probably do more refactoring in the future to make this more clear. ] (]) 17:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Execution of policy == | |||
| THis may seem like a stupid question, but are admins supposed to follow this actual policy as shown on the article page before/when blocking people or are they allowed to interpret it in any way they see fit? --] 02:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Non-responding editor? == | |||
| Hi. I am not good as this whole blocking and banning thing and may be asking a silly question. We have a problem with a new editor who uploads and changes and moves stuff about, but who refuses to respond to questions about his actions on his talk page. What headline is this under? It's not vandalism, but just Refusal To Engage in Communication with Other Editors (RECOE). Most of the dispute resolution suggestions begin by telling us to establish some kind of communication, but that idea seems to require two parties. Please help—a pointer to the relevant subsection of this or a related page will do. ] 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He must be warned then, if no response, on the next violation, blocked on grounds of ] etc!--] 17:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Why do you do this?! == | |||
| People fix articles and help Misplaced Pages, but your blocking policy is too strict! Can someone tell me why they block people after helping Misplaced Pages? ] 17:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :To protect WP from ] and ]. Obviously Admins who block users feel that the users are acting against one ore more of the current policies.--] 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Some people block others for just making simple mistakes. ] 20:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :LIke what?--] 20:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Do you know on some articles, tht box on the right side? I accidentally removed it once without knowing how to get it back (I was trying to change something else) and they blocked me for it. ] 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You mean the contents box?--] 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::He probably means a ] or something similar. Unfortunately, there are people who do that kind of thing deliberately, usually for no reason other than because they think it's fun to break things. We usually do try to warn them first, but if they keep doing it we do block them. If you weren't doing it deliberately and got blocked anyway, I'm sorry. But the block has (obviously) expired by now, so why not just write it off as a learning experience and move on? Just mind you don't do it again and you should be fine. Being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for a while isn't the end of the world, you know. —] <small>(])</small> 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. (ahem) Quite right! I know!--] 22:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, I'm talking about the taxobox. I'll try not to remove it. ] 22:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Happy editing in future!--] 22:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| OK. ] 23:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == "Cool down" blocks == | |||
| I have seen this type of block, generally a 1 or 2 hour block with an summary such as "time to cool down", more and more lately. I can't help but think that this is used as a tool to silence civil discussion. The policy already clearly states: "Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Misplaced Pages." A civil discussion in an appropriate venue will never make it difficult for others to contribute. If a person's argument descends into personal attacks or incivility, thats already covered under policy, but to block someone because they continue to argue a point, or are in the minority, doesn't make sense. What's more it almost certainly will never accomplish its stated goal. I think the policy needs to clearly state that "Cool down" blocks are '''never''' acceptable. What does the community think? —] 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I think that, in cases where the user is making personal attacks, ranting or something like that, a "cool down" block does make sense, however a lot of blocks I've seen don't reflect this. If anything, it often serves to inflame the issue even more by agitating the blocked user, and it could easily lead to accusations of admin power abuse if the blocked user is a regular editor, or at the very least the perception in the editor that they'll be blocked again if they continue to argue their point. That's never a good thing and leads to editors who distrust admins. ] 22:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I completely agree with all of your points. What I am proposing would not affect personal attacks in any way, as that is clearly covered by policy. It would simply prevent all of the negative consequences that you have (correctly) enumerated. —] 22:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree. Feedback is important to WP. If it is silenced by blocks for no reason at all, surely a) important feedback will not get through and b) people are entitled to their opinions (and have a right to express them); how can a person be blocked simply because his/her opinion differs with the rest? | |||
| :::I think cool-down blocks are quite useful, and are preferable to simply declaring "disruption" and letting the chips fall where they may. If they're abused, then the abuser can and will be challenged for their actions. As far as "distrusting admins" is concerned, who cares? As long as we allow anyone to edit -- and I'm not suggesting here that we stop -- then we'll have plenty of people with authority issues who are going distrust admins no matter what we do. Why remove a useful tool? --]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Can you provide for me an example (hypothetical or otherwise) where a "cool down" block would be necessitated? —] 00:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you provide an example where there was a block imposed and the discussion was civil? I know I have used a cool down block at least once. The blockee was not being civil - the block had its effect - it wasn't challenged either by the blcokee or by others who saw it (and noted it), even though I suspect they might not have blocked themselves.--] <sup>]</sup> 23:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict)I believe ], ], and ] were all in reaction to civil discourse, and certainly did not result in their intended goal. I do not think my proposed clarification would prevent blocking for incivility. —] 00:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Good examples, and those are the kinds of situations where blocking is a really bad idea and is inflammatory. Most of the time, the difference between incivility and tenacity are quite clear. Honestly, 1-3 hour blocks seem rather silly to me; clearly notify the user that they're being incivil and if they continue, block for a longer time. I don't like the idea that blocks should be substitutions for warnings, and I '''really''' don't like the idea of admins inadvertently breeding mistrust in users. Thus, I wholeheartedly support putting in this clarification. ] 02:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :So long as it's clear that blocks for continued incivility and personal attacks are appropriate, that's fine. The best way to cool someone down who isn't violating policy isn't to block that person, but to simply disengage from the conversation. If other people are contributing to the conversation, then it isn't time for the conversation to end. ] * ] 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I hate to comment given it's so soon since my unfortunate situation, but it makes perfect sense. It's a shame we have to codify it. --] <small>]</small> 02:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I disagree. I see no reason to codify this. It is not a good to limit admins ability to calm down heated arguments. Someone going on and on about an issue is being disruptive and should be blocked. Putting something like this in place would just give the blocked person a chance to go "Look, it says here I shouldn't be blocked for arguing my point civilly over and over again". I think it's unnecessary and unwise to do this. Let's not give people more "outs" for disruption. They already have far too many. --]<sup>]</sup> 05:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I disagree that blocks are an effective way of calming down heated arguments. If an editor is obeying ] and ] then the discussion should be allowed to continue, no matter how "heated" it may appear to an outside admin. I also would point to ]'s comments above as an explanation of preferable ways to deal with heated arguments. Can you give me an example of a situation where an editor arguing a point civily in the correct venue could also be "in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Misplaced Pages"? —] 05:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The blocks given as examples all seem entirely justified. ] 09:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :They don't seem that way to everyone. I personally think blocking someone and telling them to "Go outside. Play frisbee. Eat an ice cream cone." because they said "I question your ability to administer," is not entirely justified. And aside from it's righteousness, does it help? Does it make the dialogue better or worse? —] 22:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We have policies on when to block users, and most of them are fairly unambiguous. Dragging on a discussion is not one of them. If this is in any doubt on ] we should codify it very clearly. And while not technically a block, I find Nandesuka's protection of Jeff's talk page an almost desysoppable abuse of admin powers. Editors have the right to write 1000kB essays on their user pages venting against policies, as long as they don't breach any of the other conduct rules in the process. it's absolutely not any admin's business to stop them or prevent them from "hurting themselves". ~ ] 17:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I cannot come out against "cool down" blocks ''when properly applied''. However, too often it's just code for "I don't like what you're saying, so I'm taking away your ability to say it". And yeah, that does far more harm than good. If someone is actually being ''disruptive'', go ahead and block for disruption. The above examples were bad blocks. ] ] 23:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's a tricky issue. For the most part I detest blocks in general for anyone who isn't clearly ''trying'' to damage the encyclopedia (vandalism, copyright violation, active attempts to disrupt with no good intent, et cetera). Generally if a user is arguing for what they honestly think to be right I would prefer '''not''' to block them... but sometimes there is no choice (mass edit warring, personal attacks which are getting ''other'' users worked up, wholesale disruption, et cetera). Short of that I think gentle warnings, calm discussion and just ''being helpful when there is little to no reason NOT to'' produce vastly better results. That said, I must admit to having seen cool down blocks 'work' in the past... but only in the sense of the person going away and actually cooling down '''despite''' the block - which they invariably find an unjustified form of censorship (even if it actually isn't). | |||
| :So on this 'no cool down blocks' idea... add a caveat. If the discussion is ''really'' getting so heated that a cool down period is required... block 'em all. :] Probably not a viable option, but it exposes the problem with these blocks. They are almost invariably made by admins against users they disagree with. Which will often ''be'' inequitable, and '''always''' look that way. I'd like to see the 'do not block those you are in an edit war with' be expanded to 'do not block those you are in a disagreement (of any kind) with'. You suggest saying 'cool down blocks are never acceptable', but '3RR blocks' and some temporary 'vandalism blocks' could be described as 'cool down' blocks. I think what you are going for is that 'blocks of users who have argued something strongly, but not engaged in widespread incivility or personal attacks are never acceptable'... and I think that's implied already, but obviously others read different 'implications'. I think the 'grey area' is when there has been a consensus (though that's subject to interpretation too) and someone continues to argue against it... at some point that ''does'' become 'disruption' regardless of the validity of the decision. Overall I think a clarification of 'disruption' is what is needed. If people are able to walk away from the discussion and the user doesn't 'follow' them to restart it elsewhere then it isn't 'disruption'... or it's disruption by both sides. It takes two to argue. --] 02:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think you're confusing cause and effect. Getting the editor(s) to cool down is one of the desired effects of a block, but it should never be an acceptable cause. For this we have 3RR, NPA, vandalism, etc., and as long as the arguing editors don't step out of the bounds created by our conduct policies it's not the admins' business to curb the discussion. Our policies mention repeatedly that discussion is the first level of dispute resolution, so any block for contrarian but civil discussion, no matter how long it drags out, goes directly against the text and intent of our policies. ~ ] 04:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I understand your concern, but I do think there is a point at which it becomes untrue. The blocking policy, rightly, includes the fact that it may be required to block someone for 'disrupting the normal operation of Misplaced Pages'. If there is a discussion on any page which is used for regular business (AN/I, AfD, VP, et cetera) and someone refuses to let it go after a clear consensus has been achieved... clogs up the page so that it is difficult to get other work done... starts inserting the dispute into other discussions... et cetera, then that ''is'' disruption and the user ought to be warned to stop and blocked if they don't. Note, of course, that if users 'on the other side' are still arguing the point too then they are every bit as responsible for the actual disruption and ought to be treated in kind - as I said, it takes two to argue. On the other hand, if the dispute is on a user talk page, a separate discussion page set up for that dispute only, or some other such locale that isn't needed for 'regular business' then I agree that it can't be causing any disruption and users should be able to say their peace until they are done with it... so long as they don't start 'exporting' the dispute to other locales. --] 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If it's clogging up the works, why not move it to a subpage or into user talk or an RfC? If the person persists in moving the discussion back to the originating page, block him/her for edit warring. Otherwise, maybe that person will get the hint. I just really think that there are alternatives that represent a tiny investment of extra effort by the community, which could have substantial benefits. ] * ] 14:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::''it may be required to block someone for 'disrupting the normal operation of Misplaced Pages'''. I think that's a very sweeping interpretation of that clause, and the reason why we're discussing a less ambiguous statement about "cool-down" blocks. In my interpretation "disrupting normal operation" means removing AfD tags, blanking or vandalizing an article under AfD, changing other editors' votes, sockpuppeteering, reverting AfD decisions, etc. Excessive discussion can be dealt with in other ways, e.g. by moving it from the main to the talk page, as ] said. ~ ] 16:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't disagree. Moving the discussion sounds fine to me. --] 17:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::These concerns are why I clearly stated in the original proposal "a civil discussion in an appropriate venue". I think trialsanderrors and Capt gave good examples of how to deal with situations where a user is disrupting a public area. Also, in the blocks I noted, it was never suggested that the discussion be moved somewhere else. Wouldn't that, a tiny bit of civility, had prevented a lot of drama and ill will? —] 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| (undented) To throw my two cents in at this late time, I don't think the "cool-down" blocks are a good idea; they are at best punitive and will almost never solve a problem. If a user is disrupting or edit-warring, fine, these are already explictly blockable offenses. However, there is this phenomenon I have seen a few times where one editor is acting ''a little'' rambunctiously, then gets hit with a curt reply of "cool down", "NPA" or "AGF", and this (understandably) angers the other user and typically escalates the conflict. I see potential for abuse here, and I am particularly reminded of that scene in ] where Sandler is making reasonable requests of the flight attendants, and they essentially go all "AGF" on him, which ends up with his being tasered... I have seen the scenario erupt several times that one user is acting in good faith but is being overly brusque, at which time said user is hit on seventeen sides by "AGF"s and the like, the whole scene gets escalated, and someone gets blocked. ''Much'' better is, if someone has worded a reasonable statement a bit harshly, to deal with the content of the statement. In any case, it should ''never'' be a blockable offense for someone to carry on a impassioned debate as long as they are not disrupting, using personal attacks, etc., even when (or perhaps especially when) a majority which happens to contain an admin disagrees. Discussions can always be archived. -- ] (]) 19:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Where an editor is politely asked by an administrator to tone down serious personal attacks and responds with more of the same, especially where the response is completely inappropriate to the request, I think "cool down" blocks are a good idea because here we see clear evidence that the editor isn't thinking clearly and, if he goes for an uninvolved administrator, he's not likely to stop being disruptive. | |||
| Where an editor is making very seriously disruptive attacks or accusations, a cool down block may also be merited. | |||
| Both of these cases should be treated with care. --] 04:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If a person is violating ], block him for that. Otherwise, move the discussion to the Village Pump or an RfC, or to a relevant talk page. A "cool down block" has too much potential to be used as a codeword for "I don't like what you have to say, so I'm going to keep you from saying it." ] * ] 09:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Needless to say, a "cool down" block can only possibly ever come after disruption of some kind. --] 05:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Which should be something that violates Misplaced Pages policies and that cannot be better handled by, for instance, moving the discussion to another venue, ignoring the babble, and/or recommending dispute resolution or mediation. ] * ] 06:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In that case, wouldn't it be appropriate to block that editor for disruption, directly? I'm not saying that we shouldn't be blocking people with the ''purpose'' of having them cool down, all I'm saying is that "editor X is not cool" is such a subjective criterion that it shouldn't the ''rationale'' for doing so. The only cases I can envision where such a "cool down" block would be appropriate would be cases where the user has been disruptive or violates ] or perhaps violates other policies, and is likely to do so again... well, then, just block them under the objective criteria we have now. --- ] (]) 07:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==User:Jon Awbrey== | |||
| ] (discussed at ''] project spam'' at ]) has been indef blocked/banned due to edits ''outside article space'' which have exhausted the community's patience; but he is not listed at ]. ] 00:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Trolling? == | |||
| A text search for "troll" comes up empty here. This is probably the 2nd most common block reason right after the bad username one. ] 13:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Try ]--] 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He means on the ] page. ~ ] 23:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Ahh! Thats coz its so hard to define? Anything thats not defined elsewhere is termed 'trolling'--] 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Anomo, the term in the policy is "disruption". Saying a user is a troll (and blocking them for it) is a bad idea firstly because it ], which is what they're usually after, and secondly it's an incorrect application of the policy, since blocks are not meant to be directed at people but at their behaviour. People are blocked because of their disruptive conduct, not because they ''are'' trolls. --] (]) 02:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well put. I dont like the term trolling. Its not accurate to describe certain sorts of disruption as trolling. Disruption is a better description. (especially when qualified). ie 'You are disrupting WP because.....' NOT 'You are a troll' OR 'You are just trolling'--] 03:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, its even better to say 'Your (recent) actions are disrupting (to) WP because......' THis would be more factual and less personal and is less likely to be imflammatory I feel. | |||
| ::How come half of the block reasons are "troll" ? ] 01:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::] ] ] 15:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Funny! I dont see the term 'troll' in ]. Can you point out where they are?--] 21:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its much much easier to say someone is 'trolling' than to be specific about what theyre doing wrong. This terminology does not help Misplaced Pages and I think the usage of the term is inflammatory and should be banned from being directed against anyone.--] 20:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Info at Misplaced Pages talk:Appealing a block == | |||
| There has been suggestions to merge the info at ], here. None of that info is policy yet, but we can change that. I'm not particularly interested in blocking policy, so I don't have an opinion either way. Comments on the merge or the info? ] 00:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :We should '''merge''' this as soon as posssible. Codifying current practice is a valid way to create policy. And the two pages deal with the same topic. Some of the contents of ] could be under the sub-section of ] and the rest of the content could be under a newly created section. --<font style="background:gold">]]</font><sup><font style="background:yellow">]</font></sup> 03:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Dying is not a reason to be blocked == | |||
| I realise it's a few months since ] was added, but there didn't really seem to be consensus for it at ] so I'd like to restart that discussion here. I see no reason to insult someone and their family by blocking them when they die. It's an unnecessary and highly insensitive thing to do and should not be part of this policy. ]] 12:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I'd support removing it. I don't think it's insulting or insensitive to block someone if they die. But it does seem overkill (pardon the unintentional...) to have it as part of policy. How often are Wikipedians conclusively known to have died? Very rarely. And if they are, how big is the risk that their account is compromised? Very slight. Let's avoid cluttering policy with instructions on how to deal with wacky edge cases. ] 12:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just removed it. It was added out of the blue in the first place and the resulting discussion was inconclusive. --] - '']'' - ] 18:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I would suggest replacing it with a statement that says that if a Wikipedian is known to have died, and is postmortem used for anything other than the standard "Hey, *blank* has died, his family appreciates the outpouring of support from the Misplaced Pages community, here are a few memorials" or "I'm not dead! I feel happy! I feel happy!" it should then be blocked. Blocking should really be a last resort. ] * ] 18:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Do we really to spell that out in a policy document? I just don't think it's worth it. ] 18:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Simplified blocking policy == | |||
| :''moved from "Cool down" blocks above'' | |||
| I've been watching the discussion on "cool down" blocks both here and on AN/ANI. I think "cool down" is being used as a reason because the policy page has grown too large, and restrictive. If blocking someone for "disruption", it's difficult for a block to stand unless the admin cites chapter and verse to support themselves. I've created a sub page at ], with how I think this policy could be drastically simplified. I don't want to waste a lot of Misplaced Pages space with this sort of this, so I've already prod'd it myself. Anyone interested, I invite to look it over and make changes, leave comments on talk, the usual thing. But, if you don't feel it has legs or any chance of survival at all, just leave the Prod in place and it'll all be gone again before you know it. Thanks. --] 14:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I like it. Working on it as a simplified guideline to the 'why' as opposed to the 'what' - reasons why are a lot more memorable, especially if put in a sentence, and if the 'why' is clear then the 'what' is just details that can be looked up. Such pages are (a) much more likely to actually be read by people (b) much less susceptible to wikilawyering. I submit that the blocking policy page will be ''particularly'' susceptible to this. | |||
| :If the 'why' is kept separate from the 'what', it should be reasonably easy to refactor the present blocking policy page into this format without losing any important detail. | |||
| :One thing to keep in mind here: changing this page won't automatically change how people behave. Expecting this will lead to disappointment, and probably the sort of reversion that has 'wtf' as the edit summary - ] 10:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Public relations== | |||
| Users whose behavior poses serious public relations problems for Misplaced Pages may be blocked. Advocacy of criminal behavior is one basis for this type of block, including advocacy of criminalized sexual practices, particularly ]. Such blocks may be indefinite, in the nature of a community ban. | |||
| I have added this. I believe it is existing policy, based on Jimbo's comments regarding the matter. ] 13:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think this was about throughtcrime at all (it was removed for that reason), but maybe clarification is in order. This sounds like an office action to me- should there be language urging people to use caution when blocking for such a reason? ] ] 16:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, I think so. A block of this nature has great potential for igniting a wheel war. And has potential to generate negative publicity itself. Possibly there should be a requirement that they be run by Jimbo or Brad or even done by them as Office actions. ] 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I strongly object to this. First, in various places in the world, things like oral sex and homosexuality are criminalized sexual practices. What Fred Bauder means here is "pedophilia". Second, he added this for a reason: see ]. Looking at that situation, ''in effect'' this addition means that people attracted to children can be blocked if they admit to it or if they say that they support its legalisation. With this clause, an editor can be blocked for nothing more than stating their biases on a userpage, provided that certain hysterical websites think that those biases reflect badly on Misplaced Pages (see ). It is unethical to ban editors for stating their biases -- that is, for what they ''think'' rather than what they have ''done''. ] 16:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::In the case referenced the user is a pedophilia activist. ] 17:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: This is coupled with another policy addition: : "''Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate place to advertise your desire for kinky sex (or straight sex). User pages which move beyond broad expressions of sexual preference are unacceptable. This is particularly true for sexual practices which are illegal or repulsive to the general public such as ].''" ] 17:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Such statements are irrelevant to the project, and given that they could potentially cause problems, I don't see a problem with saying stuch statements should not be made. ] ] 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: It depends: it's not clear what statements would be prohibited. People should be allowed to state and discuss their biases. I'm very concerned that the sole intent of this is to prevent people from saying that they are pedophiles. We want people to be able to declare their biases, particularly if they're here to edit in that area. ] 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: For example, what about this user's page? ]. He's kinky, and he goes into detail on his userpage. ] 17:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::There's a difference between objectively and academically discussing a matter, or objectively stating one's biases in relation to a matter, on the one hand, and advocating something on the other hand. --] (]) 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Sure, I agree, but this is an example of the sort of page that Fred intends to catch under this: . Is that advocacy? I don't think so. ] 17:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would support blocking people who admit that they have molested children, are currently molesting children, are thinking about molesting children in real life or if they advocate pedophilia. Misplaced Pages is not completely neutral and should not be. Otherwise we would have to talk about murder, child abuse, pedophilia and genocide as if they are legitimate, neutral actions. It is wrong to have sex with children and that's it. It is not comparable to being gay. I do not think that a hundred years from now that people will accept pedophilia and think that we were intolerant of pedophiles. That is not to say that it is okay to mistreat pedophiles, just that what they do is wrong. | |||
| ::::As for admitting that they are a pedophile without acting upon it, I am not sure. I would strongly suggest that they keep it to themselves and their therapists, if they have one, as long as they are able to control themselves. However, I am leaning towards banning them if they admit it because of the public relations damage. Giving pedophiles the right to be "out" and to edit Misplaced Pages is not worth the risk to the project, and it is not Misplaced Pages's place to counter the hysteria surrounding pedophilia. Perhaps a warning for people to not reveal their pedophile status or joke about being a pedophile because they risk being banned would be appropriate. I suggest that bestiality be treated in the same manner, as it is almost as universally condemned as pedophilia and is also wrong because of the harm to the animals, physically and/or emotionally. I think that it would be better if people did not reveal other sexual information either, such as being straight, bisexual, gay, transsexual or into sadomasochism, bondage or cross-dressing, but I doubt that that would happen. That information is not helpful in the building of the encyclopedia. If the person just says that they have knowledge (not just personal) about these topics, that would be somewhat useful. It is bizarre to me that people to discuss their sexuality on their user page, and I think Misplaced Pages would be classier and taken more seriously without that information. You would never find it on the profiles of other encyclopedias' writers or editors or any other respectable publication I can think of. Misplaced Pages user pages should not be treated as a blog or social networking site. -- ] 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think you're getting too broad here - would you ban ] from contributing? I can accept that people shouldn't use their userpages for relating illegal acts they have done or are planning on doing. But it seems to me that the net is being cast too wide - we shouldn't block people for stating their biases, even if those biases are that the age of consent should be lowered, or some such. ] 23:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Regarding ] and his edits of ] == | |||
| (also known as ]) | |||
| I don't know what to do about this case, he keep removing parts from the article on ], and I've told him that if he feels that there should be separate article for the information he keeps removing. His general attitude towards the woman in question - Nicole Gilbert - is "MAKE A SEPERATE PAGE FOR NICCI FOR HER INFO!!!!!"/"Make a seperate page for Nicci to speak on her", but obviously he's got something against the woman in question, as he claimed: "who cares what nicci does now" and "i dont care about a seperate showing for nicci". I think if we follow logical reasoning it is the person who wants something removed from an article who has to make the new, separate entry on Misplaced Pages as other editors are most likely not going to be watching that article 24/7 and as time goes by many other edits to the article might have been done, making it more difficult to discover what has been removed from the article. | |||
| Basically I'm in need of some input from other editors on this issue as it is on the verge of becoming an editing war (if it hasn't already become one), and I feel already uneasy enough about reverting and rewriting his edits all the time. Thanks. Oh, and if this isn't the place to discuss this kind of issues please tell me where I can do to so. - ] 13:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I rolled back his latest revert and made a redlink for ]. I think we should suggest to him that he work on that independent article. ] 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is the wrong place. Please take this to ]. You should not block this person yourself as you seem quite involved and heated. ] 14:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == i'm confused about test5-n template == | |||
| OK, the user has got a test4-n template, he's done it again, i subst:test5-n, which tells the user he's blocked, but I'm not an admin. So, is he blocked or not, and if not, why does it say he is and why am I putting this template on his talk page? thanks ] 19:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :ps, how does the ] thing in the template work; can i substitute the page name in there without having to save the ssubst:template and reedit? and what does the ] 19:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *You should not use the test5 template if you can't block. You should report him to ] - shortcut ] and somebody with blocking powers will follow up and block him.--] <sup>]</sup> 20:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ====Disruptive editing, per se==== | |||
| {{main|Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing}} | |||
| Obvious ]s and users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary. Such persons should be dealt with kindly and patiently, but should be prevented from wreaking havoc over the period of weeks or months it would take to process an obviously righteous Arbitration request. | |||
| This guideline has been under discussion for some time. I think it is sound. Waiting for months for the Arbitration process to handle matters which ought to be handled at the community level is wasteful of everyone's time and energy. ] 13:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :This is pretty much what community blocks are for. Basically, if not one of a thousand admins will unblock you, you just might in fact be batshit insane. The refactored blocking policy covers this - ] 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not really, you left it out. ] 18:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ah, buh. I'll check again - ] 12:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I've put it in just about your words after the bit about cool-down edits - ] 14:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Refactored blocking policy== | |||
| See ]. Key points are: | |||
| * Clearer statements | |||
| * Blocking is all about admin judgement anyway - to be effective, this page should guide that | |||
| * Should be just about the same as now in effects, but with less bolt-holes for rules lawyers | |||
| I'm trying to work to what I've outlined at ] - this is process that is important and needs to be nailed down, but the really hard bits need to be few and important, and Taylorising everything is actually counterproductive. | |||
| Are there any important bits of the present text that are missing? Can the clearer version be cut'n'pasted over the current page bit by bit? Is it actually complete garbage? Opinions please - ] 14:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The bot bit needs clarifiying. Even if the thing has been aproved if it appears to be causeing trouble it needs to be blocked first and questions asked later. you may wish to mention ] to keep some of the comcom members happy.] 14:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Bot bit mentioned; sensitive IP bit mentioned up top (I couldn't see a more appropriate place, and I certainly wasn't aware of it) - ] 16:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Overall I like this much better than the current page. One discordant element is that 'disruption' is treated as a class of blockable offenses including vandalism, usernames, bots, et cetera in section 1.2... but listed separately from those issues in section 5.2. Obviously there are many other forms of disruption so maybe that's intentional, but it doesn't 'line up' neatly. I should note that this doesn't include 'incivility' or 'personal attacks' amongst the specifically listed types of disruption... I tend to think those are heavily over-used (when there is no real impairment of anyone's ability to contribute), but they are the most frequently cited reasons for 'disruption' and 'cooling off' blocks so it is going to be an issue if people keep getting blocked for them on a daily basis and there is nothing specific in the policy on it. I might also move 'biographies of living persons' from the 'disruption' section up to 'protection' because the goal there is more to protect Misplaced Pages than stop something which is preventing users from contributing. Anyway, minor issues. Thumbs up from me regardless of these. --] 11:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Oh yes, that's good stuff. Want to make that civility one a descriptive note? "These blocks are controversial." OTOH they're not actually that controversial in practice if someone's being a real dick ... - ] 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I think my views on incivility blocks are well outside the mainstream (I'd say that except in ''extreme'' cases, BigDaddy777 comes to mind, they often do more harm than good) so I'd probably not be the best choice for putting in the phrasing on that issue. Just wanted to note that it needed ''something''. Your idea of wording about them possibly being controversial, due to differing views on when such behaviour becomes significantly disruptive, seems fine. --] 13:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I agree that this is a simpler, more streamlined, and more straightforward page than the one we have now. I commend all. However, I would love it if there were some way to deal with the ] block problem that I noted above. Is there some simple and elegant solution we could apply to disencourage 3 hour blocks that result in 2 months of drama, or is that just wishful thinking on my part? —] 13:08, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think a big question is, how do we deal with it? I think the short term blocks (under 12 hrs) are more contested simply because they criteria for them is so low...what one admin sees as a 15 min offense another might not see an offense at all. Whereas when an admin levies a 24 hour block, the offense is usually much more serious and more self-explanitory. So, do we suggest that under 12 hr blocks be discouraged as they're more likely to be contraversial? Or do we suggest that blocks under 12 hrs ''not'' be overturned except in extreme circumstances, as ''that'' is likely to result in contraversy? --] 14:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: '"Cool-down" blocks are likely to result in controversy. You need to judge whether a 1-hour block will result in 2 months' drama.' - ] 14:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I just refactored section 5.2 to reflect the layout of 1.2, and I even added a bit on cool-down blocks. I'll look over the whole thing again to see if we need to reinforce that elsewhere. Oh, and I even looked up "controversial" so I spelled it right. --] 14:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I've finally remembered to note the planned rewrite on the project page itself. *ahem* So we should get more useful input. In particular, it's still too damned long and still needs much simpler writing, but without losing detail - ] 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocking talk pages == | |||
| ''Nandesuka'' has taken it upon himself to ban further discussion on the publicgirluk discussion page, moreover he jumped at absolutely civil comments I had made elsewhere on the issue within seconds calling them trolling, threatening to ban me, and removing questions I left on the talk pages of other admins of his own accord. I see above that this is not the first time he has blocked a usertalk page, and he seems to be trying to censor discussion where he pleases. Checking the admin histories I found that he has dished out more indefinite bans than almost any admin on WP. My question is '''does admin have the right to block usertalks simply at a point where he is disinclined to the existence of further discussion'''? Secondly, '''does admin have the right to delete questions left on third-party usertalks'''? Thirdly, '''is there no system of monitoring the frequency of indefinite blocks admins give to ward against the trigger happy'''? I am new here, and I find this kind of behaviour very disturbing and hazardous, I never would have thought Misplaced Pages was that kind of place. Please comment before he deletes this message ] 09:15, 26 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, it's still here 36 hours later ... Do you have the edits? - ] 20:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Because CBD has since unblocked it. ] 06:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Policy in a nutshell == | |||
| I've added (what I think is) a decent 'policy in a nutshell' summary to the top of the page. If anyone has a problem with it feel free to remove or reword. ] 21:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hah! I didn't notice that was missing. Reworded a bit simpler - ] 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I've made it "Editors can be blocked for a time by an administrator to protect Misplaced Pages and its editors from harm." I thought the second sentence could be dropped as the fact that the time varies is implicit in it being to protect Misplaced Pages and its editors from harm - ] 07:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Living people on user pages == | |||
| Following a disagreement and relying on some emails available from ], I think we need to ammend the section on Biographies of living persons to include user space as well: | |||
| :Editors who repeatedly insert critical material into the biography of a living person (or its talk page), or into a section about a living person in another article (or its talk page), '''or on a user page (or its talk page),''' may be blocked under the disruption provision of this policy... | |||
| The addition I propose is highlighted. Any obections? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hmm, you raise a good point, but since there is some desire to move towards a ], I worry that this addition might be needlessly specific. The proposed simplified policy currently states editors can be blocked for "Disrupting biographies of living persons." Maybe we could change that to "Repeatedly adding unsourced defamatory information about a living person anywhere on Misplaced Pages." Would that be acceptable? —] 14:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, now that I look at it, the section in ] on unsourced negative information already says "This principle also applies to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Misplaced Pages." So perhaps just saying editors could be blocked for "Repeatedly violating ]" would be concise yet sufficient? —] 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :How about "Editors who repeatedly insert material critical of a living person anywhere on Misplaced Pages may be blocked if..."? I'm not sure what's meant by specifying 'biographical' material. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think it is best to keep it in the context of BLP. Critical material is not barred ''per se''. The need for context, proportion, sensitivity, balance and fidelity to substantial sources is paramount. When these are violated, it becomes problematic. "Unsourced negative material" could be amended to include an inappropriate use of a source to disaparage the subject, but I can't think of a neat wording right now. The case which instigated this involved an interpretion of the source, which went further than what was literally stated by the source. This was where the problem arose. Also the use of such material in isolation and out of the context of a balanced article is to be discouraged. One has to imagine the effect on an individual discovering such material through a google search, for example. ] 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:07, 29 December 2024
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blocking policy page. |
|
 | This is not the page to report problems to administrators or request blocks. This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages blocking policy itself.
|
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | The contents of the Misplaced Pages:GlobalBlocking page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy on 18 October 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Misplaced Pages:Block on demand page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy on 25 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Block policy adding request
I request add this in policy:
Unblock request should be review by another administrator (not the blocker).
It may help for the unjust administrator to make malice block and block the appear. Gongxiang01 (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- It's already there: "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users when they performed the block." This is the policy on the English Misplaced Pages; the Chinese Misplaced Pages may have different rules. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
PBLOCK community consensus
Partial blocks may be used at the discretion of any administrator in accord with the rest of the blocking policy, or community consensus.
What does this mean? Is it simply saying that a community discussion can result in a PBLOCK, or is something further intended? If the latter, I'd like to amend the sentence to Partial blocks may be imposed at the discretion...blocking policy, or may be imposed by community consensus. Nyttend (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've always understood it to mean that partial blocks may be placed in any way that a full block can be - i.e. in circumstances articulated in the blocking policy or in any other circumstances if there is a community consensus to do so. That would mean your proposed change would not alter the meaning but may clarify it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- When partial blocks were the new hotness there was much fear of the unknown which got hashed out at WP:PARBLOCK2019. One of the questions was "Should partial blocks be limited to community consensus only?" That got voted down nearly unanimously, and the "discretion of any administrator" language came out of that RFC close. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- PS, I can't think of any reason a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI couldn't end with "There is broad consensus by the community to ban User:Foo from Some Namespace (or from some specific list of articles)". The community passes bans like that all the time. Bans state the will of the community. Blocks are just a way to technical way to enforce a ban. If the community banned somebody from (for example) a namespace and that user violated that ban, I suppose an admin could then impose the corresponding pblock to enforce the ban, but I think it's more likely they would just block the user completely; that's usually what happens when users disregard community-imposed restrictions. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see anything needing changing; admins can make unilateral partial blocks (e.g. in cases of edit warring) or at the close of a discussion where consensus is achieved (e.g. an article subject who can't be neutral on their article). Primefac (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- PS, I can't think of any reason a discussion at WP:AN or WP:ANI couldn't end with "There is broad consensus by the community to ban User:Foo from Some Namespace (or from some specific list of articles)". The community passes bans like that all the time. Bans state the will of the community. Blocks are just a way to technical way to enforce a ban. If the community banned somebody from (for example) a namespace and that user violated that ban, I suppose an admin could then impose the corresponding pblock to enforce the ban, but I think it's more likely they would just block the user completely; that's usually what happens when users disregard community-imposed restrictions. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- When partial blocks were the new hotness there was much fear of the unknown which got hashed out at WP:PARBLOCK2019. One of the questions was "Should partial blocks be limited to community consensus only?" That got voted down nearly unanimously, and the "discretion of any administrator" language came out of that RFC close. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Unblocks of a global block
Reading the most recent admin newsletter, do we feel like current blocking policy covers the situations where we would unblock someone on enwiki who is blocked globally or do we need to hash out new language for it? I genuinely don't know how I would handle such a request which maybe reflects that this isn't the normal area I work or maybe reflects something that needs clarifying. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I saw that. To be honest, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where we'd want to locally unblock somebody who is globally blocked. Accounts don't get globally blocked without a good reason. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given how new global blocking is, I'm not sure I have a sense of what people will get globally blocked for and thus not sure how often enwiki might reach a different conclusion about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- One thing I am sure about is that having two different features named "global block" and "global lock" is guaranteed to create confusion. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is a plan to merge global locking into global blocking (though the name may still remain on-wiki) at T373388. Not planned for the short term though. Dreamy Jazz 17:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- One thing to note is that global blocking for accounts was developed so that there would be a way to prevent temporary accounts from editing on all wikis. If you lock a temporary account it just allows the user to get a new temporary account on their next edit. Dreamy Jazz 17:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- One thing I am sure about is that having two different features named "global block" and "global lock" is guaranteed to create confusion. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given how new global blocking is, I'm not sure I have a sense of what people will get globally blocked for and thus not sure how often enwiki might reach a different conclusion about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course not for en.wp at this time, but I think about cases like Malnadach and Slowking as perhaps illustrative. There may be less difficult cases also, perhaps global blocks will come first for VOAs or other not-difficult cases instead of locks and they'll be able to appeal on particular projects. IznoPublic (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I just want to mention that we already locally unblock global IP blocks with existing policy. It's not common, and admittedly has a different flavour. Personally I think we should cross whatever bridge when it happens. And it should by default go in front of the community on a noticeboard (do we need to actually write that? I don't know). The only thing we shouldn't be doing (and I don't know how relevant that is here) is to undo an office action, but I think that's probably adequately documented under the office policy. -- zzuuzz 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder what should happen with the "request glock" feature of WP:SPI? The SPI templates support flags for this, and User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js (which I guess is orphaned at this point) has functionality to make the requests on meta. Should we switch that over to using gblock instead of glock, or expose both options? RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Or maybe not orphaned after all! RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- We will need to consider this for temporary accounts, as global blocks is the only method to prevent them editing cross-wiki (global locks don't work as I've mentioned above). Dreamy Jazz 17:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- I generally agree with Zzuuzz that this should be handled on a case by case basis. However I would say that rather than
by default go in front of the community on a noticeboard
that local unblocks should only happen as a result of a consensus at a community noticeboard (I don't have a strong feeling about which board), and I do think it worth explicitly saying this. When there have been enough of both global blocks and local appeals of global blocks that we have a reasonable feel about why they get applied, what grounds people appeal them on and what the response to the appeals is, we can amend the policy to reflect what is and is not controversial in practice. To that end it might (or might not) be worth explicitly marking it as a temporary policy that will only apply to the first say 10 appeals with a mandatory discussion to keep, remove or amend at that point (such a discussion need not be more heavyweight than a "This seems to be working well, we'll mark it as permanent unless anybody objects in the next week" or "in practice these are uncontroversial, does anyone object to just replacing the policy with a note saying whether to accept, decline or discuss is an individual admin's discretion?"). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- Here's the thing. As Roy mentions above, global blocks are different than global locks. So I agree with what @Thryduulf and @Zzuuzz are saying about global locks - they need either community input or ArbCom concurrance. Global blocks are a whole different new thing and my gut tells me they should be handled more like a normal unblock - given that the user might have done nothing wrong on enwiki before being globally blocked even - than an unlock where sometimes they need community input but normally not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it turns out some or all local appeals are uncontroversial then we can remove the consensus required provision when we know that, but until we do know who is getting blocked, who is appealing and what the community attitude to those appeals is, I'm not confident that individual admins will know enough to know what is and isn't going to be controversial, what is a reasonable grounds for appeal and what isn't. If some appeals are uncontroversial then consensus to unblock will develop quickly (I'm not proposing a quorum, minimum discussion length or anything like that) and nobody loses. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think if we start with the highest cost option - everything must be community reviewed - it's unlikely we would ever go back to a lower cost option. I appreciate the work Izno and Roy are doing below in getting this onwiki so we don't have to talk hypothetically. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it turns out some or all local appeals are uncontroversial then we can remove the consensus required provision when we know that, but until we do know who is getting blocked, who is appealing and what the community attitude to those appeals is, I'm not confident that individual admins will know enough to know what is and isn't going to be controversial, what is a reasonable grounds for appeal and what isn't. If some appeals are uncontroversial then consensus to unblock will develop quickly (I'm not proposing a quorum, minimum discussion length or anything like that) and nobody loses. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here's the thing. As Roy mentions above, global blocks are different than global locks. So I agree with what @Thryduulf and @Zzuuzz are saying about global locks - they need either community input or ArbCom concurrance. Global blocks are a whole different new thing and my gut tells me they should be handled more like a normal unblock - given that the user might have done nothing wrong on enwiki before being globally blocked even - than an unlock where sometimes they need community input but normally not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder what should happen with the "request glock" feature of WP:SPI? The SPI templates support flags for this, and User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js (which I guess is orphaned at this point) has functionality to make the requests on meta. Should we switch that over to using gblock instead of glock, or expose both options? RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I put a request in the ear of a steward to move onwiki the discussion stewards are having about global blocks, so perhaps we won't have to just "come up with something" without considering the dimensions they'll be thinking about. :) That feels like the primary blocker to thinking about the problem. Izno (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've also been interfacing with some steward ear today. From what I can tell, they're as unsure about all this as we are. RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Blocking IP addresses
I have come across an indefinite rangeblock which has not been cancelled although 16 years old. The range is 66.197.128.0/17. Can it be removed? 82.0.216.119 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- That IP address belongs to Netflix. Nobody should be editing from there. I'm not seeing any reason to lift the block, would you mind elaborating why you think this is necessary? --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- The IP is unable to reply, as it was used by WP:LTA/VXFC to evade their ban. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
"Blocking policy" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Blocking policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Blocking policy until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)