Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

This is not the page to report problems to administrators or request blocks.
	This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy itself. Report incidents such as block evasion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Report violations of the three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. Report active, persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Token Blocks

Would there be support for adding another exception to the prohibition against using blocks to record events in the user's block log? I recently came upon a case where an otherwise productive user was caught sock puppeting with multiple bad hand accounts. One of the edits was so bad it had to be oversighted. Practicing WP:IAR, I placed a one minute block because (1) I didn't feel like prevention was necessary given the circumstances because there was no imminent threat of repetition, but (2) I definitely felt deterrence was necessary in the long run. The token block contained a link to documentation of the incident concerning an edit that outed another editor. This would serve as deterrence against any sort of repetition.

I now recognize that this was improper under current rules, and that I should have placed a longer block. However, I think this practice should be available to administrators. In limited, exceptional cases a token block can serve the valid purpose of deterring future misconduct. Should we explicitly allow token blocks in cases of egregious misconduct, such as when a user makes malicious edits that need to be oversighted, but the editing is not discovered immediately? Jehochman ^Talk 12:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Slippery slope: what's to stop an administrator from using a one minute block in place of a vandalism warning? Or worse, adding ticks to the block log over trivial borderline actions? User talk pages are perfectly good for deterrent warnings, and have the advantage that an administrator can withdraw the warning if it turns out to be mistaken. That was a controversial block you applied, and rightly so. It even got you blocked for a short time. Large drama quotient, no actual benefit. Durova^Charge! 12:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you that blocks for notation purposes alone are generally not acceptable, it is important to note that the only drama that occurred here was over the inappropriate block of Jehochman, not his own too-short block of the sockpuppeteer. — Satori Son 13:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this would not be good. I abhor the practice of putting "notes" in block logs. I accept this only when renaming, but anything beyond that, a block note should be preventative and only when a block is used, not just to note. We do not scarlet letter people's account, even if it is true. Regards, M-ercury at 13:08, January 15, 2008

Next time I will block such a user for two weeks, and there will be no controversy whatsoever. As for me being blocked, that was clearly an inappropriate response, though I sort of enjoyed the experience. I'd always wanted to see what being blocked was like. I agree with the slippery slope argument. If this were implemented, it would have to be for exceptional situations, not ordinary vandalism warnings. On the other hand, if we start trying to specify what's exceptional, there is a problem with instruction creep. Mercury, keep in mind that deterrence is also an acceptable reason to block. Jehochman ^Talk 13:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To deter is to prevent. There is no difference on context here. But to make perm notes in block logs, is a bit beyond prevention. M-ercury at 13:47, January 15, 2008

A two week block would leave a permanent note, and in this case was warranted. Even an indef would have been within discretion. It seems to me that the real problem is folks using a token block when no block is warranted. Token blocks in lieu of longer blocks seems less problematic. Jehochman ^Talk 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You would stigmatize an editor. This is problematic. We don't leave warnings in the block log. Is there some more history to this? M-ercury at 13:58, January 15, 2008

I am trying to be abstract because there's no reason to expose the victim to unwanted attention. The puppet master had set up 5 alternate accounts and was using them disruptively. One of the disruptive edits was to out the former identity of a trusted community member (the "victim"). All five socks have been indeffed. The main account had a record of good work, so I thought, "I want to give this person a second chance, but I am very, very concerned about this outing nonsense, and I need to make sure that if it ever happens again, this person is going to be indeffed." Warnings on the talk page disappear into history. In retrospect, I should have just blocked for two weeks and said I was being lenient by not going to indef.

Let's take the above situation and add one more factor. Let's say the egregious conduct happened three months before the puppetmaster was discovered. A block three months later isn't really preventative, but why should this person have a clear block log. They did something wrong, plus they were sneaky.

Let me modify the proposal. "In the event of sock puppetry, a note may be added to the block log of the puppetmaster to identify any blockable wrongdoing done their sock puppets." I think that captures the spirit of what I want. Using sock puppets to evade scrutiny should not be rewarded. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid token blocks. Block log use for leaving notes have been a big issue in the past, best just not to use them that way. There is a functional equivalent that will show in the block log: 1) block the user for a week or indef, but also 2) announce that you will immediately unblock or support unblock for a simple promise of the user not to continue the behavior. This will leave the user unblocked at any time that he wishes to resume working on articles, and still show on the log, and be fully within policy. NoSeptember 14:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of past problems, but I see your point. Yes, the block/unblock routine is a valid tactic, though it is essentially equivalent, but it avoids the camel's nose that Mercury identifies below. Thank you all for this discussion. It has been helpful. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You can fix this without adding the letter A to the editors neck. Block the puppet master for howeverlong it takes to prevent a load on sysop time and to prevent damage to the wiki, or either. I really don't think it is a good idea to support this, at this time. I'm sorry, but its camels nose I think, and I hate using those phrases. M-ercury at 14:15, January 15, 2008

For some relevant background:

• earlier discussion here
• parallel discussion at AN

As an example of the kind of things people have suggested doing this for is as a substitute for the "removing warnings" templates after they got deleted. The block log should not be used as an indelible scarlet letter. --bainer (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those threads. From the Template:Wr deleted thread, "If people have not done something to warrant a block, they have a right not to have their block log tainted." I agree completely, but here we have a different situation: somebody has done something definitely blockable, but it was done with a sock puppet account, so the block log has effectively been split. I believe we need to make an exception so that links between block logs can be established. Above, it was recommended that the user be blocked for a significant time, with a note that they can be unblocked liberally to create the same effect. I can live with that constructive solution, but wouldn't it be simpler to say that token blocks may be used to link block logs of misbehaving alternative accounts? Bureaucrats can already do this when users change usernames. Wouldn't this be just another instance of the same thing. Comments? Jehochman ^Talk 15:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

We're supposed to make permanent notes in block logs- that's what they're for. Yes, we should not block when there's no legitimate reason for it, but that's a separate issue. Are people seriously suggesting that once a block gets below a certain length, we need to treat it differently? I don't understand this at all. Friday (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't an administrator have the discretion to reduce a block to very short length when a longer block is allowed? Why would be want to discourage leniency and second chances? I agree we cannot allow the block log to become a substitute for warnings, which is the issue that motivated this restriction, but have we painted with too broad a brush? I think so.Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem

Start with a quote: I recently wrote an essay on virtual blight. Along with the usual blighters: parasitic marketers, griefers, trolls, and predators, I added a 6th category: elitists. Elitists form cabals and cliques that make other users feel unwelcome. This can negatively affect the growth of an online community.[1] High-minded stuff...except that a mere 11 hours later the same administrator proposes to change policy in order to undermine the longstanding tradition that all Wikipedians' valid warnings have equal value. He's trying to undermine equality by turning the block log into something it isn't: a special warning bulletin readily viewable by anyone, but that only administrators are able to leave messages on. Durova^Charge! 17:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, you are misrepresenting my position. I am not proposing to put warnings in the block log. In fact, I strongly oppose that! I am proposing that block-able wrongdoing committed by alternate accounts can be noted in the block log of the main account. Should users be free to create throw away sock puppets that get blocked for wrongdoing, and then walk away with a clean block log on their main account? I don't think so. Jehochman ^Talk 17:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Both editors and administrators often leave warnings for blockable behavior. You propose a new special venue for this, accessible only to administrators. You have no reply to the slippery slope argument and this is almost certain to be unequally applied. If one editor calls another an epithet, that's blockable, but when an administrator insults an editor this is very unlikely to be used. Durova^Charge! 18:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Durova, I am sorry if my debating skills are no match for yours. For the good of the encyclopedia, we should seek consensus rather than engaging in a test of wits. (As the less witted one, you can see why I'd like to avoid that.)

I am talking about a situation where an editor uses an alternate account to purposefully split their block log. See WP:GHBH. One way to prevent that sort of gaming is to note blocks given to alternate accounts in the main account's record, when the situation requires. Only administrators can block, so this does not create any sort of dichotomy or additional avenue for abuse. A block was given to an account which is later discovered to be an abusive sock puppet. Why shouldn't that block be noted in the main account's log? Jehochman ^Talk 18:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't about debating skills; it's about common sense. For the good of the encyclopedia, take a harder look at the downside. This proposal has been suggested and rejected before. Any responsible administrator will read an editor's user talk history before applying a block; this proposal discourages them from doing so and devalues warnings that come from non-administrators. And surely you know why some problem behavior isn't noted in block logs: because blocks aren't punitive. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Recording in the block log after sock puppetry is discovered

As with username changes, if a user has received blocks under a bad hand alternate account, those blocks may be noted by a checkuser or administrator in the main account's block log with short blocks. The short blocks should be described as "alternate account block log" in the block summary.

I have added "or administrator" to facilitate RFCU clerks and others being able to assist. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

Proposed. This exactly parallels the situation with username changes and right to vanish. Jehochman ^Talk 18:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Deeply flawed and previously rejected; no new solution has been offered for previous flaws that resulted in rejection. See discussion above. Durova^Charge! 18:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show me the links to where this has been proposed before and rejected by the community. Take a look at this: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log after username change. Why shouldn't this be the same situation? Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been linked above; aren't you even reading the responses? The way you're pursuing this is very disturbing. Here are the discussions again. Here, AN Durova^Charge! 18:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. That thread talks about placing warnings. I am talking about effectively merging the block logs of alternative accounts with main accounts, the way we already do with username changes. That thread doesn't mention sock puppetry or alternate accounts. Go ahead, I will let you have the last reply, and then wait for other opinion. Jehochman ^Talk 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet templates already serve that purpose. Please refrain from sarcasm; if you have one good reason for proposing this that isn't already solved by other means, then I'm willing to hear it; and if you have effective solutions to the serious objections here I'm willing to see them. Each time someone raises an objection you change the subject or make bad faith assumptions, and from your own re-request for links it looks like you aren't reading the replies. Yet you claim to want consensus; how can you achieve that by disparaging whatever disagrees with you? Durova^Charge! 19:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: Jehochman has altered from its original wording:

• Original: An administrator seeks expanded blocking authority to apply short blocks in situations currently handled by warnings and templates.
• Jehochman's version: Should blocks given to sock puppet accounts be noted in the master account's block log with short blocks?

That pretty much sums up the difference (more opinions above). Input is welcome. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do not agree that these situations are currently covered by warnings and templates. I've just changed "Should" to "Can" because this process can be optional. Comments are invited. Jehochman ^Talk 20:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I propose a clarification.

This page is missleading. Administrator can never block users if those users have enough resources. Administrators only TRY to block users. I've been blocked several times in other wikis and I always continued editing... --Damifb (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we will just have to try to do our best, but no reason to WP:BEANS make a big deal about this. NoSeptember 15:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that's paternalist... I don't believe in good lies --Damifb (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a "policy" page, your tidbit is not policy, but more of a hypothetical. NoSeptember 15:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not misleading at all, you're just misquoting the page. It actually says "Blocking is the method by which administrators may technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia." "May" already implies it doesn't always work. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Clever answer! --Damifb (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to policy

1.1 Although it may sound like a trivial change, policy change suggestions might be better off starting out with small bits to achieve consensus.

current heading: When blocking may not be used
proposed heading: When blocking must not be used

1.2 WP:BLOCKME current language: Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Typically such requests are refused. There is a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used instead.
proposed language: Sometimes people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. Such requests are to be declined. There is a JavaScript-based "wikibreak enforcer" which may be used instead.

Archtransit (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a fundamental rule. We do not want to turn Wikipedia into a lawyers' paradise. Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm with Jehochman on this one. The changes that you suggested do not seem to do anything to the nature of the policy, but rather only change the wording. Considering that WP:IAR part of the picture, it seems incorrect to say "must" instead of "may", implying that this particular part of the policy supersedes IAR. Same with the second proposed change; the changed wording implies that there is a fixed way of doing things, which again, there is not in every case. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 18:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that this change is unnecessary. Very few, if any, of our polices should speak in such absolute terms. It is up to the administrators here to carefully and thoughtfully apply this policy, and other community standards, to each unique situation. Such a discretionary authority, and the personal responsibility that come with it, is beneficial for the project. — Satori Son 20:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

"Infinite" blocks

Maybe I should rephrase my previous question a little more clearly: What exactly is the purpose of the "infinite" block option that admins have? And when may and should an "infinite" block be used, as opposed to an "indefinite" block? Angel Cupid (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Infinite" should mean "you're out of here forever", while "indefinite" should mean "you're out of here until we decide what to do with you, I guess. But in practice, there's no difference. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration proposal concerning new restrictions on exercise of admin powers

Administrators may be interested to read this discussion in a currently ongoing arbitration. It concerns a proposal from the arbitrators to bar admins active in editing articles relating broadly to Israeli-Palestinian issues from using discretionary powers in the entire topic area - not just an individual article - if they have previously been involved in a content dispute in that topic area. This would seem be a major modification of the existing prohibition on blocking users with whom one is involved in a content dispute (see WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used), in effect setting a different and stricter rule for the topic area under arbitration. A number of admins, including myself, are concerned that this is unworkable, undesirable and would set a bad precedent that could be applied to other disputes. Input from other admins would be welcomed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles/Proposed decision#"Uninvolved" administrators. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The restrictions is limited to those administrators who seek to enforce the case's sanctions. Given the editing climate of those articles, the Committee seems wise to implement this measure. There is a parallel discussion at WP:AN#Arbitration proposal concerning new restrictions on exercise of admin powers Jehochman ^Talk 09:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The concern is more that it could be used as precedent for other disputed topic areas (I don't exercise admin powers in Israel-Palestine articles but I do in two other sanctioned topic areas, Kosovo and Macedonia). Anyhow, please feel free to discuss the issue further on the arbitration talk page, rather than here! -- ChrisO (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Block logs analysis - logging indefinite blocks

I'm going to link this discussion from WP:AN (administrators' noticeboard) and WP:VPP (village pump - policy). Please add links from other places as well if needed.

This is a proposal following on from an AN discussion of [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive123#Escalating_blocks_versus_swift_indefinite_blocks|Escalating blocks versus swift indefinite blocks]. One of the points raised there was: "it would help if it was possible to list indefinite blocks separately from other blocks. That way we really could see if the proportion of indefinite blocks, as compared to other blocks, has increased or decreased over time". An initial analysis was done here (eleven indefinite blocks in one hour). It might be possible to do this through some combination of software changes to allow the existing log to have more filter options, or use categories (though those are less helpful for historical records), but what I propose is to manually list all the indefinite blocks carried out every 24-hour period, and then blank the page, possibly with old page versions being used to point to the list for a particular day. Including the block summary and the blocking admin's name would also be useful. In fact, the layout would be a lot like the archives of Wikipedia:Block log - see Wikipedia:Block log/Archive1. At the same time, it would be useful to analyse Special:Log/block to see how the amount of blocking has varied over time. I know admin blocking stats have been produced in the past, presumably from data from this log, but I don't know if a chronological analysis has ever been done. Ultimately, something like User:MiszaBot/Trackers/CAT:DFUI (but for blocks, not images) is what I had in mind. Before I pursue this any further, is anyone vehemently opposed to this? I was going to set up a trial subpage, but a subpage of Wikipedia:Blocking policy didn't feel right, and Wikipedia:Block log is already taken. For now, I've set up User:Carcharoth/Indefinite block log. Thoughts? Carcharoth (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you contact a bot programmer. It should not be hard to download the entire block log for a day and then spit out a list of the indefinite blocks. You might want to do further filtering to show which blocks are applied to users with very few edits (typically throw-away socks and vandalism-only accounts) versus indef blocks applied to established editors. User:Franamax is very good at this sort of programming. Jehochman ^Talk 02:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've pointed Franamax here. I agree that number of edits would be a good metric to use, though that will never be a substitute for actually examining the contribs. Ideally, there would be a way to log unblock requests and denials, but thinking about how to do that makes my head hurt. I think just this will be enough for now. Carcharoth (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

One problem I've thought of... Stuff in the block logs is normally less "visible". Would there be problems with such a page making the logs more visible? Would blanking at the end of each day ease such concerns? Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to help with this. The log data is normally available form the toolserver, where I could use database requests to make nice summaries. But the toolserver database is down for maintenance, so I can't move forward until it is back up. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Is it difficult to query the number of edits an account has. From what I remember, that can be easily done with API. eg. here, and example. Carcharoth (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not difficult, this is stored in one of the database tables (where the API takes it from). The database query can be changed to incorporate that information in the output or use it as a filter. Once the database is running, of course. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Maybe CBM has already answered the question.

Getting the block data is a snap, doing the analysis is pretty simple, looking through the blocked user's talk for unblock request/response template edits is doable (though there are some timing issues there). As far as visibility goes, the block log is there for anyone to check right now (to say nothing of the big red thing on the user page :), it's easy enough to just post summary data and hide the detail somewhere, and isn't your purpose to bring some visibility to the issue anyway?

This is easy enough to code up, I'll offer three caveats:

1. My framework only runs on as a standalone Windows program or Mac/Intel/OSX so someone has to actually run the program themselves on a regular basis.

2. I haven't yet breached the edit-Wikipedia-page barrier, I'm happier producing wiki-ready format that can be copy/pasted by a judicious user.

3. Much like the Unabomber, I carve all my own screws. Some of the python and perl guys might be able to do this in 6 lines of code where I would use 600, I don't really do the same thing as the bot-makers, they have lots of easy tools to work specifically with wiki, I make all my stuff up as I go. If you can find a bot-head to jump on it, they may be able to produce results in a day as opposed to a week for me.

That said, this doesn't look too tough, ask around, if no-one else bites in 4-5 days, I'll be happy to do it. Franamax (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You can download all the logs, and do historical analysis that way. That link might not work in, say, a month, but you can always download all logs as an SQL database. Graham87 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Be warned that the above file is 353 MB in size. MER-C 05:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Feh. That must be the smallest download in all of WP. Someday when I can use a corporate connection, I'm gonna actually try one of those monsters. Franamax (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done some analysis of the reasons for about 12,000 indefinite blocks in the last two months, if anyone's interested - User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks. Hut 8.5 19:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. That's very interesting. Do you think you could possibly add the following?

(a) A search string for "infinite" (a subtly different variant on indefinite)

(b) Some figures for numbers of blocks over the period of time since the block log started (some point in 2004)? Just the number of blocks per month should be enough. Remember to exclude unblocks (does your figure for blocks exclude unblocks?)

(c) Repeating what you did for December and January for the same period in other years? (ie. year-on-year variations)

(d) Repeating what you did for December and January for the other period in the same year? (ie. seasonal variations)

Don't worry if you can't do any of this. Just some ideas. Carcharoth (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I counted "infinite" as "indefinite" and unblocks as "other blocks" (which I've now changed). I got this data by copying the block log out of my browser 5000 at a time, and there's a limit to how long ago Special:Log/Block will go (and it isn't anything like enough to do what you are suggesting), so I think someone else ought to have a go. Hut 8.5 22:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be easy to repeat this every month for the block log for a whole month? ie. in the first week of February, do it for the whole of January, and then carry on from there? I could copy out the block logs if that is the tedious bit? I'm hoping someone will eventually come up with something more automated, and something that includes the number of edits, but this is good for now. I particularly like the figure of 31,600+ blocks for a two(?) month period, with 12,500+ being indefinite. It will be really good to actually have some figures to use next time this comes up. Carcharoth (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do this every month for subsequent months, that's not really much of a problem (and copying out the block log data doesn't take too long either). The figure of 31652 is not actually the total number of blocks for December and January since I don't have all the data for January. It would be much easier to do something with the download mentioned above. Hut 8.5 07:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks as a percentage of total blocks

I've managed to run a similar analysis on the file linked to by Graham87 above - results at User:Hut 8.5/indef blocks 2. It appears from this that the proportion of indef blocks to other blocks has remained fairly constant between 30% and 45% since mid-2005. Hut 8.5 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Like CBM said as soon as yarrow is back up and current Ill get the data for all indef blocks verus non. β^_command 22:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Would it be possible to do the following: for every account that was indefinitely blocked (that is rather a large number - I make it 212,055 indefinite blocks over around 3 years), get: (a) current block status (ie. are they still indefinitely blocked - ignore cases where they are currently blocked for a definite period after an earlier indefinite block); (b) "number of edits" (if currently indefinitely blocked). And then do a distribution curve for number of indefinite blocks within set blocks of "number of edits" (eg. 0-10, 10-50, 50-100, 100-200, 200-300, and so on). Or however statisticians normally deal with that sort of thing. Carcharoth (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Non consensus blocks: what's the default? Please spell out clearly

Per the indefinite block of user:Piperdown preserved discussion at [2] (I can't figure out how to get the exact link to the section; perhaps somebody will help?) I think we should all take note of the fact that sometimes no consensus is reached on whether or not to unblock a user. However, the question then remains: so what to do in that case? In the absence of consensus, should the verdict be guilty or innocent?

Now, I think that the spirit of the language in WP:BLOCK contains much language to suggest that "community bans" require a consensus to block, not a consensus to unblock. It talks about not a single administrator being willing to unblock, which is language which is not understandable except as complete consensus to leave blocked (i.e., the action is so egregious that not a single admin thinks the block is ambiguous). In cases of ambiguous blocks, the WP:BLOCK policy only requires discussion with the blocking editor-- it does not say some consensus or agreement must be reached, and quite often there is none. The WP:BLOCK policy says that wheelwars are very bad, but then fails to offer guidelines for what to do in cases of "agree to disagree" where a wheelwar is inevitable without some guide. And that guide must address the crucial point: is a person guilty/blocked indefinitely in absence of consensus, or are they innocent/unblocked, in absence of consensus?

Now in the legal system, we know the way it works: as in Twelve Angry Men, one juror holding out can result in no conviction. I think that's the way it should be, and that’s the way "effective community ban" appears to be set up to be. But somehow, it has undergone a certain "creep" to the point that we now have indefinite blocks upheld unless there is complete consensus to UNBLOCK. That's somewhat bass-ackwards, and contrary to the sprit of WP:BLOCK, even though there's no clear statement of it that way.

So I merely propose that this policy page contains a very clear statement that if dispute resolution between administrators fails in cases of an ambiguous and contested block, that the default is then UNBLOCK. Which somebody needs to perform without fear of retribution. Which I think follows the way this policy was written, but is losing ground now, and more honored in the breech than the observance.

Those tempted to reply to me that this actually IS the policy now, won't have any problem with it being stated REALLY clearly, because some administrators obviously haven't gotten the message. And if you disagree that this is, or should be, the policy, here's the place to say why you think so. SBHarris 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The message from ArbCom, as I understand it, is that sysop tools should not be used in a controversial way. That means, if there is no consensus on what to do, do nothing. Members of ArbCom, or others, are invited to provide links to appropriate examples or counter-examples. Jehochman ^Talk 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that means essentially: If accused by one, you're blocked indefinitely unless there's a consensus that you're not guilty. If so, you should spell this out as a natural consequence, in WP:BLOCK.SBHarris 01:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And that rarely happens. Consensus works both ways: if the block is unjustified, it will be undone and no-one will redo it. If it is justified, it will stay done. And if it falls in the middle, people will unblock or not as they see fit. If everyone pipes up and says "I'm not comfortable with this block" but no one actually unblocks, well, what people say and what people do don't often match in real life either. Personally, I'm happy with the consensus on the block in question, and note the editors who complain loudly and in many places with a degree of detached interest in what they are doing. ➔ REDVEЯS with my innocent hand on my heart 21:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Admins not in agreement is one of the fast tracks to ArbComm accepting a case. Better than a repeated struggle is an admin filing a case saying "Admin X has blocked. I am willing to unblock." See for example the Arbitrator's acceptance opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered which might or might not have become a case until I, as an admin, said "I would be willing to undo the indefinite block as unsupported by either the claimed foul or the community discussion." GRBerry 21:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that admins aren't juror but rather trial judges. There is an upcoming proposal to have a formal appeals process of 3 or 5 admin circuits to review and uphold or overturn other admins decisions. Bstone (talk) 00:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV is not harm

I think calling an edit “POV pushing,” and/or using blocking to support one’s own side in an editorial dispute are wrong. I also think politely expressing a point of view does not harm Wikipedia or its editors. I think blocking someone for politely expressing a point of view is illegal. Politely expressing a point of view is not a form of competition, especially when used to give a paragraph neutrality.--Chuck Marean 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There's already a rule against issuing a block in an edit dispute in which a blocking-admin is a part. Alas, it's easy to get around: you simply have another admin do the dirty work. The possible reasons are nebulous and impossible to define or defend against: "disruption," "edit-warring", "POV-pushing," "incivility", "trolling"-- they all add up to "You're new here, we don't like you, you have maybe just an IP address, and we think you need to go away." In some cases you might agree with an unpopular view and (once upon a time) if some other sod has been banned who expressed that view, you can be considered guilty-until-proven-innocent of being a "sockpuppet" for that person, and banned on the basis that you're pretty much like the other unpopular person. This is called the "duck test," and I believe it's named after that Holy Grail Python skit where they intend to duck the witch to see if she floats. If you can't be proven a sock, there's a species of thoughtcrime where you simply agree with a banned user, and this is called being a "meatpuppet." Sometimes it's confused with being a sockpuppet by administrators (wups). If you're a newbie with an unpopular view, if you're not credibly the one (maybe your IP traces to a different country, lucky for you), you can surely be accused of being the other. And so on.

And by the way, all these games are not just confined to administrators. Certain editors have their own favorite administrators they go to, when edit-warring over some WP:LAME thing, and yell "Daddy, HE'S TOUCHING ME!" Sometimes this results in a "time out" in the corner. Sometimes everybody forgets about who's stuck in the corner. Well, so. There's always a new supply of fresh wiki-cannonfodder, I mean enlisted men, ahem, new editors. Not everybody in the world has been bitten on wikipedia yet. There's a new one born every minute. SBHarris 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"I also think politely expressing a point of view does not harm Wikipedia or its editors" Chuck, please see WP:NPOV. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he was referring to the talk pages. It is OK to discuss POVs on the talk pages. It is not acceptable to push a POV in an article, or to edit war to push a POV. But in these cases, discussion on the talk page is nearly always preferable to blocking. Blocking is a rather blunt tool that should really only be used as a last resort. Carcharoth (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If one calls

for civil disobedience, is gonna be blocked? Because, the thing is, came on, we can still edit while blocked, so, what's the point of all this discussion? --Damifb (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The only page a user can edit while blocked is their own user talk page, so any disruption is kept to one page. If that one page is abused then it can be protected to stop the user editing it. Hut 8.5 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are so naif... I'm blocked in many wikis and still editing all of them...--Damifb (talk) 13:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Principle" findings by the review committee in the MathewHoffman case

I think just about all of the eight "principles" related to blocking recently emphasized by the arbitration committee in this (unbelievably FUBAB'ed case), need to be cited directly (perhaps simply copied over) into this article. I can put them here, if you like. Or see the findings of principle: [3]. What say you all? Case-law gets important when the decision comes from the Supreme Court. That's why the Chief Justice position has to be confirmed by fresh hearing, don't you know. About the only power he has is in choosing who writes the majority opinion, IF he agrees with it. But there a lot of power there, because by doing so, he controls who he/she knows is going to "make" the case-law, and what case-law gets made... SBHarris 02:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh what the heck, here are the eight findings of principle mentioned above

Administrators

1.1) Administrators are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. They are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with this; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, consistently or egregiously poor judgement may result in the removal of administrator status.

Passed 6 to 2 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't bite the newcomers

2) New contributors are prospective Wikipedians and are therefore our most valuable resource. Editors are expected to treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. Blocking policy states, "Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking, ... but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking."

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of sock puppets

4) Evidence that a user is familiar with Wikipedia editing conventions (such as the use of Wikitext markup, edit summaries, and core policies) is, by itself, insufficient basis to treat the user as a sock puppet.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Review and discussion of blocks

5) Since administrators are strongly discouraged from reversing one another's blocks, it is of particular importance that blocking admins respond to good-faith requests to review blocks they have made. Similarly, administrators who perform independent reviews of unblock requests are expected to familiarize themselves with the full facts of the matter before marking the unblock request "declined."

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Know yourself

6) It is important for all users, but especially administrators, to be aware of their own agendas, feelings and passions, and to deal with them appropriately, avoiding both biased editing and ill-considered administrative actions.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Administrators: use of administrative tools in a dispute

7) Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute.

Passed 8 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation bias in block reviews

8) Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of unblock requests are wholly without merit, those who choose to review them are expected to carry out an impartial, evidence-based review. Administrators are specifically cautioned to be on the lookout for confirmation bias in the course of a block review.

Passed 9 to 0 at 13:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

SBHarris 02:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Warnings suggestion

In vandal hunting, I often come across user pages with two or three (or six or eight) "final" warnings saying "you will be blocked". Since the majority of vandal fighters are not admins and cannot actually enact the block (and often can't count on an admin to do it through AIV either as admins have different standards and applications of policy) how about we remove the ability to leave that warning from the non admin accounts. As it stands it appears that we are all just kidding when we say "you will be blocked" and the vandal learns that they can keep going. I'd appreciate any suggestions? Legotech·(t)·(c) 05:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you noticing these warnings on IP talk pages or the talk pages of registered accounts? Hut 8.5 07:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Mostly IPs but I've seen it on registered accounts as well. Legotech·(t)·(c) 14:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There you are then. If an IP address receives a final warning and then a month later starts vandalising again, the chances that it is the same person are slim as most IP addresses are shared or change regularly. It clearly isn't fair to block people because of other people's vandalism. If a registered account does the same thing it's more of a concern, since we can be sure it is the same person. Hut 8.5 15:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, thats sort of why I was asking about the warnings wordings. I supposedly different editor comes along and starts vandalizing, so we warn. Again. And they get the "you have new messages" and go look and there are 40 "Final" warnings. The new editor then immediately realizes that the warnings are meaningless and continues to do whatever they want. Legotech·(t)·(c) 15:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Options

How do you create an account while you are already logged into an account? I have done this before, but I don't know how I did it. Also, the options need to be changed:

1. "Automatically block this user's IP address and any further addresses they try to edit from." Actually, it only affects the address the user is currently using. 2. "Stop user from sending e-mail". Pointless. People can still send e-mail using something such as Hotmail or Outlook. 58.168.209.250 (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You can create am account here.

Regarding email, the email block does not actually stop people sending email, but it does stop blocked users finding out Wikipedians' email addresses using Special:Emailuser. Hut 8.5 13:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for remedies - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems

Please review and tweak: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence § t/e 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking

Unresolved

 – needs further discussion

The section on "unblocking" has gradually become reworded over time, to the point it doesn't entirely match norms or consensus in an area. I've made a first edit which is to group together and tighten up wording of the times it's almost never allowed and can lead to desysopping: - wheel warring (was already in the policy), unblocking self other than removal of compromised admin account misblock (was already in the policy) and bad-faith unblocking to allow puppetry or reopen an IP that was blocked as a closed proxy. The latter cases -- reopening blocked proxies for abuse, and assisting sockpuppetry -- have been features of summary desysopping cases in the past and are the main (if uncommon) ways that unblocking gets abused. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I would like to see something to the effect of:

"Administrators should not decline an unblock request for a block they were involved in."

added to the section. It needs to be called out. Toddst1 (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardblock vs softblock

I think that this policy should elaborate more on when a hardblock should be used instead of a softblock. I had an incident today in which I addressed a user for hardblocking accounts for simply having promotional usernames, as I thought that they only deserved a softblock, and often I see accounts with inappropriate names hardblocked or softblocked on a whim without much consistancy. As it is, there is too much subjectivity surrounding the matter. We need some concrete guidelines.--Urban Rose 21:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Expungement

Someone with a fairly long block history (most of it over a year old) asked me how they should go about petitioning for having the older blocks removed. I had no idea, and I looked through the archives to see if this had come up before without success. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

That's only done in exceptional circumstances (I think it's only happened once, at the request of the Arbitration Committee) - a developer needs to be found to directly alter the servers. Certainly if the old blocks were justified I doubt it's going to happen. Hut 8.5 21:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

So, it isn't so much a philosophical issue as it is one of practicality. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of both. If the blocks were justified (no matter how long ago it was) then it's clearly not right for an editor to hide their past like this. Even if the blocks weren't justified, it's necessary to have a record of the block and so the usual practice is to block the user for 1 second with a block summary stating the earlier blocks were unjustified. Hut 8.5 07:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I dig that, Hut. I was just suggesting that if a sufficient period of time had passed without incident, that expungement might be considered. A person's past edits as a noob need not haunt them forever. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting clarification on Cool-Down Blocks

There are two ways we can tell that a user is "upset": by the nature of their editing patterns which will most likely be disruptive, or by their explicit mention or implicit suggestion in the course of an otherwise civil exchange on a talk page, etc. The current wording of the Cool-Down Block section on the policy page is, I believe, speaking to this latter situation: you should not block users simply because they appear to be upset. However I didn't interpret it this way until after coming to the talk page here; even after re-reading it several times, it still seemed to be talking about the first situation, by saying that users who are clearly disruptive and angry should not be blocked. I do understand now what it's getting at, but there must be some way we can clarify this language, yes? Am I alone in doing a double-take upon reading this for the first time? --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This was discussed earlier.[4] Perhaps "solely" is intended to be the key to this and that the reason for blocking should never be given as "cool down" but rather the perceived future harm that is supposedly being prevented. I personally don't read this section as saying that angry people must not be blocked. I have noticed that many blocks are made which are outside the policy stated here but the Arbitration Committee (for example) does follow the general approach described. Thincat (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that discussion, but it seemed nothing was actually resolved and it was almost six months ago, so better to start a new 'thread'. Would something close to the following be acceptable (italics mine to emphasize difference with current version)?

"Brief blocks solely for the purpose of "cooling down" an angry user who is not making disruptive edits should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation."

Is that too wordy? Does it confuse any other issues? Is it worse than what we have now? Thoughts in general? For me, this version reads much more clearly than what we have out there now. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I am in total agreement with the Peruvian llama. This is one of the more bizarre and non-intuitive policies as currently written--I'd say the majority of short-term blocks issued to non-vandals are issued to very angry users who have begun to disrupt the project in order to express their outrage. We block these users with the hope that the user will assume a more peaceable demeanor when they return. Without the key phrase that Peruvianllama proposes, this policy contradicts reality. I'm going to boldly make the adjustment--and if any of you revert me I WILL BECOME SO F***ING ANGRY that you might just have to block me until I settle down.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the change is useful. Blocking someone is likely to make them more angry - so your motivation for blocking should never be "to let the person cool off". If their actions merit a block, then block them. If you think that they need a block to cool down, don't block them. Changing the wording turns the issue on its head - the motivation for blocking should never be "to let them cool down". Blocks should be issued on the merits of an editor's actions; the vast majority of us aren't qualified to therapeutic decisions. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To me, the wording you reverted to seems to imply that angry, disruptive editors will only become more angry and more disruptive when they return to editing after their block expires--which I have not observed to be the case. Ther needs to be an indication that an administrator may block editors who are editing out of anger, provided that those edits are disruptive to the project. Perceiving that someone is angry online is hardly the same as diagnosing them with sort of mental condition--when they're pissed off, most editors will let you know. I think the crux of this (rather unnecessary) policy is that you can't block a user merely for expressing displeasure or rage. Can you show me some examples of users being blocked so they can "cool down?"--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

There are two problems with that proposed wording, Peruvianllama. Firstly, disruptive edits are only one broad category of reasons for blocking, so your wording is incomplete from that perspective. Secondly, it's something of a tautology, since the sentence already includes the word "solely".

The prohibition is against using blocks solely to enforce a cool-down period. Obviously many legitimate blocks will have the necessary consequence of an enforced cool-down period, and indeed this is probably the desired outcome. The policy is not saying that angry people can't be blocked if their behaviour is blockable. It's just saying that they shouldn't be blocked solely because they're angry, if their behaviour is not otherwise blockable. --bainer (talk) 00:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When have people been ever blocked solely for being angry? I fail to see the underlying purpose of this confusing policy; I watch many administrators closely and am more critical than most of their actions, but never have I witnessed an attempt by an admin to block an infuriated who editor who was not, by some user's estimation, making harmful edits--I think the much more nuanced and relevant issue is which edits are disruptive and which edits are acceptable--this is much harder to codify in a one-line policy. I do not feel think the intent of WP:BLOCK#CDB is obvious, and I would like to see examples of the actions it seeks to prevent.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the whole point of that policy was that you're not supposed to block people with a reason that they should "cool down", because that sounds incredibly patronising. Pretty much every non-indefinite block on a registered user is a cool-down block in a sense. - Bobet 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The reactions to being indefinitely blocked

Some thoughts on how people react to blocks, prompted by this reason for an indefinite block:

"Until you have read and understood WP:CIVIL and generally understood the ethos of communal consensual editing, and promise to abide by those principles, your presence on the encyclopedia is disruptive and I have therefore removed your editing privileges."

Indefinite blocking is sometimes used in cases where the blocking admin is unsure how long the block should be in place for, or if they think the person being blocked should demonstrate that they have understood why they were blocked, and acknowledge this and say they will change or stop, before being unblocked. I happen to think that this seemingly persuasive "don't unblock unless they apologise/are contrite" approach, unless done very diplomatically, can actually make things escalate and get worse. The reason being that this approach can end up feeling like "do this in order to get unblocked" or, worse, "we are going to force you to grovel and apologise, or we won't unblock you". The key point here is the reaction of the person being blocked and whether or not there were genuine reasons for blocking (there were in this case, but not, in my opinion reasons for an indefinite block).

If you have never been indefinitely blocked yourself, please don't assume that you know what it feels like. Many people react poorly to being blocked indefinitely (or being blocked at all). Sometimes that is a sign of a wider problem, but crucially, sometimes it is not. In these latter cases, we should be very wary of declining an unblock reason because of the reaction the block provoked. By their very nature, because they are often misunderstood as permanent blocks (understandably because sometimes they do end up being de facto permanent blocks), indefinite blocks are more likely to get people angry than definite blocks of a few days or a week. There is a countering argument that indefinite blocks can 'shock' people into acting better in future, but I think any block should be able to perform that function, especially when it is a first block.

Accordingly, I propose that indefinite blocks should not be used in an attempt to change behaviour or force apologies out of people. Such change should be genuine and not forced, and indefinite blocking only escalates situations where short blocks of a definite nature may be more appropriate. I realise that the argument goes that short blocks end up being seen as "punishment" and that indefinite blocks are used if the block admin wants to make sure that there will be no future harm (or rather, that there will be promises of no future harm), but a strongly worded warning from an admin or editor can achieve the same effect, followed by a short block if the behaviour continues. In other words, the warning and short block ends up being a warning shot in an escalating series, rather than jumping straight in with indefinite.

Any thoughts? How does this work in practice? Carcharoth (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In the case at hand LHvU did add text "Until you have read and understood..." following the block notice, which is at least a partial clue that the block was not definitely indefinite. The problem I see with the block notice itself, especially with indef blocks, is that it gives only one alternative: "if you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest...". This presents itself to the blocked user as the only way out being to say why the block is wrong. Since the blocked user is usually a combative user, this leads to a combative response to the block notice along the lines of "UNBLOCK me now you fascist communist anarchists". There is nothing in the block notice which indicates a possibility of redemption. In the case of an indef block, the notice should (almost) always indicate that indef not= forever and specific changes in behaviour are required; and in the case of any block length, since blocks are preventive, there should always be some other way out, if the user can recognize and intend to modify their bad behaviour then the block should be immediately lifted. The blocked user should always be offered a graceful way out iff they are willing to reflect and make changes. Franamax (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I think a rewrite of the block notices might help. Would this be the right place to discuss that? Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I am going to disagree with the specifics, although I understand and endorse the main points regarding the use of indef blocks and disruptive editors. Using a block to alter an editors behaviour; when that behaviour is in violation of WP:CIVIL and causes disruption, then that behaviour provides the reason for the block and thus only a change in that behaviour - or an undertaking to change - is reason for the block to be lifted. If behaviour was the reason for executing the sanction, not addressing the behaviour seems pointless. "You have been rude and you are therefore blocked for a week" appears, to me, to be far more punitive. It seems to be a punishment for past misdemeanours, and without further comment does not seem to address the behaviour that gave raise to the block. "You have been rude, in violation of our principles and policies, and therefore you cannot edit unless you are willing to abide by those rules" seems both to be preventative and provide the context by which a block may be lifted. In my discussion with the reviewing admin I made it very clear that once the "conditions" for unblock were met then it should be actioned immediately. It was not punitive, but a preventative measure. I fully concur with Franamax's comments about the unfriendliness of block templates and the lack of flexibility seemingly available when "contesting" (proving yourself right and the other party wrong) when requesting unblock. Perhaps some thought should be given for allowing "appealing" the duration, on the basis of remodelling behaviour as well as improper application of the sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

One problem with that is if the block log is a relatively long list of things. In this case, and I quote: "Disruption: Harassing editors, incivility, abuse of process". It is quite difficult to know where to start when faced with a list like that, with what are effectively three separate reasons for blocking, requiring a response on each point. What is worse is that you don't explain in your block notice what you mean by this. Anyone, a few months later, trying to verify the claims you made in that (permanent) block log may have trouble finding what it was that caused such a stern response. What actually happened here was that your indefinite block turned out to function like an extreme version of a warning, which is fine when people realise that. The trouble is that some people will not realise this, will react badly, and this will be used against them as a reason to maintain the block, and they then leave. Do you understand what I'm saying here? If a stern warning will do, use that instead. If a short block will do, use that instead. And don't use indefinite blocks as a way to force behaviour modification. It is a blunt tool that can have the wrong effect. Carcharoth (talk) 01:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I do indeed understand your point, but I differ in my interpretation (well, my intention - since that is what it is) in that I am trying to reconcile the need of promoting the future consensual editing of the wikipedia against the disruption that is happening now. Where short term blocks have proven ineffective, and long term blocks are the equivalent of "throwing away the key" for a defined period, I see indefinite tariffs as the most appropriate response. My understanding of Wikipedia:Block#Purpose and goal, especially point 3 and the nutshell, is that blocks can be executed as instruments of behaviour modifiers - and that indef blocks are the best tariff as they can be lifted as soon as a improper behaviour is recognised and admitted, and an undertaking to change given. I see this as entirely consistent with my reading of the policy.

I have given some thought to this matter, and I think I have identified the major area of misunderstanding in the perception of the indef block - the similarities of the indef block template to that of {{subst:uw-block1 & 2}}. As the shorthand for the indef template is {{subst:uw-block3}} it can easily be misunderstood that it is a more severe tariff than those indicated by the other templates. I wonder if there may be an alternative template for notifying indef blocks created; one that indicates that the block remains in place only for as long as the perceived problem remains unaddressed - one that notes that editing privileges are "suspended" indefinitely pending resolution. The unblock review option may be retained - for when the blockee believes that the block of itself was levied improperly - but with a further option where the specific policy violations are admitted and an undertaking given to reform. Where a reviewing sysop sees this in the review request, per AGF they should agree the unblock. Abuse of this option previously should be the only reason for a decline. A template with this option, and in language that is considerably more conciliatory than used in the existing indef block template, may reduce adverse reactions that being "indef'ed" sometimes causes. Naturally, the adoption of such an alternative needs to be further discussed with the community but I think this is the correct venue to make the initial proposal (which this is, for the avoidance of doubt).

Back to the specific block, there was only one reason given for the block - disruption. The examples after the colon in the summary were just that, examples of the disruptive behaviour and not individual reasons for blocking. Again, it is the judgment that an editor can be disruptive (and thus liable for sanction) without acting so improperly in any one area to justify a block for any one instance. It is sometimes the accumulative incidents of minor incivility, occasional harassment, and minor abuse of process (giving vandalism warnings in the matter of content disputes, etc) that taken as a whole can be considered as being disruptive. That is both my view and judgement, and I do realise that I can be fallible not only in both individually, but also at the same time. That is when the opinions and advice of my peers are so valuable.

Against the feelings of the blockee (who may not always be sincere in their outrage) should be the consideration of those who are on the receiving end of the disruption - should editors be discouraged from editing, and end up leaving the community, by actions considered too petty than to attract more than some warnings once in a while? As a sysop fairly active in anti-vandalism I am used to having to explain why my blocks are not "severe enough", as well as having to justify the "harsh" tariffs to the blockee and their supporters. My reaction to the first is that blocks are preventative, and sanctions can be re-introduced as soon as examples of the same policy violations become apparent again, and to the latter that I am always open to having my blocks varied without reference to me. The major realisation is that nobody is going to be happy with all of my judgments all of the time - and that I should continue to try to do the best I am capable of, and to listen and learn and apply.

That is it, I guess. I really look forward to hearing your thoughts regarding promoting a new alternative unblock template, the "indefinite suspension of privileges" option. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This policy, the conflict of interest guideline, and the conflict of interest noticeboard

Over at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#just_a_heads_up.... there appears to be an issue since some users seem to think that this policy disallows discussions of user identities on Wiki even when they are blatant conflicts of interest and when the user names are blatantly connected to the articles in question. A glance at WP:COIN shows that we don't actually run things that way. Should this policy be modified to reflect actual community practice? JoshuaZ (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

indef blocks and autoblocks

When I put an indefinite block on a vandalism-only account with "auto block IP" turned on, will the IP block expire in a few days? I would hate to be indef blocking IPs than might end up being assigned to a useful editor some day who doesn't know how to request it be removed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It expires in 24 hours (but gets reset every time the autoblock kicks in before expiring). - Bobet 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Is okay for me to have another account?

I was at one point a good faith editor with about 1000 edits, but lost my cool and berated another user and was indefinitely blocked for it roughly 6 months ago. I noticed another admin objected, but the block was upheld because of the severe incineration I dished out on the aforementioned user. Honestly, I'm done with wasteful Wikipedia discussions and have just stuck to section rewriting, source adding, typo fixing and the like since then on a new account. I want to have my old deleted sandbox pages transfered over to my new account though, but I'm worred the admin I'm going to ask to do this is just going to be like "lol you were blocked, you can't have this account, now you're blocked again.", which is why I bring this subject up here.

(btw my IP resets upon every sign off so don't bother checking for my previous login.) - 4.154.236.59 (talk) 03:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you edit within the constrains of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, you are welcome to get a new account. Just note that if you disrupt Wikipedia again, or if you edit the same articles as before, your previous block will come to play. You can edit other unrelated articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Death

What happened to the reason saying that accounts of dead users should be indefblocked? Please restore it. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 09:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's ever actually been policy, but it gets done regularly when an editor dies and it's been confirmed. Mostly, really, it's done as a mark of respect and to prevent the distasteful possibility of the account password being hijacked - Alison ^❤ 09:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

self-requested block

I came across this page and found the "self-requested block" to be an unusual concept. I am curious as to why it is typically not granted. Can someone elaborate on this please?Dwr12 (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have an answer for this? If there is an official policy against self-blocks, then surely there are some reasons behind it. Dwr12 (talk) 07:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Typically, it's been used by people wanting to "enforce" a wikibreak, since they can't stay off voluntarily. Addicts do as addicts do, and then either try to finagle another admin to remove the block, or, make an alternate account in order to bypass the block. Since the blocks do nothing (and there are tools such as scripts and local configuration changes that can do just as good a job, if not better), the blocks are both useless and potentially disruptive. Hope that helps? ~Kylu (u|t) 07:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Email block

Per auburnpilot's repeated concerns (on the noticeboards lately, and today, a cross-posted comment on various talk pages), I have amended the email block clause. Although I agree it should not be done preemptively by default, I do think admins should be allowed to use their discretion when it comes to certain (especially vandal-only and abusive-sock) accounts in which email abuse seems extremely likely. Surely, this is better than the all-or-nothing alternative of either disabling an admin's email access to all, or suffering needless abuse. Of course, we can continue using common sense without it being accounted for in the policy, but there are benefits for it being clearly stated therein, I see that. El_C 02:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, what an ass I am for expecting admins to follow policy. - auburnpilot talk 02:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was unexpected. El_C 02:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I invite Thebainer to join the discussion before he blanket revert a second time. Certainly, it is not reasonable to allow all disruptive sock, for example, access to one's email account, nor is waiting for them to abuse the email function is comparable to on-wiki activity (talk page protection, etc.). If he wishes, he can emphasize, in the mediawiki function, that blocked users can still use their talk pages. I'm not going to let the next Neo-Nazi access my email just because some editors cannot see beyond an absolutist, all-or-nothing approach. Thanks. El_C 03:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The email blocking feature is already frequently misused by applying it preemptively. There should be no wording added to the page which encourages preemptive use. Like talk page protection, it should only be used in cases of abuse. Obviously it can be used on socks of a user who has abused the email function before, so that's not a problem. And your spectre-of-Nazism hyperbole is not helpful; abuse of the email function is a minority occurrence and the lines of communication should not be shut down because of overreactions to such. --bainer (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm for having limited room for discretion. Having no escape clause with respect to vandal-only accounts and abusive socks, who although never abused the email function are extremely likely to do so (if and/or when they use it) is what's unrealistic. Good faith is not a suicide pact.

Secondly, there are, in fact, two others, less intrusive lines of communication: the blocked user's own talk page and the unblock mailing list.

As I mentioned and as you have entirely failed to respond to: maybe we can make the mediawiki block notice better highlight that the blocked user's talk page remains open (this didn't use to be the case), as well as linking to unblock-l. But email is a much more personal thing, admins should be able to use their discretion to shut it down selectively in cases of likely abuse — just as they are entitled to shut it down altogether.

I'm not sure who authored this clause in the policy page once the email block function was added (not that long ago), but obviously, it is seeing very little support in the field, from those who would actually suffer the consequence of this all-or-nothing approach (if they were to follow it).

So let us account for the private nature of email —which is not equal to a page on-wiki or a shared mailing off of it, you are wrong about that unqualified equitation. A statement which is 100 percent inflexible is simply not the way. Admins deserve protection, and peace of mind, too. El_C 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Block Question

If an admin gets blocked, will the wiki software allow said admin to unblock themself? Dagoth Ur, Mad God (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is technically possible, yes. --bainer (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a great we to get desysoped though. _{1 != 2} 19:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, the software also allows blocked admins to block (and unblock) other users while blocked, as well. As noted, though, it is a wonderfully efficient way to lose one's adminship. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

HOW do I block?

I am currently working on an article where there is a lot of disruption, and certain users may have to be blocked. As I am no good at computing (and, as English isn't my first language) I find I am unable to understand anything on the subject of actually blocking a user. How exactly does this work? --Maurice45 (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't block a contributor, only administrators can block users and they do this by going to Special:Blockip. If there's disruption on an article page, you can report the problem to the administrators' noticeboard where you concern can be dealt with. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You can't block users - you have to be an administrator to do that. --Hut 8.5 18:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And please don't add block templates to user talk pages when they aren't blocked - adding the template does nothing. Hut 8.5 18:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP/Blocking proposal

Please see my proposed BLP related blocking policy change at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#BLP.2Fblocking_change. MBisanz ^talk 22:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrators adding blocking templates

I'm curious what the policy/guideline/common-sense practice is regarding non-admin users adding blocking templates. I have a several concerns, the first of which is the major one that brought up this question -

• Adding a block template (i.e. {{indefblock}}) implies a finality that may not exist, such as if an indefinite block is still under consider at WP:AN/WP:AN/I
• Converting a red linked userpage to an indef blocked template seems rather unnecessary
• Non-admin users adding block templates may be seen as unneccessarily provocative, especially if there is a history between the users
• There is a subtle implication that the user is an admin when they are not

Thanks, –xenocidic (talk) 16:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Question, are there a lot of instances where the blocking admin isn't adding the template him/herself? I seem to recall that that was considered a required step. (and required to use the template as well to give the editor the instructions for how to request an unblock). While I'm sure I've neglected it once or twice unintentionally, I don't really see a reason why a non-admin would ever need to add a block template. It should already be there by the blocker. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Typically it gets added to the talk page, but then the non-admin might come along add {{indefblock}} to the userpage, for example. –xenocidic (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems overkill and unnecessary unless the indef is perhaps also a sock notice. If you know of this happening somewhere, I would tell the non-admin to stop (and actually, I would tell an admin to not bother either), especially if the userpage was a redlink prior. I've un-redlinked a userpage with a block notice before when it was an SSP that was indeffed. I've also "blanked" a few userpages that violated WP:USER and replaced the contents with an indef notice as an explanation for why I blanked it. Am I helping? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I just wanted to confirm that it was indeed appropriate to request a non-admin not add unblock templates even though (it seems) there is no specific guideline that advises against it. –xenocidic (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove discouragement of cool down blocks from the policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested rewrite by Until(1 == 2)

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

---

Cool-down blocks

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

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

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

---

Comments, suggestions, etc

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cool Down Blocks: Alternative Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification for everyone

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

Nothing could be further from the truth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My two cents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As far as invoking IAR with regards to blocks - very dangerous territory, better have a pretty good explanation, much better than just "I thought it would be a good idea". I recall the_undertow quite recently saying something like "I've never seen an admin action under IAR turning out well".[5] Ironically, TU very soon after went on to demonstrate that precise point. Franamax (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Incivlity in response to blocking

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

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

Thoughts on this as a rough idea?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, yes, if you violate the same policy, you are blocked longer. But there is an exception: if you are blocked for incivility toward another user, and then you allegedly insult the administrator, you can't properly be blocked longer by that admin, on the theory that it was a repeat offense. Admins are a bit like judges and a bit like police. Any judge who is personally insulted by an offender would recuse himself or herself in a trial over that incident. Police officers may not arrest a person based on a personal insult, they may only arrest on their own discretion if they fear actual harm to themselves or others, and the "hurt feelings" of the police officer aren't "actual harm" in this sense. Police officers are trained not to take it personally. Admins should be likewise, and are, in fact, warned about this in numerous places. A lengthened block is a possible outcome for additional incivility, but the issue isn't the block, it is who applies it. Not the now-involved administrator. Until(1 == 2), see [6], says a number of worrisome things, ending with: Well I also don't understand it, so I should not be using my bit either.(21 May 2008)) He was correct, he shouldn't, at least not where he has become COI, and he stated that he didn't understand that. I hope he's figured it out, but the comment above, in this context, makes me continue to worry about it. It was the inability of Tango and Physchim62 to understand the problem that led to their desysopping, not the bad blocks themselves, for if COI can't be understood, the admin cannot be trusted not to repeat the error.--Abd (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are a turd sandwich. (BigFootInYourFace)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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