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/Edit warring. Report active, persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Block evasion=socking?

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

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

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

Discussion to change/add wording to the Block policy

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.

---

No consensus - While there seems to be a want for better text about this, this has been open for over 4 months, and there is still no consensus on what the final version of the text should be. So closing this now. No prejudice against immediately starting a new proposal with new/modified text. - jc37 00:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Inspired in part by a discussion at WP:AN, which was in part inspired by a comment Newyorkbrad made here. I am proposing the following change to the blocking policy:

"Most blocks are not controversial, but sometimes a block requires discussion in the general community to establish its appropriateness. In the case of community discussions regarding a block, the status quo is defined as "unblocked". For a practical purpose, that means that any block needs consensus to remain in place. Blocks that have community consensus may be enacted (if they have not been already) or retained (if the block preceded the discussion)."

The rationale behind this is simple: it removes the "first mover" advantage to blocking first and then starting a discussion. It shouldn't matter whether the discussion precedes the block or the block precedes the discussion, there needs to be a consensus that an editor needs to be blocked in order to be blocked. Blocking first and then seeking a discussion should not get a different result than starting the discussion before the block. We should be clear also that administrators who block someone and whose block is later undone by community consensus are not automatically at fault or wrong, but if the community is not behind a block, a person should not be blocked.

Feel free to discuss this below, make any suggested changes, etc. etc. In light of recent events, and in light of Newyorkbrads well thought out explanation of the conundrum, a change of this sort is really needed. Thoughts? Ideas? Support? Oppose? --Jayron32 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. As nominator --Jayron32 01:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
2. Unblocked is a reasonable default. The most important aspect is eliminating first/second mover nonsense; community action should not be the result of accidents of timing. Nobody Ent 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Specifying any default for the "status quo" is more reasonable in my view than the almost chaotic outcome these "no consensus" discussions typically have. I would like to see additional mention of the length of the block, rather than just the binary yes/no outcome of "no consensus" discussions, but this proposal is a good first step. I have one lingering concern over this default, namely that editors with many wikifriends are officially unblockable now via "normal" blocks. (These may be good content contributors who are regularly rowdy, or they may be POV pushers with similar wikifriends.) I estimate that AE blocks, topic bans, RfC/Us, and Arbitration are going to be used more often if this proposal passes. This is not necessarily a bad development though. Perhaps it's a transition towards less cowboy wikijustice. Finally, I note that for quite some years now ArbCom has advanced the view that blocks are a remedy of last resort for long term contributors, even if there's staunch opposition to that view around these parts [1]. (ArbCom has repeated that view in their latest PD here and here). ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
4. If there is no strong consensus in support of a block, it should not exist. --He to Hecuba (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
5. Especially for long term and indef. — Ched :  ?  15:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
6. In general I think we need some changes in this area. However I think #Montanabw is a much better wording and that there are some legitimate issues raised by the opposers with the current wording. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
7. It is my understanding that first moves are akin to WP:FAITACCOMPLI, hence a block is not status quo. This is consistent with all other WP's decision processes (absent ARBCOM or Office Actions which transcend the community's self-governance). Like any other process at WP, we err on the side of freedom of action. A prohibition at WP falls unless there is consensus to retain it - no consensus means there is no consensus to prohibit something - not just that there is no consensus to change something that once may have had consensus; the prohibition is gone because no consensus supports it any more. An attempted deletion at WP, failing to achieve consensus means the item stays. Hence, all policies, practices, guidelines, and consensuses that prohibit any activity or mandate (whether suggestive or more arm-twisting) compliance retain their force only so long as consensus can be shown to retain the same. For example, we went through a whole rigamarole over whether to link dates in articles - which got decided by ARBCOM. Had it been decided not from "above" but by consensus to prohibit such links; we can always test whether such consensus still exists, and in its absence, the prohibition is removed because the status quo ante a consensus which no longer exists was no prohibition. It's similar to how XFDs handled; it matters not whether the thing was or wasn't deleted; if there's no consensus to delete it, we retain it (as the lesser prohibition). Blocking is a (technology enforced) editing prohibition. And it, like any other may be reversed absent consensus to retain it. The status quo is not relevant in any material sense. We make rules against ourselves, but these remain only so long as we choose to retain them; self-perpetuating rules makes us a WP:BUREAUCRACY and invites WP:WIKILAWYERING. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   There is a really important point here that I would like to draw out and reexpress: the relationship between freedom of action and a default state. We allow deletion of articles, because the default state is that they should not be deleted. Ironically, the very fact that articles should not, in general, be deleted, provides some freedom of action in deleting them, because such actions can be challenged and undone relatively easily. If we want admins to have a similar freedom of action to block editors (and I think we do), then we only truly provide that freedom if there is a default state of unblocked. The only question, in my mind, is how we return to the default state when there is no consensus. If, for short blocks, we just let them expire, then for longer ones, it seems to me that the most natural thing is to commute them into short blocks. Geometry guy 22:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

   I was once blocked for 10 seconds. Can anyone provide a rational explanation for what that was meant to achieve? Or why that admin is still an admin? Malleus Fatuorum 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. 'No consensus' usually means 'no change' on Wikipedia, and we should stick to that principle with blocks. Additionally, I think this change is likely to encourage wheel warring: admin A blocks, admin B unblocks claiming 'no consensus for block', admin A reblocks claiming 'there is a consensus', etc. (I realise that can and does happen already, but any wording in policy which tells admins to overturn each other's actions will encourage it.) Finally, this is going to cause problems with requests for unblocks. Currently, when a long-term blocked user requests to be unblocked, their request is only granted if there is a rough consensus in support. Under this proposal, if there is no consensus as to whether they should be unblocked, presumably 'default to unblock' would apply. I think that's a bad route to go down: overturning a block should require consensus, not the lack of it. Robofish (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   As an afterthought, I would support this policy specifically for indefinite blocks, though. I don't think an indefinite block should be imposed where there isn't consensus for it. But for normal blocks, I think the best approach to a lack of consensus is simply to let the block expire. Robofish (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

2. I agree with Robofish. The proposal would enshrine the second-mover advantage, encourages wheel-warring and provides effective immunity to blocks for anyone with a certain number of friends who show up at ANI. This would make policy enforcement even more arbitrary, ochlocratic and dependent on social dynamics. Admins should normally defer to decisions made by colleagues, and overturning blocks should normally need community consensus. But I'm open to discussing rule-based, transparent methods to resolve disagreements about controversial blocks, e.g., referral to a panel of three or five uninvolved admins.  Sandstein  14:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   The "friends who show up" issue can be handled the same way that it is in AFD, by tagging such accounts with the {{spa}} tag and allowing the admin who closes the unblock discussion to make a "strength of argument" determination. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   Such a panel already exists. It's called ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

3. I am persuaded by the opposes. I would feel better about the post-block consensus discussions if all commenters were impartial going in. But that seldom seems (or, too often does not seem) the case. They are either involved, or they seem previously partial for or against the User or Administrator. Crowd sourcing has its pitfalls. All blocks should be good blocks (especially for the less popular user). All administrators should exercise good judgment (or be removed). Process and policy should advance these as the defaults. The community should trust its admins to do the right thing, the first time. Of course, appeal should be allowed but not to a stacked deck, either for or against. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
4. No. This would enshrine the concept of wheel-warring and encourage undoing of the status quo based on subjective interpretations of "consensus", which is often declared based on the first few interested parties to show up on ANI. A more useful offering would be that in cases of no consensus on indef blocks, the discussion is spun out into a full RfC on "should this user be blocked, and for what duration", formatted as an RFC/U, running the full length of 30 days and closed by two or three uninvolved admins at the end of that. Yes, it's bureaucratic and drags out, but at least it avoids the issue of "first person to call 'consensus!' or 'no consensus!' gets to do what they want" and allows for full community discussion and the avoidance of the blocked party's best friend or worst enemy being the one to decide whether there's a consensus to do anything. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   So shorter blocks would just time out, I'm inferring? Would the indef'd editor be unblocked to participate in the RFC/U while banned from editing elsewhere? Nobody Ent 20:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, I suppose they would. A full RFC wouldn't be useful for a 24-hour or weeklong block, at any rate, due to time constraints. If we wanted to, I would say my idea could be stripped down to bare bones of "block discussion threads must run for a minimum of 24 hours and must be closed by two or more admins in agreement over the result." The main issue, as I see it in these contentious block/unblock threads is hasty calling of consensus or lack thereof, often by an involved, or at least non-impartial, party. The right answer isn't to default to either block or unblock, it's to make sure the threads are run cleanly so that an individual consensus can be built in each case. At least, that's mho. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

   The idea to move to a RfC/U in such cases has already been rejected on WP:AN. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

   That's unfortunate, but it doesn't make this proposal any more acceptable an alternative in my mind. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose. Pretty much any block of an established editor is going to be controversial, and this kind of policy change would just add to more chaos. I'm also uncomfortable with the suggestion that there are that many bad blocks, that this kind of change would even be needed. The solutions, IMHO, are not to change policy to allow blocks to be easily reversed, but to get rid of admins who are making bad blocks. So if an admin blocks, and then there is a clear and substantial consensus that the block was bad, and this seems to be happening on a repeated basis, the community should consider removing that admin's bit. --Elonka 17:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

   In your analogy then this policy change will make no difference as if all admin blocks are good then they will have a consensus. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

   The policy change is not needed, and if it were implemented, it would make a difference because it would cause more "revolving door" blocks, more chaos on ANI, and more wasted time all around. --Elonka 21:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose. Consensus requires debate and discussion, and such can ebb and flow - not least as different participants turn up. If like AFD these discussions were normally left to run for 7 days then it would be more reasonable to default to unblock. But in a debate that can be ended at any moment it makes it too easy to unblock if it can be done the first time the argument ebbs to the point where one could argue there was not quite consensus to maintain the block. ϢereSpielChequers 23:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

   ? Montanabw's wording below addresses these concerns. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

   Addresses but doesn't resolve to my satisfaction. Keeping the debate going for seven days to see if you can get a bare majority sounds to me like a recipe for even more drama than we now have. ϢereSpielChequers 21:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

   I don't think so, people will probably start to care less after seven days, so I doubt there will be as much drama as an immediate unblock. We wait for seven days for move requests and AfD's and that seems to work pretty well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose. We should have faith in initial blocking Admins. competence and decision making although more comprehensive rationale for blocks should be documented. Giving certain editors who have a posse of friends or a friendly Admin. in their pocket even more scope to evade blocks is no good thing. Leaky Caldron 12:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

   So, some admins are corrupt by being willing to unblock their friends, but the cabal of "initial blocking Admins" is pristine with no possible biases? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes and No respectively. Nevertheless, I do trust the vast majority of Admins. to block appropriately most of the time. A lot of the noise about inappropriate blocks to certain editors is just that, noise. I do not recognise the cabal to which you refer. Individual cases of indisputably incorrect behaviour should of course be dealt with. Leaky Caldron 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Mu

1. This proposal was initiated in response to this ANI discussion which was inspired by a conundrum raised by NYB. Far from addressing the problem, this discussion illustrates it. The "default to unblock" position is reasonable, as is the "no consensus means no change" position. Rather than arguing a point here, I encourage editors to engage with opposing views. For example, this proposal is evidently not intended to encourage wheel-warring, as nobody wants that. For another example, if indefinite blocks require special treatment, how about really long blocks? Please do not ask me alone, as I already made my proposal at WT:AN, and it still looks pretty good to me. However, please do read and reflect on the basis for views contrary to your own, and look for a better solution. And if, on reflection, you are open minded about dialog and possible solutions, the merits of diverse views, feel free to say "mu", as I do, rather than "support" or "oppose". Geometry guy 01:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I'm not really getting the "Mu" meme but I support any protocol which eliminates first mover/second mover or the "quickest" (or second quickest?) admins' decision from having precedence over everyone else's. It's definitely reasonable to split blocks into short term and long term categories -- if consensus is sketchy there's not harm in having an editor clock out a short term block, but editor's should not be indeffed unless there's a clear consensus to do so. Nobody Ent 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

• As per previous similar proposals on AN, this one also has a snowball's chance in hell of passing. I suggest early closure, because it's already proving to be a waste of time. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Calm your liver. If it passes it passes, if it fails it fails, but its been open 20 hours and 8 people have commented. I wouldn't call 8 people "the community". Give it a few days. Seriously. If you don't like it, vote oppose and get it over with. But don't feel the need to prevent other people from discussing proposals you don't personally like. --Jayron32 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for your kind concern for my health. I've already !voted support in case you didn't notice. Based on the preliminary discussion, I just don't think this going to have the necessary support to make a policy change. The WP:V 1st sentence change was rejected even though the !vote was 2:1 in favor. Good luck. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'd also say that in general avoiding immediate commentary one way or another is the wisest course of action - that avoids any possibility of losing face if one want's to change their mind. Giving people a chance to think about this properly is probably sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

  I'd also mention that we are into the weekend now and I can easily imagine that many editors do less editing during that time due to items they may want to engage in in their real lives. And yep - WP:V is indeed a very tough audience. (also - thank you Jayron32 for a very well designed proposal.) — Ched :  ?  22:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I see a need, perhaps for three different things here. 1) A default status in general when, AFTER DISCUSSION, there is no consensus - i.e. if no consensus, then unblocked is the default. In principle, I like that and support the need for a default standard. BUT there is also 2) Blocks used on people actively and currently being quite disruptive -- vandals or real mean-spirited, attacking sorts. These need to not be subject to wheel-warring and unblocked too hastily, as sometimes the disruption starts right up again. It's good to give these sorts of things a few days to sort themselves out, give everyone time to weigh in, and be sure that the "consensus" reached is a real one and not simply a dogpile in one direction or another. BUT 3) Then we have the long term blocks, which usually are for users with a lot of experience but also a lot of baggage -- not the immediate vandal-type abusers who need (and deserve) fast, firm short blocks (which often reform those sorts quickly or they leave quickly). These longer term discussions are probably are the most in need of the default concept, that, summed up, may mean that if there are 10,000 supporters on one side and 10,001 opposes on the other that after two weeks of yammering around and around with no clear consensus in either direction, just everyone repeating themselves, the default is unblock. Thoughts? Montanabw^(talk) 20:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Seems very sensible. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

    I also see a lot of sense in these comments. Geometry guy 22:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

    Sounds good to me, but it's going to be tricky to word it as policy. How exactly would you describe the difference between situation 1 (where the user should be unblocked) and situation 2 (where they shouldn't)? Something like 'where there is no consensus on whether a block is appropriate, the user should be unblocked, except when they are likely to disrupt Wikipedia'? That seems a bit like begging the question, particularly if the question of whether they will disrupt Wikipedia is the very matter there was no consensus about... Robofish (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hypotheticals

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

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

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

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

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

Analogies with deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated proposal

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

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

With regards to the unblock the intent to to allow a legitimately blocked editor who posts a good unblock request -- "Yes I understand I screwed up, I won't do that anymore" to get unblocked. If this is reasonable, then I'd suggest the next step would be to strike through the original proposal, notify all previous participants and revote. Nobody Ent 17:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a declined arbcom case the committee told us explicitly the ball is in the community's court, suggesting as one alternative a "community led Rfc" Nobody Ent 10:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The current policy results in Black swan events; while relatively rare, they consume significant wikiresources. It will be too late once the next event occurs, as comments are then interpreted as biased towards/against the editor and admins in question. It is best to strike while the iron is cold. Nobody Ent 12:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Relisting

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

Support

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

Oppose

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

Discussion

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

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

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

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

• FYI, this contravenes current policy at WP:CONSENSUS: "When actions by administrators are contested and the discussion results in no consensus either for the action or for reverting the action, the action is normally reverted." I'm going to leave a note there. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

  Not really. WP:Consensus merely gives some simple examples of what other policies and guidelines say to do if there is no consensus. WP:Consensus does not establish what the correct response should be. If this policy changes, then WP:Consensus will be updated to match it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 11:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I've deactivated the RfC tag because the listing has expired. [2] [3]. Clar voter fatigue at this point, so this should be tabled as "no consensus for anything". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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

reverted edits

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

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

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

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

Unjustified rollback

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think there is a misunderstanding. Slowing edition so that it can be checked is not a request. This was meant to explain how changes can be "checked plausibly". What you probably want is to check each change individually by using the "prev" links on [4]. If you consider that as implausible, then ask for more detailed edit summaries of the specific changes you find hard to analyze. --Chealer (talk) 17:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Reminder (per Aaron):

Rollback may be used:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for comment: Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

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

Are they punishments?

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

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

Query

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unblocking bot accounts

Discussion (following close)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocking being preventative not punitive, etc etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big problem. Please help.

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

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

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

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

innocent prisoner's dilemma

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exile.

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

Link

Hello.

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

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

RfC: third party request for unblock

Should this be added

"A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard."

Penyulap ☏ 14:06, 27 Jun (UTC)

• I think there should be a procedure for review of blockings. Currently, there seems not to be a way to question an overly harsh block simply becuase the block editor is now gone. Maybe he wouldn't be gone if the block wasn't excessively harsh. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
• I think it warrants a mention as there are differing assumptions on the matter. Penyulap ☏ 14:20, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)
• While I agree in principal that any user should be able to request review of any administrative action that they feel was wrong, I think we should be careful not to burden blocking admins with reviews just because we think they may have been a bit harsh. Review at AN/I or AN should primarily be for cases where the block was fundamentally defective, and the person should not have been blocked at all, or where the block duration was contrary to policy (such as an indef IP block on a first offense). In such clear cases, anyone should be able to request review if, after trying to discuss it with the blocking admin, the issue is unresolved. What we should not do is invite second guessing of admins over discretionary block lengths for conduct that was properly blockable. First, many times a blocked editor who requests an unblock and demonstrates that they understand what they did wrong and will make a good faith effort to avoid similar conduct will be unblocked without the need for an extended discussion. Second, where the blocked editor is not making the request, it can be hard to tell if they even understand why they were blocked. Finally, we want to respect the discretion of the blocking admin, and don't want a process that encourages those with an axe to grind to endlessly drag admins to the drama boards. Monty₈₄₅ 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

would it be better if the original blocking admin has nothing to do with the review of the block ? Penyulap ☏ 14:50, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I would say the blocking admin almost *must* be a part of that process, or must have given an extremely clear rationale for the block, so that people know why it occured. -- Avanu (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• As Monty says, there are times a review is warranted. However, many times people use process to harass. Considering that anyone is able to request a block or adverse action against an editor, the converse should also be true. Admins should be able to figure out when something needs to be closed and when it is worth discussing, an easy rule of thumb would be simply when quite a few editors join the request by affirming that it worth discussion. We are, after all, supposed to operate on egalitarian consensus here. -- Avanu (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• It should be included, yes. Perhaps with a caveat that abusing the block review request process will result in a WP:BOOMERANG? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

In way, leaving it open makes it less likely to be abused. If we don't forbid a third party person from making a request, then the assumption is that they can, and if we don't mention it either, people aren't as tempted to use it. There's probably an elegant way to make the point without making it too strongly. -- Avanu (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

The assumption is that the can for some people, and the assumption is that they can't for other people, leaving it up to assumption leads to confusion, and policy documents avoid that. Addressing the issue of abuse in some other way, rather than using murky conflicting assumptions of policy to do so, may be less work for everyone in the end. Simply establishing a consensus (on the block) in the usual way, directing new enquiries to the old consensus, and updating it if things change is a familiar path and process which people would have less difficulty with. Penyulap ☏ 15:42, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Best to minimize confusion. I propose a modification of your original wording to this: "An editor in good standing may request that another editor be unblocked by starting a review of the block on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Editors are cautioned that making an excessive number of these requests against consensus may be considered disruption, and may lead to community sanctions against them. No request should be made in this fashion if the blocked editor has an ongoing unblock request on their own talk page, nor if the blocked editor has stated that they do not wish to be unblocked at the present time." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• No; the blocked user should have indicated they want a block review - the only time a third party would make it is if the user has not been told how to request unblock, but does want to be unblocked. On the issue of block reviews (raised primarily by monty), I have seen several admins improve their approach significantly where although there was a consensus for a block, the consensus was that the duration be changed. If admins are not open to feedback or to occasionally having their actions subject to review or to being responsive to changes in circumstances, then they are not learning from experience. Admins are significantly protected under this policy, but it is not to the point of being immune from comment about the use of their discretion just because some do not consider it significantly problematic enough yet. The idea is to improve and resolve in the early stage rather than wait until it is too late or extreme (by which time the inevitable complaint will be "wish I had a better chance to improve before I developed this habit or got tot his point"). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, the message you get when you're blocked says how to appeal, whether or not the admin adds the template. MediaWiki:Blockedtext --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• If a block is bad, it should not matter if the blocked editor wants to be unblocked or not - if someone goes into jail for stealing stuff in a shop, but turns out to be innocent - it then does not matter whether the person wants to go back to that shop, however, the person should be taken out of jail - here the situation could be that someone is innocent and blocked, but we leave the person guilty because the person may not want to go back to editing (is it me, or could there be BLP issues here ...). If an editor, or a group of editors, think that a block was completely wrong, communication with the blocking admin and/or a community discussion on AN or AN/I (the latter with notification to the blocking admin) is the way forward. That does not mean that the blocking admin is a bad admin - it can just be that a block was applied mistakenly. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

would it be fair to say that if the block appears to the blocked party to be impolite or spiteful, then the blocked editor is less likely to appeal, AND the block is less likely to be in harmony with community standards ? Penyulap ☏ 18:06, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone think we should turn this into a full RFC? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Should we add "If you want to edit an article, you may click the 'Edit' button" too? It seems like we have instructions for every possible scenario these days. causa sui (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, this is in response to a recent debate in just such an WP:AN discussion over whether or not third parties could begin an unblock request/block review. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  How can that even be a question? The fact that they asked the question starts it. Are we to the point where we are going to "procedural decline" a request to review a sysop action because the request was not 'filed' through the 'proper channels' and according to 'procedure'? Should I go speedy delete WP:BURO right now? --causa sui (talk) 19:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  *shrug* I have no idea how that idea came up, but it did. And if it's uncontentious to say this, then why not say it? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Third parties may request a review of a block right after they occur (and often does happen), but they CANNOT request unblock on behalf of someone else, or a review down the road (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  Is that to avoid having a sock or meat puppet try to unblock the puppetmaster? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I do believe a full RFC is appropriate for this topic. Penyulap ☏ 19:52, 27 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Should the above proposed change, "A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard," or some variation of that change, be added to this policy per the above discussion? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:56, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

• I would have thought we already do this under the pseudo-policy of "discuss/debate this at the various appropriate forums" like WP:AN, ANI, the user's talk, RP:RFU etc. It's almost like we are opening an RfC on the idea of being able to open an RfC on a user's block, which answers its own question.. Not that I begrudge such an RfC being opened.... S.G.^(GH) _ping! 22:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
  • We do and we don't. Since the official policy doesn't say it one way or the other, some people say "you can do this, no doubt" and some people say "you can't do this at all." Furthermore, it'd be good to establish the "where" and "how" of doing this so that we have a consistent process, and we need to set it up to avoid abuse, especially sock abuse. Above, I proposed a specific variation:

An editor in good standing may request that another editor be unblocked by starting a review of the block on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Editors are cautioned that making an excessive number of these requests against consensus may be considered disruption, and may lead to community sanctions against them. No request should be made in this fashion if the blocked editor has an ongoing unblock request on their own talk page, nor if the blocked editor has stated that they do not wish to be unblocked at the present time.

"In good standing" is the critical phrase. I'd be willing to edit it further to block out non-autoconfirmed editors, and to especially exclude people who were also sanctioned in the same dispute as the blocked editor. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I see adding this phrase as an invitation to a bottomless pit. First, if a blocked editor wants to be unblocked, he can say so. If for some reason his Talk page rights are revoked, there are procedures for protesting that as well. If he doesn't want it badly enough to follow the procedures, that's his decision. So, what we would really be doing by adding this sentence is inviting everyone to evaluate administrative decisions just because someone thinks it was wrong. As if we don't already have enough procedural quagmires as it is, this would add yet another layer. Moreover, even without the sentence, editors can trot over to ANI or AN and complain about the harshness of some block or some ban or some something. But, with this change, we would send out explicit invitations to do so. Don't we have better things to do?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point for sure, it would lead to more requests if people knew they could actually make a request. However, this has less to do with the blocked editor. It has a lot more to do with the whole community, not standing around the 'corpse' of their long time buddy. (ok a corpse is dramatic, but haven't you ever seen a good editor lost ?) you may well know what to do, but other good editors do not.

A good editor often has some justifiable pride, or at least self respect, and if they believe they have been badly mistreated by a blocking admin, it might be more about the editor forced to bow down to someone he despises and less about the editor having respect for the wider community. When the block has clear support and backing by the community, demonstrated by many individual voices, rather than assumption alone, doesn't that make the block stronger ? If anyone can say 'that was a good block' then regular editors can show support for our admins, as it is now, it's not as strong.

" editors can trot over to ANI or AN " well, it took me 12 months to find that out. Seeing great editors banned has a demoralising effect upon me, if the system presents itself as unjust, or at least unaccountable, it's not possible to have as much faith in it. If we could give everyone more of a say, we'd give everyone more faith in the system. Penyulap ☏ 01:07, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• I would like to propose an alternative version:

Third party requests for block review

Third parties may request a review of a block at WP:AN/I. Third parties considering such a request are advised that:

• as with any other dispute, before escalating to a noticeboard discussion should first be attempted with the other party to the dispute, in this case the blocking admin
• Admins are afforded a reasonable amount of discretion when it comes to their use of the tools, review is not meant to second guess that discretion and should be reserved for cases where the block was clearly against policy or is extremely unreasonable in length
• during the course of a block review, it is likely that the history of the requesting editor will be examined and they should be wary of WP:BOOMERANG
• Engaging in Sockpuppetry or Block Evasion to submit a request for review is unlikely to be positively received, and may result in additional blocks and/or block extensions. A blocked editor who requests such a review should make the request on their talk page, or in the case talk page access is revoked, through either the Unblock Ticket Request System or Arbcom ban appeals subcommittee, and should not submit it in the guise of a third party request

I think the above would make it clear enough that block reviews should only be requested in the case of really bad blocks and would discourage excessive block review requests. Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, you have a lot more faith than I do in the ability of some to read past the first sentence. Looks like a multi-factorial test one might find in a legal decision - not that it isn't admirably written and sensible on its face - it's just a lot of words to wade through. I stick with my simple "no".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I like it with some small changes. Edit to the first sentence - "In certain cases, third parties may request..." Then replace the second sentence with "Third parties are advised that such requests must be made civilly and in good faith, or risk sanctions of their own." Other than that, there might be some minor copy-editing, though I don't have time right this second to fine-comb it. But I like it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It does raise a valid point that blocked editors would exhaust their sock supply / internet cafe visits / friends in a venue where they are expected, rather than in article space. Penyulap ☏ 01:10, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

I dunno, the two aren't mutually exclusive.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand, what I mean to say is, that it creates a sock laundry somewhere away from article space or wherever else they would go, so it is like you say, a price we pay, it does create an extra can of worms, but some fishermen like worms :) and so we get a stronger community by people being able to say 'and stay out !!!!!' or 'just you hang on a moment !!' bringing the admins and editors closer together, and addressing editor retention as well. Penyulap ☏ 01:37, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental difficulty with permitting – in all but the most limited circumstances – involutary and unsolicited reviews of one's blocks at the instigation of a third party is that sometimes the third party is a jackass.

Suppose that I've been blocked. I figure that I'm too pissed off by the situation to deal with it at the moment, and decide to get a good night's sleep. Twelve hours later, I return to Wikipedia calm and refreshed, willing and able to marshal a coherent and rational argument. I discover that in my absence a third party has taken up my cause, and fought a bitter and acrimonious battle on AN/I while I slept. (The third party may have a previous history with the admin in question, or be a POV-pushing partisan in an area where I edit, or just generally like to stir shit up on noticeboards. They may be acting entirely in good faith, but just be incompetent or overly emotional.) My case gets lost in an inconclusive mess of mutual accusations of bad faith and bickering over tangential issues.

No matter what follows, any appeal I might make has been tainted by the original third-party request. The noticeboards will already be fatigued by my issue; I won't have the opportunity to present my defence to a fresh audience. Not only do I have to respond to questions about my own conduct, but I also have to distance myself from my overzealous supporter(s). What could have been a viable unblock request instead gets closed as 'no consensus'.

I think all experienced Wikipedia editors have been in situations where they've thought of another user "I think you're right, but it would be sooo much easier to agree with you if you knew when to shut up." The well-meaning but inept would be problem enough; throw in the third-party busybodies with their own independent axes to grind and you're asking for real trouble. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This. Oh, so very This. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

oh god I know where you are coming from there, being, you know, myself. So half the time I'm like should I stick up for this poor editor here, at the risk of making it ten times worse ? like ani right now, I think someone talks too much and said so, bad move right there, me, telling someone else they talk too much ? open my talkpage archive and crash your browser, my archive killed miszabot, twice, so I don't think there will be support there.

Maybe a user can leave a note on their talkpage, that they intend to deal with it, or a limit to say 'only after a week' or a week after the last comment or some such. Penyulap ☏ 02:37, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Question. Are we discussing third party requests in which the third party has already approached the blocking admin? Did I miss that part of the discussion? No snark intended, I looked and could not see where this had been mentioned. Personally, I have no problems discussing blocks I've made. To a point, of course. Watching recent changes I could make a couple dozen blocks a week (or more on occasion). Being interrogated over even a fraction of those could be tiring, but I'm always willing. Tiderolls 02:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you'd need to address the block at all, to establish a consensus, it has to be reasonably put forward, and as you made the block, that's the same as say the original editor who put text in an article, it's a given that you support. The only difference might be the level of consensus required, but in clear cases that's easy. 99% of blocks are a no-brainer anyway. Penyulap ☏ 11:49, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Support Generally speaking, I don't see why not. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Would a reasonable compromise be to require more than one third-party editor in such a request? That would make it slightly harder to bring dilatory requests for unblock. Sort of like requiring a 'second'. -- Avanu (talk) 04:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  What sort of mechanic would there be for finding a person to second the request without it rewarding canvasing? Monty₈₄₅ 05:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  do you mean like using a/the block template on the blocked users page?

  Avanu, would it be like finding a regular consensus, or something new ? Penyulap ☏ 11:49, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• I don't think that this would be a good idea, per TenOfAllTrades above, and simply because if the blocked user does not want to contest the block themselves there is no reason to waste the time of others and produce drama about it.  Sandstein  05:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment Many old-timers will tell you that third parties have been requesting unblocks, block reviews—and different variations of those—at AN and AN/I for years. These often happen when a person is mentoring somebody that has been blocked. I think IAR may be sufficient in this case without adding additional wording. 64.40.54.121 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

the price we have been paying in editor retention is too high for keeping this 'secret knowledge', took me more than a year to realise that there is no defined process for a third party unblock, I even made a graphic for my tp as part of the illogic of this secret knowledge. Penyulap ☏ 12:05, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Unnecessary: Any admin action can be reviewed in this manner. I don't see any reason to explicitly call blocks out.—Kww(talk) 10:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

  BWilkins says "they CANNOT request unblock on behalf of someone else, or a review down the road" I think there should be clarity on the issue. Penyulap ☏ 12:09, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• It's a wiki. Yes, there should be more clarity on the issue. I agree with Penyulaps point about editor retention and with IP 64.40.54.121 — except that additional wording probably is needed, to make it clear that anybody can initiate a review on ANI. It has been the case for years that we all have this right, but you see how it took Penyulap 12 months to find out he could even post on AN and ANI? IAR is indeed not enough; what do newbies know about IAR? For those who fear opening the floodgates to "inept" block reviews: Wikipedia doesn't operate on the hierarchic principle "I'm clueful; you're inept; s/he's a jackass". If you start a review and your argument is without merit, it'll either be snowed under or ignored, and you will hopefully have learned something; if it has merit, other people will post in the thread to agree or protest, and depending on consensus it'll either end with an unblock or not. Why should WP:BLOCK call for an extra layer of bureaucracy and rule creep, by (implicitly) saying that you need to ask first? Only admins can block and unblock, but it's certainly not the case that only admins can review stuff on ANI. Be bold: just review. That is the principle that should be inserted into the block policy, for information; because it's unjust that only the wp savvy and the habitués should be aware that ANI is there and that this is one of the ways you can use it.

Please don't let's hear any more about ineptness and jackasses. Jackasses are a problem in all wikipedia processes; we get lots of foolish article edits, and still we allow anybody to post them; people don't have to ask permission first, because it's the encyclopedia anybody can edit. We get many inept FAC nominations, and we still don't have any rule preventing people from posting them. For that matter, ANI itself is clogged up with posts asking admins to block the guy the poster is in conflict with because "he was rude to me by saying my edit was bad". Why should the particular matter of third-party block reviews be elitist and newbie-unfriendly, when we normally strive to keep all our processes free of such thinking, and we normally put up with the (considerable) inconveniences resulting from ignorance or stubbornness? It's still a wiki.

I'll try to formulate suitable informational wording in an hour or two, when I get home, unless somebody gets in there before me (as I'm rather hoping they will). Bishonen | talk 12:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

awesome. here is the link to my archive which would be hard to find otherwise, I'll find the userpage I posted the templates at as well, maybe it's of interest as an illustration or for study, of for humour :) Penyulap ☏ 13:57, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

here is the discussion, and the history of the user talkpage. Penyulap ☏ 14:00, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Seriously Blocks are only to be undone when they are found to be a) policy non-compliant, or b) the editor submits a WP:GAB-compliant unblock. Admins are trusted to be impartial, and there are often more "background" things that 3rd parties cannot be/are not aware of. Admins are also trusted to implement any blocks using the same logic. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to request someone else's unblock, and wasting the communities time by reviewing blocks needlessly is indeed a waste. The only time a third party should go to ANI/AN to request a review is when a) they themselves understand the related policy, and b) its policy non-compliant. That is why it's usually an admin who opens up 3rd party reviews. Allowing a 3rd party to actually place an unblock template is an abuse, because it's clearly non GAB-compliant (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• There's two situations we should be looking at. 1) The block was appropriate or 2) the block wasn't. If the block was appropriate, the only person who should be able to request an unblock is the blocked editor. In that, they can explain whether they understand the reasons for block and changes they intend to make, i.e. a WP:GAB compliant block request, as per Bwilkins above. If the block was not appropriate, a case can be made (at any time), currently at AN or ANI. This is a perfectly normal review of admin actions, as kww said above. I'm a little unsure as to where the confusion lies. Worm^TT(talk) 12:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion is because both Penyulap and Avanu have had wrists slapped regarding this? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess I should watch AN/ANI more! Worm^TT(talk) 12:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, BWilkins... when exactly was this wrist slapping that you are talking about? Strange that you should make a comment like that when I haven't even seen the evidence to support it. I don't even know anything about Penylap except via this request, and the third-party request that started all this wasn't even started by *either* of us, it was started by an editor named Arcandam, and I actually have no idea what their motivation was for requesting the unblock, except I assume it seemed like a bad block. I was unaware at that time that a block had even taken place. So, please enlighten us with this "wrist slapping" that we supposedly endured and why it supposedly happened, because as far as I can tell that never happened. -- Avanu (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there are several incidents that all lead to this actually. However I do not recall getting my wrist or anything else slapped, however, if anyone thinks I do need a slap on my bum, I'll be happy to bare it in their general direction to assist the process. Penyulap ☏ 03:53, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• Nothing in my comments should be interpreted as allowing third-parties to actually use {{unblock}}. I just consider my blocks to be reviewable at standard forums.—Kww(talk) 13:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I'm unsure where the confusion lies, too. Bwilkins. Was anything in your post meant to contradict anything in mine? Because I don't see that it does. As for {{unblock}}, I haven't addressed it; obviously, it's not allowed to be placed by third parties. I'm discussing review on AN/ANI, and I think there should be something about it in the policy. Wasting the community's time by reviewing blocks needlessly is a waste of time, yes; so is dealing with inappropriate article edits; so is fixing inept FAC nominations. Should we make those and a host of other stuff permission-only, too? (Rhetorical question.) We waste a lot of time here. It can't be helped, it's a wiki. Bishonen | talk 13:51, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

• I think Kww puts it in an interesting way: "I just consider my blocks to be reviewable at standard forums." From my perspective, this proposal is to clearly and explicitly say that any admin's blocks are reviewable by the community at AN or AN/I. And block-evading, excessively time-wasting, or pointy block review requests should be treated like any other disruptions at those forums. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• I've now changed Avanu's proposed wording from

If an editor feels a block has been improperly issued, they can ask for that decision to be reviewed. See Appealing a block for instructions. Administrators are able to "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate.

to

If an editor feels a block has been improperly issued, they can can initiate a review of that block on WP:ANI. Administrators are able to "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate.

It probably does need some instructions added, and they may be thorny to formulate without too much instruction creep. Please feel free to tweak etc. But the link to Appealing a block really wasn't helpful. The instructions on that page are for the blocked user, and would surely mislead a third party into placing an unblock template on the blocked user's page. Bishonen | talk 14:19, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

I feel that at the moment, the phrase 'third party' is required somewhere in a proposal, to counter the overwhelming first party focus of the docs/policy/guidelines/templates. unless it's the title of the section, sorry, I wasn't clear on that. Penyulap ☏ 14:39, 28 Jun 2012 (UTC)

We could just take Bishonen's version and correct "an editor" to "a third-party editor." - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:41, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

How about a implied permission via a cautionary statement like: "Third-party editors should take care in filing an unblock request for another editor to ensure that the unblock is desired or warranted." -- Avanu (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Both Jorgath's and Avanu's suggestions sound fine to me. Bishonen | talk 15:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

• Comment. Seems like a lot of folks have dived into solution mode. Where is the clear definition of the problem that this solution is intended to solve along with practical examples of where it would be helpful. I'm not seeing it in this discussion, just a lot of ideas and someone diving in and amending a policy page. Leaky Caldron 14:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the general idea among supporters of this is that since we operate on consensus anyway, there should be no reason that another, perhaps more experienced editor, couldn't file an unblock request on behalf of someone. The decision would still be made by an impartial admin or by a group of editors under the rules of consensus. The worry is that people will be encouraged to file dilatory requests instead of just leaving it alone. -- Avanu (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this going to be implemented by a narrow consensus on this page or via an RFC as mentioned somewhere above? Leaky Caldron 15:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a talkpage RfC, please see these instructions. Penyulap even advertised it on ANI. Though if this drags out, I guess it would be even better to move his announcement to AN. He omitted calling it "RfC" in the header, that's all. I've put that in. (Please nobody try telling me it's obligatory to use the template provided on the RfC page. It isn't.) Bishonen | talk 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

I had no idea it was the RFC and there is discussion above about whether it requires an RFC. This is a significant policy. Rather than relying on page lurking can I suggest that the community is informed via MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. The RFC on WP:V changes fell foul of precisely this failure to communicate to the wider community last year. Not everyone with a view hangs out at WP:ANI, WP:CENT etc. Leaky Caldron 15:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Page lurking? As I mentioned, Penyulap advertised it on ANI. Here. That's how I found out about it, and I should have thought most of the others who have commented here, too. It looks like quite a few people noticed it. Anyway, Jorgath has now asked for it to be put on the watchlists. We'll have to see if it's considered important enough for that. Bishonen | talk 18:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

I looked at the nav template at AN and advertised on any board I thought is involved in blocking, however, given that this effects everyone (Newbies, experienced editors who have conflicting views, and editor retention) I agree that it should be suggested for the watchlist. Penyulap ☏ 03:32, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• I tend to think this is unnecessary. Currently, a third party can ask for review if they think the admin's actions were inappropriate, out of policy, mistaken or abuse. We see this from time to time as it is, and I support them for even the most borderline cases. This is how we develop consensus on what is block-worthy, and how long of a block is too long. On the other side, if it just a simple "I've learned my lesson, I won't do it again" unblock, then ANI isn't needed, as there is already a process in place and typically the same admin won't respond twice, and multiple requests for unblock (to a point) are generally tolerated. And yes, occassionally, I see 3rd parties asking for review for another editor and present a compelling case, enough so that it is considered there at AN or ANI. My fear is that this policy change would be easy to abuse by some who don't like admins in general, to where blocks are constantly being second guessed, become a source for unnecessary drama, while not actually accomplishing the goal of avoiding bad blocks. There is a fine line between being fully accountable, and having to explain every block action you do that an editor just disagrees with but is otherwise within policy, and this would allow that. Since we already have reviews of questionable blocks at ANI, I don't see the need to change the policy in this overly general way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has suggested that the request requires a response, wouldn't it sit and go stale like anything else that has no merit, or provoke discussion like anything else does. The primary concerns in raising the issue is twofold, the prevailing confusion that it cannot be done / can be done, as mentioned many times here, and the fact that it can't be found. I searched high and low for it. Looking for a howto in the templates the policies the guidelines, zip. Nada. Nothing. There are some who know how the system works, old timers and experienced editors, and clearly I see in this discussion that they do not agree if it is even allowed. The policy may well be laid out in documents somewhere else however, it would be nice if we could all be clued in on this, so that we can all agree. I should think this page is a lovely place to put such guidance. Penyulap ☏ 02:41, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

• No. Instruction creep that creates the impression that the only way to get review of a block is on WP:AN. If I am blocked and want to call the attention of another administrator who is familiar with the particulars and history of the case, I will do that. Having it in the policy suggests that people will 'procedural decline' requests to review a block because they weren't 'filed through the proper channels'. If we aren't intending to restrict block reviews to WP:AN, then this adds nothing to the policy. causa sui (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
• Example follow up on my comment above There are a lot of good blocks and a lot of bad blocks and certainly the bad blocks need to be reviewed. My concern is that if we start defining if/when a third party can ask for an unblock, we limit ourselves to only those specific criteria. Here is an example from a year ago when I—as a third party—asked for a block review for somebody else.
  • 67.18.92.167 (talk · contribs) asked for an unblock here
  • This was a rangeblock, so I—as a third party—asked for a review at AN
  • The original blocking admin unblocked the range

If we specifically define if/when a third party can ask for a review, I might not have been able to get that user/range unblocked. That is my concern. 64.40.54.97 (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a proper and valid concern, it is important not to narrow the path to asking for a 3PU, we should include that in the language used. Until now, there has been no path or guidance for editors looking for 3pu's, either how, or if they can be done. I'm uncertain how to resolve this single valid concern with the possibility mentioned above by one editor that the person making the 3rd party request might be a jackass :) so I'll leave it to someone else to incorporate, or wait until another editor mentions it as well. As it is, with a clear path now laid out, possibly it is less of a concern ? Penyulap ☏ 03:25, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Summary so far and proposal

(see main section above) Editors sometimes see someone else blocked and feel that the block was unjust. New editors especially who are looking for guidance on what to do cannot find it. Experienced editors, some who have been on wikipedia for many years, disagree whether or not a third party is allowed to request a review. There has not yet been any suggestion to add text to the policy page to prevent a third party request for a review. The following text, suggested by a few editors above, has been proposed. Penyulap ☏ 03:20, 29 Jun 2012 (UTC)

Section title Third party request for unblocking

"If a third-party editor feels a block has been improperly issued, they can can request a review of that block on AN or ANI. Administrators are able to "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate."