Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Shared IPs section

This section is not newbie friendly - I have a vandal to report but cant find how to "Whois" or "reverse-dns" from the linked pages. If you want beginners to help with vandals then this needs to be easier. (And helping with vandals might be a good way to interest potential admins - or vice versa). SmithBlue 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a rewrite of the blocking policy, and the main thing I want to do is separate the "how-to" stuff like this from the "when-to" stuff, which is all that really should be in the policy. I've started to create a detailed help page on blocking and unblocking, it hasn't been copied across here locally yet (Uncle G's 'bot does that every few months) but it's at m:Help:Block and unblock if you would like to help with it, or make suggestions for how it could be improved. Ultimately I think that all of the technical and instructional material should be moved there.

In addition, explanations of these sorts of things could be added to the pages where the reporting takes place, at Administrator intervention against vandalism for example. --bainer (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about blocking a user

I'm a new admin who has a question about blocking. When and why should I click "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from" when blocking a registered user? - Gilliam 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you want the user to be able to immediately start working under a new account then you deselect the button. It is the case for:
  • Username block,
  • Blocking of a misbehaving bot,
  • Blocking role accounts,
  • Blocking compromised accounts, etc.

• In the most other cases the autoblocking is the preferred option Alex Bakharev 10:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

sorry, I apologize in advance because I'm not a huge wiki-editor (barely any of one at all!)and my not be posting this in the right place. However I just wanted to say that I was disappointed that school IP addresses are always blocked. I have my computer at home log me in to all websites automatically so I never remember my passwords, so when I find mistakes on Wikipedia, I could do nothing to change them. I never have time when I am home. Isn't there something we can do to help school IPs? Bfissa 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They receive warnings most of the time... Short of magically making school kids more mature, what did you have in mind? Leebo⁸⁶ 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone who has been stalking or harassing you

I suggest that the blocking policy be updated to prohibit admins from blocking users that have been harassing them, stalking them, engaged in a content dispute with them or in any other way involved in a fight or disagreement. Even when the behavior clearly warrants a block in the eyes of any reasonable admin, I think that a neutral admin should block the user to avoid even the appearance of abuse. The blocked user or an observer may have a different standard for what warrants a block and it may appear to them that the admin is abusing his or her authority. In addition, these situations can cloud an admin's judgment and lead to a truly unjustified block. I think that blocking users that you have had heated confrontations with in the past should be discouraged, but ultimately left to the admin's discretion. In the rare case of a user doing extreme damage, like using a bot to vandalize a large number of articles in a short time or doing something that may crash the site, a non-neutral admin would be allowed to block the user for a short period, no more than 24 hours. Afterwards, he or she would have to put a notice about the block on the Administrators' Noticeboard. A neutral admin could then extend the block, if necessary. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if an admin believes that a user has been stalking or harassing him/her, there is no reason for the admin not to block the user immediately for some duration. At that point, the user may instantly appeal the block to other admins, and the other admins, upon proper consultation with the blocking admin, plus others if necessary on AN/I, may reverse the block. In general, I think that stalking/harassing is such a serious offense that it must be stopped immediately, regardless by whom, and investigated further once stopped. As someone who was wrongly blocked for 'disruption' I know well that being blocked is no fun, and at the time that block made me (briefly) re-think my committment to this project - getting turned down on appeal did not help either. But despite that, things were properly sorted out later, with no lasting damage. I cannot see how stopping what appears to at least one admin as harassing/stalking will cause permanent damage to the project, given the near immediate review by others. Crum375 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

I spotted a few grammatical inconsistencies in the article. Most of the article has correct use of the singular/plural. eg "if a user does something bad then HE/SHE can be blocked" (emphasis added) is correct. Or "then THAT USER can be blocked" is also correct. But "if a user does something bad then THEY can be blocked" is incorrect. MIxing singular with plural. The fact that it is widely used colloquially doesn't validate it. Especially since the rest of the article has correct usage. So I have corrected a couple of those. Davidpatrick 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Singular they --Random832 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of block duration

I've noticed some admins disclose the duration of a block and some do not. Is there a policy on this? I can see where disclosing the block duration is appropriate for a non-anonymous user, but in the case of an IP vandal it almost invites them to come back at time T + epsilon for continued foolishness. Apologies if the topic has been covered before. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning/Blocking

I feel that it takes too much to get blocked and banned on wikipedia. I think people are given too many chances, and as a result there is too much vandalism for us too catch all of it. --Savant13 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notifying users of blocks

moved from WP:AN/I#Blocking

I've noticed a tendency on the part of many admins not to leave a notice on Uses' and IPs' Talk pages when they block someone. This can mean that other editors leave pointless warning notices, not realising that a block has already been imposed, and other admins can pointlessly go through the beginning of the blocking process before discovering that they're wasting their time.

I've been leaving friendly requests on the admins' Talk pages, and so far everyone seemed to have seen my point. Today, though, for the first time an admin has responded by insisting that there's no point leaving a notice. Aside from the fact that it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy, is there any guideline or policy on this? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive always known it to be a courtesy. The only time I dont is when I indef block a sock or block evader. Then, (and this may be wrong. I delete there page to deny them, any gratification). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Ligulem#Blocking, where this started. I have seen a lot of other admins blocking IP's/throw away attacker accounts with 20 attack/vandalism only edits *not* posting messages on their talk. Now, Mel Etitis requests me to always post on talk pages to notify "users". --Ligulem 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The blocking process": The block log is right on the blocking page, at the bottom. So for me the "blocking process" is hitting the block link and there you are. On talk pages, I would have to wade through the history of the talk page to check if a user has removed a post from their talk page. A user's talk page is not a block history. --Ligulem 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent examples of other admins blocking anon users without leaving a post on their talk: Neutrality, RoySmith, Ryulong, Trebor Rowntree, Mikkalai, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ilmari Karonen, JzG. --Ligulem 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow everything that Ligulem says, but the list of admins who have done the same thing is irrelevant to the question as to whether it should be done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many block templates and I personally try to always leave one on a talk page after a block, but I didn't see anything in the blocking policy that stated that this is necessary. IrishGuy ^talk 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's listed under the "Instructions to admins" heading, using the word "should". We can debate whether that means it's required or not, but I think most of us would agree that not leaving one should be the exception rather than the rule. Please leave one (excepting obvious trolls or sockpuppets, which I don't think really require them); it takes less than 20 seconds and it's helpful to pretty much everyone. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information: If you dig into my block log, you will notice that I've only blocked IP's and vandalism/attack only accounts without notifying the user. As I noted on my talk, I haven't and I do not intend to *not* notify users I block that do have some minimally reasonable edit history (I have never block a user of this kind so far). I really fail to see why I should notify a throw-away vandalism only account like User:Chrissu1989. BTW these kind of users regularly remove block messages from their talk pages. So what does that mean if you don't find a "blocked" message on these kind of talk pages? --Ligulem 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that is says we should, but it doesn't appear to be mandatory. The reasons are for other other editors will be aware that the user is blocked...which is a good and valid reason. Should more adming use the warning messages? Probably. But I don't think it necessarily makes them remiss in their duties to not do so. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could perhaps this be done automagically?DGG 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant quotation (thanks Bbatsell):

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments." Wikipedia:Blocking policy#How to block

I must say that I don't really understand "should" except as pointing out that it's mandatory; is there another meaning besides the prescriptive?

Could it be done automagically? The problem would be that there are different reasons for (and different periods of) block. Perhaps there could be a default message that could be overriden when the block is applied?

I see this as just one example of the general lowering of courtesy levels here; increasing numbers of editors fail to use edit summaries, for example, and it's surprising how many tag all their edits, no matter how extensive, as minor. Most simply ignore polite requests to use summaries, and some react with hostility and aggression. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I read "should" as "recommended". Mandatory is exactly that...mandatory. As I noted, I do use the templates and that is because I happen to think they should be used. But I am not going to judge others as being discourteous if they don't throw a template on the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I really feel attacked by your postings here and on my talk. I suggest we move on and I do post a message for each and every block I shall issue in the future. Ok? --Ligulem 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've applied {{block}} to the talk page of User:Chrissu1989, the most recent block I issued [1]. If there is a better template to use for this kind of case, let me know. Thanks. --Ligulem 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I normally use one of {{test5}} or {{test6}}, which have only optional parameters. It's largely a matter of taste, I think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I frequently don't bother, as commented above for throwaway accounts which are blocked within 10 minutes of being created it seems wasted effort (Or IPs which has a talk page full on warnings and block messages). I check their other contribs and tend to sort those out, so I can't imagine why anyone else would be coming along significantly later to leave them a message or warning. There is a possibility that someone will be looking at the user concurrently and that's where the collisions occur, however in the short timescale around the events it seems a good possibility that crossover will occur anyway. I often go to a page and find someone has just warned them for something I reverted, it's not a problem just a wasted trip. Similarly I get collisions where blocking, or get to the block page and see they have just been blocked (since it shows the log at the bottom of the block page, can't say I go back and look for a block notice). As above I can't say either of those is a big deal and when many people working on things, such crossovers are a good probability. i.e. I think people are going to get wasted trips to pages or post redundant messages regardless. --pgk 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's a difference between shrugging off a wasted trip for yourself, and editing so as to cause wasted trips for others. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As above I if someone does say 5 edits in a 10 minute time frame after creating an account and then gets blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account, it seems most unlikely that someone will be coming along later to post a message. Have you had cases where you've gone to post a message on such an account a significant amount of time after the event? And if so how frequently does this occur? If all their edits have been rolled back I'm not sure what purpose anyone has in deciding to visit their talk page, I would see this as a rare occurance.

If the visits occur at roughly the same time as the block, there is a good chance that there will be some crossover and one or other of those involved will have a wasted trip, this seems particularly the case at the moment where I often see contrib histories etc. lagging quite significantly, I can't see how that can be eliminated.

This isn't some new phenomena, I certainly haven't changed by behaviour in this regard for quite some time and you are the first and only person to mention the issue. Don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying the situation absolutely never occurs, I just wonder how significant an issue it is and if the amount of effort expended "solving" it outweighs the detriment. My own observation and cynicism suggests it's something we are very good at on wiki, spending huge amounts of time solving problems which don't "really" exist. --pgk 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a data point, I've noticed the lack of block messages as well and have found it can result in wasted effort when vandalfighting. In my view it's not wise to make vandalfighting more difficult or frustrating, unless there's a good reason. JMHO. Raymond Arritt 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)T

Thanks for the further evidence of the issue. Can you give a bit more background. Are the users blocked in the few minutes before or is this a significant amount of time after the blocking? I ask this since as with many I use multiple browser tabs when doing this, so If I'm going to warn or leave a block message I can be that I open talk pages in a fresh tab and carry on with other things coming back a short time later, this is the crossover I mention and indeed does happen to me quite frequently. I'm not sure why we would give those doing anti-vandal work any more or less consideration than others, but from a anti-vandalism point of view which is more preferrable to you, that vandals get blocked promptly or that you save a few seconds not warning someone who just got blocked? (The two needn't be mutually exclusive, but there are going to be trade offs at times.) --pgk 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Many editors revert vandalism and don't bother to follow up on the vandal's Talk page, nor check all the vandal's other contributions; I often – especially when it's a vandal on whom I'm keeping an eye – follow up for them, adding warnings or blocks. It's impossible to tell without actually starting the blocking process whether someone has blocked or not. I've often come across cases in which other editors have left warnings after blocks have been placed but not mentioned, and even more often I find myself wasting time on the start of the blocking process only to discover that someone else has already done it.

In short, not taking the few seconds to place a block notice can cause other editors inconvenience and irritation, and the instructions to admins say that it should be done (which, pace Irishguy, in normal English is a prescription, not the expression of a mild preference). Sorry if I sound tetchy, but once admins have been alerted to the fact that this causes inconvenience to others, I'm a bit surprised at the continuing argument. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of inconvenience to others cuts both ways. If I raise that it is an inconvenient for me to add the block notice in certain circumstances then you of course should be bending to me, so not as to inconvenience me? As I say above the number of people raising this has been very small and hence trying to scope this issue doesn't seem unreasonable. If you believe that your inconvenience outweighs the interests of everyone else concerned, then I think there is little more to discuss here. --pgk 13:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "scope this issue", but the rest of your comments are surely mistaken. Consideration for others should trump self-interest. Using edit summaries, providing sources, using correct formatting, signing messages, etc. — ignoring all these would doubtless make editing quicker for the individual, but that's not a reason for doing so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope, i.e. when does the problem occur. Does it occur for every block done, or is it a specific circumstance. Yes I agree your self interest should come second to the interest of the many admins who in certain circumstances don't put block messages on pages. --pgk 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindest to ignore this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can give an example which just occurred of the issues of crossover and scoping. User:Creek eek, placing {{indefblockeduser}} on a range of user pages, this is an ongoing troll if you look at the histories of the pages involved. Started at 13:52, blocked at 13:53 (UTC), after blocking I looked at other contribs and rolled back (in multiple tabs). I then went to the user talk page to add an {{indefblockeduser}} tag to that user. Edit conflict with someone adding a warning, redo - edit conflict with the user blanking that warning. Finally place the tag, within a minute or two someone else added to WP:AIV. Now this is obviously frustrating because multiple people are picking up on the same thing, there isn't much which can be done about that. At the same time I can't imagine why anyone would be going back later to look at this page, the user in question is in no doubt about what they are doing, the block notice isn't useful to them. All the edits were rolled back quickly. Was going through those two edit conflicts to the place the message a complete waste of time? To me yes, is not doing it likely to be inconvenien to others? --pgk 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were watching one of the articles involved, I'd see activity, check, and discover reverted vandalism. I might then go to the vandal's Talk page to see whether a warning was left (as I've already pointed out, that's often not done), and see no new warning, but a string of previous ones. I'd then decide either to give a warning (which would, unknown to me, be pointless), or to apply a block (only to discover that one had aleady been applied). This has happened to me on a number of occasions.

But there's no point my going on; you've decided that the slight convenience of your not having the courtesy to say what you've done outweighs the inconvenience that you cause to others, and evidently nothing that I say is going to change that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the system so that a block notice goes on the talk page automagically when the block is made? Such a thing ought to be possible, what with this being the computer age and all. It would save effort and frustration for all concerned. Raymond Arritt 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And you've decided the slight inconvenience to you outweighs the inconvenience to the many admins who do this. However as I have already said, my intent was to discuss the matter and scope the issue - how broadly it is felt an issue and in what circumstances is it an issue. That's the way things work around here, when there is a disagreement we discuss and try to find a compromise/consensus to the way forward. Your declaration above that you merely stating you felt inconvenienced by it should mean everyone would run off and do as you asked, is what started this part of the thread. Clearly if 100 admins don't warn for 10 blocks each and yet only you have a problem, and it occurs for 10 of those 1000 blocks, the cost benefit seems quite simply not in your favour. OTOH it maybe that those 10 are pretty specific circumstances, or it may come out in the discussion that many people find this an issue. From your description above it seems that you don't trust others reverting to consistently warn properly and that is the real root of this problem. --pgk 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I can't see how having a notice automatically added as a part of a block will add any more work for an admin; quite the opposite if anything, since the notice would be added with no effort on their part. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my response wasn't intended to go with your post. Reading back I guess some of the basics aren't clear either, the real point here is that either side declaring the other is being "selfish" and not considering the inconvenience of the other party(ies) is not really helpful, as it is of course a matter of perspective. Hence the need for some discussion to work out minimising the impact on everyone. The automatic message is a reasonable idea, though perhaps a simple marker which will tell people at a glance of the current blocked status, whilst still encouraging more comprehensive messages where appropriate. --pgk 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it useful when the "blocked" messages are left and almost always post a note or template myself, with one important exception: when the username itself is harassing (e.g. User:JohnSmithIsABadPerson (bowlerized example)). In those cases, I don't leave anything and I delete the userpage if it exists, because leaving the page with that name can actually perpetuate the harassment. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

New addition... unilateral action disruption.

I just added this... I think it will be invaluable:

• Unilateral actions to close discussions early against concensus, disrupting the community by forcing additional debate and conflict, and is blockable.[2]

Thank you. - Denny 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that inappropriate early closure of a DRV by an administrator is part of the rationale behind an imminent 10-day (!) arbcom ban. Milto LOL pia 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is far too bold. Decisions from the Arbitration Committee do not make policy. The decision was made in a very specific context. There is a difference between the ArbCom or the Wikipedia community deciding to block, and a single administrator doing the same. The other entries in the list cover blocks which are regularly made and broadly supported. On the other hand, somebody who closes a discussion inappropriately is likely to be a regular editor, probably an administrator, and such a block will always attract drama (like the cool-down blocks mentioned further down). Changes to policy, and this one in particular, should be discussed for some time and not made in reaction to a highly charged case. For all these reasons, I reverted the addition. If you want to discuss this, by all means do so on this talk page or the Village Pump, but I don't think there is a consensus for the point you added. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment. The decision you cite doesn't even say anything about blocking based on WP:SNOW. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

XfD/deletions/unilateral to disrupt

would there be any merit to adding that initiating XfDs or unilaterally deleting pages that are hot-button or controversial could be seen as disruptive/blockable? Thinking specifically about the Brandt & Essjay messes. Note that someone just now (less than 24 hours later) sent the Essjay article back to AfD for poor reasoning... - Denny 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there would not be any merit in doing that. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies and Requests

I would like to apologize for this IP Addresses vandalism of this website. This is a school, and I am a student, and I would appreciate having our IP address blocked from editing content, but not blocked from viewing content. Thank you very much. 209.7.218.5 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This page really never says that editors should receive a warning before placing blocked, although it is implied is some areas. Is that intentional?--BirgitteSB 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every block requires a prior warning. Some cases require instant blocking, to prevent further damage. Crum375 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But the policy clearly says which blocks don't require warnings without ever talking about the general principle of warning before blocks.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is in general up to the discretion of the blocking admin. Often the warnings are issued by other editors, not necessarily admins. In the case of WP:3RR for example, we encourage a warning to be issued to new editors who may not be familiar with the policy. I think overall the warnings, like the blocks, should be done with common sense, according to the specific case. Crum375 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is, where is in any guidelines or policies does it say that editors should be warned about their behaivor? Or, where does it say it up to the discretion of the admin? Reading the policy there is clearly an implication that warning is the standard and the X, Y, and Z are exceptions that do not need warning. But I looked at a bunch of policies and guidelines and I cannot not find any general dissucsion of the principle of warning. Everything I read seems to assume there is a general principle, but where is it?--BirgitteSB 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't really anywhere, except in the headers of some process pages. Perhaps this page needs a bit of editing to reflect that, or Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings should explain their thoughts on some policy pages. >Radiant< 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjustments to blocking policy?

I posted on ANI here in response to what I thought was excessive blocking on the part of Naconkantari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The majority of admins who commented on the issue endorsed the blocks, which says to me that actual blocking practice is not in line with blocking policy. One way or another, this needs to change. WP:BLOCK needs to reflect the actual rules we follow when blocking users. So what needs to happen here? And should this discussion occur on the village pump instead? TomTheHand 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to block without warning? If so, under what circumstances? Is a single vandalism edit enough? Does it depend on the severity of that vandalism? What is a "severe" single vandalism edit? If a single vandalism edit isn't enough, how much vandalism needs to occur? If it isn't acceptable to block without warning, how much warning needs to be given? Should we require at least a single "final warning, block imminent" before blocking? How long of a block is acceptable for an unknown IP? How long is acceptable for a known educational institution? Should a registered user whose only contributions have been vandalism be blocked indefinitely? If so, should it be without warning? If so, how much vandalism should occur before blocking a registered user indefinitely without warning? Is a single vandalism edit from a new user enough to justify an indefinite block? TomTheHand 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO we have to give admins a wide leeway, and expect them to use common sense. Trying to tie their hands in red tape and bureaucracy will be counter-productive. Admins have to primarily ensure a comfortable working environment for collaborative and productive editors. At the same time, they should not be too harsh on new users, who could potentially contribute in the future, and they must also beware of blocking innocent users via IP blocks. So the bottom line is that admins must have discretion and follow common sense. Crum375 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My general view is that we can, and should, be tolerant, up to a point, when somebody is just "testing", which might mean things like adding the Wikipedia logo image, "hello", "test" or "YIPPPEEE!!" to articles. These things are done in good faith, and we will just have to accept that newbies, unfamiliar with what is and what is not appropriate, will do such things.

When it comes to clear and indisputable vandalism though, things like replacing articles with profanity, or adding images of genitalia in articles, we should be strict. Indeed, I would not object to having "one strike and you're out for 2 hours" be the standard treatment on such issues, even for a first time offense. I cannot imagine a person on the receiving end of such a block being particularily surprised at getting blocked over a thing like that. If the block is reasonably short, there is not much damage either. (This is the practice at the Norwegian Wikipedia, and it works pretty well.)

Also, sometimes there are tell-tale signs that an IPvandal is a returning vandal with a new IP. I remember from the days I was an admin, a vandal who did this, this and this before I caught him and gave him a pretty quick and harsh {{test4im}} warning. When he proceeded to replace that with a tier-1 {{test}} message, as if having a new IP entitled him to make four vandal edits, I blocked immediately. There is no need to have people here who think they have a right to vandalize. If they complain, we will just have to accept that we are iron fisted, poor excuses for admins.

One note is that I think it might be a good idea to deliberately keep the formal wording of the blocking policy a bit more conservative than what we actually do in practice. People in general, not just admins, have a tendency to bend the rules a little, so if we make the formal wording slightly over-conservative, I think we will get pretty much the treatment of vandals that we should. If we then bend the rules a little and a blocked vandal complains that he didn't get the "last warning" which the vandal is "entitled" to before getting blocked, well then let's just say that vandals don't have rights. And then bending the rules a bit to keep those who blatantly and indisputably seek to cause harm to Wikipedia off the site should be a tolerated practice, even if we don't boast about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to clear and indisputable vandalism though, things like replacing articles with profanity, or adding images of genitalia in articles, we should be strict. Indeed, I would not object to having "one strike and you're out for 2 hours" be the standard treatment on such issues, even for a first time offense I fully agree with this statement. There is no reason to not immediately block someone that is intentionally damaging the encyclopedia. Naconkantari 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By definition, any vandalism consists of intentional damage of WP, otherwise it wouldn't be vandalism. So the criterion for instant blocking has to be more carefully defined. Crum375 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I asked all those questions, I really should try to answer them myself. I believe that blocking without warning can be justified, in a case where the vandalism is blatant and overwhelming. If I saw an IP replace a dozen pages with profanity in as many minutes, I'd be willing to block that IP without warning to stop harm to the encyclopedia. However, I don't think that there is any single, isolated edit that can possibly be made by an anon vandal that justifies immediate block without warning, especially for 31 hours, as Naconkantari commonly does. I fully support the warning system. If someone makes a single, blatant act of vandalism, I have no problem with leaving a "this is your first and only warning" message and blocking upon further vandalism, but I would prefer at least two warnings, with one containing "final warning, block imminent" language. If you try to give out a full set of warnings you'll find that most vandalism stops when the vandal realizes "Wow, I'm being watched." I know, I know, it takes less time to just block the account, but I view that as biting.

As far as blocking of IPs known to be shared by many different people, such as those of libraries, any block longer than a few hours is blatant overkill. You're trying to stop someone who's in the library for an hour or less. Blocking for a day or more is harmful to legitimate users of the library. If you run into a kid who's coming into the library for an hour each day to vandalize, I can see applying longer blocks, but for an educational IP with sporadic vandalism over the course of many months, each individual burst of vandalism should be considered as a brand new individual, because it probably is. I also think that blocks of shared IPs should be "soft"; it should be possible for a user to create an account. We are an educational resource. We should not shut out educational institutions, even if they are the source of much vandalism.

I also think that indefinite blocking of a registered user whose only contributions have been vandalism hurts the encyclopedia more than it helps. It makes it far less likely that such people will turn around and make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. An immediate, indefinite block of a registered user that has made only one vandalism edit is definitely entirely too far.

I understand the need for admins to have discretion in these matters, but it's also necessary to have limits. TomTheHand 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some consistency, and some limits, but the tendency appears to be too lenient, if anything. Donorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal-only account, was blocked for only two days after dozens of disruptive edits, including this and this. And it's unclear to me why it took three hours for Wikipedia to corral him. -- TedFrank 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change that was just made about indefinitely blocking accounts that have not made productive edits. In the above example of Donorman, I might not have indefinitely blocked myself, but I would not object to such a block because of the volume of vandalism and because he had received many warnings. I'm not opposed to language allowing indefinite blocks for such users.

However, in my opinion, an account that has only made a small number of unproductive edits should not be blocked indefinitely without warning. There is a good chance that such an editor can become a positive contributor, as soon as they realize that Wikipedia is not a joke, and people see what you do and care about it. They need to be warned and given a chance. An indefinite block almost certainly loses that user forever.

I really don't think indefinite blocks without warning are acceptable except in cases of severe vandalism. I think it'd take a dozen vandalism edits to justify an indefinite block without warning. An account with fewer edits should be warned at least once, and if the vandalism continues then a block could be applied.

I can accept some negotiation on how much vandalism should justify a block without warning, but I think that an indefinite block without warning for one edit, as happened to Chyeahitsdiana in response to this, is way too severe. TomTheHand 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that assuming good faith will go a long way in helping guide the kinds of decisions at hand here. If an attempt is made to lay down a strict set of criteria that say when an admin should apply what kind of preventative action we are subjecting ourselves to too much policy creep. I believe that for the most part the admins can be trusted to make level headed decisions and do what needs to be done to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. That said, there is a valid concern about gray areas, and some valid examples are brought up. Perhaps there is the need to establish some minimal guidelines as far as these questions are concerned. I agree that applying an indefinite block, sans warning, based on someone's first edit is just a little on the harsh side. If an adjustment to the policy is going to be made then there needs to be consensus on what defines obvious and severe vandalism. Arkyan 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do understand the arguments that it's important not to tie admins' hands with a restrictive blocking policy, I think we should have a statement that, though the recommended blocking justifications and durations are guidelines and should be applied on a case-by-case basis, admins should not consistently apply blocks outside of the guidelines. I believe such a statement would solve the problem of unnecessarily tying admins' hands while also forcing admins to obey this policy.

For example, currently the guidelines state that blocks should not be applied to isolated incidents of vandalism. If an admin runs into an isolated incident of vandalism that, in their judgement, is severe, they could apply a block, but an admin should not consistently block isolated incidents of vandalism.

Similarly, the guidelines state that logged-in users should be blocked for 24 hours for the first block and each successive block should be longer. An admin could decide that in a particular case, like that of Donorman, the vandalism is severe enough and enough warning has been given to justify a lengthy or indefinite block. However, an admin should not consistently block user accounts indefinitely for one or a handful of vandalism edits.

We don't need to objectively define "obvious" or "severe." We just need to say "Use your judgement, but on average, follow the guidelines." TomTheHand 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to expand a little on what I've just said. I think we should tailor the guidelines on this page to deal with your average, run-of-the-mill vandal, who blanks a page or two or inserts a couple of words of profanity. If you're doing RC patrol, and you run into an anon vandal who's making a dozen edits a minute, throw the guidelines out the window and block that IP on sight. However, nine time out of ten, you're dealing with people who put "hi" at the top of various pages, and in that case, you should be following the guideline to the letter.

If you're an admin who spends most of their time on CFD or something, and you only pull out the banhammer to deal with severe problems, you shouldn't feel bad that the majority of your blocks are more severe than the guideline. That guy who's put porn onto ten major pages so far probably shouldn't be given a full set of warnings before a block.

You shouldn't ever have to feel "Gosh, this vandalism is terrible, but my hands are tied by WP:BLOCK!" However, you should usually feel "Man, this vandalism is average. I am going to follow WP:BLOCK, because that's exactly what it's there for." TomTheHand 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(mec)Policy and guidelines exist to further the building of an encyclopedia; we therefore, in (s)electing out admins, choose people with commonsense who will use the block function in a number of ways for a number of reasons to further that ultimate goal. "Use your judgement but on average follow guidelines" is exactly what the vast majority of admins do, Naconkantari in particular. Each block is open to appeal, to review by others admins and to community input. We encourage this, despite the fact that those questioning a block are rarely aware of the full facts.

We must allow admins leeway. (S)Electing people and then tying their hands because of process or a desire to slavishly follow rules is a ludicrous way of building an encyclopedia. And, no offence, presenting a big pile of admin actions and presenting a class action on them is neither fair nor useful. By all means challenge individual blocks - please! it keeps people on their toes - but a class action sucks lemons in the way it stacks things up against the user being questioned (30 seconds to compile, about 2 hours to reply to).

(added)By the way, your last paragraph is a vandals' charter - providing a set limit of "tolerable" vandalism is just holding Wikipedia to ransom. Do you know how many vandals appeal blocks because they haven't had the "right number" of warnings? They count them. They know. They are perfectly prepared to use our policies against us. Have you ever done Recent Changes and/or New Pages patrol? Spend a week on those jobs. You'll soon see that the majority of vandalism isn't as random as we'd like to think it is. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari absolutely does not follow guidelines on average. He has said himself that he blocks for isolated incidents of vandalism. He did so for 31 hours in the majority of cases until I confronted him, and has on average reduced this to 3 hours since then, which still violates policy. He consistently blocks user accounts indefinitely for making as few as one vandalism edit. To say that he on average follows guidelines is absurd; he openly admits to not following them. I absolutely agree that admins require leeway and have said so, but Naconkantari consistently blocks outside of the guidelines.

As far as presenting a big pile of admin actions goes, I did so because I did not know how else to communicate the problem. I did not cherry-pick what I felt were the worst, most indefensible blocks. Maybe I should have. Instead, I listed sixteen blocks that violated WP:BLOCK that were given out over one hour. That was the vast majority of the blocks Naconkantari gave out over that hour. When Naconkantari claimed that one block of a single-edit IP address for 31 hours was an exception and possibly too long, I had no trouble finding six blocks of single-edit IP addresses for 31 hours that he handed out in a half hour period the previous day.

I have said that admins need leeway. However, we also need limits. If you have a reason to block an IP address for 31 hours for a single edit, do so. However, if you RC patrol and block nearly every single isolated act of vandalism you see without warning for lengths of time greater than policy guidelines, you are breaking policy. To be clear about that, you are doing exactly what the vandals are doing. WP:BLOCK is just as important as WP:VAND. TomTheHand 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what our blocking policy is for if its purpose is not to set out the guidelines we should follow when blocking. TomTheHand 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think I can see the points you are making. To boil them down to how they are reading to an outsider:

• Process is good. We need more process.
• You don't like User:Naconkantari.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm so far missing any other point(s) you may have. Indeed, I've started reading your posts across a couple of forums in a negative light for which I apologise.

Can you dumb it down a shade for me? :o) Your point is being lost at the moment. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No no, you seem to have misunderstood me. My points were:

• • Blocking policy should give good guidelines for when and how to block.
  • Admins should follow policy.
  • I took the actions I did for reasons which I am willing to elaborate on when questioned.

Glad to help out, feel free to ask more questions if needed. TomTheHand 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy should provide general information and guidelines about blocking, which it does. But the actual implementation, as Redvers noted above, is up to the common sense and discretion of the admins, who were elected as trusted members of the community to ensure a comfortable and safe editing environment for productive editors. We want the admins to have maximum flexibility, and each of their actions is subject to review. Crum375 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so how is providing guidelines that people don't follow, and have no reason to follow, productive? An appeals/review process for anons and new users who are blocked out of process exists, but it's not going to be used, because they don't know how. They're just going to leave forever. Are you saying that if nobody complains then it's ok? TomTheHand 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Each block is subject to scrutiny, by the blockee and others. Many blockees do complain, quite loudly in fact, to multiple parties in multiple channels, even about the most simple straightforward blocks. Adding more red tape will not make it easier for the admin. Some admins may decide to just ignore the situation and/or let someone else do it. I believe that discretion and flexibility are critically needed here. Crum375 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not, at any point, suggested more red tape. I have only said that admins should generally try to follow blocking policy, as right now it seems to be meaningless. I believe I explained my problem below: it is not with admins who apply blocks more harshly than guidelines if they feel it's needed, even when those blocks are harsher than I'd apply myself. It is with admins who apply blocks more harsh that the guidelines consistently, with no justification. I am not trying to force admins to follow guideline at WP:BLOCK all the time. I just think that admins should follow WP:BLOCK unless they have a reason not to. TomTheHand 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you a scenario. Say you notice a block. It is longer than the guidelines here suggest, and/or it was given for less reason. You contact the admin who placed the block, and say "This block doesn't follow the guidelines over at WP:BLOCK, and I was wondering why."

Now, certainly if the admin says "Oh, that was a sockpuppet I was dealing with," you're going to say "Oh! Good work there."

What if the admin says "Oh, that's just what I do." What then?

This is a serious question, because it's exactly what I've run into and it's why I'm so frustrated. I am not suggesting that an admin must have an ironclad, defensible reason for every block that deviates from the guidelines. I'm asking what to do if an admin has no reason at all to deviate from them, but does so constantly. TomTheHand 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You can always decide, and it often happens, that the original blocking admin was too harsh, and unblock. Or you may decide to mentor the offender and assume responsibility. Most admins would gladly accept someone else's input and would rarely object. If they do, there is always AN/I, for the longer blocks anyway. Crum375 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That really looks like a path straight to wheel war land. Let's put an extension on the scenario. Say the admin in question applies blocks that exceed guidelines 10-20 times per hour, and has stated that they have no reason for the deviation. What do you do then? I'm pretty sure unblocking everybody would be a Bad Thing. I discussed the issue with the admin here, and posted to ANI here, noting sixteen times in one hour when blocking guidelines were exceeded. The majority of admins endorsed the blocks, which brought me here, trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Is WP:BLOCK broken? Is ANI?

Is the problem with me? Am I seriously wrong in thinking that admins should follow blocking policy unless there's a reason not to? TomTheHand 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would I be taken more seriously if I went out and found other blocks that are much harsher than guidelines for no reason? I realize that this is coming off as just an attack on Naconkantari, but I had never encountered Naconkantari before running into one of his blocks. When I was looking at Special:Ipblocklist I saw many blocks that were harsher than guidelines. If I talk to the admins involved, and if they tell me that they did not have any particular reason for the harsh blocks, would it help? TomTheHand 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking generally to the blocking system rather than speficically to any one admin or block or anything else; the system in general works as well as it can. If it is an imperfect system, it is only because it is an imperfect world. As someone who considers himself a fairly active vandal hunter, I have never considered it my job to ensure that a certain result is gotten against a vandal. I have always felt that my job it to make the admins aware of the problem, and let them deal with the problem as they see fit. In a few cases, I may have felt that the admin who dealt with the problem misunderstood the nature of the problem; and I will go to an admins talk page when I feel this has happend. But, I have never felt that I was seeking a certain result from a listing at AIV or ANI. I generally trust admins to use good judgement, and to dicker about whether a 2 hour block or a 6 hour block or a 24 hour block is appropriate in a certain case is moot. It is not my intention to get admins to do my bidding, or to punish bad users, or anything else like that. It is to make admins aware of a problem that may need addressing. Thats it. I could care less how much of the blocking policy is written, how slavishly the admins follow it, or even if they fix my problem at all. I trust them to fix the problem in a reasonable way, and they always do. Might I consider some of their blocks too harsh? I might. Might I consider that they don't block an IP I would have? I might. However, my opinion is largely irrelevant and I realize that. My time is better spent improving articles and preventing damage to other articles, not hunting down a specific vandal and seeing to it that they are punished, or railing against a specific admin who doesn't enforce the blocking policy as I would. I'd much rather work with the admins to make wikipedia better rather than set up an adversarial role against them... In conclusion, no, the system is not broken. Yes, it works fine as is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that from your perspective the system works fine as it is, because when you report vandalism, someone stops it. However, overly harsh blocks chase away new users, and you will never hear them complain. The complaints you do hear are from repeat vandals who have learned enough to try to game the system. The people who are actually hurt by harsh blocks are voiceless; they are chased away from Wikipedia forever before they can learn to contribute.

The guidelines exist to strike a balance between protecting Wikipedia from vandalism and remaining accessible to new users. I can agree that we may need to tweak the guidelines to figure out exactly where that balance is, but I'm really shocked that so many people seem to feel that there's no need for admins to follow guidelines at all. I sort of doubt that if someone went up for RFA right now, and their answer to "What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?" was "I will block users who make unproductive edits immediately, on sight, without warning, temporarily for IPs and permanently for registered users," their request would be all that successful.

Part of your post seems to be from a "Calm down, Tom, and leave the admins to their business" perspective, so I'd like to point out that I am an admin, and how we operate is my business. Frankly, it's yours as well. TomTheHand 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I am an experienced editor, and I do care to see that admins execute their job fairly and equitibly. I can only say that based on my experience, they do. If there is a systemic problem, then it would show up all the time. The fact that you constantly cite a single admin in your criticisms would seem to indicate to me that it is a problem with one admin, and as such should be redressed on a personal level. To propose wholesale changes to a system merely to correct the behavior of a rogue seems excessive and unneccesary. I agree, scareing of a potential good editor should be avoided at all cost. However, I rarely see an admin acting in a way that I think will cause that to happen. Do some of the thousands of admins do that. I am certain they do. Should they be disuaded from doing so? They should. Are the vast majority of admins exercising their judgement in appropriate ways. Yes they are. Thus, we shouldn't change the system merely to stop the few problematic admins. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what wholesale changes to the system have I suggested? I want to add a sentence or two to the policy, stating that the exact details of blocking are up to the discretion of the blocking admin, but admins should follow the guidelines unless they have a reason not to.

If there is consensus among admins that the blocking policy is too lenient, then maybe the block length guidelines should be adjusted, but I see no need to touch them.

I just think that the policy needs language that says "Yes, you need to follow these guidelines unless you have a reason not to," and then I think admins need to follow the guidelines. I am not suggesting a vast bureaucracy which records the reason admins give, and I am not suggesting we set up a special cabal to review every block and make sure the reasons are good enough. However, I'm saying that if you're blocking some run-of-the-mill blanking vandal, you should follow the guidelines, and if you block someone for a length outside the guidelines and someone asks you why, you should have a reason. Because you've been dealing with this same vandalism in this IP block all week? Sounds good. Because it's a sockpuppet of so-and-so? Keep up the good work. Because you have your own blocking policy? No, sorry.

Tomorrow I will take some time to find other cases of the guidelines being violated for no reason so that this stops looking like a problem with one admin. TomTheHand 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not actually able to find anyone else consistently applying blocks outside guidelines for no reason. TomTheHand 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) without reading prior discussion, my opinion on the matter is this: if administrators across the wiki are found blocking with little or no warnings posted, then the relevant policies should be adapted. We are not here to restrain our administrator's block buttons with red tape - WP:IAR is paramount for an efficient system for dealing with vandals, and it allows administrators to use their own common sense - which is by far the play-safe option: a situation-by-situation decision, guided but not controlled by policy .. as oppose to blocks where they are inappropiate or vice versa. anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not the appropriate response on a first offense; they're there to stop someone who's causing harm and continues to do so after weaker measures have been tried, such as a warning. I've given indef blocks to users who have not received the full range of warnings, because they make it clear that they know what they're doing and would vandalize after warnings, but those are exception and should not be codified as a rule. Policy is not there to reflect practice. We wouldn't change NPOV because people really felt like editorializing, and we shouldn't compromise the policies that embody the assumption of good faith just so some admins can feel justified in handing out excessive blocks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly is acceptable to block without warning if it's clear the blockee is malicious, and yes, it's also acceptable to permablock vandal-only accounts, and we've been doing that for years now. >Radiant< 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got no problem accepting either of those, but is it acceptable to block without warning, or permablock an account, for one edit? If so, what kind of single edit, with no other history of vandalism, would you have to see in order to block it without warning, permanently if it's a registered user? Assume that you're not dealing with sockpuppetry here; if you're dealing with sockpuppetry, then it's not actually one isolated edit and you can certainly block the hell out of them. TomTheHand 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I can top you on that by claiming it's acceptable to permablock (without warning) an account that has zero edits, as is commonly done for impersonator accounts or anyone with "on wheels" in their username. Note that sockpuppetry cannot generally be easily seen. Note also that permablocking a registered account is less bad than permablocking an IP (which we generally don't do anyway). Of course these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Three examples that come to mind would be (1) posting personal information on any user, regardless of whether or not it's true; (2) legal or physical threats; and (3) replacing any template with an image of genitalia. I'm sure there are others. >Radiant< 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If it's an impersonator account or an account that otherwise violates user name policies it's a completely different matter. So let's say you don't suspect sockpuppetry. The above are three cases where you'd be willing to block without warning for one edit? I can accept those; they're quite severe. How about if someone replaces a page with random characters, or some nonsense like the word "hi"? Again, you don't suspect sockpuppetry, you don't suspect any connection to any prior vandalism, and the IP has never edited Wikipedia before. There are no special circumstances whatsoever. Is it acceptable to block without warning for that one edit? TomTheHand 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I would not. But it seems to me you are trying to write a formal list of what is and is not acceptable; such a list is probably not possible and certainly not needed. >Radiant< 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

Response to something up there^ (quote for reference) TomTheHand said: "I was not actually able to find anyone else consistently applying blocks outside guidelines for no reason.". Well??? So you found one admin who you feel misapplied the rules? Doesn't sound like there is a real problem then. What seems to be missed by most of this discussion is that policies are largely being followed except when unique circumstances present themselves. To ask a question like TomTheHand did: "Is it acceptable to block without warning for that one edit?" seems to be reaching for a definitive statement like "It is never OK..." or "It is OK..." The truth is, for normal garden-variety vandalism, this isn't OK, but we don't need to address it, because it isn't being done. There will be unique cases that require unique responses. Several people have already provided reasonable situations where a one-edit vandal (or even a no-edit vandal) can be blocked. However, to say something like "Other than these already itemized exceptions, we should never block someone for only one edit" and making that policy uneccessarily ties the hands of admins, since situations will inevitibly arise for which such a block will be justified, and for which no one now is even imagining. Avoiding instruction creep is about not creating rules to fix problems that don't exist. The existing block policy seems to be adequate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to both Jayron32 and Radiant, as they've both brought up the same point. I am not trying to propose that we come up with an formal list of exceptions. I agree that that would tie the hands of the admins too much. I have no problem with the exceptions being in the mind of the admin and being entirely up to their discretion. I have a problem with if an admin has no reason, even in his or her own mind, for making the exception. There is no need for a codified list of rules, and such a thing would be harmful. However, an admin should be able to say why they applied a harsher block if someone happens to ask.

I'm not saying you should be able to ask me about a block I applied four months ago that I don't even remember, but if you ask me about a 31 hour block I applied to an IP yesterday which had replaced a page with "hi", I should be able to tell you why. I don't want a codified list of "good enough" reasons to apply a harsher block; if you don't think my reason is acceptable, you can use the appeals process already in place, but if I didn't have a reason, I think it's always unacceptable.

I want to explain how this started, because I admit that my original point is completely gone. I ran into an admin who consistently applied harsh blocks for no reason (I am not making an assumption here; I asked, and he said that that's simply how he deals with vandalism: any unproductive edit equals a block). I posted to ANI, and the consensus was largely "I don't see a problem with it."

My thoughts at that point were "If it's acceptable to apply harsher blocks than the guidelines state for no reason, we need to amend the blocking policy, because the blocking guidelines should tell you what blocks should be applied when there are no special circumstances involved." I came over here because I wanted to argue my side of the case, that the existing blocking guidelines are fine and strike a good balance between stopping vandalism and protecting newbies.

When I came over here, I found that nobody agrees with my entire premise: that the blocking policy should be followed unless the admin has a reason not to. I am not proposing instruction creep. I am not proposing that there be a list of acceptable reasons for harsh blocks. However, I do feel strongly that admins should follow blocking policy, and if they have to apply a harsher block, they should be able to explain why if asked, and if they didn't have a reason why, it's unacceptable. TomTheHand 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one completely agree with the idea that, where there are conventions about block reasons and lengths, and an admin chooses to depart from those, that admin should be able to explain why they are doing do. The policy currently hints towards that already, at least with reasons for blocking, with the text at the top of that section. --bainer (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to TomTheHand: You say "I do feel strongly that admins should follow blocking policy, and if they have to apply a harsher block, they should be able to explain why if asked, and if they didn't have a reason why, it's unacceptable." And yet, with a single event notwithstanding, by your own admission, all admins always do this all the time, again, with a single exception. So what is the purpose of the whole discussion we are having. You propose no changes to the policy, you note that of the well over 1000 admins we have, a total of 1 is behaving in a way that runs counter to your idea of how blocking should work? From what I can see:

1. You propose a reasonable standard of behavior when admins block someone. Everyone agrees with you on this point.
2. With a total of n admins, n-1 admins already meet this standard of behavior.
3. What is the big deal?

--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Until just now, with Thebainer's post and yours, nobody has agreed with me on that point. Everybody, so far, has misunderstood what I'm saying, which has made it difficult for me to go beyond that. TomTheHand 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So we have establish that you call for a standard of behavior, and we also accept that that standard is being followed by every single admin save one. What now do you propose? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly... I've got no clue any more. After the discussion at ANI, where the blocks were endorsed, I got the impression that this kind of blocking was common. I thought that meant either blocking policy needed to change to reflect blocking practice, or blocking practice needed to change to reflect blocking policy, but it seems that blocking practice is in line with policy and nothing actually needed to change here.

I still don't really understand why ANI endorsed the blocks, assuming that they do agree, in principle, that admins should follow guidelines unless they have a reason not to. I think there might be a strong tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to blocking admins. Naconkantari continues to block in excess of guidelines. However, the solution doesn't seem to be here, in making any change to blocking policy.

I do have some ideas for some things I'd like to see in the policy. I don't want to propose new rules or regulations or anything, but I feel like currently the page lacks information on "soft" blocks. I'd like to write a little more about what they are, their advantages, and their disadvantages, but I will not try to say "in this situation, give a soft block, and in that situation, give a hard one." Before anyone rips me a new one, please let me think about it and come up with a proposal; I'll post a new thread for it. TomTheHand 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism post-block

A vandal has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism; his talk page is littered with "last warnings" and a statement that he can be blocked without warning. The block expires, and he starts vandalizing again. Does one really need to waste time issuing another "last warning" before reporting to AIV? -- TedFrank 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. >Radiant< 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• An admin put a form notice on my talk page to the contrary after rejecting my AIV report. -- TedFrank 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • AIV is a quick-response sort of place, and it is quite possible, indeed probable, that the admin in question did not fully understand the nature of the situation. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User requested indef. blocks?

Having just seen this it made me curious. I don't see a provision for requests of self-blocking on this policy page. Is there some mention of such a thing elsewhere? (→Netscott) 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• In general I thought we didn't do that. >Radiant< 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• That was my thinking as well. (→Netscott) 08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Added a paragraph on the subject. Please copyed. >Radiant< 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good. (→Netscott) 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Softblock for Tor proxies

I live in China and have to use Tor to edit articles, because the only alternative – the HTTPS connection – doesn't allow users to do so any more.

The Tor proxies are very often blocked. If I've understood correctly, since the policy to block open proxies was introduced, a new technical possibility has become available that enables registered users to use Tor, while still blocking anonymous users who use Tor.

(I've tried to address this issue elswhere, but there was no solution. Please see also: Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall#Request a softblock and Wikipedia talk:No open proxies#Users from China are banned by this policy; if you read German, pls also see de:WP:AN#Ganz China ausgeschlossen.)

The blocking policy should be modified accordingly: Tor proxies should generally be softblocked. —Babelfisch 07:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anon-only block with account creation disabled would be fine, but I am wary of allowing account creation through proxies. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a soft-block (anon block, account creation block, logged in editing allowed) is preferrable. Vassyana 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does that leave the millions of possible chinese editors who dont yet have an account? -M^ask 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Tor proxies:

The blocking of Tor proxies can collude with Internet censorship by the Chinese government. Please have a look at this discussion on the blocking of Tor proxies: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Softblock for Tor proxies. —Babelfisch 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• It can also prevent massive vandalism and ban evasion. Note that Chinese readers are unaffected. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is about being a free encyclopedia, not a political anti-censorship vehicle. To quote Jimbo "If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia." [3]. But generally regarding censorship no one in the world is permitted to write here based on anything other than verifiable, reliable sources if those sources exist then censorship of that information isn't occurring. --pgk 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

end of copy

You've misunderstood me or I haven't been clear enough. This is not a problem of anonymity. Chinese users cannot even read Wikipedia without a proxy, because the Chinese government is blocking access. With a proxy, users in China can circumvent the blocking by the Chinese government and read articles, but when they want to edit articles, they are blocked by Wikipedia administrators. This situation is absurd. Mr Wales may be right that people who are concerned about anonymity shouldn't edit articles, but that's not the point here. I'm not so much concerned about my anonymity, but using Tor (or other open proxies) at the moment is the only way to edit articles at all.

If users in China can't edit articles on Wikipedia, because their only technical possibility to do so is blocked by Wikipedia administrators, that means that Wikipedia is consciously excluding all users from China. How "free" is an encyclopedia that does that? —Babelfisch 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Im on your side here Babelfisch, but lets get one thing out in the open very quick. The 'free' refers to free content not any rights on man or cost analysis. You are free to fork the project, you are free to redistribute and even make money off of it. Thats what free means so dont make such a blatent emotional appeal based on nothing. Its entirely a 'think of the children!' style defense. -M^ask

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." – That's the first sentence on the main page, and it's simply not true. At the moment, Wikipedia administrators seem to collude with the Internet censorship of the Chinese government. 137 million Internet users are blocked by Wikipedia as "collateral damage" in the war against vandalism. Yes, I'm quite emotional about that, but there is a simple solution and I hope it will be adopted. —Babelfisch 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well let me put you mind at rest, no one from the Chinese government has contacted me on this matter and encouraged me to block any tor node. As already noted blocking doesn't stop you reading. The information is not being censored. Not being able to edit isn't censoring you, this isn't a project about free expression. --pgk 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who needs an account in order to edit through Tor can simply request one, either at Wikipedia:Request an account or by privately asking an administrator. I've handled several such requests myself. If you're mad about the Chinese government censoring Wikipedia, your ire should be directed at the Chinese government, not Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxies need to be hard blocked. I don't go searching for TOR proxies; rather, I find new accounts doing something fairly awful, and discover that their IPs are TOR proxies. It happens all the time. It turns out it is trivially easy for an editor to get a new account name by finding some unblocked TOR proxy; once they do so, the full range of TOR proxies become useable by them. I wish there weren't vandals, but there are, and they're often extremely nasty. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slowking Man, I've created an account in June 2004 and I've been editing articles on Wikipedia since then. This is not about creating accounts. Hardblocking Tor proxies means that I can't edit articles even if I sign in. By using Tor, I've been able to circumvent Chinese government censorship since it was imposed, but now I'm blocked by Wikipedia administrators. The Chinese government has so far been unable to prevent me to contribute to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia administrators are now blocking me.

When I was blocked for the first time, I searched Wikipedia and found this:

• "Tor proxies can now be softblocked so logged in account users can edit via a tor connection. If you find an IP that has this problem please request an unblock to a softblock for tor." Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall#Request a softblock

That looks like a great solution, but it seems to be disputed, and some administrators don't follow this advice. It's not a policy, but has it become obsolete? In that case, the "advice to Tor users in China" should be rewritten or scrapped.

Quotes from relevant Wikipedia policies:

• "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, third paragraph)
• "Assume good faith." (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)
• "There are only 5 actual rules on Wikipedia: neutral point of view, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit, and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters." (Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, my emphasis.)
• "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. [...] ‘You can edit this page right now’ is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." (User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles)

I don't understand how this spirit and these principles can be discarded and 137 million Internet users in China can be blocked from Wikipedia as "collateral damage" of blocking potential vandals. This blocking policy and the ban on open proxies are not absolute, it's not their intention to block registered users who are not vandals, and they should not be used to violate much more basic principles of Wikipedia. —Babelfisch 07:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Honda Pilot

someone told me i'll be blocked. and then i heard about autoblocking for ips, did autoblocking always block account creation? HP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're blocked, and the blocking admin uses "autoblock", the IP addresses that you try to edit from will be blocked for 24 hours. If the admin also uses "prevent account creation", then during that 24 hour period where your IP is blocked, you won't be able to register a new account. However, autoblocks are temporary. TomTheHand 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A single edit?

Do you have to vandalise multiple times to be blocked? Or can you be blocked immediately and indefinitely after your first vandal edit? The Serene Silver Star 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For vandalism that is particularly severe, some admins feel that an immediate, possibly indefinite block after a single edit is appropriate. If the vandalism is run-of-the-mill page blanking, I would say that such a block is probably not appropriate and would probably be overturned on appeal. If you're blocked and you feel it was for an inappropriate reason or for an inappropriate length of time, you can put an unblock request on your talk page (which you can still edit) with {{unblock|your reason here}}. TomTheHand 15:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that it's possible that an account has several vandalistic edits to pages that have since been deleted. Such edits don't show up in the contribs log. >Radiant< 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

attack and outing sites

Per previous precedent and commonly accepted practice, linking to attack sites, or linking to sites that attempt to "out" the identities of Wikipedia editors for any purpose is a blockable offense. This includes re-inserting such content that was already removed, and its initial insertion. Users who post such information or links, or that re-insert them after their removal, may be blocked for the safety and protection of other editors.

I've added that text. I can't believe it wasn't there already as this seems to be common practice. We don't support harassment. - Denny ^(talk) 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What sort of thing is covered under "linking to attack sites". For example, various racist orgs maintain what might be called "attack sites", but those often should, perhaps must, be linked to in articels about such gorups or controversies in which they have been ionvolved. I presume that this policy is intended to mean linking as a whay to make by proxy an attack that could not be made directly on wikipedia pages, linking as a way to evade WP:NPA. But the words here could be taken to mean that any link to soenmthing that could be considered an "attack site" is out of line and blockable, which it obviously is not. Perhaps this wording should be clarified to distinguish these two cases? DES ^(talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The attacking isn't such a big problem. The stalking is. I really wouldn't get terribly upset if someone linked to a site that said what a horrible person User:ElinorD is. However, it would be completely unacceptable for someone to link to a site that said "ElinorD, in real life, is . . . and works in . . . and her husband is . . . and her children go to . . . School". As far as I'm aware, no such site exists, but there are sites that give such information about other editors, particularly administrators. And posting the URL in a nowiki'd form, or posting the name of the site, so that people can just add the http://www bit should also be ruled out, as should posting hints that would enable people to find it with google. ElinorD (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was more concerned that "attack site" could be interpreted to mean other kinds of sites completely, but since I see that thsi new text is under the section header "Personal attacks that place users in danger" the kind of site intended is perhaps reasonably clear. DES ^(talk) 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this change. This is something that should be handled with common sense on a case by case basis. This is instruction creep, and a solution looking for a problem. Frise 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite for me a single example where we should legitimately link to a site that defames, libels, publically attacks, or attempts to out the "IRL" identity of editors here?:::: - Denny ^(talk) 23:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Policies are too long and unwieldy as they are. Adding on to them just to address something that might someday be a problem only makes them longer. As it stands, you can sit there and watch a newbie's eyes glaze over as he tries to find something buried in a hundred lengthy pages of policies. You can't codify against every eventuality, and trying to do so only leaves the doors open for the e-lawyers to comb through and look for loopholes. It's not like we have admins standing around saying, "This person linked to ED! We would do something, if only we had a policy against it." Just let people use some common sense. Frise 00:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately its a very real current problem, endangering the physical safety of editors here. People need to be aware of the repercussions of their actions in the strongest sense; harassment will not be tolerated. Stating that those who threaten the safety of editors... will be blocked, is not instruction creep. I wish to AGF but I can find no good faith reason... to support these links, or to support not clearly saying this is blockable (which it is anyway, and policy reflects practice). - Denny ^(talk) 06:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What shall we do when "attack" sites are used as sources? Remove them? Frise 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing requires all sources to be web accessable. If we really needed to we could cite an attack site like a book, and omit the URL. --Gmaxwell 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF isn't an issue here. AGF tells us not to make assumptions about people's intentions... but it's completely reasonably for us to say that for the well being of our community, we must block anyone who engages in certain activities regardless of their intentions. I.e. "Hello Mr. Alkivar's phone number is XXX. We know you are trying to help us,.. somehow... but you are causing serious harm so we have to block you. Have a nice life.". Nothing in WP:AGF instructs us to ignore objectively harmful activities.

As far as the policy being too long.. We'll this is just common sense, so it would be nice if we could omit it.. but since so many of our users think all that isn't explictly forbidden is permitted, we are kinda stuck with bloated policies. If this bothers you, the first step is to chase down all the people who block the use of unwritten commons sense rules and re-educate them. After that I'll happily help you cut down the policy pages. --Gmaxwell 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nail on the head. People if they see or perceive loopholes, will stumble through them (all of us, me, you) for whatever reason. For the really nasty stuff (like this), it never hurts and can't do any harm to put in a lone sentence or two specifying it out--that alone will help long term since it reinforces the idea that its wrong and bad. - Denny ^(talk) 06:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, I completely agree with Denny here. ElinorD (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia:Harassment to make it clearer that posting the address of a website that publishes an editors' personal details is just another way of posting those details yourself.[4] ElinorD (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current phrasing strikes me as being a bit ambiguous as to what exactly an "attack site" is -- it might not be clear to an outside reader what we mean by it. Would "linking to sites which attack or identify personal details of Wikipedia editors" (linked up as you please) be a more specific wording? Just my thought. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That would address my concerns, expreseed above. DES ^(talk) 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps linking to this new essay at Wikipedia:Attack sites/WP:BADSITES could help? - Denny ^(talk) 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that every single news source that ran an article about the Essjay controversy and used his real name would be considered an attack website under this proposal. Anyone proposing that we delete all references to CNN? ABC? The BBC? New York Times? Didn't think so. This is instruction creep with the potential to do more harm than good. Risker 09:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a site which publishes Essjay's real name would not be a problem (as long as it's not a site that publishes the real names of people who are still trying to be anonymous), because it has been acknowledged by Essjay himself, and because it's public knowledge. I quite agree that this proposal should not be worded in such a way as to consider BBC and New York Times attack sites. But if it is worded that way, we need to clarify the wording, not dump the whole proposal. ElinorD (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"implying how to find" attack sites is absurdly tangential (it's not even "stating how to find") and, even beyond possible innocent links to attack sites by a user, it is not unlikely that someone might innocently "imply how to find" something (what does it mean? if I say "Wikipedia:Protected titles lists some attack sites" is that supposed to be blockable according to you? It is a simply descriptive statement related to the administration of Wikipedia that anyone may say. —Centrx→talk • 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording so that it now reads Users who, without actually linking to these sites, post information on how to find them, may, in certain circumstances, also be blocked. I also put that bit in a new sentence, so that it wouldn't seem as if that was also part of the ArbCom ruling, and, while I kept the links to Wikipedia:Attack sites and to the MONGO arbcom case, I changed the order of the links. ElinorD (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those "attack sites"

What this really seems to be about is Wikipedia Review, since it is this site which DennyColt has taken it upon himself to excise from Wikipedia. Well, on the principle that any such critical site which is subjected to such censorship is worth investigating, I checked it out. Frankly, it isn't worth the hysteria. But more to the point is that if people there try to "out" people here, it is part of a larger pattern of criticism of the administration here. And therefore there have been several references and outright quotations. And this raises problems, because DennyColt authorized himself to delete the links to these, without removing the quoted text. I've restored (and corrected) those, because they can be in no way characterized as the kind of stalking attacks discussed here, because essays are not guidelines, and because the deletions simply give critics ammunition.

The whole thing seems ill-advised. Those who exercise power under a cloak of anonymity have to expect attempts to strip away their veils. Actual attacks are one thing, but blanket ex post facto bans of sites which might be involved in such attacks simply ratifies their complaints about the opacity of wikipedia process. And the attempt to make WP:BADSITES into a guideline without going through any process at all is unacceptable. Mangoe 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Those who exercise power under a cloak of anonymity have to expect attempts to strip away their veils."

This completely goes against what we are, doesn't it, to even support or condone this? Would you be willing to disclose your real name, employer, and if you had one, your username at Wikipedia Review? - Denny ^(talk) 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, posters on the Wikipedia Review initially broke and further instigated the Essjay controversy. That patiently was a huge attack against Wikipedia and against one of our best editors here. I dare say, if it wasn't for the media response instigated by WR, specifically by Daniel Brandt, Essjay would probably still be sitting on ArbCom, with Jimbo's continued blessing. However, it seems to me that removing references to WR is rather beside the point of removing all references and articles associated with Brandt, who is the real threat, while WR is the vehicle by which he makes his activities known. I would say keeping links up to WR provides more WP editors with an "early warning" monitoring system for Brandt's stoking of developing controversies on WP. More awareness may lead to preventative or corrective action next time; outlawing references to the site "here" won't stop the investigations they undertake "there," further media controversies stoked by Brandt will hit the WP general editorship blindside, and actions like this will look like attempts at cover-up rather than attempts to deal with criticism/controversy pragmatically or honestly.--Academy Leader 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The outing is one part of the problem with WR. The other part is that they have published actionable libel, discussion about the sex lives of women editors, and copyright violations, not to mention the hundreds of insults, the deliberately hurtful photographs, and so on. Also, look at the tiny number of people who are actively involved. There can never be a legitimate reason to link to it, that I can see. I believe we do already have guidelines in place that say don't link to sites that contain libel or copyright violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Copyrights, which is policy. "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)."

WR publishes photographs of people without the permission of the copyright holders. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So this is all really about Essjay again. It's amazing how much in the way of overwrought new policy is being in rolled forth in (over)reaction to an embarrassment which was an inevitable consequence of practice here.

SV, your reference to the copyright policy verges on misrepresentation. I have trouble imagining that you cannot tell the difference between a reference to a "work" carried on the website and that website as a whole. Maybe you have a point concerning a reference to a particular post that bore such a photograph, though I'd also expect some proof that the photograph was copied in violation (for after all, it's generally reasonable to assume that any image on that net that is not obviously proprietary to the website is in violation). In the real case that I dealt with, there's no such photograph, and no question at all that the material was created within that forum by the user who posted it. I can only hope you haven't read the material to which I refer, because your implications about it are incorrect.

I do not condone posting personal details about people, but I have to say that if you go out in public under an assumed name (and this counts), you will run the risk of having your true identity exposed. You can accept the risk or not, but it's going to be there. I wish I could be surprised at the lack of understanding of how counterproductive this vendetta against the WR people is. It looks petty, and there's nothing that attracts the media sharks like the opportunity to expose such pettiness. Mangoe 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that harassment of Wikipedia editors by external sites is something that we here cannot control. On the other hand, by linking to those sites, or in any way providing them publicity, we become complicit ourselves, and we in fact promote and encourage the harassment by feeding the trolls. ArbCom has already ruled on this, and it is patently obvious that editors should not in any way aid or abet this harassment. This is not 'petty' at all - it is common sense and common decency to our fellow editors. Crum375 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, you seem to have replied to my posts without reading them. I didn't mention Essjay, for example. Can you address the points about libel, discussion about the sex lives of women editors, the insults, the photographs published without permission? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Magoe, you wrote: ", but I have to say that if you go out in public under an assumed name (and this counts), you will run the risk of having your true identity exposed." That may be true, but Wikipedia should not link to these sites, unless that person is notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, did you go and look at all the references that were changed under this new "policy"? I did. I did not find lots of people saying, "over on [banned site], it says that Googlesmertz is really Natty Bumpo!" I'm not sure that I found any, in fact. Most were passing references or simple references to it as a critical site. Two cases were cites for which there was no possible justification for vandalizing the reference.

SV, the reasons you give are punitive. That's a bad position to put yourself- and I mean you personally- in. I haven't found the discussion of anyone's sexual habits yet. As for the photo, I have only your word about it. I think it's rather rude of Brandt to post a photo of you, accurate or not, for what that's worth. It wouldn't be unreasonable to remove links to that image, though I have to wonder how you'll prove it is copyrighted without confirming to everyone that it is of you. Be that as it may, this smells at present like a vendetta by a group of admins here against a site whose criticisms of WP specifically include the way administrators (and you in particular) behave. You're as much as admitting that, since you can't take the heat, you are the tyrant they accuse you of being.

You don't need a specific policy to cut out specifically libelous or abusive references, so if the reasons give applied to the specific cases it was invoked against, you wouldn't need the policy anyway. Mangoe 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I think you are simply missing the point. The WR site, as an example, attempts to out WP editors, e.g. by guessing at their real names, locations, etc. - you don't need to read a lot to discover that. In addition, it harasses them by speculating on their personal lives, that are unrelated to WP. All of this is disruptive to WP editing, and can potentially put editors at risk from stalkers. Any attempt to condone this behavior, or to help it in any way, e.g. by providing links to such attack or harassment sites, is obviously detrimental to the project and its contributors. Such activity is clearly blockable. Crum375 21:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a "punitive" reason is, and I'm not talking about the photograph they think is of me, but about all the photographs they've published. But as you seem to be parroting their line, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with objections to the links based on existing US copyright law and WP policy. I agree that there is a lot of slander and innuendo in the WR forums, but it is a message board site and references to it, hotlinked or not, are already prohibited in article mainspace by existing attribution policy. The creation of a special policy, or modifications to existing policy, specifically against linking to "attack sites" I think creates a slippery slope so far as what the potential definition of what an "attack site" is. (Recalling, to my mind, the problems associated in defining what an " unlawful enemy combatant" is.) Any agent of a public figure notable enough to have some online media against them could use the policy to quell userspace discussion/debate of the appropriateness of these references for the article mainspace... it is a slippery slope but one that the creation of a blanket policy would seem to exacerbate rather than effectively prevent. --Academy Leader 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) The problem you mention - agents of public figures abusing Wikipedia for their own gain - is a very real one, and is related to the problem of attack sites. One attack site was created by an employee of an Internet company, to push the agenda of his CEO and company. In addition to attacking Wikipedia editors and administrators, this corporate official created multiple sockpuppets to edit the Wikipedia article on his CEO, his company, and his CEO's critics. The New York Times said this CEO's attack site was part of a "campaign of menace," and Bloomberg news service called it a "creepy" p.r. strategy. It has also been extensively mentioned in blogs. In fact, an entire blog is devoted to researching and exposing this corporate smear campaign. Under existing policy, blogs of any kind are usually not usable as source material. So yes, I presume the agent of this CEO could use this policy to, as you put it, "quell userspace discussion/debate of the appropriateness of these references." However, since this subject has received attention in the major media, references to blog criticism, whether from "attack" blogs or otherwise, is not necessary.--Mantanmoreland 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would seem to me that the issue of determining whether or not any of these links in userspace were posted maliciously would have to be a context-sensitive issue, depending on the nature of the site, the editor, the specific item referenced, etc. It would seem to me that links to specific items in "attack blogs" and such could be used to warn the subjects in question... links in WP userspace also let other people know a certain user is under attack. It would seem to me that if any of these links are used maliciously, to taunt the users under attack on other sites, that could go to support a block under WP:NPA... I still think a general policy covering (potentially) every instance of a link to a non-reliable source with "attack content," as opposed to copyright violations, is overdoing it. On WR, for instance, not all the content is malicious, (though a lot of it is) and some respected WP editors do post on particular threads there. I agree that these sites can never be used as reliable references, but in an era when blogs and such can break news, a blanket policy forbidding userspace references to them seems a bit draconian and needless, as it wouldn't solve the real problem of any information exchanged on these sites occasionally bearing fruit.--Academy Leader 21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a general policy that precludes the use of blogs except in articles about the blogs themselves, or when the blog writer is a widely published and reputable individual. Attack, harassment and hate sites, in general do not fall into these exclusions, hence there is no reason to use them. If there is any useful information on them, then the mainstream media should pick that up, and then we could use the information, once properly vetted and sourced. Since we are an encyclopedia, there is no rush to get the latest speculations or innuendos from some blog, and certainly not at the cost of promoting the harassment of our editors. In general, linking or facilitating linking to such sites is harmful to the project, and anyone doing so can be blocked. Crum375 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Academy Leader, let's go to a real-life example I mentioned earlier. As I mentioned, the blogs are alive with material indicating that the CEO of an Internet company is engaged in all kind of impropriety. These are not attack blogs. They are just blogs. This stuff has been alluded to in the media but not reported on in any detail. Much of it involves vandalism of Wikipedia. Do you believe it would be appropriate to chat on the talk page of this CEO about all the dirt on him and his company in these blogs? Please draw on your long editing experience [5]and address this question. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Under a blanket policy, any matter of mentioning "I heard 'yada yada yada' on 'yada yada' site'" or any critical comment on some dubious content of such sites would be prohibited... Cases of links to actual slander on such sites I think would best be handled according to the discretion of any admin made aware of the situation. If the poster appears to be a proponent of the POV of the site, wants to get a blog or some other informal source listed as a citation in an article, and won't back down on the issue and disrupts WP to that end, then obviously a block is in order. But if it's a matter of someone asking "Hey, can anyone verify or collate 'some item of negative information' I read in an informal source 'here' elsewhere?" I don't think every such instance would potentially lead to WP being sued for slander. I don't think every instance of a link to negative material (as opposed to slanderous material) in a blog or other informal source in userspace is automatically worth blocking someone over, in my reserved opinion. Best, --Academy Leader 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to touch my real-world example. No problem. Your theoretical is disembodied from the real world of attack sites, as what they publish is not recipes for bread pudding but personal attack on editors. Rather than insert loopholes in a sensible policy, I think we can do without yada yada on whatever non-attacking content may exist on those sites. That doesn't mean one sends every transgressor to the gas chamber. But if, as happened just yesterday, someone links three times to attack sites after being warned, a block is warranted.--Mantanmoreland 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you provide a link? Without a link to a concrete instance, of course such conversation would remain hypothetical. This rather neatly illustrates my (entirely theoretical!) point that sometimes referential links are necessary to illustrate the points we make. Show me to the actual situation you are talking about and I'll comment on that, rather than offer more general comments on the "type of" situation you are "generally" describing.--Academy Leader 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

I think it's right to block editors who link to attacks on other editors, but DennyColt's essay is written a bit too broadly. We all know what sort of thing we mean, and I'd agree wholeheartedly that anyone linking to Wikipedia Review's many attacks on editors here should expect to be blocked swiftly for doing so (and I've expressed the view that we could and maybe should ban anyone who contributes to it). However, a website that links to Wikipedia Review could be described as "facilitating" or "encouraging" Wikipedia Review, and an overzealous admin could use the policy here to block someone for linking to that website. I think this needs some more thought anyway, because "attacking" someone is a very broad concept. I've "attacked" a few people here who thoroughly deserved it in my view, but I've never defamed anyone or made the sort of vicious remark that defaces Wikipedia Review. I'd also be concerned that we do not write very loose policy in this area that can be used to ban just about anyone who says anything about anybody offwiki or comments on someone's saying something. It can very easily be read as intending to have a chilling effect on criticisms of Wikipedia or its editors. I recognise that it can be very difficult to draw the line between a valid criticism of an editor and nasty shit, but making linking out to too wide an area of criticism is not a good idea in my view. Grace Note 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I also think that the idea that simply mentioning the name of a site, without a hot link, constitutes a "link" and is a form of "promotion" of a site is way over the top. When we discuss such a site for legitimate purposes, we must be able to say what we are talkign about. Even blogs are citeable as sources about themselves, so when we discuss WR or any other "attack site" per se, we must be able to name it, and indeed to provide enough info that editors who want to verify claims can do so. DES ^(talk) 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'legitimate' purpose that would justify providing a link to an attack or harassment site. If a site contains material that attacks, attempts to 'out', or otherwise targets and harasses Wikipedia editors, linking to it, either 'hot' or 'cold' (I fail to see a distinction) promotes that site and provides it a vehicle to spread its malicious content. Therefore the editor who posts the link is effectively aiding and abetting the the attacks and harassment, clearly a blockable offense. Crum375 00:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry i cannot agree with a statement this absolute and sweeping, and i do not think this has anythign like a policy consensus behind it. To link to a page is one thing. To mention a site by name is not the same thing. Many such mentions might well be attempts to promote the site, or to aid in the attacks. But if the site has an article, or is othewise beign discussed as a site, themn naming it cannot be considered promoting it to the extent of being a blockable offfense. The result must depend on the detailed circumstances, not on this kind of "black is black adn white is white and never th twain shall meet" rationale. DES ^(talk) 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, such sites are generally not acceptable as sources, so 'having an article' there would not be justify mentioning it, as we could not use it as a source. To 'otherwise discuss it as a site' would not make sense if it's not usable as a source. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in rumors and speculations about editors, or to otherwise help external sites bent on harming the project and/or its editors. Such behavior is clearly disruptive and must be stopped. Crum375 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, i must have been unclear. By having an article I meant when wikipedia has an article about the "attack site" or in which actions on the "attack site" are an essential part of the article (such as Essjay controversy). Such sites are celarly valid sources about themselves or about actiosn that took place on thsoe sites. By "otherwise being discussed as a site" I mean when actions that take place on the site are relvant to actiosn on wikipedia, not simply to an exchange of gossip. For example, when content posted to an attack site is relevant in an arbcom case, or an RFC. Or when an attack site raises a possibly valid criticism of wikipedia itself (as WR has done on occasion) the issue may not be able to be fruitfully discussed without at least mentioning the site where it was raised. There are other possible situations.

I have put a pointer to this debate on the pump, and i hope for more eyes here. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)