Wikipedia:Blocking policy

This page should not (yet?) be considered official policy.

---

Most Wikipedians are good contributors, and we encourage people to show good Wikiquette when dealing with them. For example, we suggest that it is almost always better to fix bad edits, rather than revert them. In particular, reverting without some meaningful comment is particularly frustrating and off-putting to newcomers.

However, some contributors get along with each other better than others, and we wish to encourage them to adapt to an etiquette that we believe works to build an encyclopedia. That said, some are here simply to make friends, make enemies, or be troublesome, and we wish to encourage them to leave Wikipedia and find a "virtual community" more suited to their style, or else adapt to the civility expectations of Wikipedia. There are various tools that we use in order to achieve this. We do this not out of a goal of conformity, or a desire to punish "bad" behaviour, but strictly to help build an encyclopedia. If you are in any doubt about what that means, see What Wikipedia is not and the various things that have been written about Wikipedia:Itself in itself.

Pure vandals are dealt with slightly differently: see dealing with vandalism. By vandalism we mean "edits that have no discernable merit", and by vandal we mean "someone who makes more than one."

Education and peer pressure

Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes when new -- misunderstanding things, getting into edit conflicts, accidentally wiping pages, etc. That's why we welcome newcomers and try to gently point out their mistakes, point them to appropriate policy pages, and show them the correct way of doing things. We ask that newcomers be patient while they learn the ropes.

The vast, vast majority of users in conflict rapidly understand what is going on, and either start helping us make an encyclopedia or decide that Wikipedia isn't their scene and depart. However, a few users, for whatever reason, continue to hinder us in our goal of building an encyclopedia. Hence:

Hard bans

Although it is actually impossible to verify "who" is behind any account or IP, in principle users may be hard banned at any time by Jimbo Wales, our "benevolent dictator" or "GodKing". He does this by announcing it on the WikiEN-l mailing list.

As of September 2003, it is now possible for sysops to block usernames. It is important to note that sysops are not authorised to decide whether a particular case of vandalism warrants banning by username. The ability to ban by username has been made available for the purposes of enforcing a ban already approved by Jimbo. It may be used to block obvious reincarnations of hard-banned users (see below).

Discussion of possible bans, existing bans, etc., should take place on a single Wikipedia page - it doesn't particularly matter which one. You are encouraged to move discussion elsewhere to this one page. This practice is disputed by some, and the dispute is actually being exploited by some users in conflict, so, check the consensus among those who you are debating this with.

All edits by a hard banned user, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. We ask that users not reinstate any edits made by those that they believe are such users, but, with a detailed review, feel free to use text from those versions. A good practice is to move what you think has merit to talk files first. There are some who really strongly oppose this policy, too:

I think it's stupid to revert a useful edit, merely because the contributor was "banned". It can only lead to a tit-for-tat or cat-and-mouse game. Please leave me out of the "we ask" part of this. --user:Ed Poor, sysop and developer

However, nobody is obligated to enforce the ban or attempt to "out" such a user. In general, it is easy for even the "hard banned" to come back again and again, and we hope they eventually settle into a low-conflict pattern.

For those that don't, hard banned users face technical measures to prevent them editing Wikipedia, such as blocks on IP addresses or usernames. The following text should then be placed on the user's page by someone:

This user has been [[Wikipedia:Bans and blocks|hard banned]] -- see [[User:USER NAME/ban]] for details. All subsequent edits by this user may be reverted. Please do not reinstate any edits made by this user. DATE

The full text of Wales' post should be placed on User:USER NAME/ban with a link to an appropriate URL in the WikiEN-l archive. Some users were banned by Jimbo before the formulation of this policy. These users are still hard banned, though the relevant user pages may not yet be updated.

If you are hard banned, please respect your ban and do not post to Wikipedia while it applies. Hard banned users may be unbanned solely at Wales's discretion, following the banned user emailing him to request unbanning. There is some evidence that many of these users in fact come back again and again, and have no interest whatever in respecting anything called a "ban". There is much difference of opinion on what to do about this, if anything.

Wikipedians are encouraged to keep their cool when dealing with hard banned users and any articles that they've edited. We might not always agree with each other, but that's ok, with a little WikiLove.

Newly created articles

It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. For hard bans, sysops can simply delete the page without listing it on votes for deletion -- non-sysops can blank the page and list it on votes for deletion if they want to be sure that it doesn't get missed.

If someone else has edited the page, deletion is generally not appropriate. Try instead to edit the page to remove or refactor content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on wikipedia:votes for undeletion. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or for some other reason.

Reincarnations

Wikipedians should generally refrain from witch hunts of users who may be reincarnations of banned users. Some think it is reasonable to politely ask so that, in cases of mistaken identity, the new user can quickly set us straight (see below for some of the many kinds of evidence one could use to do this). This is a difficult issue and one that is still under discussion.

If it becomes clear that a new user account is a reincarnation of a hard banned user, then it should in theory be treated as hard banned. A notice of some sort may be added to the top of the user page, or the user page may be redirected to the page of the original account. It is not clear how this becomes clear.

If you are the victim of a mistaken identity, please provide some evidence of who you are. This evidence might include a photograph of yourself, or a non-disposable email address, or a work address or telephone number, or a link to your off-Wikipedia home page. If you happen to live in a different country to the banned user, then you could make a few edits when not logged in - this reveals your IP address and demonstrates that your ISP is based in a different country. There are many options available. Your evidence needs only be sufficient to convince the community that there is some reasonable doubt -- it need not be conclusive. Many object to this on privacy grounds, e.g.

This is silly. We don't need Photo ID to contribute. As long as they behave themselves, who cares if a banned user reincarnates themselves? Some people may have too much "pride" or some such to repent publicly; that should be no barrier to their rehabilitation. --Uncle Ed 14:24, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And some people repent publicly, and Jimbo still won't unban them. Martin 15:37, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

See also: meta:bans, meta:talk:bans, meta:bans and blocks, meta:talk:bans and blocks and Wikipedia:sysop reading list