Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

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

Block evasion in closed AfD

Regarding Hobit's edit here, why this ultra-specific advice on this policy page? And if "there is consensus", can someone link to that discussion? If blocked editors are tinkering with closed AfDs that should absolutely be reverted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It relates to the discussion above, and this thread. It is not the blocked editors modifying closed AfDs, but other editors modifying blocked users' comments in closed AfDs. The change does seem over-specific, and perhaps claims too much consensus, but we might benefit from a sentence explaining that comments which have been responded to don't always have to be struck or removed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm certainly happy with a different turn of phrase. But we had a user who followed written policy here and got slammed for it. Given it _was_ a pretty strong consensus that we don't want people modifying closed AfDs like that, seems like it's worth noting. And given that a non-trivial percent of blocked users tend to involve deletion discussions to some extent, it seems like it's not overly specific advice. Hobit (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the right wording has been nailed with this change. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that looks as though it's got it. However I think an IAR situation arises here where a sockpuppet creates an AFD and the page is subsequently deleted because the sockpuppet was the only commentator, then iff the page is restored, there ought to be a notation in the closed AFD that it was overturned because the nominator was a sockpuppet. Or, perhaps the AFD page should be deleted, but then the deletion log is broken. Idk. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• The core issue here was not the editing of closed AfDs, but a case of a block-abusing nominator who was the only contributor to a closed AfD.  Given the above RfC, I resolved this problem with the policy-edit that block-abusing edits in closed AfDs are protected edits.  With the revert of my edit, this problem is not resolved.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Unscintillating, there is nothing about protected edits. Just that people concluded that striking those edits was not productive (which is contrary to this policy as it was written). I think the text I added addressed that issue. If you disagree, feel free to revert, but I'd advise against adding your language back in. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The discussion at AN was entitled "‎Administrator protection for block-abusing edits?".  The above RfC is entitled, "Are block-evading edits within closed AfDs protected edits?".  Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that you are the only one who thinks the phrase "protected edits" applies. You titled both of those discussions. Hobit (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
        • The G5 was requested before any edits were made to the closed discussion at Wiki93.  Thus the issue of editing of closed AfDs IMO has been an ersatz discussion.  So it is not that I agree or disagree with your edit, IMO it does not resolve the core issue(s).  Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Unscintilating, you really, really need to just let it go and find something else to do with your time. WP:POINT editing of policy is not acceptable. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but I also have a problem with people being on his case for following policy... Hobit (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
• I agree with updating policy to reflect consensus and current practice. Hopefully this will stop the accusatory rhetoric of "undermining" and "sabotage" and "protecting sockpuppets". Reyk _YO! 07:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

• The editors in favor of undermining and sabotage of the encyclopedia don't seem to have the political strength to change policy.  As for "protecting sockpuppets", I made the edit to do just that as per the close of the above RfC, but that edit is now reverted.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly the accusatory language I was talking about. Thank you for making my point for me. Reyk _YO! 13:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to say, Unscintilaing, you seem rather out of control at the moment. Wikipedia isn't life or death, it's just some words on the internet. Making a big deal out of this and refusing to back down isn't getting you anywhere, or at least not anywhere good. Sometimes you don't get your way, sometimes consensus isn't what you think it will be, and sometimes the rules aren't perfect. Life is like that, and it's important to know how to pick your battles. This wasn't one that is worth all the anguish you seem to be feeling over it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways, Beeblebrox.  You are saying that I am "refusing to back down" even though I accepted your close of the above RfC verbatim; while at the same time, you have declared my verbatim acceptance of your close as a WP:POINT edit.  The later has the meaning that you think that editors don't really believe that your close was intended to be a conclusion to the discussion of the question stated. 

Given that no one has restored my edit, the current meaning in the policy is that block-abusing edits in a closed AfD are not protected edits.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest: Restrict indefinite blocks to ArbCom

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

An indefinite block is the most severe punishment on Wikipedia. As such, it should only be given out after slow, careful deliberation. This is based on the democratic principal of Blackstone's formulation, "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". As an innocent victim, who received an indefinite block with absolutely no warning, accusation, or ability to provide a defense, there seems to be some weaknesses in the process of giving out indefinite blocks and there must be other innocents like me that have fallen victim. Is it possible for us to come up with a policy that continues to protect the integrity of the project as well as being more humane?Sthubbar (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

An absolutely untenable suggestion. Putting aside all the times that an indefinite block is warranted by policy, the burden on ArbCom would be intolerable.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not the "most severe punishment on Wikipedia", it's just a block with no expiry date. Blocks are not meant as punishments at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 00:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bbb23:, ok, then how about some rules like: An indefinite block may only be instituted after the following has occured:

• A notice is posted on the user's talk page for at least 1 month
• 3 administrator unanimously agree to the block
• The user is allowed at least 2 weeks to make their case to the 3 deciding admins

Note: A time limited block may be placed on the account during the 1 month talk page notice and deliberation phase. So this would mean that if after 1 month there is no response from the user and 3 admins agree then the indefinite block can be imposed. Thoughts?Sthubbar (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are an inexperienced editor (475 edits) who believes that Wikipedia should be run like a criminal court. When you were indefinitely blocked (by me), as I recall, you saw everything in terms of innocent and guilty, due process, etc. That is not the way Wikipedia works. To change it would require a complete restructuring of the way Wikipedia is administered. Administrators have to be able to indefinitely block editors unilaterally when the situation calls for it. It's their job. The blocked editor can request an unblock and other administrators will evaluate it, but to have to seek agreement from three other administrators before blocking is absurd. Although your block for socking was overturned by ArbCom (hence, your original suggestion because all of this is person, frankly), socks are routinely blocked without notice and within the confines of policy. Honestly, you're wasting everyone's time, and you would do far better to go edit some articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, this isn't much of a change from the current situation besides requiring the talk page notice. In my case, the biggest offense was the fact that I was given no warning or ability to present a defense. There already were admins discussing in the background about my block, so that part of the policy is already going on.Sthubbar (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

No, requiring all of that bureaucracy would, at minimum, severely hamstring our anti-vandalism and anti-sockpuppetry efforts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 00:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. Your anonymous account was prevented from editing on a private website. That's it, that's all. Don't grossly cheapen the experiences of innocent people who were incorrectly sent to jail by suggesting your block is somehow similar. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Many good points made. Ok, let's start again. How much trouble would it be to:

1. Issue a 3 month block for suspected socks
2. Post a message to the suspected sock's talk page giving them the opportunity to respond
3. Decide after 3 months whether to extend the block to indefinite

?Sthubbar (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why add an additional bureaucratic step? Unless talk page access is removed, these editors can respond appropriately. The vast majority of these situations are resolved within 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN:, to allow the accused a chance to provide a defense before issuing an indefinite block. As it stands now, indefinite blocks are freely given without any attempt to hear from the accused.Sthubbar (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your change... doesn't change that in any meaningful way. The editor can respond, no matter if the block is indefinite or not. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN:, there is a huge difference between defending against an accusation and trying to change a mind. Human psychology works hard to rationalize and defend decisions. In my case, I'm sure that Bbb23 is a nice, rational, conscientious administrator. Once he had placed the indefinite block on my account, he had no interest in hearing any defense from my side. His brain had determined I was guilty and anything I said were lies from a sock puppet. I suspect, if instead the policy reinforced the "innocent until proven guilty" mindset and his thinking was "I suspect that sthubbar is a sockpuppet, and let me at least hear the defense from this suspect" the situation would have proceeded much differently. So to repeat, the testimony of a suspect is completely different from the testimony of a convict, and by the current rules, we are creating too many convicts and the ignoring human nature and thinking the admins will be able to independently listen to the testimony of these convicts.Sthubbar (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sthubbar: And again, your proposal changes nothing (and assumes facts about Bbb23 not in evidence). Blocked for three months -> you get your chance to respond. Blocked indefinitely -> you get your chance to respond. In both cases the decision has been made that you are "guilty". And we're not going to let blocks against socks simply expire if there's no response. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

• Just a point of fact - there are about 250 indefinite blocks made every day. Almost none of them are undone or even contested. Risker (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Risker:, thank you for this information that I did not know.

@NeilN:, I am attempting to point out that it does change something. To put it bluntly, if someone says "Let's get this guilty SOB in here and give them a fair trial." We can be pretty sure the trial is not fair. As it stands now, the policy is "Determine guilt first, then allow the innocent to defend themselves." I seem unable to show how that is the current policy and how it is absolutely the opposite of "Innocent until proven guilty." My attempt is to make the most pursuasive case that "Innocent until proven guilty" is in the best spirit of Wikipedia and a key component of it is to allow the accused to provide a defense before conviction. Once a conviction is determined, then no defense is possible, only an appeal and there is a world of difference between appeal and defense.Sthubbar (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a court of law - nobody is being "convicted" of anything here. Blocks are used to prevent harm to the project, not to punish or determine guilt. And, as above, please stop equating being prevented from editing a private website with being incarcerated - the two are nothing at all alike. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 03:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@DoRD:, thank you for the reminder. Are there lessons from the legal system that can help Wikipedia? Is Blackstone's formulation applicable or is the protection of Wikipedia more important than worrying about incorrectly blocking accounts without warning?Sthubbar (talk) 00:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restricted users

I think the editors who were blocked forever should be allowed at least once to create another user subjected to very limited restrictions. Like for example, to create a restricted user that is only allowed to change categories, and maximum 50 edits per day - and nothing else.

I was recently blocked on Romanian Wikipedia - forever, for saving two articles from deletion. The admin who decided that my edits were useful (he decided to preserve the articles) is one of the admins who decided I should be blocked forever - specifically for the edits I've made to save the articles. In case that I ever return (from another IP), my edits must be reverted, even if they are useful - and those who will replicate my useful modifications "must assume the responsibility for that". This is quite an unreal situation but anyways, even if I'm the worst editor, I can still do useful edits by doing minor modifications: re-categorizations, disambiguation notes and fix misspellings. I'm not asking for anything more than that - not even the right to participate to discussions or to edit my own user page. Keep the ban, but accept minor and useful edits.

Blocking is not a punishment, I don't need any chance to "rehabilitate" - there are plenty of encyclopedias around. I'm not going to come back, hidden, from another IP, because I don't have the stomach for that. I'm just offering my honest, inoffensive and 100% useful help. And I can imagine that I'm not the only one in this kind of situation. IMO, refusing such offers is really not helping to build Wikipedia.

Of course ArbCom can't solve the conflicts on every single Wikipedia. But on the other hand, ArbCom/Wikimedia can ask all the communities to accept such restricted users, and to provide evidence if they block such restricted users. In the end, the Romanian Wikipedia doesn't belong to the admins who decide to block someone forever, for useful actions certified by themselves, who are determined to revert useful edits and to intimidate those who think about replicating such reverted useful edits. IMO, communities must learn to solve their own problems but in the same time, Wikimedia should also watch it's own interests - which is to develop the encyclopedia.

In the beginning, such restricted users can be allowed to only change categories. After one month, allow them to add disambiguation notes. After another month, allow them to add misspellings. And so on. —  Ark25  (talk) 01:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that the English Wikipedia has no influence whatsoever over policy on any other Wikimedia project, right? If you want to propose a global policy like this, you would need to do so at the Meta-wiki]. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not just for me. I'm quite sure there are other people who are blocked that would be interested to help with minor edits that are completely safe and useful. This is probably the most discussed page about blocking so I thought it's a good place to make such a suggestion. —  Ark25  (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't analyzed your situation, but I am a cynical person and know how such discussions will roll. Blocks are used as deterrent and your proposal would weaken that. Second, it's a bit like hammering at the front door after you have been thrown out of a house - the response is unlikely to be positive. Finally, a lot of blocks happen because of editors who have an incorrect idea as to which edits are "constructive" and which aren't and thus make bad edits. Or are timesinks that consume other people's time and energy to clean up after. I am not saying yours is necessarily a bad idea but I'd be very surprised if it was accepted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Blocks are supposed to be a deterrent against disruption, not against people. I think there should be a complete distinction between the two and the blocks should not involve any personal feelings. For simple edits like correcting misspellings, typos, disambiguation notes, categories - it's extremely easy to decide if they are constructive or not. I've made thousands or maybe tens of thousands of edits of re-categorizations, created categories and hundreds of disambiguation pages, even here at English Wikipedia - there were never any complains about them. It's impossible to argue about the usefulness of correcting misspellings, so it can't be a time sink.

Those admins openly declare that they are ready to revert useful edits (i.e. disruption, WP:POINT, personal feelings), they block people for edits made years ago and for edits they certify themselves as constructive, they can't agree that you can have your own opinion, therefore I think your cynicism should not be based only on who has the power to block others - because I'm afraid it's not me the one that has an incorrect idea about developing the project. Romanian Communists also had consensus between themselves that the rest of the people can not have the right to complain against abuses, and that those who do not obey are supposed to be silenced. Abuses can happen, especially in smaller communities - I can't believe there are no abuses in any Wikipedia community. My situation is probably a good candidate for a case study. Implementing restricted users would make sure that the editors have the opportunity to contribute with at least a minimum, limiting the damages made by the admins who are inclined to abuse. —  Ark25  (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and someone will have to check every edit of yours to see if it complies with the restriction. Nobody is going to apply AGF without any kind of checking. So it's still a time and energy sink. Deflecting blame is a common tactic by problem users/admins and it seems to me from reading over cases that most complaints about abuse of admin tools are bogus (typically, because the action in question is perfectly legit apart from someone disagreeing with it). So yes, I don't think you'll convince a lot of people. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:35, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

They seem to have plenty of time available, since they still check all my edits on English Wikipedia, and also my edits on Wikia. And it doesn't look like they are going to stop anytime soon (they want to defend their permanent ban decision). I can't believe abuses never happen, and therefore deflecting blame is not an indication of guilt. In general, vandalism is easily detected by the community, so it won't take much effort to check the restricted users - and they will be blocked the first time they don't respect the restriction, without any discussion. Still it's a time sink? Fine, then put a limit - maximum five edits per day.

As a regular editor, Bulă is a disaster. But in the same time, Bulă is an excellent corrector of misspellings. As restricted users, those who act in good faith can have an opportunity to do something useful, and they should also be able to advance (add the right to add categories, the right to add disambiguation notes, etc).

To me, it's not a good idea to avoid the question: "Do abuses happen (especially in smaller communities)?" If the answer is yes, then Restricted users is a good way to limit the damage of abuses and it is also an opportunity for the blocked users to prove that they are actually capable to act in good faith and to help building the project.

If I'm not going to convince anyone then what can I say? Too bad, so sad. Refusing clean and constructive edits doesn't look like a good idea to me. —  Ark25  (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

• I can see no benefit, none, to giving automatic second chances to every single blocked user. We already do somethin like this in the form of conditional unblocks and topic bans, but they are done on a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:55, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting automatic second chances. Editors should get a restricted user at request. Most of the people acting without good faith wouldn't ask for this, since it can't help them to continue disruptions. And they would also find it humiliating to apply for a Restricted user. Therefore only a small number of editors would apply for this.

Topic bans are wonderful and they are similar with my request, but they are useless in case of blocks made as a result of abuses or exaggerated penalties.

I'm an excellent corrector of misspellings and also as a re-categorization editor. Refusing to allow me to help with this minimum is a complete nonsense, from my point of view. I can only imagine that I'm not the only one in this situation since judgement errors can exist. Sorry for arguing. —  Ark25  (talk) 02:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Request denied nominated at RfD

Anyone using {{Request denied}} as a shortcut to {{Unblock reviewed}} is welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Template:Request denied. – Uanfala (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:INDEF changes

Blocked sock of Lake of Milk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Currently, the text reads "Indefinite does not mean infinite". However, in practice it does. Looking at the unblock history, people who are indefinitely blocked are generally never unblocked. This means infinite. I proposed to change this to reflect real life behavior. Since indefinite is not suppose to be infinite, it should parallel the practice of the Arbitration Committee, which is one year. Furthermore, it is not very fair to harm minors who might be indefinitely blocked. The proposed new text would be "Indefinite does not mean infinite. Therefore, all indefinite blocks would expire after 1 year if requested by the user. After unblock, the user should be extremely careful not to edit in a way that would result in blocking again." This change could be very persuasive to good behaviour. The current situation is: indefinitely blocked anger and continued fighting with Wikipedia alternate: keep begging, no mercy, continued indefinite block anger and maybe even vandalism for years The revised situation would be: 2017 blocked indefinitely (which would be for one year) 1/1/2018 unblocked if requested if bad behaviour, blocked indefinitely again, which would be 2018-2019 if reformed, good user results Lakeshook (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC) No, we're not letting blocks simply expire if there's no explicit commitment to change. That goes triple for repeat offenders. Also, see Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Suggest:_Restrict_indefinite_blocks_to_ArbCom --NeilN talk to me 20:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Must have misunderstood. A year block is one year. An indefinite block would be forever except if requested by the blocked user after one year. The default is now to ignore the user or say no. The new default would be to unblock with everyone knowing that bad behaviour would result in a block much, much sooner than a new user. Lakeshook (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Incorporating NeilN's idea, it could be that indefinite blocks would end after one year if requested by the affected user after a year and "an explicit commitment to change". Right now, there is no language allowing administrators to unblock even if there is an explicit commitment to change so administrators don't do it. A year is mentioned only for discussion. A month is too short. 5 years is too long. Lakeshook (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Remember that many arbcom sanctions can be appealed after one year and do not expire automatically. We're never going to let certain editors back (well, not without a mass revolt) no matter how much they appeal. The same thing goes for indef blocked users. We need to believe in what they're saying and not just take it at face value. --NeilN talk to me 21:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Editors do sometimes appeal after one year, or even more, and often get unblocked if they recognise previous problems and undertake not to repeat them. Admins have authority under Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Unblocking to do that. WP:OFFER is also often employed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Good comment, zzuuzz! Risker says on this page, higher section that is tinted purple, that users are not unblocked generally. Incorporating zzuuzz and NeilN's comments, the WP:OFFER could be incorporated here, not just exist as an essay. Lakeshook (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC) To put Risker's comment in some context, "Almost none of them are undone or even contested" ... almost none recognise previous problems and undertake not to repeat them. To put it another way, of those who wish to continue editing, most would repeat the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC) Modified proposal (incorporating all users comments, including NeilN and zzuuzz) existing version An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. new version An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. The WP:OFFER applies to this policy. if there is an explicit commitment to change. Lakeshook (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC) That... doesn't really mean anything or cause any existing process to change. --NeilN talk to me 21:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC)