Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ChildofMidnight (talk | contribs) at 21:25, 8 March 2010 (→‎Civility blocks: comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
This is not the page to report problems to administrators
or request blocks.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy itself.

Discussion before unblocking not always needed

I hesitate to even post this because it seems lately every time I initiate one of these threads it goes off in some direction I never intended, but here we go anyway: Currently some of the blocking templates say that you should not lift a block without discussing with the blocking admin first, and this policy page says it is "strongly discouraged" to undo a block without discussion, I think this is somewhat out of step with current practice. In some cases, such as username-only blocks, there is no need whatsoever to discuss. If the user agrees to change their name, and that was the only reason for the block, there's nothing to discuss. In many other cases where the user demonstrates that they understand why they were blocked and are will avoid the problematic behavior in the future, making them sit there and remain blocked more or less for the sake of process seems unneeded. Of course in more complicated or controversial cases discussion is still needed, but I think we should soften the language up to indicate that it is not always necessary and in practice is often not done. Blocking templates based on checkuser evidence should retain the stipulation that you should discuss with a CU before lifting the block. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made a small change to the policy page [1], and will begin reviewing the templates. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I disagree and have undone this. The proposed language is inconsistent with longstanding policy and practice, and also with WP:ADMIN#Reversing another admin's action, which says: "except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." As a matter of collegial courtesy, and also to prevent the circumvention of sanctions through admin-shopping, discussion should be obligatory in all but the most exceptional circumstances.  Sandstein  22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You got to at least concede the point about username-only blocks. If the username is the only reason for the block, and the user agrees to change it to something that does not violate policy, what is the point of having a discussion? It's process for the sake of process in such a case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't oppose a clarification for this particular case.  Sandstein  22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the all to often failure to consult and gain agreement with the blocking admin and failing that to seek consensus for the unblock is one our more significant problems. In situations where someone has clearly made a good faith error, or when the situation has significantly changed I agree that admins should just be able to unblock(ie a user retracts a legal threat, or requests a rename to something more appropriate). What I don't think should be allowed is one admin interpreting policy differently and then just undoing another admins block. I think we can loosen up the wording regarding unambiguous errors and changed circumstances while making more clear the prohibition against undoing a block merely because you disagree with it. The requirement of communication with the blocking admin or the gaining of a larger consensus is particularly important when the admin who wishes to unblock is not in possession of all of the facts. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Entirely agreed.  Sandstein  23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose new section for WP:INDEF

I would like to propose a new section for INDEF blocked Users, the proposed name is WP:Parole. The goal? To offer a system similar to the common law Parole system where indef blocked Users e.g Users that cannot edit there talk page can have minimal privileges to prove wether or not they can be 'reintroduced' into the wikipeida community. Good idea, bad idea or something in the middle? P.S I may not be online untill tomorrow so if this becomes a talking point please be patient if you expect a reply from me. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this discussion has failed to get of the ground by the looks of things. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Mentorship and Wikipedia:Standard offer exist as essays, there's the unblock request template and the {{2ndchance}} template mentioned in the block review section, and, when the user cannot edit their talk page, they also have the option of emailing the blocking admin, another admin, or Arbcom. I don't really see what else you can offer. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No User:zzuuzz there is not. I guess you are right. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

essay

Just knocked together an essay about a certain type of unblock request. Any feedback appreciated. See WP:ROPE. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quickly Blocking and Unblocking Users

I've noticed that there is a page at Special:Block that allows you to quickly block users, but there is no Special:Unblock page for quickly unblocking users. Sonic120 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility blocks

The policy currently states that, under the heading of "disruption", "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia."... i.e. users may be blocked for "persistent gross incivility;"

I propose that this be amended, by adding at the end of that list (after "persistently violating policies or guidelines")

Established users should not normally be blocked for mere civility by an administrator acting alone; such decisions are too frequently highly contentious. Instead blocks which may be merited for patterns of incivility amounting to disruption should be proposed at an appropriate dispute resolution venue. It will generally be expected that prior methods of dispute resolution such as WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U will have been employed before the community is willing to support such a block.

Related policies might not also need amending, if this is agreed. (One of the issues with civility enforcement is the grey line between WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA; merging might possibly be helpful.) Rd232 talk 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. In practice, such blocks are only contentious when applied to the relatively few vested contributors who are habitually incivil. We ought not to enshrine in policy this systemic failure of our community to deal with disruption. Compare also Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/ChildofMidnight/Proposed decision#Vested contributors: "Strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content."  Sandstein  22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's why I said "Established users" - it's here that problems seem to arise when such blocks aren't discussed beforehand. (Though arbitrariness in relation to civility enforcement seems a more general problem, it's only established users who have the clout and determination to raise a stink.) In any case, these problems come up often enough that any suggestions for improvement should be worth discussing. Rd232 talk 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Sandstein. That a few problem editors are teflon-coated and can get away with wanton abuse of anyone they dislike, is no reason to do away with the few tools we have to prevent descending into complete anarchy. Crum375 (talk) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to understand how requiring prior discussion is such an issue. By definition, "persistent incivility amounting to disruption" is - for established users at least - a gradual process, and blocks for it typically have a "straw that broke the camel's back" character. This makes them contentious even when merited, which makes people not use them when they should, which allows people to get away with murder. More clearly laying out a WQA -> RFCU -> civility block discussion path should be helpful in combating civility, not merely in combating drama around civility blocks. Basically, civility enforcement is currently broken - do you have a better idea to fix it? Rd232 talk 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fundamental problem is that there is no way to make a 24-hour block stick on a well-known editor with valuable contributions. If such an editor were to receive and serve even one civility block, their behavior would be extremely likely to change; because that does not happen, the behavior does not change. If the editor were taken to WQA or whatever, their supporters would overwhelm the stodgy "tolerated incivility will damage the project" messages, and people would start saying "let's close this now; waste of time; people shouldn't be so sensitive". With the current system, there will inevitably be an admin who reverses a civility block, and that provides those wanting to enforce reasonable civility with a herculean task. I suppose it's unachievable, but something like the following might help: agree on a new arrangement whereby an admin can issue a warning to a user (with no more than one warning per four-hour period to allow some cooling off); a second warning could then be given; on a third incident the user can be 24-hour blocked with a template that declares that [according to some new consensus] no unblock can occur except by arbcom or a strong consensus at ANI. The warnings are live for three months, and are kept alive by another warning. An admin who abuses the warning system would be discussed at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed change. Sandstein is exactly correct. We should not enshrine a few manifest failures of the community to deal with incivility into policy. Nsk92 (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no, a thousand times no. We want people to go forth and use their reason. If someone makes a mistake, follow dispute resolution. Rules cannot be a substitute for dialogue. causa sui (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. This is absolutely not the right way to resolve the experienced but abusive user block/unblock blowups. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current wording is adequate because the approach works with 99% of editors. Most people draw upon a limited reservoir of very blunt expressions when they mean to be rude. Usually a civility block has the effect of persuading the editor to join the majority of the community with civility. Exceptions exist where this approach fails because the skills and talents that yield really innovative rudeness are closely related to the skills and talents that yield superlative article writing. Many of Wikipedia's best content contributors are very polite people; those who choose not to be polite can generate types of incivility which are alternately maddening or witty (depending on one's perspective) and which are basically unblockable. The existence of exceptions is not sufficient reason to change policy; it is reason to exercise rational discretion and decide which problems are better to address through dispute resolution. Durova412 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these responses make me feel like people didn't read beyond the first sentence of the proposed text? The problem is, as stated, that currently patterns of incivility are handled in an ad hoc way, which makes enforcement unpredictable and ineffective. If you don't like the prescription to use dispute resolution (to help establish a pattern) and pre-block community discussion (to establish if the pattern is agreed to amount to disruption), what do you suggest? The status quo is the best we can manage? Rd232 talk 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the entire text of the proposal, and I just don't agree with it. Admins should have the unfettered power to block users for substantial incivility (whether particularly egregious individual instances or for patterns of incivility). Requiring "dispute resolution" in incivility cases is like telling a bullying victim to "discuss their differences" with a bully. There is nothing that currently prevents anyone from opening an AN/I thread about a particular user in cases of sustained incivility or any other pattern of disruptive behaviour. However, changing the language of the policy to require dispute resolution in cases of sustained incivility is will needlessly hamstrung admins dealing with disruptive behaviour. Established editor or not, editors involved in gross incivility should be blockable on sight. Yes, some of these blocks may be contentious, but this is better than giving "established editors" the appearance of a license to be incivil. Nsk92 (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I also read the proposal, but the exact content isn't much an issue for me. The problem is what I read to be a creepy approach to problem solving. I want administrators to be able to use their common sense and judgment in the field, and I want people to talk it out in cases where there is disagreement about an individual case. I don't want rules to be a substitute for dialogue in any case whatsoever. People ought to figure out what to do on a case-by-case basis with policy informing their decisions, not dictating them.
But perhaps even more importantly, this is not a good way to draft policy. Policy should reflect what is already being done. Ad-hoc discussions by whoever might be watching this policy talk page is not the way to effect these kinds of prescriptive rules. --causa sui (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do you suggest? I was hoping at least for a little debate about the problem the proposal seeks to address. In my view, generally the civility blocks that stick on established users are those that have sufficient prior dispute resolution and established patterns of incivility to back them up, along with substantial community agreement. That suggests to me a policy conclusion to discourage bad practice. The wording was intended not to disable civility blocks by individual admins, but to discourage them; hence qualifiers like "normally" and hedging like "generally expected". This could be tweaked of course, but I think the principle is sound. Nobody is talking about giving a "license to be incivil" - quite the opposite. The repeated and public failure to make civility enforcement stick encourages people to think they can get away with murder (and generally they can). As I alluded to above, changing the blocking policy in this way ought to be accompanied by some attempt to make dispute resolution on civility clearer and more effective. Part of the reason it hasn't been is because in principle simple blocking is supposed to be enforcement enough; but since it rarely is enough in practice, something ought to change. Rd232 talk 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have begun resolving this by the simple if slow expedient of these people causing sufficient admin headache that they get taken to Arbcom for a permaban.
Reality is that apparently we both have sufficient disagreement in the community to stymie effective per-incident admin responses, and yet enough to generate successful arbcom cases against those same users. This seems like it should be wrong - but it's working out that way.
The problem with your approach is that (as I see it) it's attempting to insert an intermediate step which will *both* stymie per-incident admin responses and to some degree interfere with when we'd normally initiate an arbcom case. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that highly uncivil, belligerent, and aggressive behavior by admins. The expression of frustrations by common editors isn't a big deal at all. They are human. It's the regular abuses of policies to after and antagonize that is corrosive. For example Sandstein just made a false accusation on an arbiration report page and Georgewilliamherbert regularly targets editors he doesn't care for, but when an admin calls a good faith editor a "drama lovign troll" he doesn't say or do anything about it. An environment that is so political and hypocritical will always engender resentment and frustration. But if the community chooses to encourage respect and colelgial cooperation instead, and weeds out the corrupt and dishonest hypocrisy then progress can be made. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy&oldid=348607778"