User:Atsme/Block log proposals

Process

• Please add additional proposals in numbered sequence in a separate section, and feel free to offer a new proposal by framing features you like from other proposals to create a new one.
• The Survey section will be for !Votes only - Approve is the only vote necessary in the section for the Proposal you approve. Adding a brief reason for choosing a particular proposal is welcome.
• Detailed discussions belong on User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal - any discussion added here will be moved to that page. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Please keep in mind that redacted blocks and the reasons for the blocks/unblocks will still be available to admins & ArbCom but not to the general public.

Proposal #1

(See discussion at User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal#Atsme_section)

• Note: this proposal contains 10 modifications; you can approve Proposal 1 while noting the exclusion of some modifications. Example - Approve but exclude changes #4 & #5.

1. Blocks for sockpuppetry, ^persistent vandalism and other major offenses that resulted in a site ban ^{or year-long block 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)} by the community or ArbCom will remain permanently on the block log.
2. Administrators are required to first discuss a questionable action by editors in good standing prior to implementing a block, and will first attempt to reach a mutual agreement without blocking. If discussion fails to resolve the issue, the admin will issue a formal warning, and if the warning fails, a block shall be implemented.^{DISCUSS FIRST.17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
3. Administrators should show a high degree of sensitivity per WP:BLP policy when logging their reason for blocking. Example: replace the terms "block" and "topic ban" with "time-out" and "time-out from topic". (Perhaps pre-scripted reasons should also be introduced?) ^{In other words, editors are also subject to BLP policy - if they are blocked for being disruptive because they were defending potential defamation issues on a BLP, and logging the block as gaming the system, or using BLP policy as an excuse to edit war or push a POV are opinion based nonetheless and should be avoided. 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
4. Administrators may redact their own block log errors from a user's log as soon as they recognize they made an error ^{and shall note the error on the log. 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
5. A challenged block that consensus determines was wrongful shall be redacted from the block log ^{and shall be noted as an error. 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
6. Aministrators may not override another administrator's decision to not block a user without first obtaining consensus; however, they may override a block if the purpose is to redact an error confirmed by consensus or to reduce it to more closely fit the offense.
7. Up to 3 short blocks will be redacted from the log after one year two years has expired since the last block and the log remains block free, unless the excluding any blocks that were made in error. ^{17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
8. Blocks will be redacted from the block logs of editors in good standing who meet the following minimum requirements: 3 years tenure, 10,000 article edits, and no block activity for 2 years after the last recorded block, noting the above exclusions. ^{17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
9. Topic bans may not be imposed or included in a decision to block if an editor in good standing mistakenly violates an ambiguous admin-imposed restriction while editing controversial articles or if that editor adamently believes their actions were compliant with BLP policy. ^{Admins should AGF. 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}
10. An administrator shall not interfere in or threaten to block an editor in good standing simply for expressing an opposing view in a civil manner during a content debate on the TP of a controversial article and shall not use such a discussion as part of the reason to impose a topic ban. ^{Consistent disruption involving multiple articles of the same topic shall be a prerequisite to a TB, excluding civil discussion on the TP involving opposing views. 17:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)}

Proposal #2

(See discussion at User:Atsme/Blocking_policy_proposal#Wbm1058 section)

Any administrator, upon determining that they blocked a user in error, and reversed that block within 24 hours, may, at their discretion, RevisionDelete both the block and its removal from the block logs. Such revision deletions may be reviewed by other administrators who, at their discretion may restore visibility if they feel that the block was justifiable. Once restored once, a block should not be RevisionDeleted a second time. There is no time limit on the redaction; all blocks lifted within 24 hours are eligible for redaction at any time.

Proposal #3

(See discussion at User talk:Atsme/Block log proposals#Oiyarbepsy's Proposal #3)

Administrators must link to any discussion on a block in the block log, such as on Administrator's noticeboard or the user's talk page.

Survey

Proposal #1

• Approve - the proposed changes are reasonable, & can be implemented. See the Discussion page re: bot reminders for #8. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
• Wait failing Partially Approve -

As SMC said, this needs a lot lot more fine-tuning and hammering.∯WBGconverse

(1)--YObviously. Nobrainer. (2)--YThough noting that these discussions ought not be taking place every alternate day. (3)--NI have just no idea what this means and what this intends to ameliorate. (4)--YI have often wondered why it wasn't a valid case of redaction. (5)--N for now.Yiff Iridescent's asymmetric redaction is ever possible technically. (7) & (8)--N Blocks aren't barter-chips and aren't the sole indicators of one's wiki-career And, I personally don't give a damn about whether a person edit-warred 5 years back or the fact that DocJames was once subject to editing restrictions and got blocked for breaching that! Still, if we are going down the path, I think Euralyas' detailed proposal is par excellence.We need to have a very strict-process about the issue. (9) & (10)--NNo point in pointless bureaucracy.And we aren't trying to defeat Murphy's law ! And or if that editor adamently believes their actions were compliant with BLP policy.--Sorry to be harsh, but the phrasing is plainly ridiculous.We don't care an iota about what an editor believes and many editors do seem to have an intentional out-of-the-world views about the concerned policy, using it as a leverage in contentious discussions. Good-faith is a subjective criterion, defined in the eyes of beholder and I am yet to see any evidence of a case where a T-Ban was imposed for expressing an opposing view in a civil manner during a content debate on the TP of a controversial article. All in all, opposing the combine is a no-brainer. At this pace, I doubt that the next meta-discussion will be about--How to define good-faith? Winged BladesGodric 11:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Wait. Atsme's said elsewhere this is still in draft form and not ready for !voting. On the User talk:Atsme/Block log proposals I've made substantial revision suggestions, and asked for clarification of what two of these points are meant to mean. I have an idea, but both points 3 and 7 are unclear. If this Survey section is to be kept open (it could be refactored to the talk page), I would strongly suggest that it be taken as a survey relating to refining the draft into a final set of proposals, and that these should go to WP:VPPOL and be cross-advertised at WP:VPPRO and WP:CENT. As this draft stands, I don't think more than the first two points at most would pass, and it would be better to present a highly refined version.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• At this early draft stage, I'll say that I like #1, 4, 5, and 8. I can see issues of varying severity with each of the others. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• There are some things here that are good ideas, some that are already best practices, and some that I think are misguided. The issue I see with #1 is that we differ on what constitutes "major offenses". I'm actually not really worried about vandalism; we have robust mechanisms for dealing with it. To me, a "major offense" is sustained POV-pushing, repeated edit-warring, tendentious editing, gaming the system, misrepresenting sources, etc. These behaviors are far more destructive—and we're far worse at handling them—than vandalism. I have one particular editor in mind who has never vandalized a page or used a sockpuppet, but who has been the single most destructive influence on Wikipedia that I've encountered in my decade-plus here. I've literally lost count of the number of constructive, sane, good-faith editors who have dialed back or quit Wikipedia entirely to avoid having to interact with this person. He retains editing privileges at present and I have no doubt that he would contest each and every one of his blocks if redaction were a realistic possibility. This proposal, as written, would support his claim that his offenses were minor. So while I don't disagree with the idea of stratifying offenses by severity, I do think the specific examples of major offenses given here are not ideal.

  #2 is already a best practice. I recognize that it doesn't always happen, but I also don't see that we can improve things by legislating it. It's pretty easy for me to think of situations where editors in good standing should be blocked first and discussion should occur later—in other words, there are enough exceptions that this shouldn't be a rule, but rather a best practice. If admins fall short of that best practice, then they can and should be held accountable, but if you legislate this it will lead to a deluge of wikilawyering. I'm also a little bemused in that this proposal seems to argue that established editors deserve more leeway. I see the same people arguing that established editors are treated too leniently and given too much leeway at times, and that everyone should be treated "equally" regardless of their status. I lean toward the former perspective, but let's at least recognize that there's cognitive dissonance at work here.

  #3 seems like a no-brainer; because block logs are essentially permanent, I try to be circumspect in what I write there, as do many other admins. That said, I don't see language like "time-out" to be an improvement; it strikes me as infantilizing and patronizing. After all, time-outs are a consequence for pre-schoolers who won't share their toys. Come to think of it, maybe that is appropriately modulated language for the majority of Wikipedia disputes... :P

  #6 seems impossible to enforce. A decision "not to block"? Wouldn't this be ridiculously easy to game? I'm absolutely opposed to #7 and #8. It's already difficult enough to demonstrate patterns of disruptive behavior if they don't involve bright-line violations like sockpuppetry (see my objection to #1, above). Block logs are sometimes useful to demonstrate a pattern of policy violations or contempt for Wikipedia norms. There is a long-standing principle that the passage of time alone is not sufficient to lift community or ArbCom sanctions; there has to be some positive demonstration that the behaviors in question won't be repeated. I don't really see the benefit to redacting old blocks in this regard; if I'm reviewing someone's block log and I see an isolated edit-warring block from 5 years ago, I'm not going to hold that against them. If I see 4 edit-warring blocks in the last 2 years, then I start to think there's a problem. You're trying to legislate common sense here, which is a fool's errand. Yes, block logs shouldn't be interpreted robotically as de facto evidence that someone is a bad editor, but you can't enforce that by hiding old blocks using equally robotic and arbitrary criteria. We need to trust admins (and editors) to use sense when looking at a block log. If that's not happening, then the solution is social, not policy-based.

  #9 is a non-starter. Pretty much every tendentious edit-warrior with half a brain quickly realizes that BLP is a useful fig leaf. The ArbCom and AE archives are littered with tendentious editors invoking transparently phony BLP-based rationales to excuse their actions. I think my track record in terms of BLP enforcement, both as an editor and as an admin, is as strong as anyone's here, and I take the policy very seriously, but this proposal is an out-and-out recipe for disaster.

  As for #10, I would need evidence that this has actually happened, ever, before supporting its inclusion in policy. The ratio of wikilaywer-enabling-to-benefit with this proposal approaches infinity, in my view. MastCell ^Talk 19:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #2

• See suggested copyedits at User talk:Atsme/Block log proposals, but other than those minor tweaks it seems fine, other than I don't see any point to the 24-hour limit. I would support it anyway, simply because it would be an incremental improvement, but I think the time limit should be dropped as unnecessary bureaucracy that will unfairly benefit new and future users over those with histories. I think this needs further consideration and potential revision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  16:17, 9 January 2018 (UTC)