Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Appealing block w/o email address when talk page use is also blocked[edit]

Why hasn't WP come up with a way for people to appeal their block without having to use their email address, in cases where the user is also blocked from the talk page? 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is your account currently blocked? You may be able to log into IRC and be able to convince an admin to restore talk page access. This however dependent on the reason and type of block.McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no user account. I also am not currently blocked, but as an unregistered editor the issue comes up occasionally. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
So why won't you provide an example of this? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't apply to you, but I think blocked registered editors whose email privileges haven't been revoked can create a throwaway email address at pick-your-email-provider, log into Wikipedia, register that email address, then appeal the block using that email address. Non-logged-in editors who are blocked can create an account and edit away, or create an account and create an email address then appeal the IP-block through that email address. Obviously, non-logged-in editors without an existing account will be out of luck if they happen to be using an IP address that is "blocked/account creation blocked" or if they are using an IP address that is globally blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I would rather not create an account, Wikipedia is supposed to be "anyone can edit". 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The only option may be to change your IP address - i.e. go to a coffee shop or use a cell-phone instead of land-line internet or vice-versa - then appeal the block of the blocked IP address. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

range blocks[edit]

Hutchison 3G (23 million users) has been blocked by Mike V & TOR (also millions of users) has been blocked by Vituzzu
These blocks strike me as overzealous & pointless.
I am a user of both. Hutchison3G is my ISP but they too have ridiculous & arbitrary blocks so I default to using TOR. Does this suggest that I am a danger to Wikipedia? What about Chinese? Egyptians? Eritreans? Saudi Arabians? With so many blocks & spies on the internet nowadays many people are having to subvert the system just to get normal service.
You seem to be gradually blocking every NAT & proxy in the world. There are not enough IPv4 addresses for everyone to have their own so most people's addresses will not be their own with many issued by DHCP. All of these systems can & do swap IP addresses between users so you cannot state who is with which address. Whichever system a user is trapped behind you are not going to have legal access to a street address so there is no reasonable point to blocking any of them.
Alanthehat (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer your general question as it applies to all editors affected by the block on Hutchison, but Wikipedia:IP block exemption may be the best way to offer you relief. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Mediawiki editing is based on IP addresses, and without a new technology that isn't likely to change, so that's what we block when we need to block something due to abuse from it. TorBlock has been installed for several years now, following continuous and overwhelming abuse from it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Since you didn't seem to ask either of the admins on their talk pages or notify them that you were calling their decisions into public scrutiny, I think it would be polite to let Mike V and Vituzzu in on the discussion. Tor isn't going to be unblocked. Please read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In regards to the IP address that I've blocked, it's anon only so users are more than welcome to edit with an account or request one through the account creation process. As for proxies, we are permitted to block them due to abuse. If you are experiencing blocks from using TOR/proxies, I'd encourage you to disable them while on Wikipedia. If there is a highly exceptional reason as to why you need to edit through TOR/proxies, please email the functionary team with an explanation and we will evaluate your request for an IP block exemption. Mike VTalk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
In short: people really needing using tor, VPNs, or even more obscure stuffs are given the relevent means to use them. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RFU Stats[edit]

Just some stats on the average load here: User:SQL/RFUStats SQLQuery me! 03:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced this with a more reliable / accurate program on toolforge: https://tools.wmflabs.org/aivanalysis/rfu.php SQLQuery me! 06:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeals from users for whom I see no block[edit]

How can this be? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to be blocked, technically, to post at UTRS. Could be mistakes, could be autoblocks? Could be trolling. I don't hang out much at UTRS but I'm pretty sure there's a summary close option for "user is not blocked". Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I also have ones come up for unregistered accounts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about appealing a block and Wikipedia "standard offer"[edit]

WITHDRAWN:
Withdraw RfC as no consensus exists to implement this proposal and none is likely to emerge. I thank everyone who responded to this request.--John Cline (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
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.

Should Wikipedia:Standard offer be elevated to officially supplement block/ban appeals? John Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Background: standard offer[edit]

Standard offer is cited so often in block/ban discussions[1] that I literally believed it was already a community sanctioned offer. Since guidelines are meant to reflect what we do, and block/ban appeals have, in practice, already subsumed the counsel of "standard offer", it falls incumbent on the Community that we adequately vet the essay at core unto consensus for using it as a supplement of the guideline itself.

Proposal: standard offer[edit]

This RfC proposes that Wikipedia:Standard offer should become an informational "explanatory supplement" of Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Kindly apportion your voice, for or against the proposal, and thread indented replies in the "survey" section below. Append general comments and topics of broad consideration in the "discussion" section below it. Thank you.

Survey: standard offer[edit]

  • Support - as proposed.--John Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the standard offer is not automatic, but is a simple procedure that we usually give people. Making this more than an essay will further the false impression that if you wait 6 months you are automatically unblocked. It is fine as an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    Except by the lamest read could one come to believe the standard offer implies anything like an automatic unblock/ban. I've never seen it discussed from such a notion; if you have, please give a link because I would like to see.--John Cline (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per TonyBallioni. Appeals on blocks and bans are enough; there's no need for additional supplementation through which individuals may receive a false impression of their block/ban status. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose the page is nice to explain what we mean when we offer it, but granting it any sort of official sanction would imply that it is a right of any user to invoke it: it is not. --Jayron32 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    To invoke wp:so is to say: I have faithfully adhered my block/ban for six months. Please, therefore, hear my earnest request to be unblocked. Why would this be seen as a problem?--John Cline (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    That is not a problem, but to have an expectation that "I only have to serve a six month block, then I can expect to be unblocked" is the attitude I'd like to avoid. --Jayron32 17:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support with caveats - WP:SO is not a "mere" essay, because the current situation in day-to-day practice applies it often. It does have serious community backing. That said, in order to promote this, some serious changes on the emphasis of the page would be required. One common reason for declining a SO request is that we're not totally convinced that the blocked user groks exactly what the did wrong. Making the determination on whether the user really understands is a tough judgement call that could be squashed by comments like "WP:SO is a guideline, give them their second chance" if this were to pass, and that's not a good thing. SO is a fine metric for when an appeal should be heard, but misses a significant amount of nuance for when an appeal should be accepted. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:SO is a guideline, give them their second chance Maybe, but it would be a guideline that says "This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 20:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Yep, things like that would need to be emphasized further within the page in the (unlikely) event that this proposal passes. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:TonyBallioni and User:Jayron32. I think it's best as it is, and we shouldn't strengthen its status to any more than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think this is required, and could lead to confusion. While I don't think that it reads that the Standard Offer means an automatic/likely unblock at 6 months, I fear a lot of needless heat-and-no-light whining from blocked users who either genuinely think that it does, or are twisting it. Richard0612 18:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose was gonna support, then I read TonyBallioni's oppose.( and Jayron's)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
    SO is something we need to offer on a case-by-case basis.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose - doing this would make every indef blocked editor to expect the SO by right, which is not (and should not be) the case. The SO, if offered to specific editors on, as Dlohcierekim says above me, a case-by-case basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Making SO policy would bind the hands of administrators in dealing with blocked editors for a couple of reasons. 1. As others have said, blocked editors would point to it as a policy that should be enforced. Even if it is something that can only be offered, I would foresee this being wikilawyered to death. 2. Blocked editors would view it as a box ticking exercise. "Look, I've been blocked but I've done everything in WP:SO so you need to unblock me." Again, something that can This could be be lawyered to death. Leave it as a guideline an essay, as something that could be offered on a case by case basis per Dlohcierekim. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The page currently is an essay, not a guideline. And this rfc is to make it a supplement not a policy.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Striking my first statement, I've evidently misread the proposal. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Blackmane. --Terra (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support elevating the essay to guideline, or explanatory supplement to the banning policy. Though I agree with TonyBallioni, in my experience the standard offer is normally expected to be offered to any banned editor unless explicitly revoked, not the other way around, and on principle I endorse the anyone-can-edit ideal that any banned editor may see the error of their ways and reform. But the concern about editors misreading the [essay] as though every blocked editor is automatically entitled to be unblocked on the six month anniversary is absolutely valid. I've seen it happen probably dozens of times, not just at SPI, that a community banned editor assumes because someone told them to "take the standard offer" that that meant they were absolutely and unconditionally allowed to start editing again after six months, as though the standard offer was some sort of maximum sentence, so they made a new account and did just that. That's not what it is, of course, and the essay probably needs some updating to make that clear before it graduates, but I support doing so. Also, "lame" is an ableist slur when you use it to refer to something substandard, when you could have just said mistaken or incompetent. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
    To the extent it is seen as an ableism, I apologize; I had meant more of a political context, and strong disapproval. I've stricken it, nevertheless, for the former.--John Cline (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose based on recent precedent at WP:AN, marking the page as deprecated would be more accurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Power~enwiki: What precedent? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per User:Ivanvector. Jschnur (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]


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.

Visible underscores in the Status column on Category:Requests for unblock[edit]

Will you please replace the visible underscores in "AWAITING_REVIEWER", "AWAITING_USER", etc. in the Status column on Category:Requests for unblock and consider using normal case and full sentences? The existing data does not look good.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)