Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is not the page to report problems to administrators
or request blocks.
Emblem-important.svg This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Blocking policy itself.
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines    (Inactive)
WikiProject icon This page was within the scope of WikiProject Policy and Guidelines, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
 
Emblem-important.svg See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.


Recording in the block log[edit]

Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Recording in the block log states:

Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired.

My question is: Who may create such records (and when is it appropriate) - Only the blocking administrator? An administrator closing a related an/i thread where the community didn't support the block? Another administrator who disagrees with the block? Or perhaps all or some of the above? — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

I would think that this would almost always be the blocking administrator, and surely "an apology or acknowledgement of mistake" would have to come from the person who made the mistake. However, we don't have a rule about this, and I don't think it would help to have one, as there may be rare occasions when it is reasonable for an administrator other than the one who placed the block to do this, and I don't see any benefit in restricting the ability to do so on such rare occasions. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Should I add "Terms of Use violations" to the blocking rationale?[edit]

The terms of use states that the access to Wikipedia can be terminated by blocking. Should I add that? Ups and Downs () 23:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Should we include advice to block an IPv6 range, not a single address?[edit]

It's pretty pointless to block a single IPv6 address and I think that our blocking policy should point this out and give advice or a link to advice how to block the appropriate range. Comments? Doug Weller talk 13:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it is pointless. /64 should be the default for IPv6. (Phabricator tasks of interest: RFC: IPv6 contributions and talk pages, Should block IPv6 addresses at /64 instead of /128, and Have one aggregated talk page for ipv6 /64.) — JJMC89(T·C) 18:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Support IPv6 connections will be using /64 subnets for the reasons I've given here: [1]. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Advice for determining and blocking the correct addresses belongs at WP:IPB, where it is already linked but could probably be expanded. We certainly shouldn't be using policy to stipulate a correct range prefix, as they do vary. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

How to Block edits[edit]

I dont get it what is the is examples of blocking edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AJ Pachano (talkcontribs) 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)