Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Simplified

Comments

It's still not very simple. Perhaps you should look at simple:Wikipedia:Bans and blocks. It's worked well for a smaller wiki (10000 pages, 5000 registered users). Since the page title is "blocking policy", perhaps all the instruction creep that isn't part of the policy should be removed, or move to an "information about blocking". The effects of being blocked, instructions for admins, and info about dynamic IPs are just information, not policy. Angela . 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, I'm in awe of the Simple Wikipedia example. I do think this wiki is being overcome with severe instruction creep, but I doubt we could go 'that' simple all at once. Still, the existing policy could be pruned quite a bit. I hope my suggestion motivates others to the same conclusions. --InkSplotch 12:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I dunno. I'll give it a go! %-D - David Gerard 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me overall... about the same as the existing policy with some of the redundancy stripped away. Given my 'druthers I'd limit blocking to only true vandals and other equally disruptive cases, but that's far from the consensus view. This seems a reasonable effort at 'rolling back' instruction creep a couple of steps. --CBD 02:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of simplifying policy. Please copy this back over the present one. >Radiant< 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of sections from the old policy before the new version goes live tomorrow. The bits I added were about personal attacks that place users in danger (it's particularly important to stress that this includes actions performed outside Wikipedia); and the bit about posting personal details, where it's worth stressing that the details needn't be accurate and that the blocks may be indefinite. I've found it helpful on several occasions to link to this section for users who are about to be blocked under it; it has avoided blocks and stopped arguments. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting the living (BLP/NPA)

In light of discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy, I looked over our version here to see if additional comments needed to be included regarding critical comments on living people (including editors). In the spirit of simplicity, I think this version covers the basic concerns save for one small addition I just made. Under Protection I added "Persistant personal attacks." That's in addition to "personal attacks which cause harm," as I'd fear that phrase might be used to try an overturn NPA blocks of persistant trolls/vandals. If anyone sees a clause elsewhere where this sort of thing is clearly covered, please remove this addition...this is intended as the anti-instruction creep version. :) --InkSplotch 18:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting personal details

I have made minor changes to above with a view to make it tighter as well as lighter for the blocking administrator, and remove the element of ambiguity. In case, it has to be reverted to earlier wording, kindly do the same. --Bhadani 15:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks and personal details

I'd like to recommend removal of these recently added subsections. I understand their importance, but it's the kind of instruction creep which would rapidly have us back at the existing document before we know it. The Personal Details section, particularly, is very hard to read and understand. I think the power of this document is in it's simplicity.

I've removed the sections, and added (in bold) the phrase Blocks of any length of time, including indefinite, may be applied. I hope this applies the proper emphasis, but if not it's open to editing/reversion. --InkSplotch 16:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to read and understand does not qualify it to be discarded, after all we are not writing a book of humor, and administrators are expected to have a good knowledge of legal phraseology and terminology. Please do not make this document a licence to impose block in violation of the spirit of wiki and its core values. --Bhadani 16:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to all concerned, I would add that making typeface bold does not change the meaning of any sentence. Cheers. --Bhadani 16:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I've never seen anything to suggest administrators are expected to have a good knowledge of legal phraseology and terminology to be true. I agree this document should not be license to block in violation of the spirit of wiki and core value, but I strongly believe it's in keeping this document as simple as possible that will make Admins think harder about if their blocks are do, in fact, protect the project and its values or not. Adding that phrase and bolding it in the absence of qualifying statements draws attention to its importance, that "Protection" of the project and it's contributors is not taken lightly and is a serious issue. --InkSplotch 16:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave it to the common sense as administrative abilities implicitly are believed to have several attributes (perhaps ?). My only concern is that the administrators should not be endowed with a blanket right, in the name of protecting the project, to impose blocks in a way, which are detrimental to the project, not only in the short but also in the long run. BTW, my comments were in reaction to the belief based on your assertion that it's open to editing/reversion. I was not aware that the assertion was consmetic only though I am not sure. --Bhadani 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I

Okay, also believe that it is the spirit of the wiki which allows an editor with less than 20 edits to the main space to have more than 125 Wikipedia edits. Please do not take this as an offence, but as a compliment. --Bhadani 16:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may still be misinterpreting you, and for that I apologize. If I may start over,

I removed both sections (yours and SV's) as "instruction creep", that is, unnecessary embellishment to sections I feel already express the ideas sufficiently.
For more on why I draw the line on instruction creep so narrowly, you might be interested in this essay started by David Gerard. My views are fairly in line with this.
"Hard to read and understand" wasn't a reason for removing your section, but I feel it's a valid point. If you feel this section needs to be present, I'd recommend something more like this:

Users who post the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely, depending on the severity of the incident. The blocking admin should consider whether the incident was isolated or is likely to be repeated, and the intent behind disclosure (not necessarily the accuracy of the information). This does not apply to users with CheckUser access making information available within the terms of the CheckUser policy.

Admins have been endowed with a tool to defend the project. A policy such as this cannot hope to address every conceivable situation where such a tool can be used or misused. Indeed, I feel this policy will likely be used less before a block is issued and more by those reviewing the actions of another admin. So, I'm more concerned about good blocks being thrown out because they don't adhere to the letter of the policy, than I am about improper blocks being issued under an "open license" as I trust in the large pool of admins we have reviewing such things. Again, I'll refer back to that essay.
My assertion of, "it's open to editing/reversion" isn't an opinion or an offer, merely a statement of fact. I don't want my comments to be seen as ownership of this document in any way. I removed the sections, you've replaced them, I won't change that bit again. I will discuss my viewpoint as much as you're willing and it seems fruitful.
I feel the number of my edits in this discussion is meaningless, only whether I'm contributing something useful right here, right now.

--InkSplotch 18:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadani, I reverted to my version because some of the additions seemed to be unnecessary or confusing e.g. implicit or explicit consent, where consent is enough; and the part about the admin believing the details: it makes no difference who believes what, people shouldn't post users' personal details, believed or not, correct or not. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inksplotch, I see you removed the sections entirely. Can you say what you feel the problem is with having them in some form? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've read your comments now. I should read more carefully before posting, sorry. I wouldn't want either of those issues to get lost in the quest for a shorter policy because they're important examples of the kind of bad behavior that causes good editors to leave the project, and I'd like to see the simplified policy be as clear as the previous one that it's behavior that won't be tolerated. In particular, it's important to point out that the accuracy of the personal details is irrelevant, and that off-wiki behavior that places users in dangers is blockable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think this version (of the whole policy) works better by being simple, and explicitly not spelling out every situation. So, when I looked over both sections I didn't feel they added anything absolutely necessary or a significant difference over the bullet points of before. I think if we want to emphasize that these forms of protection are important, why not address it in the section and not just two of the bullet points? That's why, in my reversion, I added to the top of the Protection subsection:

Because of the importance of this, blocks of any length of time, including indefinite, may be applied.

I think this conveys your meaning without needless instruction creep. --InkSplotch 19:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are important issues because of other events right now, but overall I think the whole protection section is more important than, say, Disruption. --InkSplotch 19:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand this last point you made about protection being more important than disruption. As for events right now, yes and no. The harassment of editors by posting personal details, for example, has been going on for some time and is likely to continue and get worse. I agree that not everything should be spelled out, but I feel that these two issues do need to be. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with SV. All others interested in the issue are welcome to present their views. --Bhadani 03:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]