User:Bri/Misapplication of blocking

Is there a policy or even guidance on how admins are to weigh the impact on the project of blocks affecting large numbers of contributors?

Under the current system blocks appear to be ad-hoc, sometimes punitive, applied for arbitrary time periods, and under the radar unless one is skilled in sussing out edit summaries and technical logs. In addition I have documented the existence of hard blocks, whereby it is impossible for well-intentioned users to even request an account. This is contrary to policy.

Background
The author has documented and referred to a member (now former member) of Arbcom,, evidence of repeated blocks and rangeblocks affecting King County Library System (KCLS) and a large US government network. Blocks of one, two and three years in duration were imposed. KCLS is a library system used by the majority of residents in King County, Washington,(ref: circulation and membership) of which Seattle is the seat and largest city; the county's population is over 5 million and the library system has been reckoned as the nation's busiest. The block of a government network used by over a million individuals *appears* to be a dismissive "oh, so that's how you want it" comment directed at a single user (comment; one-year block).

Answers wanted
Inspecting Database reports/Range blocks, our de-facto repository of knowledge, raises serious and disturbing questions about their application.
 * Why is North Carolina Research and Education Network (152.26.0.0/16) blocked until September 2019?
 * Ditto Washington School Information Processing Collective (152.157.0.0/16) blocked until May 2021? Orange County Public Schools, Fairfax County Public Schools, Contra Costa County Office of Education, New Brunswick Department of Education, Broadcast Educational Media Commission, Tri-Rivers Educational Computer Association and more? Yearslong blocks handed out like candy to educational institutions and support networks don't even seem unusual.
 * Has there been a review of two indefinite /16 rangeblocks imposed by an admin who is now themselves indeffed: 76.162.0.0/16 and 74.52.0.0/16 by ?
 * What's up with over three dozen more indefinite /16 rangeblocks, applied for no apparent reason?

How do we even research these questions with the tools that exist?

Proposals
A system this non-transparent and unaccountable is bound to lead to bad consequences for the community; a community by the way that is desperate for new contributors, many of whom, like me, start out as anonymous contributors.

How do we address these issues? I propose the following:
 * Firmer guidelines on rangeblocks including mandatory review by a second administrator for ranges known to affect over 10,000 users
 * Enforcement of WP:IPBLENGTH, "Most IP addresses should not be blocked more than a few hours" and posting of blocks exceeding this range in a public accessible forum or list with reasons given
 * Restriction of blocks to uninvolved administrators
 * Enforcement of Blocking IP addresses