User:Valereee/How to use blocks

This is an essay on best practices for using blocks on otherwise well-intentioned, competent editors who are exhibiting behavior problems. This excludes vandals, single-purpose accounts, sockpuppets, other editors who are WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, and editors whose competence is inadequate.

Blocks are intended to prevent damage and never as punishment. When blocking a well-intentioned editor who is behaving badly, the least restrictive block that prevents the issue from continuing should be used.

Limited duration blocks
Blocks of limited duration are often suggested as a consequence for bad behavior. This is considered punitive. Blocks of limited duration should be used to prevent ongoing issues that are expected to be short-term by their very nature, such as edit-warring.

Examples of appropriate limited-duration blocks include:

Such a block should always be immediately followed by opening a discussion on their user talk. A block template provided automatically by Twinkle is not enough, and waiting for them to open the discussion and ping you is not enough.
 * Partial block from a single article to prevent ongoing edit-warring; if the problem is repeated from that editor, it may be worth considering making it an indef rather than limited duration to force the editor to discuss

Blocks of increasing duration
Generally such blocks are used in very limited cases, such as repeated edit-warring or other very disruptive behavior. This is not meant as increasing punishment but instead to prevent the editor from simply promising not to do it again, being immediately unblocked, and repeating the behavior the next time they're in a content dispute because the unblock came so quickly and easily that they didn't take it seriously. For an editor generally considered well-intentioned, a timed block often ends up lasting much longer than an indef would have lasted because many admins are reluctant to lift a timed block without the blocking admin's explicit support. The increasing duration of each subsequent block is intended to decrease the burden on admins dealing with such issues from repeat offenders.

Indefinite partial blocks
Idefinite blocks, whether full or partial, are not somehow harsher than limited duration blocks and in fact can be the less-restrictive option; this is because any admin can lift an indef imposed by another admin once the blocked editor convinces them they're listening and will correct the behavior. Indefinite blocks are used to force an editor to address a behavioral problem in order to become unblocked.

Examples of appropriate indefinite partial blocks include:

Such a block should always be immediately followed by opening a discussion on their user talk. A block template provided automatically by Twinkle is not enough, and waiting for them to open the discussion and ping you is not enough.
 * Partial block from an article to force an editor to discuss at article talk
 * Partial block from an article to stop an edit war and force the editor to discuss before being able to edit that article again
 * Partial block from article space to force an editor to address concerns at their own user talk
 * Partial block from Wikipedia space to enforce a topic ban from that area

Indefinite full blocks
An indefinite full block of a well-intended, competent user should be rare.

Examples of appropriate full, indefinite blocks include:


 * Outing
 * Legal threats
 * An egregious personal attack
 * An egregiously problematic statement in a discussion or edit summary
 * Ongoing problematic behavior that continues after having been discussed on their user talk or a noticeboard
 * Ongoing problematic behavior that the editor has refused to discuss