Wikipedia:Block protocol

Note: A | previous version put forth as a proposal failed.

The Wikipedia collegial, consensus over rigid rules atmosphere breaks down when high profile borderline editor behavior is under review. While WP:WHEEL works well in most cases, this block protocol will help Wikipedia operate more smoothly and require less expenditure of wikipedian hours.

Principles

 * No one has a right to edit Wikipedia. As a privately owned resource, terms of usage are up to the Wikimedia Foundation.
 * The strength of Wikipedia is the entire community, not individual editors.
 * A transiently inappropriate block does not do significant harm to Wikipedia.
 * Allowing editors to remain unblocked may do harm to Wikipedia.
 * The past record of a block that the community later decided was inappropriate is too frequently used to attack editors.
 * While administrators work for the good of Wikipedia, as individuals their interpretation of situations will vary. Good faith must be assumed except in the most egregious cases. An administrator making a block or unblock which later turns out to not be the eventual consensus of the community should be respected. Accusations of malfeasance are generally not appropriate.
 * Accidents of timing, specifically which administrator evaluates a case first, should not be used to guide policy.
 * Individual administrators are entrusted with the sysop bit on behalf of the community, and act on behalf of the community when making a block. Therefore, blocks are not owned by the administrator who made them, but by the community.

Default is block
Where a complex situation requires time and community discussion to come to consensus, any administrator may issue a block; a previous administrator statement to the effect that a block isn't appropriate shall not be considered an "action" in the sense of wheel war reversal. Additionally, after a block is made, any additional administrators who document support of the block should be given an opportunity to comment before reversal.

If consensus cannot quickly be achieved, a discussion should be opened at WP:ANI and continue until community consensus is achieved, with due regard to the WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY policy, as elucidated by the WP:SNOW essay.

Administrators should avoid blocking editors they have previously been in contention with.


 * I suggest block as a default for several logistical reasons:
 * A block action is unambiguous and has a well known single point of documentation. Consider the example of an edit warring editor making personal attacks. One admin may note a decision not to block on ANI while another may be evaluating the situation at 3rr. Would this be a policy violation? Or if an admin asks a clarifying question on an ANI without explicitly saying "I'm not blocking," does that constitute an action.
 * An unblocked editor may continue make contributions. If admin A decides not to block for long term disruption based on n contributions, can admin B impose such a block for n+1 contributions? A blocked editor presents a static picture which the community can come to consensus on.
 * If a block is truly and obviously bad, I have faith in the community to quickly snow overturn it.
 * The damage to the reputation of an inappropriately editor can be mitigated by redaction of the block log as outlined below.''

Types of block removal
Removal of blocks before they time out are broken into two categories:
 * Unblocking, where a block is removed per the blocked editor's request and commitment to refrain from the behavior which led to the block.
 * Overturning, where the community consensus after review is that the block was not necessary.

Permanent record
To avoid the stigma and inappropriate use of the block log in future misunderstandings, if a block is overturned the block log will indicate overturned for seven days following removal of the block. After a seven day period, the block log will be purged of both the block and overturned entries. Except as required by other policies, e.g. WP:OUTING, no other purging of the discussion surrounding the block will be performed.

Hold harmless
The overturning of a block should not be used to impugn the motivation or judgement of the blocking administrator. Only if an individual administrator is consistently overturned over a period of time should a review of their actions be initiated.