Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 20

Urgently required
In order to deal with the problem of escalating injustice injustice built on the foundations of previous injustices  and reducing as far as is possible the resentment, souring, and psychological damage caused by the stigma associated with blocks, we urgently need a way of expunging bad blocks from people's block logs. In Real Life, a conviction overturned on appeal is removed from one's criminal record. Those wrongful convictions don't count when looking at sentencing for any future offence (if, in fact, there actually is any further offence, and not just further false accusations). We need this in here. We have to find a way of eliminating injustice bred on injustice, and resentment resulting from injustice. This really shouldn't be too hard to achieve. It's not rocket science. We have oversight available wouldn't it be relatively simple to do something like that, with an explanation from the oversighter of the bad blocks as to what exactly happened? Pesky (talk ) 09:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with you that the stigma of bad blocks is a problem. But at the same time, a process for block log entry removal is likely to be fraught with controversy. Just because there is consensus to unblock an editor will not mean there is consensus that the block was bad at the time it was made, and to make such a determination will require the focus of the discussion to turn from whether the block is needed now, to the blocking admin's conduct. As with overturned convictions that are overturned in real life, we will also face the issue that many editors will still know about the block even if its stricken from the log, if we follow the American model, those who still know about the stricken block can bring it up in later disputes. I still think a mechanism for doing it would be for the best, but there are downsides. Monty  845  15:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that would be the best way to spend Foundation resources - so far as I can recall, this would not be a simple thing to do. And I speak as someone who'd love to have a clean block log - I got blocked for a minute last year with the edit summary "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy: on Elizabeth Gilbert after warning by Dougweller". Oversight won't work for this. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm wrong about that. See Revision deletion. In an ArbCom case Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Workshop one of the Arbs said "The Revision Deletion/Suppression policies do not support such an action. For this to be considered, a very good justification would be needed. If nothing else, redacting these log entries obliterates the evidence that improper administrative actions took place, removing support for the admonishments you have also proposed.". Dougweller (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it goes against policy, that can be changed. As for, "redacting these log entries obliterates the evidence that improper administrative actions took place", store the record of the event somewhere else. Create a list somewhere, "Suppressed blocks." Simple. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You do have a clean block log; it's just not empty. Different things. NE Ent 17:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, I realise that it's clean. I mispoke. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It would probably better to have dedicated software changes to support the appropriate view interfaces as I mentioned above; Jimbo said on Colbert the budget is like 28 million so I suspect WMF can spare the dollars. NE Ent 17:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you show any evidence of the foundations of your argument? An injustice that has been built on the foundations of previous injustices? One where the blocks in the record need to be expunged? Certainly if this is a widespread problem, requiring urgent action, where we could gain consensus to expunge the block logs, you can provide us with numerous concrete examples to examine.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My first block should have been expunged. I doubt that I'd have gotten my second block if Sarek hadn't glanced at my first. Isn't it obvious, Kww, that it is a bad thing to have a bad block on your record? Isn't it? Isn't it just bloody obvious? Why? Why are you defending the status quo where such blocks can't be erased. Why are you minimising, diminishing the unpleasantness of these things to their victims? What exactly is your point? That we shouldn't be distressed and troubled by these things? That we're making it up - we're only pretending to be troubled by this? What? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have three blocks. One was a mistake, for which the admin apologized. The second was the result of a misformatted and mistaken 3RR report. The third was such a blatant policy violation that the blocking admin should have been desysopped. I became an admin with two blocks on my record. I have not been psychologically traumatized by them. My main point is that the vast majority of editors don't worry about blocking, and bad blocks are not a serious problem. When I look at the block logs of the editors that are making the noise on this page, several of them are indicative of what I consider to be a much larger problem: editors that are willing to misbehave to make a point, because they know they will only get blocked for a short time as a result. Setting up a system where people can wring their hands in anguish and completely expunge the logs would just make that problem worse.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gotta love the ad hominem: "noise," "psychologically traumatized" .... by the way zero blocks, but that's not important right now. NE Ent 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say "no one in this discussion has a valid point". I will, however, state that I have a hard time listening to complaints about invalid blocks from editors that have been blocked 17 times for personal attacks and edit warring, or editors that admit that they intentionally misbehaved because they felt the short block they received in consequence was acceptable.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Ad hominem again. I never know where to go with ad hominem. The right thing to do is just wipe it off this page and splatter it onto the perpetrator's talk page. But presently, that's against TPG. I could address it, but that would just be escalating to bickering. So I'll leave it here. This is typical of Kww's style. Try arguing, please, Kww. I mean argue. rhetoric. Not logical fallacies. See if you can survive a discussion without resorting to that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've repeatedly asked for concrete examples of the problem so that we could discuss them. You've presented a single invalid block, but you haven't demonstrated any reason to believe that the subsequent well-deserved blocks were in any way influenced by the earlier bad ones, or that the pain of the block caused you to leave the project. Give me something concrete to argue about, and you can complain about my logic. Argue using only psychological states as a basis, and I will have to consider whether that portrayed emotional state is genuine or not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well. You recently blocked a long-time editor who was unblocked within a few minutes. I suspect a number of the blocks that person had received were inappropriate (not necessarily yours). When discussions of censures for that editor happen, someone usually says something to the effect that he's been blocks N times already, without considering how many of them were marginal or inappropriate. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Block log" is a frequent topic of discussion on ANI. While in Wikipedia-as-it-should-be block logs would be reviewed carefully such that accidental and mistaken blocks would not influence an editor's reputation, here in Wikipedia-as-it-is they do. NE Ent 22:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Both of which are evidence for my theory that we have a bigger problem with bad unblocks than we do with bad blocks. Block logs become long when long-term disruptive editors keep getting unblocked or never get an indef that is upheld. It's a rare editor with more than a handful of blocks that has any reason to still be editing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree they exist, but they are quite different problems, Kww. Bad blocks discourage good behaviour, while bad unblocks enable bad behaviour. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The timing of this discussion would appear to have been triggered by Floquenbeam performing four bad unblocks in a burst. Drmies, Scottywong, Youreallycan, and Malleus Fatuorum.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, those were excellent unblocks of, for the most part, wretchedly bad blocks. I agree those bad blocks appear to have triggered this discussion, though given the entrenched positions of certain admins here, it can't really be called a discussion. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Monty, only blocks that were clearly bad blocks should be expunged. Doug, the foundation pays at least lip service to the idea of editor retention. This would be a step towards making this a more congenial environment. Didn't they give a million dollars to WMUK? Not begrudging them their money, I'm sure they've done some good things, but I'd put fixing this scarlet letter problem ahead of anything they've fixed. Just my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Just so everyone is on the same page, it is technically possible to do this right now, but policy says that in almost every case that does not have explicit approval from arbcom it is considered abuse to redact log entries. So what would be needed is not funding or development but consensus to expand the scope of the policy to allow any block that is deemed to have been made in error to be redacted rather than simply corrected as it is now. I'm not certain I see the necessity for that. o take the example Anthony provides, the admin who unblocked them made a very specific log entry that makes it perfectly clear that the block was an error. If it is recorded in the log that you were blocked in error any admin considering blocking you at a later date will be able to see that that block was an error and should be disregarded. If we are going to consider this we will ned to be very careful in drawing the line between poorly considered blocks and blocks that are obvious errors. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You see it that way. I don't, and no one, I think, in discussion saw it that way. Please be aware there are other views, and consider heeding them. If your view (that an undeserved block log entry is trivial) is correct, but we go ahead and begin expunging clearly mistaken or unjust blocks, no real harm is done. If the opposing view is correct, and clearly mistaken or unjust blocks are distressing to their victims or do make them more likely to be knee-jerk blocked again, then expunging them will be a good thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or, we could block admins for making poor, mistaken, unjust or out-of-policy admin action, so the record appears in their block log. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if policy permitted the use of revdel on block logs (which it doesn't and which I wouldn't support adding), it wouldn't solve the problem. Revdel and Suppression don't remove the entry, they merely gray it out so a non-admin or non-oversighter can't view the contents. People would still see an entry in a person's block log, they just wouldn't know who did it, how long it was for, or what the summary was.  MBisanz  talk 18:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Does suppression hide the details from admins? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it hides the details, but they would still see the same grayed out line as everyone else. They'd know a block was done, they just wouldn't know by whom, for how long, or why.  MBisanz  talk 18:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Suppression will make it very obvious to the careless admin (there are plenty of those) that the entry has been judged by the community to be clearly invalid, and even the most foolish and ignorant of admins (and we have plenty of those) will be less likely to mistakenly take it into account when deciding to punish a writer. I would strongly favour suppressing mistaken or unjust blocks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why are people ignoring what I wrote - it can be done, I was wrong, it's against policy. And I support the policy. And Anthony, you are clearly saying that a block is to punish. That's just plain wrong. I'm not saying no blocks have ever been meant to punish people, but the majority of blocks are not made for that reason. Dougweller (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not have him in mind when I said "foolish and ignorant", because that is not my opinion of him, but even some of the admins who are not foolish and ignorant use the block button to punish. All of the ignorant fools do. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You may find that folks are more sympathetic to your position if you tone down the rhetoric. Getting back to the matter at hand, there is a distinction between a "bad block" and an "error". A bad block is a block that an admin made in the belief that the policy and/or the community supported the idea that the user should be blocked, but where the admin turns out to have been wrong about that assumption and the block is overturned. Errors are blocks made by accident, either by clicking the wrong button or out of a genuine misunderstanding of the situation.

We all make errors, indeed I have done both of those things at least once each. I do feel bad for someone blocked in error, but in each case I unblocked the user myself within minutes and noted in the log that I was in error and the block should be completely disregarded. I think requiring such clear language would be an easier change to make. If you block someone in error you should unblock them yourself and say something unambiguous like "error on my part completely disregard this block" in the log. If the block has expired a one-second re block can be used to amend the log. Blocks that are overturned by consensus should be left visibly logged so that there is a trail of breadcrumbs that the admin in question made a bad block. Imagine if we had an admin making one bad block after another, but there was no visible evidence. You could file an RFCU or arbcom case that said "it kind of looks like this admin has maybe made a bunch of bad blocks" and that's it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned above, make a list of suppressed blocks somewhere. It's easy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As an oversighter I can tell you that goes against everything in the suppression policy. The whole point of suppressing something is that it is deemed so harmful to have it visible that even administrators should not be able to view it. If it doesn't rise to that level it cannot be suppressed. To change something so fundamental about how suppression is used is going to require a very clear, specific, widely advertised proposal that gains a strong consensus for implementation. If you think you can accomplish  that by all means put your proposal together and present it to the community for review. Otherwise this idea is a complete non-starter. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Will that do it? Who controls suppression, the foundation or the community?
 * I'd like to put at least three suggestions on this page to the wider community: this one from Pesky, Brad's 3RR proposal, and Slim Virgin's proposal for community-imposed restrictions on admins. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, now that you mention it the "master" policy on suppression is at meta and is marked as a WMF policy, so at the very least I suppose we would have to ask them if we could make such an exemption. My guess is that they would say we could as it would not involve privacy or libel issues, which is all suppression is currently used for, but I also imagine they would want to see a very clear mandate from the community to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What if we just authorized revdel of the entry as a uniform way to visually indicate that the block was improper or a mistake? Sure admins could see it, but they would immediately know it wasn't a proper block, and perhaps be even more cautious about enacting a block then they would have been if empty. I imagine we wouldn't need as strong a consensus to authorize revdel as oversight right? Monty 845  20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If the community has determined an entry doesn't belong in the victim's log, it doesn't belong there for admins. If an admin wants to study the block to build a case against the blocking admin or for some other reason, they can go to the list of invalid blocks. The more I think about that list, the more I like the idea. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Now wait a minute 1) Anthony, you keep saying there are other views and folks need to heed them. Have you considered that there are other views to yours that you should heed?  Also, I'm not sure whether you are calling me ignorant and foolish, but nothing in that diff said I issue punishment blocks and you can check my block log to be sure.  And even that diff, where I discuss my 4 year old, the timeout I give her can easily be considered "preventative" because she is not jumping on the couch.  And by the way, my kids are very respectful, smart, and well behaved.  They both uses their please, thank yous, yes mommy, and yes daddy.  So I disagree that "punishment" is bad.  I think some folks needed quite a bit more of it when they were younger.  But you've demonstrated nothing by using my 4 year old as a diff above.  We've lived under the bullshit "dont spank your kid" crap for decades and the world isn't any better for it.  I disagree on who the fool is.
 * The only logical fallacy I've seen is this discussion, Anthony, is your continual assertion that those who are blocked are victims without any sort of qualifier. You haven't said "those under blocks the community determined were wrong are victims", you've thrown a blanket "everyone is a victim."  Even in Malleus' case, the majority of his blocks were overturned by a single administrator who determined it was a bad block; not the community.  And your own block, as an example, assumes something on the 2nd blocking admin's part and then uses it as fact to support your argument.  Those are the logical fallacies.--v/r - TP 21:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm expressly excluding you from the class, stupid and ignorant. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy and does not belong in article or policy talk pages. Some editors here use it habitually to undermine real argument. We're discussing foolish, petulant, vindictive and accidental blocks in this thread (not the vast majority of blocks that are unproblematical), and those blocked in such cases are victims. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, in those situations, the folks are victims. But when discussing this matter, I think you need to be more clear on the line that separates the two and you need to clarify who identifies a block as "foolish, petulant, vindictive and accidental blocks."  Certainly the blocked individual and all of his buddies don't make that determination alone.--v/r - TP 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is going awry because the discussion is conflating policy with implementation, and assuming that policy must be limited to what the current version of the software can do. The first step is to determine what the use case actually is, and then determine whether the existing software can support it instead of saying it can't done be. Conceptually, there are many variations of how we could handle problematic block entries. I've already suggested one above in the 3rr section (statue of limitations, "suppressed" block not viewable from user screen but viewable from admin screen) and I'm sure their are others just as good or maybe better. Let's start with what is best for the Wikipedia community (the people) first and leave the software part until later. NE Ent 21:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, I disagree. Anything that involves changing actual software code (as opposed to local MediaWiki pages) will take so long as to probably outlive the consensus that created it. For example, see Bugzilla:15810. That took a 17 months to find a developer willing to make the code change and then the developers decided the consensus was no longer "fresh" enough, which is why it was never changed on Special:ListGroupRights. That was for a relatively simple code change. Bugzilla:42727 was even simpler and affected all WMF-wikis, yet it took over a month to find a developer to change a mis-assignment of variables in RenameUser. I suspect if you were to file a bug saying "We would like a developer to substantially re-code the Block function to solve the problem of English Wikipedia administrators mis-reading old block log entries" they would actually laugh at you. Over at meta, the stewards have been pleadng with the WMF for a global version of the edit filter for over a year, which would affect all wikis. From my interactions, WMF developer resources are extremely limited and they don't like to do one-off modifications for individual wikis unless it's core to the editing experience (language settings are core, blocking is not). I would focus on how we can change policy within the existing software settings unless other Bugzilla feature enhancement requests start being filled as soon as they are filed.  MBisanz  talk 22:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Tell you what. Get a consensus that doesn't require a database change and I'll take a look at implementing myself. NE Ent 23:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

An alternate approach might be to block people more regularly. Make the policy that no long-time contributor should have a clean (empty) block log.

And while I'm here adding nothing but noise to the conversation, I'll just note that this is one of my favorite blocks ever. I'd be interested if others shared their favorite blocks. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's one. A long time editor with a clean block log reverts someone once, who later turns out to be the sock of a blocked user. The page is already protected.  The admin makes the blocks based on the editors' block record, no surprise there. The editor, who did nothing wrong, but now has a dirty block record, has had their relationship with the Project damaged, and is now considering leaving the project permanently. . —Neotarf (talk) 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A workable solution for editors committed to building the encyclopedia would for them to collectively recognise the admin system for the irredeemably wretched system it appears to be. The recipient of disrespectful behaviours by admins, such as punitive blocks, should be rewarded with badges of honour from their editor peers. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And all the admin gets is a negative barnstar? I sort of doubt that other admins would be willing to do that with their peers, who they need to get along with in order to accomplish anything. But it seems there is no intermediate remedy to deal with this problem other than Arbcom.  At the very least, the damage to the editor's block log should be repaired. —Neotarf (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Are we here to have a serious discussion or to just bash admins as a group? The fact of the matter is that 99% of blocks issued are perfectly valid and nobody bats an eyelash at them. It's the 1% of really bad blocks and all the sound and fury around them that creates the false impression that admins are all bumbling trigger happy lunatics. A few of us probably do fit that description, most of us do not. I have issued over 2,000 blocks in my time as an admin and I would estimate that maybe 10-15 provoked any controversy at all, with only about 4-5 actually being overturned, and only two that I can recall being overturned by anything resembling a consensus, as opposed to unilateral unblocks by a single admin or a convincing, reasonable unblock request. (and by the way we do have the WP:TROUT for bad blocks and several appropriate user awards such as the "barnstar of resilience" for users who keep a cool head when something stupid like a bad block happens to them.) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with all that. Returning to the topic, from what I read above, no software changes are necessary to implement this: when the community agrees a block was invalid, someone with the appropriate user right suppresses the entry in the victim's block log and copies the entry to "List of invalid blocks". --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, a thread on a talk page is not going to be a sufficient process for such a radical change to policy, you are going to need to submit a formal proposal through an WP:RFC if you expect this to happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of that but this discussion is invaluably clarifying what's involved. Are we all agreed that all that is required to implement this is community agreement, that there are no obvious technical obstacles? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a technical issue, but I would just mention again that what I said above about the WMFs position was just an educated guess. So it would be a good idea to be sure the idea will not turn out to be entirely moot because of some Foundation-level issue before proceeding with drafting a proposal or anything. I also don't think this has much of a chance of happening but if you want to go ahead that would be my recommendation for what to do when. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It is actually possible to oversight stuff from the block log, and have it not be visible to non-oversighters. See (where there's one block and two unblocks) and User_talk:Elen_of_the_Roads. --Rschen7754 06:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The consensus there seem to have come to similar technical conclusions but (1) supports initially only using expunging for "oopsie" situations and avoiding cases where the block is universally condemned and (2) they haven't proposed a public, sortable list of expunged blocks. I can't see any rationale for (1), though. Perhaps I missed it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * With regard to examples and instances, the matter of Malleus' block log was brought up at the ArbCom Civility Enforcement case (please would someone with more spare time than me go find the analysis, pretty please?) ... where it was pretty universally agreed that quite a number of the blocks were atrociously bad blocks violating any number of ethical obligations, etc. Is it any wonder that someone who has a block log with far more than its fair share of really awful, ill-considered, unjust blocks should end up being resentful of admins?  Really?  Yes, we know there are good admins.  Like there are plenty of good coppers.  But you try getting the point across to victims of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad, for example.  Hackles rise when the word "copper" comes into the conversation, because those people have too much experience of bent coppers.  I'm not necessarily saying that every admin who performs a bad block is bent, but they are thoughtless as to the consequences.  It's known that even monkeys resent injustice (there's a link to that, somewhere); and the concept of fairness and unfairness is something that H. sapiens develops at an early age.  I really can't see any major problem with having a log for bad blocks (not just "oopsie" blocks), as well as for generally-accepted-to-be-OK blocks, so that a record is kept of admin misbehaviour in case it's needed.  I also think we should have a readily-viewable type of scoring mechanism for blocks-per-years-of-service, and for blocks-per-number-of-non-automated-edits, just so that the more intelligent can easily compare like with like, giving rather less excuse for those who find it more convenient simply to count numbers of blocks, or who can't / won't apply a little brain to the idea for whatever reason. I find it very hard to comprehend people who don't see injustice as a problem; who don't see that for the majority of people injustice is a wound which carries on stinging and is damaging.  There may be some few lucky ones who can just brush it off, but I'd suspect those are in the minority, and just because Mr A. may be able to brush it off doesn't mean that Mr A. should be blind to the effect that it can have on others. It should really not be beyond our ingenuity to come up with a perfectly workable and humane solution to this.  Pesky  (talk ) 09:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . Starts about 12min 30sec - but the whole 15 minutes is worth watching, IMO. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MF block analysis NE Ent 12:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There have been 4 more blocks/unblocks since that analysis, which gets back to the issues I was trying to have addressed many threads above, which is how we might eliminate unilateral blocking/unblocking.--MONGO 12:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can't be done, MONGO. If blocks are preventative, then they are also emergencies requiring immediate action.  If they are punishment, then we can all get together on ANI to discuss what punishment is appropriate.  Which way would you have it?  Prevention or punishment.  Right now, the catchphrase is preventative, which is fine, but that means unilateral emergency preventative blocks.--v/r - TP 16:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They once told me semi-protection couldn't be done. How many "emergencies" do we have. Is someone telling another editor to "f-off" an emergency? My argument off and on for the past 2 weeks isn't about the obvious IP vandal or placeholder usernamed account obviously set up to vandalize or circumvent semi-protection. its exceedingly rare that a unilateral block is needed against an established editor due to an emergency.MONGO 17:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Big Granny-hugz to Anthonyhcole and NE Ent for the links - thank you!  Pesky  (talk ) 17:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MONGO - Maybe, but that wasn't clear based off what you said. Now, if you want to say "Established editors can be blocked by consensus of the community for poor behavior" in what would be a punishment block, then you might find more folks amiable to the idea.  But you really weren't clear on what you were proposing other than "how we might eliminate unilateral blocking/unblocking" which comes off as a blanket for all blocks.--v/r - TP 18:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. I can see how you may have read my earlier comment in this thread.MONGO 19:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Summary

 * 1) There are two different types of blocks that could be considered candidates to be expunged.
 * 2) Errors, which are technical missteps (mistaken identity, clicking the wrong button, or other cases of self-evident goofery)
 * 3) "Bad blocks", which are blocks overturned by consensus
 * 4) Opinions on what constitutes a "bad block" run from "any block that is ever overturned, whether by consensus or unilaterally" on through significantly higher thresholds. There is disagreement as to the threshold at which a block is considered "bad", in particular due to the prevalence of unilateral unblocks.
 * 5) Opinions on the seriousness of having a potentially-expunged block on one's log run from "grave" to "inconsequential".
 * 6) As a matter of policy, we do not currently expunge blocks. The facility to do so exists within the codebase and could theoretically be enabled. Concerns have been raised that WMF may have a final say here, but those have not been substantiated.
 * 7) Opinions on enabling the expunging of blocks vary from "unnecessary" to "vitally, urgently important" through "only for [Arbs, selected admins]".
 * 8) Concerns have been expressed that the context behind this discussion is not a neutral attempt to improve policy, but is framed around the expunging of blocks from particular editors (either participants in this thread, or their friends).

Is this missing anything? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please strike current number 6 Concerns have been expressed. Doesn't advance the discussion and is contrary to assuming good faith. If the idea(s) are bad ones, surely they can be refuted without resorting to questioning the motive of the proposer(s). NE Ent 15:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * You are missing any discussion of the bad unblock problem, where an admin unilaterally overrides another admins block without discussion or consensus. I continue to feel that a large part of this problem is generated by bad unblocks, because after an admin unilaterally undoes a perfectly valid and justified block, others will now point at the original block as being bad.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's in point 2 whether by consensus or unilaterally NE Ent 15:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't address what should be done to admins that do so, and whether policy needs to be changed to admonish or desysop admins that do so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Unilateral" and "Consensus" should not be mixed together. Whether blocking or unblocking, they are completely separate things.--v/r - TP 15:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In theory. In practice there is a spectrum. "Unblock per consensus on ANI", for instance, can mean very different things depending on who is asserting it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A unilateral decree that a block is bad by one admin does not mean the block is bad. Whereas a decree by consensus would generally mean the block is bad.--v/r - TP 15:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reworded to address this. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm uneasy with discussing the potential for expunging blocks without addressing the unblock problem in more detail. It's kind of a separate issue, but an unblock of a perfectly valid block sends an equally wrong message.&mdash;Kww(talk) 16:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You may find this question gets more attention in a dedicated thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Kww, they both send wrong messages, but they are different things. Consider that when something is being discussed at ANI, for instance, and a number of admins are replying (and others are watching), their presence is an on-wiki indication that they are looking at the situation and haven't issued blocks. If another admin then jumps in and blocks, who is undoing who? I'm not saying that justifies unblocks, or that it justifies any particular unblock. I'm talking in general. Admins who discuss before considering to issue blocks are exercising adminship. Gimmetoo (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Some admins seem to be able to live with the expunging of oopsie blocks - innocent mistakes that the perpetrator recognises immediately as errors - but think that blocks that don't have the support of the community but are defended by the admin should remain as a stain on the victim's block log.
 * Surely a bad block is one that the perpetrator recognises as a bad block or one that does not have the support of the community.
 * People who are unconcerned about their block log don't need to bother with having bad blocks removed. We're talking about a process for people who are mightily pissed off about some fool with a tool not only blocking them but usually defaming them in the process.
 * True.
 * I'm not sure about "only for arbs/selected admins" but opinions on whether this right is important vary with one's degree of adminness. The less of an admin you are, the more important you're likely to think it is.
 * Who raised the last concern? It's ad hominem and it has no place in rational discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be a strawman, but it's not ad hominem.--v/r - TP 15:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We can have the "What kind of fallacy" discussion at your place if you like. Can we agree that speculations about the motives of protagonists here is off topic? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we can't. I didn't push that opinion, but it's a valid one to discuss.  It's the difference between "This idea will help the encyclopedia" and "this will right great wrong and fix my pride/ego."  One is good for the encyclopedia, one is good for particular people.--v/r - TP 15:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You really think, "they're just concerned about their own or their mates' block logs" is intelligent or credible, or valuable in any way other than to shine a clear light on the speaker? Fine, go ahead. Make the case. Let's hear your argument for that position and why it matters in the slightest. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure. In the Air Force, we have a saying, "Service before self."  Wikipedia has a similar one: Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia.  If editors are arguing the case because they want to fix great wrongs, then they are not here to build an encyclopedia.  However, if instead they are here because of an editor retention concern, as I think you are, then that is encyclopedia building.  Understand the difference?--v/r - TP 16:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Obviously I wasn't clear. You Someone asserts that, presumably, I am motivated largely by a desire to have a past or future block expunged from my block log, rather than by my purported wish to improve the ethos here and make the place a welcoming environment for expert and scholarly writers. That you they assert this implies that, if it were true, it would have some bearing on the soundness of my arguments. First, they need to prove the former. It's the only one of your their propositions that doesn't have 2,300 years of philosophy opposed to it so there's at least a chance you they can prove it. It is a shallow spiteful insult. That's what it is. And it's a good example of the quality of discourse on this project upheld by admins such as you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Corrected 04:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You must've missed "if instead they are here because of an editor retention concern, as I think you are." But let's say for example that I did believe you were only here for your own block log.  Then follow this, let's break down the alleged fact: "A) Wikipedia is losing editors, B) Because of blocks, C) That were determined to be a bad block, D) By consensus or unilateral action, E) And can be solved, F) By expunging those blocks".  The fallacy is in item (A).  Is Wikipedia losing editors over bad blocks, or should (A) really be A) "We are upset...".  That is why motivation matters.  It changes all of the facts.  One motivation helps Wikipedia and the other is selfish.--v/r - TP 16:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh yes I did miss that. Let me see if I've got this right. If the motivation behind writers' outrage over having unjust blocks remain in their log is simply "We are upset", that is not a valid motivation? By the way, I don't have to prove one case of an editor leaving citing his unexpunged unjust block as the reason. I just have to prove that it is upsetting to a number of content writers to have unjust entries in their block logs. Do you doubt I can do that? I think a simple scanning of this page will do that. Now, the onus is on you to explain why we shouldn't adjust our practice to ease that discomfort. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * No, I don't doubt you can do that at all, which is why I didn't push the case in the first place. But to say the argument is a strawman/ad hominem isn't right. It's a valid argument, one which I am sure you can find facts that demonstrate it isn't accurate but that doesn't make the concern less of a valid one.--v/r - TP 16:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine. It's clearly ad hominem. I'm not going to argue that with you here. And I'm not going to argue for ad hominem being a logical fallacy anywhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not fine. This is the appropriate venue as you're asking for a change in the summary and it's not just between you and I.  The argument is a valid consideration and is not an attack.  Whether it's factually right or factually wrong doesn't change it's validity as a concern worth addressing and seeking the facts.  You're asking to discount a valid criticism of the discussion, because it hurts your argument, without engaging with the folks who actually have the concern (of which I am not one) and proving your point.  For me, the actions your taking in response to item 6 is a concern that I am addressing here.  But item 6 itself should be addressed with the folks who raised it.--v/r - TP 18:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Item 6 is the type of gratuitous and provocative manoeuvre we have come to expect from admins who promote the block tool as a means of maintaining power over content editors. Its only rationale can be an attempt to further marginalise content editors who have already suffered from unjust blocks. If Item 6 is to remain on the list it must be balanced with:
 * Item 7: Concerns have been expressed that the context behind Item 6 is not a neutral attempt to improve policy, but is framed around attempts to ensure participants that have been already been subjected to unjust blocks are further discredited. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is there a Latin name for "constantly uses provocative language to paint those he disagrees with in a bad light"?&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Is that meant to refer to you or me? I'm trying to imagine you painted in a clear light. There is no point continuing this thread. Admins, like the ones who have come here, always converge and suffocate threads like this. That is why there no point wasting time trying to improve the existing system. It needs scrapping and rebuilding. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, it can't possibly be that you're just wrong. It has to be that admins are abusive.  Absolutely.  Do you have any idea why admins cant take you seriously on this topic?  Your argument is full of rhetoric.--v/r - TP 23:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, well done. I'm just wrong and you've won again. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll go let Charlie Sheen know and put a big "Winner" star on my user page.--v/r - TP 23:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

7. Concerns have been expressed by editor(s) who have never been blocked and have no wikipedia friends that item Concerns have been expressed that the context behind this discussion is not a neutral attempt to improve policy, but is framed around the expunging of blocks from particular editors (either participants in this thread, or their friends). is an ad hominem distraction from the actual topic at hand. NE Ent 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC) TP, number six is not insulting enough, really, to be called a personal attack, so I agree with you there. Not all ad hominem is a personal attack, and not all personal attacks are ad hominem. You might say, "this person is not qualified to argue here" or "he is very upset so we can't take anything he says seriously" or "he's an admin, so he would say that". None of these is a personal attack but all are irrelevant to the argument (except as described in the next paragraph) and are ad hominem, and so, in a project that relies on the quality of its article and policy talk page argument, it is off-topic in those venues and should be moved to user talk.

If my premises were relying on my authority or were undocumented personal anecdotes, then questioning my circumstances, character and motives would be appropriate. But my argument is based on agreed facts. So, provided we stick to discussing agreed or uncontroversial facts, there is no need to impugn the motives or character of me or any others here. Can you point to some premise here that relies on the unsupported testimony or authority of one of the protagonists (other than the unsupported assertion that I am not here to improve policy), that would necessitate questioning their motives? If you can point to some premise in my argument that relies on my trustworthiness, as an authority or a witness, I'll amend it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We're agreed that a number of editors are upset by the persistence of unjust or mistaken blocks in their logs
 * We're agreed that there is no technical impediment to moving such records to a "list of expunged blocks"
 * Actually, I think we are agreed that a number of editors are upset by blocks that they portray as unjust. What we disagree on is the proportion of those blocks that are actually unjust, and whether it's worth the effort to set up any mechanism of dealing with them. I don't have a strong objection to some process for getting rid of errors, but I think the risk of removing valuable information by removing "unjust" blocks exceeds the benefit.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. The extent of the concern can only be determined by a widely-advertised RfC, I think. We may be able to agree here what kind of block can be expunged, before taking the discussion to RfC. I think we're close but we're not there yet. We're all agreed the oopsie block can go. Where there is clear strong community consensus that a block was bad, most (all?) of us agree it can go. Where one admin undoes another on the ground that it was a bad block, without a clear consensus from the community, it should certainly be expunged from the victim's block log but perhaps a note should be left in its entry at "List of expunged blocks" explaining that it was undone without clear community consensus. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A block should never be expunged without the express consent of the blocking admin.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Anthony, what is the point of trying to fiddle with a side issue like this? Look at that last statement. Once again, you can see how, even with an issue as simple as this, you can get nowhere with a system this dysfunctional. Bad blocks would rarely arise in the first place if they were made by a panel of content editors that specifically had the trust of the editing community to make those blocks. That approach would avoid the current, maybe spur of the moment, gung ho blocks made by loose cannon admins who are trying to prove something. It is this nonsense that loses us editors of the calibre of Malleus, editors worth maybe 100 run of the mill admins when it come to building the encyclopedia. So long any one of the current admins can block any content builder on little more than whim, the justified resentments and dysfunction will never go away. There are a small number of rare occurrences where a content editor runs amuck and needs to be summarily stopped, and there is no reason why run of the mill admins shouldn't be allowed to do that. But admins always block any movement towards a solution like this, presumably because they don't want to relinquish the asymmetric power they have over content editors. Admins should not be making decisions about their own power base. You may say this is rhetoric TP. If it is rhetoric, that is because rhetoric is the only tool left to content builders on Wikipedia. Of course as an admin, you ignore it. That's why the problems we have cannot be resolved, and the current system needs to be dismantled. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Anthonyhcole and I have managed to discuss for the most part w/o resorting to rhetoric.  All I ask is that your logic doesn't start with an alledged and POV opinion that you portray as fact such as "Admins are abusive..." and "Blocks are bad..."  If you want to say "Some admins are abusive..." and "There have been some terribly bad blocks..." then we can discuss.  But I'm not going to engage in discussion when you throw around rhetoric that I would be condoning were I to even humor such a notion.  Not all admins are abusive, not all blocks on 'long term content builders' are bad.  I strongly disagree that the majority of Malleus' were bad.  Frankly, show me a time that rhetoric was not used and failed before you say it's your only tool left.  It's not the only tool left, it's the only tool that has ever been used.--v/r - TP 15:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting and caricaturing what I have been saying ("Admins are abusive...", "Blocks are bad..."). That is rhetoric, and rhetoric of the worst kind. It's also typical of the nonsense I have to put with on these boards. Show me one instance where I made unqualified statements such as "admins are abusive" or "block are bad". I may on occasion refer to abusive admins or bad blocks. If you don't know the difference you shouldn't be participating on these boards. I often praise work that is done by individual admins and acknowledge that the large majority of admins are not a problem. I sometimes refer to "admins as a group" or to "the admin system" in a pejorative way, since, like any collective, they sometimes behave collectively in a bad way, usually by avoiding things, such as not correcting things when an individual admin has behaved unskillfully, or by ignoring changes that should be made for the health of the community, because the changes might alter the admin power base. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've not misrepresented. As I told Anthonyhcole, you've not offered any qualifiers.  Without them, your statements are generalized.--v/r - TP 19:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TParis,
 * Rather, to avoid confusing weary and fallible readers, it is prudent to add explicit qualification (e.g., "some:) rather than assume that the audience practically knows that, in standard written English, it is fallacious to insert universal quantifiers---that the default quantification is existential. (I lost a point on the GRE logic section because of making this error.)  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So give specific examples, or stop this toxic rhetoric. It's fine to engage on points we specifically disagree on, it is not okay to make wild accusations like this, and then fail to substantiate them with a single instance. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm worried about the notion of a panel of content editors blocking and unblocking other content editors. I'm sure it would work better than the status quo if implemented today, but I worry about the politicisation it may eventually visit on the writing community here, and possible cabalism. For now, I'd prefer to focus on fixing the present system by implementing measures such as expunging, page bans for 3RR and restricted use of some buttons by some admins, all mooted here, as well as Requests for removal of adminship, Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept, Admin Lite, Request for Admin Sanctions and Requests for removal of adminship elsewhere. Though, I'm open to persuasion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well good luck... --Epipelagic (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't make what I meant clear! (My bad!) What I meant was the idea of a panel of other editors to look at the removal of bad blocks from editors' block logs, not the actual unblocking particularly.  I've pinged Sphilbrick, as this subject (the cleaning-up of block logs) is something which we discussed very briefly a short while back, and he may be interested in joining in this discussion.  It's the sub-sectioning "bad blocks" into another area which is my primary interest here, as it would be naïve to think that the number of blocks isn't used by an awful lot of editors in coming to their views in various discussions as to further blocks, etc. Sadly, no matter how intellismart some of us may be, there are probably more people who just don't take into account the justice or otherwise of entries in someone's block log before carping on about how many times an editor has been blocked, and this (being part of human nature) is something which, if we are a responsible and ethical community, is something that our processes need to allow for.  In Real Life, convictions can be overturned and then they are wiped from the criminal record.  That's the important bit. Adding: to avoid the cabalism thingie, how about having "block-log-cleaning-juries" drawn from a pool of suitable editors?  Editors could opt-in or opt-out of the pool, and a panel of 20 (or whatever number) could be drawn from a list of editors who have chosen to be available to look at whichever particular block log is under discussion.  It could work something a bit like opting-in for RfC's, to get a long-list for each case, and picking the working party from the long-list could be randomised.  Adding example:  I think that this situation is one which a panel of fair-right-minded editors would be likely to agree is the kind of block (Rodhullandemu's block of Malleus) which should be removed from the block log.  Adding more (bear with me!)  I do realise that this bit is somewhat of an Appeal to authority, but I have extensive Real Life experience of similar situations, having been involved with support group work for victims of miscarriages of justice for over a decade, so I really do know what I'm talking about when I talk about the damaging psychological effects that long-term injustice creates in normal humans.  Pesky  (talk ) 08:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pesky - no one is going to disagree with you that injustice causes harm. What we disagree about is what constitutes injustice?  If the blockee determines it was a bad block, was that injustice?  If a single admin determines and reverses it, is it a bad block?  Who or what determines what is or was a bad block?  Furthermore, who or what determines it was a innocent enough, though bad, block or that it was an egregious, vindictive, and abusive use of admin tools warranting a desysop?  Who determines those things?  And what sort of evidence is needed?  If a well liked editor goes off the deep end with personal attacks and has 100 buddies defending them, does that make the block bad?  How do we prevent abuse of mob rule?--v/r - TP 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I've had two blocks overturned. One of an editor so popular that he is allowed to directly insult other editors, and another of an editor so popular that he's allowed to lie with impunity. Both blocks were overturned, not because there was anything wrong with the block, but because the editor has accumulated allies.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:23, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well to be frank, I don't have a hundred friends. I might have 100 people who dislike or hate me...that's what happens when you have admin tools and you try to do the right thing in the face of POV pushers.  It's a natural causality that (...perceived because we actually hold tools, not...) authority will earn hatred and misunderstand or deliberate ignorance.  I wouldn't be surprised if I added a few here.  I need to start a TP-Cabal to back me up on ANI.--v/r - TP 15:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the majority of people can recognise, for the most part (at least) cases of clear wrongful blocks. This which I mentioned earlier is a case in point.  Very briefly, an admin who is directly involved in a petty snarkfest with another editor, takes it to the other editor's talk page, calls him "less important to me than the occasional dogshit on my shoe", and then blocks the other editor for saying Your opinion is worth less to me than the shit on my shoe. Now fuck off, there's a good good chap; that's clearly a bad block.  One of the benchmarks of a civilised society is whether it has effective and adequate methods for dealing with injustices perpetrated in its own name  the prevention of the odd swearword or snark is not one of the benchmarks of civilisation.  WikiLand doesn't currently have the required adequate methods for dealing with injustices; what we seem to have instead is a focus on the far-less-important (and very subjective) "civility", which in many cases seems to amount to little more than snobbery with menaces.  Pesky  (talk ) 16:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks to me that the consensus was that the difficult with that block was that Rod made it, and that it would have been reasonable for any other admin to do so. Rod was blocked for making the block, and many editors felt that Moni3's unblock of Malleus was the most problematic part of the whole episode. That's certainly not a block that should be expunged.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You mean that MF should have been blocked for just returning pretty much exactly what was said to him by the admin in the first place? And that Rod shouldn't have been blocked for saying it himself, and saying it first? That ... errmm ... doesn't seem like justice to me. All editors are equal, but some are more equal than others kinda thing? The block button should never, ever be used by an admin to win a fight. That's just outta order. WP:INVOLVED springs to mind. Pesky (talk ) 18:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't think examine Malleus block log is a good way to develop a proposal or find a consensus. It is a mess, that's for sure, but as has been pointed put there have been errors made all around. Focussing on someone who probably has the most controversial block log in all of en.wp is not the way to develop a policy proposal. There has also been near-constant drama around him for the past several months so the timing seems poor as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to correct one misapprehension: I never said that Rod shouldn't have been blocked, and may well have done so. I agree that Malleus's block log is not the place to start building policy from.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ummmm ... Kww ... my example of this particular block log was kinda in response to where you said "Can you show any evidence of the foundations of your argument? An injustice that has been built on the foundations of previous injustices? One where the blocks in the record need to be expunged?" (up there). If you take a good hard look at all the various blocks, and (more importantly) where blocks have been called for and supported by people saying "Look! He's been blocked x-number of times already!" to justify further blocks ... and so on (yup, it takes some determined research through archives in order to see the big picture) then, even if Malleus's block log is not an idea thing to use to develop a proposal or find consensus, it's a good one to use to illustrate the long-term effects.  An editor who's had some very dubious blocks (including for calling some people "sycophants", when other people regularly call other people enablers, fan-clubs, supporters (aka sycophants)) and has, quite understandably, therefore, become more than a little soured / damaged by this.  It's maybe not a good beginning for further work, but it's a darned good example of what happens when there's a "shoot first, ask questions later" thing going on.  If the bullet can be removed, leaving no scars, then that's maybe OK.  But if the bullet block isn't removable, then what you end up with is a festering sore  the block log thingie becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and the situation goes downhill like something on the Cresta Run.  Let's look at preventing that kind of thing in future.  Pesky  (talk ) 19:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with an editor being able to get his entire block log expunged after perhaps a year of "good behavior", but I believe that what has been pointed out in threads above is it will simply appear as a whiteout, not an erasal of said block. Perhaps the software could be tweaked? I believe the goal of all these discussions should center around how we can eliminate or at least greatly reduce unilateral blocking and unblocking of established editors. If it can't be done by some kind of software adapatation, then it should be written as policy which makes it more binding than what we have now.--MONGO 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent bad blocks
KWW asked for examples of bad blocks.

I received bad blocks recently that were protested by uninvolved administrators.

Because there was not consensus to overturn the blocks, they stood. The criterion for maintaining blocks should be that there is consensus for upholding the block among uninvolved administrators.

The first block was by Giant Snowman, who was edit warring to close a discussion with a close template, in violation of its directions, and violated involved.

Then, from the military project, Nick-D parachuted onto my page, knocking aside Black Kite who was counseling me to accept the realities of administrative bullshit, and removed my talk page access.

Finally, BWilkins---who had been involved with the start with "your only option is to shut it" intimidation, threatening blocks---indefinitely blocked me. He has failed to provide diffs supporting his allegations, despite repeated requests.

I suggest desysoping Giant Snowman and BWilkins, for failure to understand the "last resort" criterion of blocking, failure to document their allegations (violating WP:NPA) in the first place, failure to respond quickly to requests for explanations of their use of administrative tools, and using tools despite being involved.

TParis has removed diffs of these events from ANI and my talk page, so I shall not continue to document them here.

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not forget to mention, and you and I talked about this shortly after I unblocked you, that one of the concerns was the allegations and defamation of a Wikipedian who uses his real name.--v/r - TP 19:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your AN/I closing summary clarified that I did not make any allegations or defamations of the concerned Wikipedian. Please do not back-slide! Rather, please clarify here that I did not make any such allegations or defamations.
 * I should clarify that TParis was concerned about protecting the privacy of an editor, especially since the editor who initially raised a concern later expressed regret for not more deeply pondering consequences and his uncertainty. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (I don't know anything about Giant Snowman but BWilkins's use of the block button very much needs scrutiny, in my opinion. If you start an RfCU on him, would you please ping me? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC))
 * On second thought, this is not the first time that BWilkins has earned an immediate desysoping, so you may have a point.... Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  14:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I prefer to appeal to any sense of honor. TParis and Boing have records of rectifying unhappy actions when they become aware of a problem. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TParis, you seem to have endorsed BWilkins's block? Since BWilkins has refused to document his block or allegations, would you do it for him? Don't you agree that BWilkins was involved? Uncivil? etc.?
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  11:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have been nice to be advised that I was being discussed here. Kiefer: in ANI, and everywhere else, I have 100% documented the block.  Stop making crap up about me in order to stir the pot.  Move on FFS; this does not become you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, you gave no diffs. You did not respond to criticisms of the NPA allegations at ANI, for example my giving a diff documenting a statement that had repeatedly and falsely described as a personal attack. See SG's comments. You have not withdrawn "rampage" or "shut it". Why don't you shut down the stonewalling, until you do, and serve an honorable unofficial block?
 * There is no need to make crap up about you. You came to my page bizarrely blubbering that I did not know about your family situation, etc., rather than simply provide the diffs to support your allegations, as required. Perhaps this behavior is due to your inability to document your allegation?  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I refused to re-produce the diff's and details that had already been provided on ANI. You continue to refused to review the ANI - where the block was UPHELD in general - you were unblocked because you promised an admin that the behaviour would not continued.  That does not make it a bad block - it simply means the process we have for unblocks works.  I'm not required to continually restate the same thing again and again - such as I am now.  Your simple refusal to read and acknowledge that I already provided exactly what you asked for is grating on this project as a whole, and shows a WP:BATTLE mentality that I'm absolutely astounded to find from an editor who I once held in high regard.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are confusing diffs listed when D-Nick removed talk page access? I provided diffs rebutting falsehoods.
 * I did not promise TParis that my "behavior would not continue" (diff 18:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC), stating that it would be better for BWilkins to pay the price for abusing administrative tools). Please stop stating falsehoods (false witnessing) and supply diffs.
 * I have no interest in your family, your use (or not) of WP for social networking, your regard for me, etc. Please stick to the issue and stop smokescreening. Provide diffs. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  13:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this as being a particularly bad block. Were you edit-warring? Certainly. Have you been around long enough that you know not to do so? Certainly. Were you likely to stop simply by being requested to do so? No, as you had been both requested to stop and warned that you would be blocked if you continued. Have you been around long enough to understand that public discussion of accusations of sexual misbehaviour on Wikipedia noticeboards is likely to cause lasting damage, even if those accusations are unfounded? Certainly. "Last resort" doesn't mean "after decades of debate", it means "after it is clear that other techniques are unlikely to work", and it was clear that no other method was likely to work. As for consensus, it would have required consensus to lift the block, not to allow it to continue.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to have written without having read or understood the discussions.
 * The administrator was edit warring. I discussed my position on the talk page, and administrator Giant Snowman never even replied. He blocked, as an involved administrator.
 * I made no accusation of sexual misbehavior. Please retract your allegation.
 * Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that you had made such an accusation, but the topic you were unclosing did. Why do you see Giant Snowman as "involved"? Because he had reverted and warned you earlier?&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kww,
 * Conflicts should be resolved through discussion, not through bully boys getting their jollies by threatening blocks, ordering editors to "shut it", accusing editors of "going on a rampage", blocking, etc.
 * Your statement about my "understanding" was written in ignorance of the facts. In fact, very quickly Dennis Brown and I agreed on a simple statement that anybody with concerns should just contact e.g. Elen of the Roads or another another senior administrator---not one of the teletubbies/Wiggles at ANI. In other words, what was needed was a simple statement without drama, achieved by consensus, not the sturm und drang of IRC-chums/administrators behaving like bully boys.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Consensus---needed to continue a block or to unblock?

 * Without getting into the specifics of those particular blocks, this raises an important point: If an admin unblocked you and then the discussion started, a clear consensus in favor of blocking would be required to restore the block. Yet if the discussion starts first, and there is no consensus either in favor of, or against the block, you can remain blocked. Where the block isn't the result of a previous consensus in favor of blocking, the same level of consensus should be required to keep an editor blocked as to overturn an unblock. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  22:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the policy point that is of most relevance. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed, Monty, and I've been trying to push for what you say for years, probably too tactlessly to have much impact, because it seems so fucking obvious to me. I'm bad at arguing about it because I just don't see any arguments on the other side that I can refute. Unless indeed you count the common implicit argument that "look, an admin blocked him, therefore he must be an abusive user, therefore let's keep'im blocked." Bishonen &#124; talk 01:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC).


 * No admin action should be reversed without a consensus to do so or the agreement of the admin making the action. As I've commented throughout this discussion, most of our problematic block logs are the result of admins undoing blocks that they should not have undone, not the other way around.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In a number of those cases, the unblock was discussed, and the block was not reinstated. It stands to reason that if there really was consensus in favor of blocking, the block would have been reinstated when discussed. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  01:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem is generally a no-consensus overall. That's why we get into these problems: frequently misbehaving but popular editors will always have enough supporters that sustaining the most well-deserved blocks can be difficult. No consensus should result in upholding the block, not reversing it. Most of these editors would either stop misbehaving or leave, rather than thriving on the drama created by rallying supporters against efforts to get them to adhere to policies that should apply to all.&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's destructive nonsense. Frequently misbehaving admins who are popular in certain circles will always have enough supporters to allow them to survive making undeserved blocks. No consensus should result in upholding the block, not reversing it (I don't know what that means, but I suppose it's harmless enough). Most of the admins who make undeserved blocks on able content builders should either stop misbehaving or leave, rather than thriving on the drama created by rallying supporters against the rights of content builders to write the encyclopedia in a non threatening environment. When are you going to stop agitating for the removal of some of our finest editors? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins that frequently make undeserved blocks should be desysopped. Our finest editors don't attack other editors, edit war, or chronically behave in any fashion that results in being blocked. That's part of being one of our "finest editors." &mdash;Kww(talk) 03:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you committed yourself more to the creative process of building worthwhile articles, you would realize that a range of behaviours are appropriate, and that all content editors can slip up under pressure from time to time. Your demand that content builders must be saints is unrealistic. Your approach is rigid, unforgiving and unkind. I for one don't want to work in such a punitive environment. I believe that users who push the views you are pushing are doing Wikipedia a huge disservice. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How is "[do not] chronically behave in any fashion that results in being blocked" equivalent to expecting sainthood? That's the kind of rhetoric that makes actual discussion so difficult.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made clear that, once an editor has received a block, that editor can expect to be blocked by you indefinitely and without warning if they slip up again. Those block logs are permanent, so they can only get longer. The longer an editor works here and the more work they do, the more they are at risk from unforgiving admins like yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm quite forgiving, and lift blocks whenever an editor credibly indicates that the problem won't repeat. No one is at risk of being blocked for doing work. They are at risk of being blocked for misbehaving. I wholly reject any suggestion that there is a positive correlation between long-term productivity and attacking other editors.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Who said there is "a positive correlation between long-term productivity and attacking other editors"? You just made that up! Or should I say "That's the kind of rhetoric that makes actual discussion so difficult." --Epipelagic (talk) 04:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Substitute "behaviour that attracts blocks" for "attacking other editors".&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The policy states that blocks are a last resort.
 * The "last resort" language is already sufficently understood and supported by the community, that its application should be simple.
 * If there is criticism of the block by uninvolved administrators or if the block disrupts community discussions, then the block should be ended quickly. The policy needs clarification, not change.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "No admin action should be reversed ..." This isn't a compelling argument due to the inherent asymmetry to blocking. If editor X is reported to ANI, and admins A through E review and decide not to block, they've evaluated the situation but are not on record as "having taken" an admin action. So when admin F blocks there opinion should take precedence? Where appropriate, quick unblocks are essential to putting out wiki brouhahas; e.g. the fairly recent nearly simultaneous boneheaded blocks of a vested contributor and a member of the arbitration committee. Had those blocks lingered longer we would have had all the usual suspects in a prolonged mudslinging match which would have inflamed lingering hard feelings and brought no benefit to the encyclopedia. NE Ent 16:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it's truly a faulty block, then there will quickly be a consensus to unblock. If this is tapdancing around my last block of Malleus, note that the discussion at AN was for earlier problems, and that discussion had closed 9 hours before he started with renewed attacks. People tended to miss that point in the ensuing handwringing (of which I view about 70% of this discussion as being part of).&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kww, you asked for examples of bad blocks, and I gave mine. Please show good-faith by addressing an example that you requested.
 * Please avoid sexist phrasing like "hand wringing". Please take a discussion of your administrative tenure to your talk page, and renew your focus on policy here. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussed in the appropriate spot. I don't believe that "hand wringing" is limited to any gender, race, creed, or ethnicity. There have been numerous efforts to used misrepresentations of events in my past as hypotheticals in this discussion, and I will continue to point out when those misrepresentations are incorrect when I deem in appropriate.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Consensus needed to continue a block or to unblock" is incompatible with acceptance of unilateral long or indef blocks, except for case 2 blocks as defined far above (vandals, spammers, disruptive socks, etc). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * True. All blocks, other than for credible legal threats or threats of harm, or of clear and unambiguous vandals, spammers and socks, should be announced on AN or ANI for the scrutiny of the community. Blocks that fail to gain the support of the community should be undone, expunged from the victim's record and added to a "Log of expunged blocks". The log of expunged blocks might be attached to the perpetrator's user name, as their block log is, or it could be a sortable list of all such blocks - sortable by perpetrator, victim and date. The log of expunged blocks would serve as an excellent tool to keep an eye on cowboy or incompetent admins.


 * I'm disturbed by the position espoused by Kww that, where there is no consensus in support of a block, it should stand. ("No consensus should result in upholding the block, not reversing it.") Does anyone, other than admins, agree with this? If we're going to err in the use of the block button, we should err on the side of the victim, not the pride and precious feelings of the admin issuing a contentious block. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of logical fallacies, there's a false dichotomy.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What? Where? We either undo or uphold blocks for which there is no consensus. Are you saying there is another option? Try to be clear. (I'm going out now.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * People that are blocked are rarely being victimized, and the purpose of upholding a block has nothing to do with the "pride and precious feelings of the admin".&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oooh, ooohh, Kww you did it! You referrred to groups of editors as "always have enough supporters"! Yaaaayyyyyyy!  Can you be blocked for incivility, now like Malleus was when he referred to a group of editors as "sycophants"?  That would be justice, yes? We should work from the presumption of innocence ... the status normus should be not-being-blocked.  If there's no consensus for continuing the block, the block should go, on the basis that it kinda proves that there isn't consensus for a block.  And all bad blocks should be subject to being removed from the block log to a bad-blocks log.  With regard to the likelihood of prolific editors being more likely to be blocked, it's kinda obvious in the same way that drivers' insurance premiums are based on how much they drive, and where they drive.  I've referred to this obviousness before.  A driver who does 1,000 miles per year along quiet country lanes is much, much less likely to be involved in a collision than one who drives 30,000 miles a year in inner-city areas frequented by boy racers, commuters with road rage, delivery vehicles blocking visibility, and all that.  This is, again, why we need to make it a little easier for people to look at, for example, blocks-per-thousand article edits, and blocks-per-years-of-service, to be able to compare like with like.  A editor who gets blocked once per thousand article-edits will collect far more blocks if he does 1,000 edits a month than if he only does 500 edits per year.  Editors regularly working in article-space are far more likely to come across situations that occasionally make them growl, and if the petty little growls are hammered with the full violence that genuine vandalism, socking, etc. are hammered with, we've got it very wrong.   In Real Life, people do get compensation for wrongful convictions.  Obviously we can't do the compensation thing in here; but the very least we should be able to offer, as an allegedly humane community, is compassion, based on insight and understanding.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Paradoxically, this user has been disrupting one topic area since October, there has even been an RFCU, and no one seems willing to issue a block. Post-close notice (Topic ban, what topic ban?)—Neotarf (talk) 10:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please clarify how your notice is related to our topic. Thanks! Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:50, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthony, Kiefer and Pesky, please stand back and look at what is happening to you. This typically happens when content editors attempt to discuss their admin concerns on pages like these. Usually two or three admins come in like tag wrestlers (and usually another two or three admin wannabees, mercifully absent in this thread). They respond with monotonous and mechanical nay-saying to every issues raised, like Khrushchev at the United Nations, until the editors are worn down. The substantial issues behind the thread get scant attention.

You are being played like puppets on a string. Admins who engage in threads like this often have no interest in listening empathetically, at least not to content builders. It becomes a power struggle instead of a rational and sensitive debate. They are looking for where they might apply another verbal judo hold to throw you off balance again. Apart from that, they endlessly reiterate slogans supporting some hardline, uncompromising and uncomprehending admin model they want to promote. They know that if you vent long enough you will eventually become spent forces, and that will be the end of the matter. If the energy of the participating admins starts to flag, there are others lounging in the wings that can reinforce them.

Your energy is being wasted. Please find more effective ways to spend your energy, such as envisioning how a more benign admin system might become operational, and looking at the mechanics of how the current admin system might be seamlessly deconstructed and reconstructed into a more optimal system which works for the community as a whole. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree it is a relief to find no admin wannabe idiots in this thread. And I take your point about the emptiness of the admin responses. I'm done here, I think . I just had to satisfy myself that the admins responding here have no valid arguments against any of the three main proposals: temporary page ban over blocking for 3RR, community removal of the block button (and other buttons) from admins where appropriate and expunging of bad blocks from victims' block logs. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If that's what you concluded, you need to reread the discussion, Anthony.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "arguments" are empty waffle and naked assertions. Your assertions that blocks are painless and that a dubious block must not be overturned without the consent of the blocking admin show exactly where you're coming from. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My irony meter just exploded. Weren't you the one worried about ad hominem attacks? Claiming that the motivation of people making an argument are irrelevant? Aren't the feeling of admins (most of whom, like myself, volunteer their time to help this site run smoothly) at important as the feelings of editors?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * What ad hominem attack? Anthony merely made a factually correct assessment of your contributions, your "arguments" are empty waffle and naked assertions. That is my assessment also. If that is not correct, then show where you have made any nuanced responses that weren't empty waffle or mere assertions. If you can do that, then I will apologise to you, and I'm sure Anthony will too. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kww, give up. Anthonyhcole had a spirit of discussion at the start, and Pesky has usually been able to discuss, but Epipelagic's rants are causing the clouds of war to develop.  There is no point discussing with folks who arn't willing to change their opinion or look at something from another point of view.  You know, the exact things we're expected to do.  Epipelagic is convinced of his opinion and he's not going to budge at all.  Useless even bothering to try to explain to someone why the world spins and holds people accountable for their actions.  Even when we gave ground that some editors are blocked inappropriately, instead of trying to discuss how to fix this, he wanted more.  Time to go.--v/r - TP 03:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you both stay around and see what we can get done here...this dialogue is only getting started and though I feel we're going off on tangents from what the root issue is, this policy page is finally getting some scrutiny and we need diverse opinions to hash out what can be done to make for a more positive blocking policy.--MONGO 03:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to find solutions, so I'd like to stay if we can do that.--v/r - TP 03:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I sort of opened up the discussions almost two weeks ago simply stating that I felt that the blocking policy no longer reflects real life...that there might be some way to either alter the software or to make policy more binding as to eliminating unilateral blocks and unblocks on established editors (whatever that means, say 500 articlespace edits). The reason I suggested this wasn't to defend indefensible actions by any editor, but to ensure good blocks stick and to ensure bad unblocks can't happen either. My sense is that we have every few emergencies in which an editor must be blocked immdiately...so I'm thinking that short of opening arbcom cases, perhaps some form of consensus can be made before blocks are applied akin to what is done at arbitration enforcement, where several admins usually agree to issue a topic ban or block. I'm wondering if therer might be a way to redflag established editors with some sort of boilerplate caution seen by the blocking admin before they implement blocks. I admit that maybe I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm still fishing for better ideas that some smarter editor than I might come up with. Right now, I'm just throwing ideas out there to see if others think I'm too far out or at least on to something.....--MONGO 04:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll start by saying that I don't have any objections to your behaviour in this discussion. I do tend to disagree with you, but that's supposed to be acceptable. Unilateral blocks and unblocks are the norm, not the exception. It's how the system works: admins block when they feel it's necessary, people post unblock requests, and the blocking admin isn't allowed to refuse an unblock. That way, at least two admins look at any block that the editor didn't accept as justified. If the second admin thinks the block can be lifted, he lifts it, and, if he feels it needs discussion, he takes to ANI. I don't see that there is anything being proposed that actually improves on that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kww, “Unilateral blocks and unblocks are the norm”. I thought this was something you objected to?  While you seem to have less trouble with unilateral blocks, I thought you have trouble with any other admin being able to unilaterally unblock your block?  This is a situation of two admins with opposing views, and the second admin having the trump vote.    I’d have thought that you’d want the norm to be that at least two admins are needed to overrule the blocking admin?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I object to cowboy unblocks, where a second admin preempts the block without consideration or discussion. The normal unblock cycle, where the unblocking admin gives deference to the block but can unblock if the user shows some reasonably credible sign of reform is the normal cycle, and I don't object to that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 06:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And what about "cowboy blocks, where when admins are already discussing, a later admin preemptively blocks without consideration or discussion"? I'm sure you can see how that could lead to an unblock by one of the admins who was already present and dealing with whatever situation,? Gimmetoo (talk) 13:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to keep on attempting to achieve some reasonable level of communication on this type of issue, as and when Real Life Issues™ (youngest grandson) permit. I don't object to strings (being of the grandparently generation, I was a whizz at Cat's cradle in my day). One of the things I find more than ordinarily frustrating is the tendency of apparently-intelligent people to point out what they see as problems within other people's solutions, as opposed to thinking creatively and collaboratively about the solutions to those perceived problems. Stonewalling and denial aren't constructive, and after a point one has to be alert to why people may be stonewalling as opposed to creating. Building solutions, of course, requires rather more insight than just knocking down opponents. But I do concede that people can just have a bad day / week / month / year (whatever) and it may not be coming easily to them right at that moment. That doesn't mean that they may not find those extra resources and reasonableness at any time, though. It's worth persisting, even if it just encourages a few other admins to take a look, as we don;t seem to be having very many participants here, and fresh blood always helps. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 10:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Pesky, by describing what's going on here as "the tendency of apparently-intelligent people to point out what they see as problems within other people's solutions, as opposed to thinking creatively and collaboratively about the solutions to those perceived problems," you're overlooking one of the main arguments being made by people involved on the opposite side from you in discussions like this: in many cases, they're pointing out the problems with your solutions rather than proposing their own solutions because they don't believe there is a problem (or because they feel that a solution that's being proposed is worse than the status quo of doing nothing). So for instance, you may find yourself frustrated how the "other side" here is arguing against your preference to expunge unblock logs when the blocked editor feels they were wronged, rather than the "other side" proposing their own solutions to the issue of blocked editors feeling/being wronged - but the truth may be (and probably is, in some cases) that those people on the "other side" simply don't feel that "I believe I was wronged by being blocked" is a problem that needs a solution at all. You're arguing from the assumption that anything you (or John Q. Editor, or whoever) thinks is a problem is a problem, when the fact is that we could argue all day about what constitutes a problem before we could ever start arguing about how to fix any problems that did exist. Assuming that people are somehow acting unintelligent or are purposely stonewalling you, rather than they simply don't agree with your perception of a/the problem, is a problem in itself. Step one in any discussion like this needs to be an attempt to define some sort of starting point, along the lines of "Is X a problem? If not X, is Y-which-is-like-X a problem? Ok, we all mostly agree that Z is a problem, even if it's not a stricter/laxer definition than X. Now, given the consensus that Z is a problem, let's hear solutions." If you instead start out with "X is a problem and I think we should fix it," you're pretty much always going to get bogged down in the fact that not everyone agrees that X (or "the literal wording" of X, or not-quite X) is a problem to start with. So looking at the discussions that have been happening on this page while I was away this week, for example, I see failure to reach consensus on the existence and definitions of a number of problems ("bad" blocks, block log contents, unilateral blocking, unilateral unblocking, editors feeling wronged, The Great Injustices Of The World...), which is then being worsened by five or six people all trying to discuss their view of what constitutes each of those problems, and all of those people are shocked, shocked that nobody seems to agree on a solution. Well no wonder, since no one's talking about the exact same problem in the first place! I know everyone here is very concerned about a lot of issues, but we all need to keep in mind that we need to agree on a very basic starting point for what each of those issues is and if it exists before we can get anywhere with fixing them. I would suggest that if you feel these issues really need to be hashed out, you subdivide them. For one issue, see if we can reach consensus on what a "bad block" is. Then see if we can agree on whether the mere existence of "bad" log entries needs fixing. Then see if we can agree on how they ought to be fixed. Or maybe for another issue, see if we can agree on what constitutes a "unilateral" or "cowboy" action. Then see if we can agree on whether these actions can trump consensus. Then see if we can agree on what defines "consensus" in an AN(I) discussion. Or whatever. Before moving on to "here's the fix" for anything, we need to figure out what the problem is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fluff, I wasn't thinking of this sort of thing applying to something which I, or which the blocked editor (alone) thinks is a bad block. I was referring to blocks which a panel of established editors, picked at random from long-lists of editors who've signed up as interested (like signing up for RfC notifications, etc.) would agree (consensus, etc.) was a bad block.  In each case where someone has said something along the lines of "But that would create [insert problem here]]", I'm simply trying to show that the perceived problems would be, in  most cases, pretty simple to address.  If an idea is basically sound, but has a few wrinkles which need to be ironed out, then we don't throw out the whole idea - just look for ways of ironing out the wrinkles.  That seems to make sense for me. I'm well aware that there will always be those who don't see a problem - this has been the case right throughout human history.  As Benjamin Franklin said: "Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are."  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Proposal for established editors The first admin blocks for 1 second. Then discuss.  There will be no "unblock" because it will expire.  Rather, a second uninvolved admin can extend the block after discussion or evaluation.  Now it takes a clear consensus to be the third admin in or face wheel-warring accusation.  To block, you need two admins and to unblock, you need community consensus.  This stops a single admin's bad block (1 sec) from having a lasting effect and it prevents fan bases from undoing good blocks.  This seems to be what we want to accomplish. --DHeyward (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't think this is a good idea. It would make it too cheap to block an editor and some editors do use the presence/log of a block log as a badge of shame. NE Ent 12:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Oh Jeeze, "fan bases" again. That means the same as "sycophants".  What about those who aren't sycophants, just normal, sane, concerned people who can see more of the backstory or recognise that the blocking admin was involved, or whatever?  Even if not involved in that particular instance, what when that admin has a long history of seething grudge against the editor in question?  Blocking establishes editors, unless in a truly emergency situation, shouldn't really be done without consensus, really.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 12:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

All blocks other than for unambiguous threats, spam, vandalism and sockpuppetry must be reported for community scrutiny on WP:AN somewhere
This seems, on its face, like a good idea to me but I'd welcome any comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Too great a change.  "All unblocks not supported by the blocking admin must be raised at WP:ANI for discussion before unblocking" sounds better to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The blocking editor can always try to establish a consensus for blocking. Perhaps an admins who makes a block without consensus should be blocked for the duration their block lasted. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Only way that'd work is if you did away with the notion of "no punishment blocks" because after 24 hours of discussion, the only block that might result would be a punishment block. You're also giving the user a 24-hour window of ranting, personal attacks, and abuse during that discussion as well.  For a moment, put aside your own experience getting blocked.  Imagine some guy coming on Wikipedia with a strong point of view against yours who start flaming you, big time, harassing you and following all your edits and trolling everywhere.  Do you really want admins to wait for 24 hours for a consensus to develop to block them?  It doesn't even have to be a new editor.  What if I decide I've had enough and I start trolling you and harassing you.  Should I be given 24 hours of it before I can be blocked?--v/r - TP 14:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm with TP here. I support unilateral blocks by admins. Here, I'm just proposing they log their blocks in a public place. Transparency. It would take ten seconds. No one has really given a good reason not to. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was suggesting that if a block is made and undone, and if the blocking admin doesn't like it then the blocking admin is welcome to try to get consensus for blocking. Your scenario is interesting, for quite a few reasons. But consider: uncontroversial blocks don't generally get undone. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misunderstood. Let's not talk about unblocks in this thread. I'm just suggesting editors add a note to AN when they do a block that requires good judgment. What happens if it gets undone by a lone admin can be discussed in the thread Kww opens on the topic. :) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? This is taking instruction creep to a whole new level. SmokeyJoe's point makes more sense but even then I think that the *all* clause is too much. I see no need for either-- Cailil  talk 13:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest an example of an unblock explicitly opposed by the blocking admin and unblocked anyway, that should not be mentioned at ANI? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And don't forget sockpuppetry. And... As above, instruction creep, bad idea. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Anything else? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is already best practice. Moreover, the first thing that happens when an editor is given a contentious block is that those who disagree with it race to ANI to report it. So insomuch as it affects anyone arguing for it, this is the de facto rule already. Making it de jure would simply be instruction creep. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I vaguely recall an instance of an editor blocking another editor for no good reason and it not coming to the attention of the wider community. I'll have a think about it and see if I can remember what it was. Anyway, I'm greatly relieved by your reassurance. This is excellent good news. Nothing to worry about then. Storm in a teacup. Solution looking for a problem. Sorry for the trouble. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what this is. That you're making catty comments about it without a shred of evidence to the contrary reinforced that. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Way too much creep. This would mean that 99% of my blocks (socks) would have to be reported, even after CU declared they were confirmed.  Most admin know to report at WP:AN if they are potentially involved or there should be more scrutiny. Adding more layers of bureaucracy is an answer to a question that no one asked. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 14:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I added socks to the list of exemptions. Out of curiosity, where is the page that logs all blocks as they happen? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block Gimmetoo (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I oppose this proposal because of the large number of blocks not covered by the criteria that no reasonably person would question or feel the need to discuss. AN is for admins who feel their block may warrant wider review, for those who otherwise feel a block may not represent an interpretation of the blocking policy that holds broad support, or for those who believe an unblock request or block terms would benefit from greater community participation. This proposal would drown out those instances with the dozens to hundreds of daily 3RR/EW, username, ethnic AE, and other similar types of blocks.  MBisanz  talk 14:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there that many non-spam, non-vandal, non-sock, non-threat blocks? Can you point me to the page that logs all blocks, please? I'd like to have a look. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Special:BlockList Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec) They're all logged at Special:Log/block... Anyway, looking at this sample, I see blocks for usernameblock, disruptive editing, edit warring, blocked proxy, copyright violations, role accounts, etc. Even discounting the username and proxy blocks, I suspect there would be at least 50-100 reportable blocks per day.  MBisanz  talk 14:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring ProcessBot's proxy blocking, I calculated the number of blocks given per day. Obviously a fair number of these might fall within the exception, but I'm not skilled enough to parse the log in a systematic manner. For the last week, the number of non-proxy blocks given daily is:


 * January 12: 281
 * January 11: 436
 * January 10: 487
 * January 9: 926
 * January 8: 380
 * January 7: 240
 * January 6: 684


 * Hope that helps show the potential impact of this proposal.  MBisanz  talk 14:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm looking through it now. Name blocks can be added to the exemption list (once the community forces admins to actually apply policy in that area). I'll get back to you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Of 500 blocks in the last 12 hours (05:08 – 14:59) four fell outside the exemptions.
 * {| class="wikitable" border="1"

! Type ! Qty
 * vandalism
 * 56
 * anonblock
 * 15
 * username
 * 19
 * uw-softerblock
 * 4
 * spam
 * 43
 * 3RR
 * 1
 * sockpuppetry
 * 21
 * Block evasion
 * 5
 * blocked proxy
 * 336
 * }
 * User:BluDaw by User:Qwyrxian. Continuing to insert unsourced BLP.
 * User:Hammed Abdisyawal by User:DeltaQuad. Edit-warring against established consensus.
 * 222.153.223.81 by User:Materialscientist. Personal attacks or harassment
 * User:Starship9000 by User:Drmies. Disruptive editing.
 * Surely it wouldn't be too onerous for these four admins to pop a note on AN?. It's bedtime here. I'll check my numbers tomorrow. Might do another 500. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've checked it, but are you assuming the vandalism, anon, and spam blocks are all "obvious?"  MBisanz  talk 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at a lot of it and everything I saw was unambiguous. I'll check some more tomorrow. But, of course, if an admin is unsure, he or she can post it on AN for scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 336
 * }
 * User:BluDaw by User:Qwyrxian. Continuing to insert unsourced BLP.
 * User:Hammed Abdisyawal by User:DeltaQuad. Edit-warring against established consensus.
 * 222.153.223.81 by User:Materialscientist. Personal attacks or harassment
 * User:Starship9000 by User:Drmies. Disruptive editing.
 * Surely it wouldn't be too onerous for these four admins to pop a note on AN?. It's bedtime here. I'll check my numbers tomorrow. Might do another 500. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've checked it, but are you assuming the vandalism, anon, and spam blocks are all "obvious?"  MBisanz  talk 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at a lot of it and everything I saw was unambiguous. I'll check some more tomorrow. But, of course, if an admin is unsure, he or she can post it on AN for scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you've checked it, but are you assuming the vandalism, anon, and spam blocks are all "obvious?"  MBisanz  talk 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I had a look at a lot of it and everything I saw was unambiguous. I'll check some more tomorrow. But, of course, if an admin is unsure, he or she can post it on AN for scrutiny. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This would actually be counter productive, the person is already blocked, the log entry is there, and they are stuck blocked for the duration of the discussoin. Further, it attracts more public attention to what in most cases is an embarrassment for the blocked person, and the flood of uncontentious blocks being reported would drown out the ones that really need to be reviewed. I'm unaware of any problems getting a discussion started at AN or AN/I once a blocked editor has requested one, which is a far better approach in that it lets the blocked editor steer the course taken. That is not to say having more discussions pre-block wouldn't be a good idea, but post block discussion practice is fine, other then the issue regarding what consensus needs to be discussed in the section above. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just looking for a bit of transparency and scrutiny, Monty. I think the community has the right to readily oversee, in a timely manner, how the block button is being used. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Since all blocks are already logged, they are pretty transparent. You can always go to the talk page of the blocking admin for any block you think is out of order, then take it to WP:AN if you don't find satisfaction in the explanation.  This is the current system, which works well since the vast majority of blocks are not contentious.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 17:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How would I, or anyone else on the project, know that the block had been made? Are we all meant to scan through five hundred blocks every twelve hours? That's not transparency. Putting blocks that demand good judgement, such as these four (all of which seem fine to me), on display at AN would help with transparency, which I'm sure we're all in favour of. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How do you know any of my edits that use books as sources are reliable or honest? I probably do fewer blocks than most admin because of the areas I work in, but if I had to take them all the WP:AN and explain what should be obvious, I would hand back my bit. I have plenty of paperwork I have to do here as it is.  So would other admin, for that matter.  We all have to go through RfA, prove we have a little common sense, all our admin actions are logged, we all must respond to questions about any action we make, any admin can revert us, and we are all answerable to both the community at WP:AN and Arbom.  There is transparency.  No block is hidden.  What you are suggesting is more likely to cause drama than prevent bad blocks, as every single block will be reviewed and the real problem blocks get lost in the shuffle.  This would be like having Pending Changes on every single article.  It is overkill.  At some point, you have to have a little good faith, then back that up with spot checks.  If you suspect one admin is making bad blocks, it is easy enough to look through only their blocks. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 17:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the relevance to this thread of your first question. Could you elaborate please? I'm not suggesting you explain all your non-exempt blocks at AN, just that you report them - with a diff/s to the incident/s provoking the block. RfA does not prove good social judgment, it proves you can pass RfA. Proof of social judgment emerges over time as the community scrutinises the behaviour of the admin. Then, of course, removing an admin who can judge consensus at an XfD but treats editors like shit is next to impossible. The present system is not transparent when, in order to scrutinise admin judgment in blocking, interested editors have to look through 500 blocks every 12 hours. That's hiding, the bureaucratic way. An open admin corps would be happy to announce these blocks as they happen. It is nothing like pending changes. Nothing. The change happens the moment you hit "block"; it is transparency, openness after the fact. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The relevance is that at some level, you have to assume good faith, and if you can't assume good faith based on several instances of it proving foolhardy, then the individual shouldn't be an admin, or editor. If I ever get to the point that the community needs to check my every block, then I shouldn't be an admin, in other words.  For that matter, I wouldn't want to be an admin because experience has shown me that if I have to report every block, then as a human, I might just avoid contentious but proper blocks, and "reporting" it means I have to answer questions, and I promise you that every day will be a new drama fest for which ever admin is not a community darling at that given moment in time.  I do understand the desire to have more information, coming from your side, but being on this side and seeing the drama that is already possible with every action I take as an admin, the idea of adding more would just make it too much to put up with.  Again, if you can't trust someone, get them desysoped, myself included.  If you aren't sure, you can track their every action as it is now.  And you can do so much easier than verifying article content because every single piece of evidence for a block will be found here at Wikipedia. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 00:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of transparency. I don't like the idea of make-work. I would support a bot outputting a list of blocks that do not contain certain block summaries (like open proxy blocks, sock blocks, username blocks, etc) to a page, but I wouldn't support adding even greater process without a clear sign of benefit (like a showing that of the 8 blocks on an average day you believe would require reporting, 3 of them, on average, tend to be problematic and go unreported).  MBisanz  talk 18:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Make work"? A two line note at AN? This is not something we can leave to a bot. Deciding what is and is not exempt is something the blocking admin can decide better than any bot.
 * Is there anyway to parse the number of names accounts blocked that had 500, 1000, etc edits or at least 90-180 days of history? Trying to see if some sort of benchmark can be established.MONGO 18:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's beyond my technical know-how, but it would probably be possible for MZMcBride.  MBisanz  talk 18:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I ran a few queries, take a look at ~legoktm/blocks/ which has two files, the filename indicating the editcount threshold for each one. I haven't had the time to analyze the data yet, but it should be accurate. Legoktm (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would the community draw a distinction between editors with 500 or 1000 edits and those with less? Users are just as likely to exercise poor judgment (probably more likely) in blocking a new account as they are in blocking a veteran. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The criticism from admins above is that this proposal would add to their work load. They are not concerned about having to draw attention to their judgment-call blocks with a two line note at AN, which would take less than a minute in most cases. They're worried that more people may scrutinise their work and this may entail more work. I admit, that's how transparency works. The more people know about what you're doing, the more answerable you'll be. The likelihood is, though, if someone challenges your block report at AN, lots of other people, including your peers, will review it and the scrutiny should be fair, provided you've given the relevant diff/s in your report. In most cases, no one will say a word; in those rare cases when someone objects, your peers will review it and, provided you've been transparent in your report, they'll make an appropriate assessment without you having to say a word. This should greatly reduce the number of cowboy unblocks, as each contentious judgment-call block will be being discussed at AN before the cowboy can reach for his tool. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If a block is a cowboy block and a questionable block, someone, somewhere, will complain about being blocked, about their friend being blocked, or about their admin-adversary making a cowboy questionable block. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it make a sound? If we don't have evidence of bad blocks going unreported, I don't see why we need to increase the workload of our already diminished admin corp. I also don't see why a block-summary filtering bot like I described above wouldn't meet the same purpose of greater visibility to less routine blocks.  MBisanz  talk 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If an injustice occurs and no one sees it, an injustice occurs. Having been through the exercise I went through last night, I see there are blocks that fall into the exempt categories that don't include standardised language in their block summaries so, with automated reporting, these would appear at AN as false positives. If you think the number of false positives would be minimal, I'd support the bot idea. It is not unduly onerous for admins to manually report their judgment-call blocks to AN, but if it could be accurately automated, all the better. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would be worried that reporting this quantity of blocks (automatic or required or whatever) will just be a long list that gets ignored. We already have the unblock-request template and resulting category. That would be good except 1) admins or their friends can deny unblock requests of their own blocks, preventing impartial review, and 2) admins can remove talk page access, preventing an unblock review at all. If it were clear that admins cannot deny unblock requests for their or their friends blocks, and that talk page access should only be removed for serious abuse, and there were serious enough consequences for not following, then I think blocks would get adequately reviewed through the request template. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * AN would be far more open than the unblock request category, which I'd never heard of and I'm sure many other long term editors haven't heard of either. I was assuming a new section at AN for each new judgement-call block, not a long separate list in a sidebar, which I agree could be easily ignored. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For me, this comment indicates that your opinions are not based on a good understanding of how the current system works. You seem to argue from a very small number of cases. As for the workload, if you can make an AN or ANI report with diffs in a minute, you are a faster typist and diff collector than I am. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Gimmee makes a good point. Reporting all these would make the really abusive blocks just blend with the woodworks, and in the end, you would end up with LESS transparency. TMI is just as bad as not enough info. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 00:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't. All of the existing forms of scrutiny would remain, such as bystanders and request for unblock. Blocking admin reports on AN would add to, not detract from, scrutiny, and most blocking admin reports to AN would go unremarked. As for it being time-consuming, I have followed a lot of blocks on ANI and most uncontroversial ones can be and are explained in a couple of diffs and a couple of sentences. Of course more scrutiny may attract more interrogation of controversial blocks, which would be time-consuming, I suppose. But that's the price of transparency and police and bureaucrats always come up with exactly the above complaints when a community tries to impose transparency. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks disrupting community discussions including uninvolved administrators
Proposal: "When the community is already discussing a problem, no administrator should take it upon himself to block an editor, without gaining consensus from the community. Any such blocks should be issued by an uninvolved administrator already in the discussion. Administrators advocating such blocks should discuss the matter with administrators active in the discussion."

Kiefer .Wolfowitz  18:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is going to be hard to prove. What if I happen upon ANI, I see that people are discussing a block of "Bob", I decide a discussion isn't needed and just go block him.  How do you know if I was aware of that discussion or not?  What if I was just patrolling recent changes, found the problem and blocked him, and really didn't know there was a discussion at ANI?  I don't see admin going to WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:AN3 plus any other venue to check before making a block every time, nor being willing to.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 18:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dennis, you should check the talk page before issuing a block. ANI discussions must have notices on talk pages. It is really not an onerous requirement.
 * How do you think Black Kite felt when Nick-D removed talk page access? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for any other admin. I'm not exactly block happy, but no, I do not check ANI/AN3, etc.  If I'm blocking, I've checked the talk page because I've usually tried to talk to the individual.  Even if the issue has been taken to ANI, that doesn't bar me from taking action anyway.  Not everyone has the same threshold, so I can only speak for myself, but I don't want to have to take a vote before taking action, nor depend upon the judgement of whoever just so happens to be trolling ANI before I take action.  Admin are expected to use their judgement on when to block, and act within a range of "norms".  If the community can't trust an admin to know when to just block, and when to get input, then they probably shouldn't be an admin.  Adding more rules to the rest of us isn't the solution, however. Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 01:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This would result in a de facto ban on blocks of editors with large fan bases. That is the diametric opposite of progress. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Chris, will you address the concern and improve the proposal? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  20:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * We should be encouraging discussion before blocks. This proposal recognizes that admins who discuss are taking action, rather than sweeping them aside in favour of "cowboy blocks". But I could imagine a route for abuse, for disruptive editors with supporters/enablers. I don't think this quite gets directly at the problem. But we should be encouraging discussion before blocks that could be controversial. Gimmetoo (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This is so vague as to be a non-starter. When do problem discussions stop and start? Where do the discussions need to be occurring? What sort of discussion content does there need to be? Take a look at this discussion. If TheGovernor3 had started moving things around again during that discussion, would this proposal block all administrators from acting?&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The proposal is too  vague, but  if I  have understood it correctly, IMO if a user under discussion  continues to  abuse their editing  privileges, there is no reason why they should not be blocked while the discussion is still in  progress, otherwise any blocking  should be done when the case has been fully assessed and concluded. And then closed by  an admin.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unworkable Basically, a truly disruptive editor will be given carte blanche to run amok while he's being discussed for another reason on AN/ANI (✉→BWilkins'←✎) 10:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or a a truly abusive administrator will be delayed in again misusing the block button as a first resort. 11:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)

KWW blocking Malleus

 * I am thinking also of |KWW's block of Malleus, which showed contempt for the community discussion and the consensus of administrators (diff added 19:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)). Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * My block of Malleus took place after he repeated misbehaviour after a discussion on ANI about earlier behaviour had been closed. It was not for anything that had been discussed, nor was it contemptuous of any discussion.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This would be further complicated by the question of what is covered by a discussion at AN or AN/I. The last MF block, the aurgument was that we were discussing a different bout of incivility then the one that was blocked for. Presumably, the same argument could be made even with the above policy. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Monty845, I think that the principle of no-Superman administrative-action should be a general policy. The horrificly stupid discussions of the Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian were made even worse by administrators suddenly closing discussions, which already had active administrators, leading to even more waste of time and irritation.
 * Forget about the KWW block with Malleus, which did occur during a community discussion. Is this a good principle, good for the administrators respecting other administrators and respecting other administrators? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  18:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the timeline, Kiefer, and look when things got closed. It did not.&mdash;Kww(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Look at the ANI discussion. You had support from Fluffernutter, Demiurge1000, and AutomaticStrikeout, the leaders of the administrator corps, do ya think? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's post block. You have repeatedly made the assertion that I came in during an open discussion of Malleus and blocked him. I did not do that.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You didn't see the discussion of at least one competent, centrist administrator with the aggrieved party, where the "new editor" admitted that he understood why Malleus was upset? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Don't see what impact it would have had. The edit I blocked for was a direct personal attack. Not colorful phrasing, or using profanity for emphasis, or any of the other borderline behaviour that gets the overly-sensitive screaming "NPA" when it really isn't. There's no excuse or justification for it.&mdash;Kww(talk) 19:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So do we block all editors who make similar statements, or only some of them? Frankly, the edit you linked in that block is about median for MF, and it's rather more mild than some comments I've seen from admins that did not result in a block. But unless we are consistent, with a reasonably consistent standard, this sort of action will continue to anger people. I do wonder what would happen, though, if admins did fixed-time blocks to any similar comments on AN and ANI, consistently, no matter who said them. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think a consistent application of blocks for NPA violations would be a good idea, so long as it was actually about NPA violations. I've seen NPA bandied about as applying to edits that I think pretty clearly were not personal attacks, which is one of the reasons that people get edgy about blocking for it. Still, I don't know how anyone could class the edit I blocked for as anything but a personal attack.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's part of the problem. We have people who don't think "you are an anal retentive with OCD on the autism spectrum" is a personal attack, and others who might say appending "your edits appear to be those of..." is all it takes to make it a comment on edits rather than an editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In fairness, the editor who made that statement has apologized repeatedly and earnestly. Those who know her know that, like Homer, she has her metaphoric mojo working. Yet even Homer nods. Maybe we can let this quote rest? Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there was an apology at some point, but the editor was not blocked. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen those discussions as well. A comment that was basically "your edits are indistinguishable from those of an amphetamine-crazed orangutan" was being defended as being about the edits, rather than about the editor. Right.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, feel like reviewing discussions at AN/ANI? Gimmetoo (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think This is a PA? Note the followup edit. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that using this talk page - or policy proposal - in lieu of an administrator conduct RFC is appropriate or useful. Can we depersonalize it and make it about a generic problem?  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Discussion has drifted into an area I wanted to avoid...none of what I have been asking questions about was ever intended to point fingers at specific incidents or individuals. As someone who has edited this website for almost 8 years, I hoped that since we're a wiki, policy might be altered to better protect editors, admins and even thre reader, for surely even the casual reader stumbling on some of the anarchy on AN/I and other areas might be shocked at the lack of harmony at times. I have no doubt that 99.7% of the blocks made by our administrators are good blocks, so perhaps my worring about the 0.3% is only going to lead to more process-wonkery .--MONGO 00:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the thrust of this. Not sure it should be black-letter law, though. But as a rule, when the behaviour of a user, whether arb, admin, or minion, is being discussed at AN or ANI, admins should let the discussion run its course before taking cowboy action - either blocking or unblocking. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with that setup is that frequently there are those who will never admit that a discussion has run its course and that their view has failed. They'll either say there should be more discussion or that the closing person failed to read the existing discussion correctly. Unless it's coupled with strict time limits, i.e., an administrator will close the discussion after 24 hours and administer the appropriate action or inaction, it would render action impossible in a large number of cases because of a status quo bias.  MBisanz  talk 00:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That's true, the filibuster. That's part of the reason, along with the muddiness of consensus assessment, that I don't think it can be black-letter law, but it can be usual polite practice, nonetheless. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, for an instantaneous and evolving / ongoing situation with someone being problematic, waiting 24 hrs may be bad.
 * Also, for an instantaneous and evolving / ongoing situation, it would seem to require every admin to always read AN or ANI or both (or, worse, more places than that) top to bottom before taking action, for fear of missing such a discussion. Which can be quite onerous.
 * An admin defying a developing consensus on ANI regarding an issue is dangerous (not always wrong, but risky and divisive). An admin not noticing one is routine, unfortunately.  An admin noticing one but not participating or notifying the discussion when they act is not common but not rare, and perhaps should be discouraged.  The practicality of mandates needs to be considered beyond just their stand-alone wisdom.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh God. Enough with the Malleus stuff.
Hard cases make bad law. Can we move on? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Could not agree more. The unholy mess that is Mal's block log is not the place to look for answers, and bringing it up again and again will certainly re-inflame the embers of the preceding drama around it with very little chance of leading to anything resembling progress or consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concurring with Beeb, I  think  it's time to  leave off examining Malleus and consign his issues to  history. They  are not  exactly  a good precedent  for the way  we admins should operate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, hard cases provide counter-examples to bad laws.
 * Legal maxims and heuristics, like medical heuristics and theological heuristics, are better than school-of-education heuristics, but are not a model for reason.
 * Honest and intelligent persons will want to adopt mathematical-logical and scientific reasoning, which does not bury its head in the sand to avoid counter-examples. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  12:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's no secret that I'm not a fan of how Malleus was treated by a number of people in a number of incidents, but Malleus is the exception, not the rule. The problem there is a human one, not a policy one. Dennis Brown - 2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 13:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see all these points, and agree wholeheartedly with Dennis (but then I often do. And no, that doesn't make me a sycophant ... lol! ;P) The thing about History is that we should learn from it.  Trial and error (and yes, we, as a community, make a lot of errors) only works if we learn from those errors.  Sadly, though I agree that "the Malleus Problem" is the exception rather than the rule, in some part it was created by injustices.  Be honest, it was.  If you had a number of less-than-admirable blocks on your record, no matter how quickly you were unblocked ... and then had people muttering "fan club" on every unblock ... wouldn't you (all of us, in fact) get darned grouchy about some things?  If we don't learn from this, then it will happen again.  That's the way it goes, and it's because human nature doesn't change much.  Let's really learn "how not to turn a grouch into a really major grouch".  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 13:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Three strikes proposal

 * 1) All blocking policy blocks are valid to help prevent the endless discussion on defining an exceptions policy
 * 2) Any blocking policy block can be challenged by anyone before the natural expiry of the block
 * 3) No blocking policy block can be lifted under any circumstance by any person under any policy or guideline, including but not limited to the Blocking policy, unless said block is successfully challenged
 * 4) Three successful challenges against a given admin result in that admin voluntarily, or technically if possible, losing the ability to block
 * 5) Lost blocking ability can only be regained following discussion-based consensus.


 * Notes
 * Blocks placed before enactment of this proposal are not included in this proposal
 * a successful challenge is any on-wiki discussion-based consensus resulting in the block being lifted before its expiry
 * Whilst not ideal, of the Blocking policy under the  supports users who wish to clean their block log of inappropriate blocks. The phrase Blocks placed in error and lifted early should not be noted at all was first added to clean start (then called name change) section of the blocking policy by  at  following |AN discussions and
 * Under section, administrators are reminded that "As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboardfor peer review". A version of these two sentences were first added by  at
 * On disruption, of the blocking policy says " A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia". The phrase  was added by  at

Whilst the above may appear to be out of the blue I have been keenly watching this page for a long time. I am not suggesting the above proposal is correct. It might however lead to useful discussion -- Senra (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Senra, please reformat the above proposal without footnotes. NE Ent 13:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * but you did not explain why -- Senra (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- for ease of reading, was hard to follow. NE Ent 14:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The only way this proposal would make any sense - though even then it wouldn't be a good idea - is if it were balanced out by a "Three (valid) blocks and you're indeffed" proposal for the people who get blocked according to policy. If we're going to be this harsh on people making bad calls, it should hold to the people making the call to edit war, attack, vandalize, etc, as well as the people blocking them. And that's not even touching on the issues of potential wikilawyering and internal contradiction inherent this proposal. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose for a number of reasons, including it being awash in bureaucratic thinking, and it exceeds the power of the community to restrict admin in blocking. Technically, only Arbcom can do this. I've tried getting support for admin sanctions, the community didn't want it.  Again, this is trying to fix a human problem with a bureaucratic solution.  What is "blockable" and not is already determined by consensus over time, and while it isn't perfect, it works and is flexible.  Anyone can challenge any block as it is, via WP:AN, and they current do so, where it is reviewed by admin and non-admin alike.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the committee will be happy to hear they're not part of the community. NE Ent 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose It is possible I am missing the goal, but it seems to be an attempt to address admins who use the block button improperly. While that is a serious issue, it is rare enough that it ought to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. A simple formula, implying you are allowed two, but never three, is too simplistic. (I'll bet it was not your intention to imply two are allowed, but that is likely to become the defacto result.) -- SPhilbrick (Talk)  14:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * To its merit, this idea appears to try to address two problems - bad blocks and bad unblocks - in one system. Would need some further specification on what a "challenge" means and how it would apply to longer or indef blocks. If an admin has a history of bad blocks, we should have a way to prevent further damage to the project by that admin. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If an admin has a history of bad blocks, we do have a way to prevent further damage to the project by that admin: counselling by the community, followed by desysopping if there are continued problems. To take one example, just six months ago the ArbCom desysopped User:Carnildo by motion: "For exercising long term poor judgement in his use of administrative tools, including his recent block of User:Itsmejudith, User:Carnildo's administrative tools are removed...".  Bad block to desysop took just four days.  While full-on ArbCom cases are usually a slow and miserably managed mess, the ArbCom is capable of moving with alacrity when presented with a clear pattern of problems coupled to a resistance to reform.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That involved a past AC and some issues more than just a block. AC may be "capable" of doing things, but they don't seem good at handling "simple" bad blocks. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Just four months ago, ArbCom went from request to desysopping motion in nine days with User:EncycloPetey: . There was no prior ArbCom case in that instance; previous dispute resolution was an AN/I discussion that had occurred six months previously over a bad block.  (The instance that actually precipitated the desysop was a bad use of semiprotection against an IP editor, but if he had used the block button instead the effect – both on the editor and on EncycloPetey's adminship – would have been the same.)
 * I'm not sure that I'll be able to find a case that matches your exact requirements, because it's so darn rare that an admin will behave perfectly in all respects except for making three egregiously bad blocks. Let me ask you&mdash;can you provide any examples of admins who have made three bad blocks in the last three years, who remain 'active' by some credible definition of that word?  (When I say "bad" blocks, I mean blocks that were overturned with a well-attended consensus that the blocks were a violation of policy&mdash;not just shortened to a time-served parole or other they-said-sorry alternative remedy.) In any of those instances, did anyone try to present a well-formed request to ArbCom?  Like the proposals we periodically see for new desysopping processes, this proposal falls down because it doesn't actually demonstrate a failure of the existing process.  This will be a bit of noisy bureaucracy primarily used for playing obnoxious 'gotcha' wikipolitics.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The remedy for a single bad block is a good unblock. We don't (shouldn't, at least) indef editors for a single mistake, nor should we desysop admins for a single mistake. NE Ent 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps not a single mistake, but a series of mistakes in actual use of tools should have some consequences, don't you think? Gimmetoo (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the grounds that's we're not playing baseball here and that three strikes laws are a blight on this country's "justice" system. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were a baseball proposal there'd be a way for a disruptive user to repeatedly post foul balls without being blocked. NE Ent 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Responses:
 * Oppose Where appropriate, quick unblocks are essential to putting out wiki brouhahas; e.g. the fairly recent nearly simultaneous boneheaded blocks of a vested contributor and a member of the arbitration committee. Had those blocks lingered longer we would have had all the usual suspects in a prolonged mudslinging match which would have inflamed lingering hard feelings and brought no benefit to the encyclopedia. NE Ent 15:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An admin who has 3 bad blocks out of 5000 done is a very different case from an admin who has three bad blocks out of 5. Moreover, I've seen no evidence that the "consensus" used to justify unblocks is, on average, more solid than the original block. Moreover, "n strikes" is generally a very stupid concept. Nearly all source I have seen indicate that consistent enforcement much more important than severity of sanctions in discouraging undesirable acts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose In addition to the fine reasons for opposing above, this also doesn't consider the case where the initial block was proper, but the user is unblocked because the block reason was properly addressed. For instance, editors blocked until they are willing to talk, or bots blocked until they are fixed. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Fluffernutter: No need for further balance as this proposal is an attempt to balance the system. From an overall community perspective, administration is already imbalanced compared to non administrators. Administrators have tools. Non administrators do not. Please explain your "potential wikilawyering and internal contradiction inherent this proposal". @Dennis Brown: "... exceeds the power of the community ..."? This is pure arrogance. Administration is a privilege awarded by the community which should be open to be recalled by the community. Relying on Arbcom to desysop an administrator is "bureaucratic thinking". @SPhilbrick: Any system can be gamed as our current system often is. Three successful challenges seem realistic to me. In the UK legal system, a first offence for many crimes carries a lesser penalty than subsequent offences by the same person. We should give leave for mistakes. They do happen. One-strike-and-you-are-out would seem overly harsh (to borrow a word from 'Fluffernutter'). @ Gimmetoo: Would any administrator indef anyone if this proposal was accepted? @SarekOfVulcan: No reasoned comment. @NE Ent:Quick unblocks, or at least unblocks without prior discussion-based consensus, are part of the issue. These generally lead to even more discussion. Whilst I assume good faith on the unblocker in such cases a quick unblock denies the blockee the benefit of a recorded discussion about the block. @Stephan Schulz: accepted. 3 in 5 is different to 3 in 5,000. Agreed. Consistent enforcement is more important. It is a shame that blocks are not consistently applied. @Monty845: Have you considered that this proposal would change blocking behaviour in some key respects? I would anticipate fewer if any indef blocks and administrators taking more care when considering blocks of long term editors where a discussion-based consensus is more likely to successfully challenge the block -- Senra (talk) 22:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are behaviours that should result in indef blocks, such as Inflammatory user names and vandalism-only accounts. If the system discouraged blocks of that sort, I don't think it would be good. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose. #1, #2, #3 & #5: Circular references (blocking policy referring to blocking policy; "discussion" references WP:Consensus) and motherhood statements are unhelpful when push comes to shove.  #4 "three strikes" policy is simplistic knee jerk overreaction that tends to be ignored in most cases, and then suddenly applied without consistency.  Please review a more advanced discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. #1, #2, #3 & #5, and think #4 poorly stated. There is no time limit on overturned blocks; some admins have been here for over 10 years. If they make one mistake every 3 years they'd still be de-adminned. No, if it were 3 in a given time period of shorter duration, I might be able to support #4, but not as it is. Killer Chihuahua  22:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – It's stunning how sensitive and considerate the admins here have become now the focus has switched to sanctioning admins. A day or two earlier there were callous arguments that once content builders have been blocked they should thenceforth be blocked indefinitely and without warning. What a contrast, what a seamless transition to the thoughtful and sympathetic discussion we are having now. As one admin, an enthusiastic blocker of Malleus observes, "An admin who has 3 bad blocks out of 5000 done is a very different case from an admin who has three bad blocks out of 5." Malleus made 140,000 high quality edits over more than six years. He was blocked 20 times. That's about one block per 7,000 edits. Once in 7,000 edits he said something that some loose cannon admin arbitrarily decided was a chance to have a shot at him. I say "loose cannon", because all admins on Wikipedia are loose cannons. There is no central control, and no central control will be tolerated by admins, as this thread will show. There's a thousand or so active admins, and they fire off blocks on little more than whim, knowing that they will not be sanctioned for bad blocks. Reminds me of US attitudes to personal assault weapons, and maybe that attitude affects what goes on here. Given that many of his blocks were bad blocks, and the degree to which he was provoked, Malleus didn't have such a bad record. That doesn't stop admins attacking Malleus in essays, likening him to Al Capone, and calling for even harder line admin approaches. You said above, Dennis, that you've tried getting support for admin sanctions, the community didn't want it. It not the community that didn't want it. The community gets no say now. Admins only decide what the power base of admins should be. It's happening again right here, right now. There is no wider community involvement at all, just a few hapless content editors like myself who occasionally make a few observations, and are encircled and neutralised as usual, in the well worn ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The community most certainly does get its say, it just happens that a lot of admins watch this page because any changes to it impact our work. If you are concerned that admins are over represented in this discussion the way to deal with it is to post neutrally-worded notices at places like WP:VPP, not to bring up Malleus yet again or bash admins as a group. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:VPP is a place for editors to vent. This a place where the policy is made. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not say "open a new discussion at VPP" but it is very common for users to post notices of ongoing policy discussions there and/or at WP:CENT. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You say with regard to this policy page, "any changes to it impact our work". How can you possibly think it has no impact on content builders? Let's be clear. This discussion is not about the ability of admins to block vandals, socks, disruptive trolls and their ilk. No one is contesting that. It is specifically about the extraordinary power, given for life to each and every admin, to block and serially block on the basis of little more than their individual whim of the moment, long established and fundamentally competent content builders as though they were vandals. And this is why there is no voice left now for content builders on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking a lot of things out of context here. All I was talking about was your apparent frustration at the fact that this proposal is being strongly opposed by admins themselves, not the underlying issues. I have pointed out what you can do to attract more content editors if that is your desire. It is not the fault of the admin particpants here that the contet editors you claim to speak for are possibly underrepresented in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - It is not even clear what a "challenge" would be.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - again well intentioned but unhelpful. Also it's not clear how a "blocking policy block" might be different from any other kind of block. Fundamentally this proposal like many recent ones shows a major misunderstanding of how policy changes/developments have historically been formulated. It is extremely difficult to successfully get a blue-sky-thinking proposal into policy, usually things needs to have existed in practice before existing in policy not the other way round. (Yes I know that might seem illogical but historically that's been the case here.) Bad block prevention proposals need to start thinking about formalizing existing practice rather than reinventing the wheel-- Cailil  talk 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The unfortunate thing here is that some seem to assume that the very, very small number of bad blocks are somehow representative of current practice and not what they are, the rare exceptions to a process that is normally not controversial at all. No proposal is ever going to prevent the occaisional bad block brought on by shortsightedness, lack of attention to detail, not caring, being drunk, or whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No proposal is ever going to prevent the occasional disruptive editing brought on by shortsightedness, not caring, being drunk, or whatever. So we should do nothing about it, is that what you're saying? Even if you think the problem is rare, we should have something in place to discourage bad blocks, not only to prevent reoccurrence where there is already a history, but to provide relief and closure to the victims, which rarely happens. Have you ever seen an admin apologize for a bad block? Even a mistaken block? Not very often. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Gimmetoo, something worth doing is at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators. You have not yet commented there?  No administrator likes having their administrative action reversed by consensus over their objection, or even having their administrative action criticised by a consensus discussion.  If bad blocks cannot be reversed unilaterally, but only by consensus, then the behaviour patterns will become self-correcting.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocks are not (a certain type of) punishment
We have long said that "blocks are not punishment". So if you actually study the concept of punishment, it turns out that blocks are punishment. Specifically, blocks are a specific subtype of punishment called negative punishment, which is the removal of a privilege or desired thing (i.e., the ability to edit when you want to).

What we actually mean when we say that "blocks are not punishment" is that blocks are not positive punishment, which is the imposition of some external unpleasantness for the purpose of retribution (e.g., making a thief pick up trash).

In an effort to keep us from looking like we don't know enough to read our own articles on that subject, I think it would be a good idea to link to positive punishment in one of these statements. Providing a little more information might also help both admins and blocked users (who often subjectively feel like they're being punished) understand what we mean. Bbb23 thinks that this fact—the fact that there are subtypes of punishment, and that our statement only applies to one of the subtypes—is so well-known to everyone that we shouldn't provide a link or any information. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, because punishment is primarily concerned with affecting the punished. We don't care one iota what the blocked person does.  The goal of blocking should solely be because it stops disruption.  It isn't a punishment in the sense that the goal is not to modify behavior or attutude, but to stop a problem.  -- Jayron  32  06:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocks are or are not punishment depending on the definition/usage of the term. As Chris said to me above, blocks punish. True, often. Block also teach. Blocks evoke an emotional response, as per negative punishment (an unfamiliar term) as described in the mainspace article. And negative punishment provides corrective inducement to stop misbehaving. However, punishment also includes vengeance, which is not when we mean to do, openly anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on your perspective, I suppose. I don't believe blocks should ever be used for any of the reasons you note.  They may have any of those as an effect, but it should not be the intent of the blocking administrator to "provide corrective inducement to stop misbehaving".  If an ongoing pattern of actions by someone is interfering unduly with the mission of the encyclopedia, then the actions are stopped.  That should be the only intent: to stop a pattern of actions.  Whether or not such blocks have any particular emotional effect or "corrective inducement" is unimportant.  They may very well do any of that, and much more, but such effects should not be part of the decision making process. -- Jayron  32  07:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There are two purposes recognized as legit goals of a block under current policy. Either to prevent disruption that would occur if the block was not placed, or to deter future disruption. Now the first case, to prevent disruption, can reasonable be seen as not being a punishment, but to the extent we block to deter conduct from reoccurring after the block expires, we clearly are punishing as most people understand the word. Every time we leverage the threat of a block to deter conduct, we are using the threat of punishment. See also my user space essay on the topic. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  08:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps just letting someone know about the possible consequences of his continuing to act in a certain way (like "if you keep teasing that gorilla, you might get your arm ripped off" - not a threat of punishment, just a fact). Though I agree with you that limited-period blocks tend to function very much like punishment. (As to the original question, I don't think the distinction between positive and negative punishment is really pertinent here, nor is it clear that blocking is necessarily purely one or the other, given that for some people it seems to be the appearance of an entry in their block log that causes most pain.) Victor Yus (talk) 10:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Jayron32 is spot on. Blocks prevent disruption to the work of everybody else - they aren't intended to punish the effect user just protect everyone else's work. As an analogy, IRL if somebody comes into a football game and streaks - we throw them out for disrupting the game. We then prosecute them in order to punish them. Wikipedia doesn't use the block button for prosecution or punishment, except in the context of ArbCom and or WP:BAN. Normal run of the mill blocking is analogous to getting thrown out of a stadium or a bar-- Cailil  talk 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Locked up is a punishment, kicked out is to prevent disruption. Blocked users are kicjed out of the editing aspect of Wikipedia. They are perfectly free to read Wikipedia all day long or do whatever else they like. `I find this sort of semantic argument decidedly unhelpful and unlikely to result in any substantive change in the policy. Beeblebrox (talk)


 * I must not have been clear: blocks are (negative) punishment.  Being "kicked out" (when you'd rather be allowed in) is a clear example of negative punishment.  This isn't a matter of debate or personal opinion or the emotions of the blocked user; this is an easily verifiable fact in textbooks like these about the definition of the term punishment.
 * So we are, in this policy making a useful, but technically inaccurate and possibly confusing statement. What we mean is that blocks are not to be applied for the purpose of being mean, making the user feel bad, or other types of retribution.  That is, we mean that blocks are not positive punishment.  We do not mean that blocks are not negative punishment, because only an ignorant person would make that claim.
 * So I propose a adding a single wikilink to make the statement both clear and correct for any person interested in the details. The proposed edit changes the ambiguous statement that "blocks are not punishment" to the verifiably accurate statement that "blocks are not punishment".
 * Now, if that explanation is clear, does anyone object to being verifiably accurate and slightly clearer in this policy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a classic "have you stopped beating your wife?" question so excuse me if I refuse to give a yes or no answer. I don't think you link is the right approach and that a simpler solution would be "blocks are not intended as punishment. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That meaning is implicit in the current structure; don't see any need to change wording. (Obviously blocks are punishment but that's a side effect, not a primary purpose or intent of blocking). NE Ent 20:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yea, actually I totally agree with that, but iff a consensus should emerge that a clarification is needed at all I prefer my suggestion. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree too (could add "intended as", if this is a problem). Though I'm no psychologist, I don't accept WAID's analysis about negative and positive punishment - the difference between them is not that one of them is applied for the purpose of "making the person feel bad" and one of them isn't; it seems that they are both (positive and negative) applied for that purpose, the difference is in whether this is done by giving the person something unpleasant or depriving them of something pleasant. Inasmuch as Wikipedia blocks act as punishment, they are both - positive (they give something unpleasant, i.e. a block log entry) and negative (they deprive of something pleasant - the ability to edit WP). But the point of the statement in the policy is that punishment isn't the primary intended purpose at all (though in some cases it would have to be questioned whether that policy is being followed). Victor Yus (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to adding the words "intended as". That would be another way to solve the problem.  Does anyone object?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

While this is my second choice and I don't object to it enough to make a fuss if it were done, I continue to believe that no change is actually needed and I believe even a casual read of the above thread will show that there is not a consensus in favor of any such change. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

reverting blocked editors
I've just copy / pasted transpositioned the section on reverting banned editors into here. Banning_policy already states edits by blocked editors can be reverted, so this not new policy, rather clarification. It's done so it's no longer perceived as necessary to have community discussions to ban indefinitely blocked editors. NE Ent 17:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sensible. Wifione  Message 18:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Those discussions so often turn into arguments about the difference between blockin/banning/de facto banning, etc. Hopefully this will mitigate that effect. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As a programmer, it bothers me to see such a large block of copy and pasted text. Couldn't we just include a single sentence that says it works the same for blocked and banned, and reference the other text? Gigs (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As a programmer you should know we build one to throw away. Not an unreasonable idea but I wasn't going to put any more effort in the edit than necessary until I had some idea as to whether it was an acceptable bold edit or not. NE Ent 21:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Warning before blocking
Currently we state "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking". I propose we change this to "Warnings are generally required before blocking except in the extreme cases of a) legal or death threats b) obvious sock-puppetry" Blocks should never be taken lightly and have a high risk of seriously harming our community / creating excess drama. Nearly all users should have a chance to change their behavior and a single edit is almost never justification for a block. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

 * Support as proposer. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support especially the idea of the anti drama aspect.Thelmadatter (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support Editors should not have to work, as they do at present, with a Damocles sword hanging over them, and no warning of when it going to fall. That is a malignant working environment. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I might be willing to support a finer-grained proposal ("Blocking for X must be preceded by a warning" or "Blocking users of Type Y must be preceded with a warning"), but this is far too wide an attempt. There are a number of cases I can think of off the top of my head where blocking without any or a full set of warnings is not only a decent idea, but is the current standard. Vandalism raids full of multiple editors piling in to destroy an article at the request of someone else, for example. Accounts with libelous names/edits where their mere existence is problematic. Accounts that immediately set off on sprees of such vicious vandalism that it's clear they have no intention of editing in any other way, such as adding hate speech or death wishes (which are distinct from death threats). Narrow your scope and this would be a proposal worth considering, but with its current scope it would harm admins' ability to mop up serious issues efficiently. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The proposal is well-intentioned, but needs refinement. For instance, the "a) legal or death threats, b) obvious sock puppetry" needs to be expanded or at least broadened to include disruption only accounts. So, oppose in its current form, I guess. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as it makes no provisions for repeat offenders. Blocking without an initial warning for the first block is rarely justifiable, but when someone repeats the behaviour that led to a previous block, there's no need to get locked into a misbehave/warn cycle that can't lead to a block because the editor hasn't been warned for this particular piece of misbehaviour.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, there's a requirement for some disincentive to the often reflexive and damaging impetus to block. FiachraByrne (talk) 01:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's not that hard to not get blocked, nor is it particularly hard to get unblocked once blocked. NE Ent 01:32, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose It is traditional to block open proxies with no warning. We have a bot that issues thousands of proxy blocks every year. Needless to say, the bot does not notify the user first and wait for a response. EdJohnston (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some behavior does not merit a warning, and some people know better. Warnings are a courtesy towards those who may not be aware of Wikipedia rules, not a "get out of jail free" card such that everyone gets to commit every disruption multiple times.  No.  -- Jayron  32  02:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above oppose rationales, plus the scenario outlined by the proposal is far too vulnerable to gaming of the system. The primary purpose of a warning is to educate the user about Wikipedia Policies such as edit warring, 3RR, BLP, and WP:BLOCK, (among others), once a user has been warned/educated, then blocks may be applied if the user continues the disruptive behavior.  With IP's we do look at the timeframe of the warnings because a new person may be using the same IP, but has not been warned and therefore may not yet know the rules.  Established users who are familiar with WP:POLICY on blockable offenses should not need to be warned over and over again - this would allow for massive gaming of the system.  Admins should have the flexibility to use their judgment in blocking scenarios, the proposed changes greatly reduce that flexibility.  The current wording is fine.  Dreadstar  ☥   04:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose in the details. Without a doubt I agree that talking to people is FAR better than blocking, but I have some real issues when it comes to "socks".  Chasing "socks" is a HUGE waste of time.  People move, change ISPs, and anyone with the slightest clue can game the "sock" crap.  I'll resist the urge to spill the WP:BEANS, but as long as people are playing the "smack the sock" game, then Wikipdeia is gonna be a second rate site.  You deal with things on an account by account basis ... if the edits improve the project - then STFU.  If the account is hurting the project .. then you shut them down.  FAR too much time and energy is expended on old grudges, returning socks, RTV, and "crap, I just want to edit some stuff".  But whatever - you folks do what you want .. idc. — Ched :  ?  04:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose as is, although I'd be open to supporting it if it included a few more caveats such as obvious vandalism. The guy who welcomes himself to Wikipedia by filling random articles with shock images doesn't merit a mere warning in my opinion. That said, there is a undoubtedly a problem with long-term contributors being blocked for brief lapses in decorum; if we can find some way to distinguish between generally good-faith editors who are having a bad day and the account whose first edits are to put swastikas in high-traffic templates, we may be on our way to a saner blocking policy. 28bytes (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - during high-speed disruption, there's the potential for lots of damage before the block is actually imposed. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, but as always, the devil is in the details. Take for example, this threat.  The admin does not threaten the individual who is being disruptive (see WT:Requests for comment/Apteva), but the 28 editors who are trying to stop the disruption.  The article is already under Arbcom santions; someone who violates the sanction should be notified on their own talk page and at the appropriate notice board, and given an opportunity to discuss and possibly self-revert, not some generic blanket notification of en masse blocks on an obscure talk page thread.  The intention may be good here, but the effect is chilling.  Neotarf (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are plenty of editors out there who don't need warnings because they've already had plenty of them and/or they know what is acceptable and what is not.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 22:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Policy already says that blocks are not punitive, so no one has policy support for blocking anyone for a single edit unless there is a reason to believe that it prevents further problematic edits. On the other hand there are situations where it is not possible to give warning's for example when long term problematic editing patterns are discovered (e.g. malignant hoaxing). Policy is fine as is, gives sufficient protection to editors and enough leeway for admins to do their job effectively.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but we should add something such "Blocks should be preceded by warnings". Should means "it's normally a good idea, and not doing it is generally a bad idea", but it doesn't absolutely require anything.  The current requirements are better than the proposal for permitting a necessary exercise of judgement, but a "should" statement would be a good reminder that you need to think it over a little before blocking without warning.  Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose I can think of several cases where warnings are pointless: certain username blocks or vandal-only blocks, for example. --Rschen7754 08:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support as an uninvolved but concerned member of the great unwashed who was drawn to Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy as a result of a few recent, without-warning, blocks (and unblocks) of others that I personally thought were unwarranted. For example ,, and . I have carefully read through the whole of the, including all the oppose/support responses. Some oppose rationales stood out such as  (which ). I know some editors feel violated when such blocks occur to them,  and . I accept there are cases where blocking without warning is necessary; I suggest this is covered in the RfC as "Warnings are generally required before blocking ..." (my emphasis) -- Senra (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While the vast majority of blocks should and do follow the warning process, there are numerous situations where a block is warranted without warning.  Admin accountability is important and while we have that, we should look at if that needs to be increased, but this is not the way to solve that problem. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too much policy-creep. We have accountability, and the editor at the centre of a recent situation is currently in front of ArbCom as part of that accountability.  Not all blocks require a warning, we "elect" admins because of perceived judgement, and expect them to acct accordingly.  Yes, people occasionally screw up, but that doesn't mean you handcuff admins from acting when and where they need to (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Well intentioned but not helpful. There are as has been pointed out numerous times multiple nuances to blocking and warnings and why warnings are not always required. There are already however times when warnings are required (RFARs etc) and warning is generally good practice but that is very different to the proposed wording-- Cailil  talk 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose While some no-warning blocks turn out to be problematic, the fact is the vast majority of all blocks are entirely uncontroversial. Saddling admins with such a requirement will not help eliminate the few blocks that turn out to be a problem and is instruction creep, which is bad enough here already. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Well-intentioned, but unfortunately, it is not really helpful. Administrator accountability is important. Put simply, this proposal is not the way to solve the problem. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - While it is refined somewhat, it is not to the extent that addresses cases that can be extreme. Take the original accounts of Fragments of Jade and Zhoban, for example. Their original behavior did not necessarily fit the criteria hypothetically established by this proposed rule, but their incivility and disregard for consensus were extreme to such an extent that it was abundantly clear that there were no other alternatives. I'd like to endorse a refinement, but I don't see it as being plausible to occur. D arth B otto talk•cont 05:56, 07 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A solution looking for a problem. Unjustified blocks without warning are rare. Justified blocks without warning are common. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless problematic usernames is added to the list of exceptions. Some consideration should also be given to whether or not we should say something about "repeated offences" in the policy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are plenty of reasons for blocking without a warning, or when 'block first - ask questions later' are necessary, and most have already been listed here by other opposers. Editors who behave themselves do not have a Damocles sword hanging over them, and hence have nothing to worry about - drivers who respect speed limits have no fear of speed cameras. The proposal is a solution looking for a problem. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, There are plenty of procedures to deal with bad blocks. Of all the block reviews I've read "blocking without warning" has not been a significant issue. aprock (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Cailil stated it best for me. Killer Chihuahua 22:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - It is in the spirit of avoiding WP:BITE'ing new users to do warnings but I don't believe this is a real issue right now. Admins are trusted to communicate effectively and warnings are part of that.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support with addition of blatant vandalism, just so that's clear; the word "generally" would admit of exceptions but they should be situations where everyone will agree an immediate block is necessary. Otherwise, admins are expected to communicate effectively. That includes intervention, gathering information, clarifications and warnings before resorting to the block button, except in extremely urgent situations. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Prefer Unilateral blocks without warning may not exceed 24 hours. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that fixes it either. Accounts that are only being used to vandalize Wikipedia are blocked indefinitely. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed that we were talking about regulars, previously productive accounts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't favor timed blocks for accounts at all. If a named account is blocked it's because of a particular piece of misbehaviour, and the block shouldn't be lifted until there's an assurance that the misbehaviour won't repeat.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Kww, a dedicated editor gets blocked over some minor offense after tens of thousand of edits. Years later, after more tens of thousands of edits, he slips up, maybe exhausted from the work he is doing here. You say, further above on this page, that you want to descend upon him, and block him again with no warning. Worse, from what you also say above, it seems you are going to give him an indefinite block, and really make him grovel. How can this behaviour of yours be anything other than punitive? You are punishing the editor in effect for contributing so well... since for most normal humans an occasional lapse over a long period is inevitable. Admins are allowed to make lapses without sanctions, so long as the lapse are directed only at content editors. From where I sit, as a content builder, it looks to me that you want to further ramp up the asymmetric power that admins wield against content builders. From what you say earlier on this page, it appears that this is already your practice, so presumably the block guidelines already allow admins behave in this manner. So to some extent this is already the status quo. Have I in any way misrepresented your position? Do you seriously believe forcing content builders to work in such a threatening environment is really in Wikipedia's interest?--Epipelagic (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So many adjectives and verbs that you could have used, and those are the ones you come up with? When did I ever discuss "groveling"? Or "descend upon him?" "Punish"? "Threatening"? No, I'm not going to block an editor for a minor screwup every 10,000 edits. I don't block at all if I think a warning will accomplish the task. On the converse, I don't warn if I think the editor is well aware that he is misbehaving, either. I don't block accounts for timed periods very often, and that's not because I want or expect anyone to grovel. It's because I don't want an editor to think he is being punished for his misbehaviour and start making decisions like "Well, if I tell Fred to fuck off, it'll only be a 72 hour block" or "I'm going away for the weekend, so I might as well do that again before I go, since the block won't matter." I want them to agree not to misbehave, and to understand that if they won't stop misbehaving, they won't edit, either. All it takes is simple statements like "I agree to stop changing the picture in that infobox without getting consensus" or "I won't keep adding information to articles from a blog that people have already told me is not a reliable source", or something of the like. Look over my block record, show me any blocks where you think I asked someone to grovel, and we'll talk.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is precisely to the point that the adjectives and verbs you fail to use are the exact adjectives and verbs that you should be using. Content editors on the receiving end of your indefinite blocks, made without warning, will see it this way. It seems like you feel that flicking off a content editor, like you would flick a bug off your shirt, is a minor matter since there isn't a real person at the other end. Long term committed content builders freely give skills and time here, for no rewards apart from the pleasure of a useful job well done. Some work harder than you do. The more they contribute the more likely they are to be punished and humiliated at the whim of some admin who believes content builders should be treated like vandals. Once a content builder gets a block log, he is branded for the rest of time here by certain admins who feel more and more empowered to block and harass him. This is an odious ethos. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If anything you were saying actually reflected my thought process or behaviour, I would agree to use adjectives like that. Since you are arguing with something that I don't do, can I request that you don't act like your issue is with me?&mdash;Kww(talk) 02:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, But I am now confused about this difference, which may be apparent to you but isn't to me, between what you say and what your thought processes are. Instead of replying specifically to my query, "Have I in any way misrepresented your position?", you have just thrown up dust about adjectives I have used. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have seen this happen to an editor who was one of the 25 most active editors. Edits requiring thought, too, not bots. Blocked for edit warring when the edits involved removing inaccurate BLP material in a P/I topic area.  After that he just got blocked automatically, without talk page discussion.  The editor who got him blocked waited, and then reinserted all the disputed material that had been removed during conflict resolution. So two things happened.  First, the unfair blocks hurt his relationship with the Project. Second, if he did have some behaviors that needed to be addressed, nobody addressed them and he had no chance for feedback and improvement.  A simple vandal would have been given so much more consideration than that. Why do we try to work with vandals, but not with extraordinary and talented editors? --Neotarf (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that attitude, when used against regulars, amounts to forcing the infringing user into a humiliating public apology, and in too many cases it worsens the relationships. If someone is blocked for a first behavioural slip, even serious, I think it is sufficient apology for them to back away and not do it again.
 * In regards to deliberate and sustained vandalism, or deliberately violating WP:SOCK, the indefinate block, open to the possiblility of talk page or email communication, is the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The effort is to get rid of unilateral blocks without prior warning in nearly all but a few critical situations. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:17, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If one has been recently previously blocked this counts as being recently previously warned. Would be happy to clarify that this only applies for the "first block".
 * For the same sort of offence, yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If someone threatens the life of another editor IMO they do not need to do it twice before being blocked.
 * I think it is most important if this proposal applies to established editors. But in my practice I even give vandals a second chance. Doc James  (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * RE point 1. My thoughts are to block first for 24 hours, and to raise the issue for discussion at WP:ANI.  With a second admin involved, it is not longer unilateral.  Threats to kill are not necessarily intended seriously or literally, although here, in public written form, I would take them very seriously and would expect to support an indefinite block until the editor retracts the threat.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:57, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Too much micromanagement. NE Ent 01:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I would 100% support this if it said "used" rather than "required". I suppose that would then be a guide - but I am  all for guides, and not much for inflexible policy. Rich Farmbrough, 02:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC).


 * That would be somewhat of an improvement over what we currently have. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * We talk of applying consistent rules to everyone whether they are a new editor or an established editor. However there appears to be little consistency between how different admins handle a similar situation (ie some warn before hand, some simply block). If admins are truly janitors supporting the community one would expect decisions to be left less to individual judgement and more to be based on recommendations / policies. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The devil is in the details. Generally agree with Doc James, but I think it is too early to be voting. I think it would be helpful if types of cases were divided:
 * (1) New users who just need to learn some etiquette
 * (2) New accounts that do not look like serious new contributors (vandals, disruptive socks, spamming SPAs)
 * (3) Established accounts that behave poorly, badly or unwisely one day, out of character or worse than normal
 * (4) Established accounts that do something egregious
 * (5) Established accounts with a history of warnings and blocks, and a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with behaviour norms.
 * --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Doesn't this proposal create a "freebie" situation? Example: Editor A really gets my goat.  If the worst that can happen to me is a warning, I'll just saunter over to Editor A's talk and let them have an earful (or, I guess, an eyeful in internet terms).  After my warning, maybe I'll have to revert my comment, but big whoop.  I could see this increasing the amount of drama, rather than reducing it.  The deterrent factor is decreased by mandatory warnings.  The Interior  (Talk) 02:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Most people I think would consider a warning a deterrent in an of itself. If the issue is a long term pattern than it is brought to ANI and community consensus is achieved for a block. The issue is we sometimes need to temper down those who block to readily / easily. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hope so too, but idealism doesn't jive with the discourse I've seen recently on this project. Practically speaking, though, I can't see this improving behaviour. It may address the problem you're describing.  What we have to decide is whether allowing more rule-breaking in return for fewer blocks is a good trade.  The Interior  (Talk) 03:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This would create an interesting question about potentially invalid warnings. If I'm warned for something I haven't done, and then later do it, am I entitled to a second warning, or can the previous warning in error be used to justify the block? Does it matter how vigorously I dispute the first warning? Must I take it someplace to be formally overturned? Will I be considered on notice for conduct if I warn another editor for the same conduct I then commit (or otherwise evidence knowledge of the policy I violate)? Currently the question of warnings is not a major issue in that the validity of a block does not turn on them, but this would change that calculus, and will accelerate some drama from the block stage to the warning one. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  13:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a standard of operating procedure, warnings precede any blocks. However, for posting boilerplates on established editors pages, it shouldn't be surprising if the warned party doesn't tell you where to go. I can think of at least one situation, where an admin warned a long term editor, the editor retorted, the warning admin applied a week long block, the block was reduced to a day, the admin was subsequently desysopped based in part on this incident. In other situations, we have admins doing blocks on established editors, almost immediately being overturned with no discussion beforehand, no warnings, nor consensus for any of these actions. Obviously, the blocking of established editors is almost always seen as controversial by some editors. Now, I know I'm not saying anything we don't already know, but its more obvious than ever that this system is broken.MONGO 15:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * An admin shouldn't place a block that's likely to be overturned. If it's got the point that any blocked established editor is likely to be unblocked, then some admins need to be desysopped or the blocking policy needs to change to reflect practice. Tom Harrison Talk 15:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Concur with that. Several issues are worth meditating about. First, civility blocks rarely work. Secondly, blocking established editors rarely solves anything. Thirdly, page protection isn't utilized frequently enough. Fourth, according to the blocking policy which seems to strongly discourage punitive blocks, these types of blocks are generally the type that are most often applied to established editors. Fifth, cool-down blocks are abusive, insulting and solve little. Sixth, the block policy does not reflect reality as Tom mentions. Lastly, if anyone thinks the admins are unable to solve a problem, then assemble a preponderance of diffs and march to arbitration...if the committee won't take the case, then it's time to move on.MONGO 16:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily -- a block could be imposed with the intent to stop disruption. Once the disruption has stopped, anyone can lift the block, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have been placed in the first place. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That word "disruption" gets thrown around too easily. Established editors are very rarely "disruptive" in any real sense; they know what will and won't happen on the WP. And that's why most undiscussed blocks on long-term editors are out of place, and are often at least as "disruptive" as the behaviour they are alleged to be stopping. I would support blocking admins who make ill-considered admin actions, but I know some admins wouldn't like that. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Block them all and let Allah sort it out? There is some heated discussion about this particular diff at User talk:SarekOfVulcan. In this case, the disruption should have been addressed directly, rather than trying to keep the peace by reinstating the disruptive edit for fear of the disruptive individual throwing a hissy fit. —Neotarf (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Will should we just close this RfC and reformulate it after further discussion? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that having a block warning policy is an excellent idea, the devil is always in the details, but I think something like a "generally warn before blocking, except for exceptions a, b, c... which can be blocked without warning" policy or guideline will be very helpful. A side comment:  sometimes an RfC is just an endless troll drama that can exhaust the victims for weeks, and having the option of a good hard block first, then discuss can provide a needed wakeup call to the people who may not listen to a TLDR discussion.   Montanabw (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Why not warn and then bring warning to ANI if the problem continues? The problem as I see it, is the wheel-warring policy allows an unblock.  Simply change it so that a warning by one admin and a block by another cannot by undone without being considered a wheel war.  Limit the blocking admin to one block per user (never to block that user for other than the most severe cases).  For an established editor, there should never be a single admin wielding the hammer and that admin should steer clear forever after the block.  Don't let ANI be a "no consensus" battleground after block/unblock. Let the 2 party warn/block stand if any admin believes their block is legitimate.  Let them defend it and if it's "no consensus", the block stands.  There is no incentive to adhere to a warning right now as the offenders know they will be unblocked and no admin will reblock.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Administrators shouldn't be drawn and quartered for blocking a repeat offender. I can think of at least two episodes where an admin warned of a potential for a block but said they wouldn't do it because they could be seen as involved. Just for the warning, the admin was then besieged by several compatriots of the warned party with threats of retaliation. It is at that point, that an arbitration case should have been filed. I agree with the idea that blocks on established editors should best be handled by two or more admins, rather than by unilateral action. So one thought I had was that the software be tweaked so that any established editor with at least 500 articles space edits can only be blocked by two admins doing the block within 15 minutes of each other before the block can take actual effect. I know this is grasping at straws a bit...its just one thought I am having regarding this, it probably makes no sense or is even adaptable. Dheyward, this would then make the AN/I reporting mandatory. My goal is to reduce the drama of unilateral blocks, even though we all know that even unanimous decisions by arbcom foster a fair share of drama as well.MONGO 14:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As said above, admins shouldn't be making a block that is likely to be overturned. Nobody is going to overturn a block for a serial vandal. A block of an established editor, however, is likely to be overturned or at least controversial, though the ANI pileon effect can mask the controversy. The problem lies with both hasty blocks and hasty unblocks, so both need to be handled somehow. Just grasping here, but what if an admin could only block or unblock an account once? That seems to be how it generally goes for established accounts already. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Wrong blocks are actually so rare that it's wrong to suggest that restrictions need to be introduced for the use of the block tool. When a wrong block is made it generates enough drama for something to be done about it. It's then up to Arbcom to avoid making the wrong decision. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * just issued a no-warning block a few minutes ago. This user was on a rapid-fire vandalism spree and for some reason other users were reverting them but not warning them. In order to stop their obvious bad-faith actions I blocked them for just over one day. I protected the encyclopedia from further harm I refuse to believe that was wrong. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That's just plain silly, making a point about that Beeblebrox. Nobody is suggesting it's the wrong thing to block a vandal on a spree. Why throw up dust like that? When long term productive content builders are blocked in stupid ways it does disproportionate damage to Wikipedia. This is particularly the case when such blocks are not subsequently redressed in a decent way, leading to the demoralization we currently see in content builders. As a result, the editor may contribute less or cease to contribute at all. Other content editors are also affected. I know my own productivity is hit hard every time I see yet another gross block, or admins preening themselves over how the only abuse is abuse of admins. It is high time admins, as a group, acknowledge the severe damage bad blocks do. But it ain't going to happen is it. All we will get is more of the stuff we see on this page right now. That is why the current system needs ditching. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ideas on advice on blocks, by type of case
1) New users who just need to learn some etiquette.
 * These users should receive gentle warnings initially, and an initial block should only be long enough to break their momentum in doing bad.

(2) New accounts that do not look like serious new contributors (skilled vandals, disruptive socks, spamming SPAs).
 * Block immediately and indefinately. For the very few cases where the person is open to change, let them make the next step by posting on their talk page.

(3) Established accounts that behave poorly, badly or unwisely one day, out of character or worse than normal
 * These users should receive escalating warnings, followed by short blocks to communicate our seriousness. Usually, a brief loss of temper is regained, and we should make more of an isolated incident than it deserves.  Forcing a public apology and request for forgiveness from someone who is angry, and maybe even feels arguably justified, is no way to return to harmony.

(4) Established accounts that do something egregious, like threaten harm, threaten outing, off-wiki harassment, or extreme incivility
 * I think that these cases are frequently far more complicated than may initially appear. I recommend a short (24 hour) block and the raising of the incident at WP:ANI for discussion.  Leave it for a second admin, informed by discussion at WP:ANI, to extend the block.  Note that WP:WHEEL them prevents a random (or not so random) third admin from unblocking without a demonstrated consensus.

(5) Established accounts with a history of warnings and blocks, and a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with behavioural norms.
 * This is a very different story to what I think Doc James has in mind and is probably better discussed separately

I think that if an initial block is reduced or reversed, it undermines the credibility of the blocking admin. It makes the blocking admin look over-reactive and unsupported by the community. It would be much better to place a short block and leave it for a discussion as to whether to block longer. If the discussion doesn't support a longer block, the short block expires without the intial blocking admin facing the shame of having their administrative action reversed. If the discussion supports a longer block, there is certainly no shame on the admin who brought it to ANI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes agree that this breakdown would be useful. Incivility however does not requires an immediate block (except when one of a number of exceptions apply IMO). Maybe we should work on spelling these exceptions out. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my own opinion is that blocks should only be imposed when nothing else would do. That clearly works for all the emergency blocks required for vandalism, sockpuppetry, abusive usernames, compromised accounts, and so on.  Blocking long-established editors is always going to be problematic, and particularly if it's done without any warning.  It gets worse when the length of someone's previous block log is used in evidence against them, with no (or little) thought applied to the quality of previous blocks.  The fact that someone has ten blocks isn't helpful in making a decision when a closer look at that block log shows that (for example) eight of the ten were really atrocious blocks (violations of WP:INVOLVED; blocked by a sock-admin; blocked by an admin who's since been desysopped for abuse of tools; blocked by one who ended up topic-banned from whatever area they blocked the blockee in ... etc. etc.)  And then the remaining two blocks were for genuinely uncivil ranting about bad blocks being dished out ... that's kinda understandable.  Really bad blocks should be able to be removed / oversighted from a block log, because if anyone has a history of injustice hanging over them for everyone to see and misunderstand, it is going to be used against them, and people will just assume that "all blocks are good blocks".  Injustice sours people very badly.  It sours anyone with two brain cells to rub together.  It causes immense damage, and drives people away.  Other measures are more likely to work better. in the long term: interaction bans, topic bans, page protection, etc. We should become better at thinking outside the box and coming up with something else before hitting the block button, in the majority of cases involving long-established editors. Adding: I'd personally be a damned sight more upset, offended, angry and permanently damaged if someone blocked me unjustly than if they called me a fucking cunt.  The swearwords blow over very fast.  The bad block never blows over. <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Your final point is a key issue which some admins, particularly those with little experience in content building, do not seem to understanding or care about. It is a key reason why the admin system is terminally flawed. Admins like that should never have the power to block competent long term content builders. In fact most other admins should not have that power either, except perhaps when an editor runs amuck. The decision to block a serious content builder should be made only a panel of their peers. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you support the assertion that admins with less content building in their history are more likely to make bad or controversial blocks? Looking at the two latest big blocking controversies, all 3 of the blocking admins have extensive content building histories. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  15:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I can't support that assertion, and it's not an assertion that I made or would make. I can think of plenty of bad blocks made by admins who are or have been serious content builders. But I'm making two other points.
 * (1) The first point is that serious content builders should not be blocked at the whim of a single admin. It should be a panel, to reduce the likelihood of idiot blocks made by single maverick admins. At present, far too many of these are happening. Perhaps a small panel to keep things manageable, and perhaps more than one panel. But blocking serious content builders should not be an hourly occurrence, it should be a matter of last resort, and one panel should not be overwhelmed.
 * (2) The second point is that the panel would consist of editors with non trivial backgrounds in content building, so they are more likely to have some understanding of the psychology of content building and the pressures content builders experience. Some admins with no content building background would do a fine job, and some admins with much content building background would do a lousy job. But, on balance, a panel where every member has a content building background is going to do a more sensitive job than a panel where no members have content building experience. And, importantly, content builders will feel they can engage more intelligently with and have more trust with such a panel.
 * At present, any maverick admin, perhaps one who became an admin 10 years ago when he was a schoolboy, and perhaps one with no experience in editing or anything much else for that matter, can descend at any time on any content editor, no matter how skilled and dedicated, and block them indefinitely at whim. I speak as a content builder who has no interest in being an admin, but would like to see a workable admin system and a constructive working environment for content builders. I would like to feel proud to be associated with the system here, instead of ashamed. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we have #5 because we let #4 linger. As I stated earlier, change the 'Wheel warring' policy with regards to blocks on an established account with a warning followed by a block by a second admin.  Limit it's scope on established accounts (say 72 hours) without consensus.  If 'Wheel waring' currently is a 'Third man in' rule and extending a block is considered a 'reversal' then simply make the original block a 1 second block.  Second admin can extend to 24-72 hours.  Consensus needed for more or to change second admin.  I think there are admins that will undo a block as an interpretation of WP:WHEEL no matter how many times it was extended so it may be necessary to spell that out as a true 'Third Admin In' Wheel War rule. A 1 second block can't be reversed, it's logged, and is not disruptive to the editor.  The extending admin can note it's an extension of the 1 second block.  A 1 second block is also useful for establishing involved.  --DHeyward (talk) 06:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A one-second block, unjustly applied, is damaging. As said above, people use the number of blocks in someone's block log to "pass judgement" on them.  Forever. A bad one-second block is psychologically damaging.  If someone had done that to me here, instead of the unjust admonishment which was struck from the record a week later, I'd have left, permanently.  (And this wouldn't be happening.)  I bloody nearly left as it was.  I haven't been the same since. That shitstorm destroyed 75% of my pleasure in Wikipedia, because of the absolute pillockishness of a number of people who should have known better.  Gross incompetence, gross incivility, total wrongheadedness, including from a number of admins.  Never underestimate the damage caused by injustice.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 07:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the problem today is that the block log is twice as long with block/unblock and twice as disruptive because a 3 hour block (the estimated average turnover time for block/unblock cycle) really pisses people off. A single 1 second block that isn't followed by an extension is easily attributable to "rouge" admins and should be nearly invisible to everyone and should be viewed as much less contentious than a 15 minute wheel war discussion about what civility means and whether it should apply all the while the editor is blocked.  Preventing that admin from ever blocking the established user again, is huge though and the log is much easier to record "rouge" than sifting through talk page archives.  If your choices were a block for 24 hours followed by an unblock 3 hours later OR a 1 second block not seconded, what would you choose?  Obviously no blocks are best but users that aren't blocked aren't an issue here.  --DHeyward (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't get over the problem of there being an entry in someone's block log. That's damaging.  Taking just one well-known block log, the editor was blocked for "incivility" for calling a group of people sycophants.  Now it seems perfectly OK for other people regularly to refer to groups of people as enablers, fan clubs, posses, supporters, and so on, with nary a sniff of ever being blocked for it. They all mean basically the same thing. Does that comply with your sense of justice?  'coz it sure as heck doesn't sit too well with mine. Until blocks can be permanently expunged from someone's block log, they should be handed out only after very careful thought when applied for anything other than extreme circumstances (such as clear vandalism, outing, threats, compromised accounts, etc. etc.) Is it surprising that people get pissed off when others use the length of their block log against them without even stopping to consider the justness of blocks? Bad blocks shouldn't happen; and iof they do, they should be expunged from the log.  You're saying "users that aren't blocked aren't an issue here", but, trust me, a user who's never been blocked could very easily have been wrongly blocked.  I've never been blocked  but a one-second wrongful block would have made me walk away, because they're always used in evidence against people by some editors who either can't be bothered to assess quality, or who know darned well what's been going on but find it more convenient to comment on the quantity of blocks.  The one-second block isn't a good idea  because it would make people more likely to apply blocks.  The same sort of thing happens in the Real World court system  juries will convict without being absolutely sure, because they (mistakenly) think "Well, the guy can always appeal if we got it wrong".  What they don;t know is that being innocent isn't grounds for appeal.  You have to have fresh evidence or fresh legal argument  "the jury got it wrong" will get you nowhere. Tough.  Ten one-second wrongful blocks for incivility will just have people saying "Look, he's been blocked ten times for incivility already; he should have learned by now!" ... when he gets pissed off at the latest eejit who gives him yet another one-second block.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 11:36, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If a person has ten blocks by ten different admins, they should get a look for whatever prize they are looking. I would certainly want to know why on 10 different occasions a different admin thought that person should be blocked.  We don't currently have the ability to remove blocks from the log so the question isn't about removing bad blocks.  There is no reason that an admin would risk losing his bit over a one second block.  Why would they?  They would have to be endorsed to get a meaningful block plus they are subject to all the "bad block" sanctions for a bad 1 second block.  Further, they can't ever block that established editor again - all for a one second block.  I think it would lead to less blocks while still allowing enforcement of the basic rules.  You will never cure bad blocks and we can't edit the log.  We have out of policy blocks all the time now, we might as well limit them to 1 sec and counsel the admin responsible.  Read my block log, it was a bad block that was overturned and the admin lost his bit over poor judgement later down the line similar to that.  The overturnings comment is also incorrect but three is nothing to do about it.  What comes around, goes around so I am not worried we will ever tolerate abuse of tools.    --DHeyward (talk) 12:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * A one-second block would be obviously petty point making. Such games would be inflamatory.  As rules of thumb, I suggest that no unilaterally made block should be so long that any other admin could be justified in undoing it (assuming no reasonable response by the blocked user), and no block should be shorter than the time since the editor last edited.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Senra Thanks for the comments as you explain well why I have made this proposal with recent concrete examples. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it is a good idea to discuss what kind of blocks cause the most problems. It seems the most controversial are blocks on long-term users for civility. I would suggest that "civility" is a bit to vague of a reason, encompassing numerous types of undesirable behavior. I have issued over 2,000 blocks and not a one of them had civility as the logged reason. There is almost always some more specific reason for an admin to block. Admins should also be strongly encouraged to  solicit community input before issuing civility related blocks unless threats of harm are involved. This would reduce the number of such blocks that are speedily overturned by ensuring a consensus before the block is issued.   Beeblebrox (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are, indeed, the worst. What percentage of "civility blocks" actually make the recipient more civil? I find that the majority of cases of incivility seem to be triggered by intense frustration, and the situations almost always bring themselves to a natural close fairly quickly.  Blocks should be preventative, not punitive (always good to remember that one!) and it usually appears to me that blocks for incivility (especially on user talk pages) have an element of "There! That'll teach you!" vengeance about them.  The block button should never be hit in revenge.  That's not what it's for.  The civility policy is not intended to be used as a weapon.  <span style="color:#003300; font-family: Apple Chancery, Zapf Chancery, cursive;">Pesky  (<span style="color:#003300; font-family:Papyrus, Noteworthy;">talk ) 08:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Making the recipient of the block "more civil" isn't the only goal. With someone that persistently attacks other editors, getting them to go away is still preferable to suffering their continued misbehaviour.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Am I right in believing that the entire justification for this recent fad of trying to diminish the blocking policy is because editors have begun to believe that we are too harsh in blocking for classes 3 through 5 there? Because we most assuredly are not. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are right.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, if anything more seems to be sliding, especially amongst "tenured" editors. My goal is simply to establish dialogue as to how we might better adjust policy to reflect actual practice.--MONGO 00:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Chris is close but not quite right.
 * I don't think anyone is trying to diminish the blocking policy, but improve it. I think that it is recognised as not working well.
 * It's not generic "editors" who believe "we" (is that "admins" or "some admins" or members of Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks?) are too harsh in blocking, but that some other admins believe certain blocks are too harsh, and they unilaterally reverse them, undermining the first admin, and creating a stalemate per WP:WHEEL and the pracitcal difficulties of achieving "consensus" over a block, leaving the original infringing user unblocked.
 * I think it is very important to distinguish between a unilateral block (only one admin cautioned, warned, threated and/or blocked) and cases where multiple admins warned, explicitly pre-discussed, and blocked per a small consensus. The problems are not going to be solved by a lone ranger making example definitive actions, but by a calm rationale community response.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You hit on one point that I think is worthy of discussion. If you take, for example, my recent block of Malleus, I persist in the belief that my block was unassailable. The attack it was referenced to had never been discussed and excused (despite some smoke and fog asserted that I had gone against an ANI consensus), the attack itself was inexcusable, and there has never been a consensus that Malleus is immune to blocking for personal attacks. Yet, Floquenbeam felt empowered to undo it without discussion (in fact, without so much as an unblock request by Malleus), and refused to discuss his unblock in any forum. Unblocks like that have no place, even if you disagree with me that my initial block was sound. The issue with these block/unblock cycles can be a bad block, but it is just as often (or perhaps more often), a bad unblock.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * From what I can find, I think you would be well-advised to have instead opened a fresh section at WP:ANI proposing a lengthy block, linked it in the block summary, and made the block duration no longer than a reasonable discussion (whether that is as short as 1 hour, or as long as 24, I'm not sure). Your belief of unassailability is demonstrably falsified by your block being assailed.  I say this without at all judging your block.  Agree that block/unblock cycles is a symptom of policy inadequacy that needs fixing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec. I think this is a discussion worth effort) I'm afraid that "indefinite" is synonymous with "infinite".  I assumed the rationale of the assailment (the unblock) was that an infinite block was too lengthy.  Personally (based on real world practice), I recommend a short block for such an attack, arithmetically increasing with each repeat, and not getting into the unproductive game of forcing displays of contrition.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This "act of contrition" notion is the part of this discussion that always escapes me. Why would we want editors that won't acknowledge the reason for the their block to be unblocked? Isn't this use of arithmetically increasing blocks using blocks as punishment, whereas a single block that lasts until the blocked editor agrees not to repeat the behaviour that got him blocked a more effective preventative measure? How is saying "I won't do that again" an act of contrition?&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The "act of contrition", or "acknowledge the reason for the their block" or "promise to not repeat" or whatever, would be nice, certainly. But when there is more than one side to a story, it effectively requires the admin to get up to speed with the backstory, and that is too much to ask a volunteer.  It eliminates so many admins from the pool of people willing to engage difficult users. The use of arithmetically increasing blocks is something I want to emphasize over geometrically or exponentially increasing blocks.  Punishment?  I reject the "blocks are not punishment" notion.  Of course they are.  Excluding an individual from the group hurts the individual, it is done when he did bad, and it is hoped that he will learn to behave better.  I suspect the idea comes from undergraduates who think they are adults and are therefore above behavioural learning.  When it comes to reformable misbehaviour, especially by otherwise productive editors, let's just admit that the blocks are punishment intended to stimulate personal reform.  A single block that lasts until the blocked editor agrees not to repeat the behaviour works great where the adult has a one-to-one authoritative relationship with a child.  It doesn't work when others interfere, or the parent doesn't have the time to monitor and follow up.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Blocks are not punishment" means "blocks are not meant to punish", not "blocks do not punish". Individual editors generally perceive blocks as something between a sin bin and a naughty step (with the odd exception likening them to the murder of Christ, usually in some four-paragraph-long diatribe on ANI). As for "requiring the admin to get up to speed with the backstory", I consider that a prerequisite for an admin using any tools at any time. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * On punishment, do you disapprove of any timed blocks for incivility? Repeated?  Non-specific threats?  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Working Group
Fluffernutter - I would like to put some ideas together, but before I do, could you describe (without any specific events) the most common issues you face that require oversight? I'm thinking Child self-indentification, accidental outing, malicious outing, self-outing, gross blp violations, and libelous information. Are there any other times you might oversight? Are there degrees to any of these that might mean the degrees should be treated as separate categories?--v/r - TP 18:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * TP- I'm not sure where you're going with this, so I can't say for sure. If you want more accountability regarding oversight, I think that is great, but wouldn't it be better to have the discussion at WP:OVERSIGHT?  Regards, Crazynast 18:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That might be forum shopping. But any proposals we come up with would certainly need to be at least advertised there.--v/r - TP 21:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking solely from personal experience (it is possible that there are actual stats somewhere, Risker might be a person to talk to about that) self disclosure by minors and naive adults is by far the most common thing we deal with. Behind that is users who did not realize they were logged out and reveal their IP by accident. That's right, most of what we do is actually quite boring and routine. Next would probably be libel and other extreme  BLP violations, followed by requests to suppress article feedback, although that may be taken off our plate altogether at some point. Malicious outing is actually pretty rare and usually comes from trolling-only accounts, not established users. As has been mentioned elsewhere, the situation that set all this off is exceedingly rare. We could debate whether I and others handled it appropriately but honestly it could be a very long time before it actually happens again. FYI the functionaries and ArbCom have been discussing this as well. Not trying to fan the flames or anything, but the feeling there is that the suppression and the block were supported by policy, but obviously policy was not enough in this case as we saw a a massive Streisand effect, which rendered the effort more or less pointless. What we might, as a group, do differently in the future remains unclear though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The context of my concern is not in the outing or original block. My concern is the flow of information after the block and Kevin's unblock.  I want to make policy clearer here.  I've no doubt that the situation followed policy.  I want to see information flow better so we can prevent the desysop, Arbcom case, and level of drama in the future by making it clear what circumstances warrant which information and which the options are for each particular situation.  I have trouble accepting a declaration by a (semi-secret, even for good reason) group that a very ambiguous policy must be followed under no exceptions and to top it all off no one can ask questions.  Would that sit well with you if you were not an oversighter?  C'mon Beeblebrox, you know I trust you to do what you think is right.  But Arbcom is asking us to swallow a pretty big spoonful. Anyway, thanks for your list.  I'm going to put a semi-chart together for each circumstance and a proposal for what I think should be acceptable.  Hoping your still around to give input. --v/r - TP 22:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As you go forward with that please bear in mind that all users with access to private material are bound by the WMF privacy policy and that is essentially not open to debate at the project level.


 * We do also have the apprently seldom used audit subcommittee whose purpose is to investigate user concerns about suppression and checkuser actions while maintaining the required level of privacy. I've never been the subject of one of their inquiries but it is my understanding that they protect both sides of the dispute in that the oversighter or checkuser in question gets an email from the committee informing them that somebody is questioning their use of their advanced permissions without naming that user. The subcommittee acts as a go-between, the two sides never know who the other is and all communication is through the subcommittee, who of course all have access to the disputed information.


 * Functionaries serve at the pleasure of ArbCom, we are appointed by them (since 2010 I believe, there are still some old hands from before that who were elected) supervised by them, and can have our status yanked by them if they see anything they don't like, even if it has nothing whatsoever to do with advanced permissions. I'm not saying the community should have no say in the matter, but I want to be clear that we are not operating with impugnity and there is an existing appeals process that does not appear to be used very much.  It's a tricvky situation to be sure, we don't want it to appear that there is a rogue group that need not explain itself to the community, but we also don't want to reveal sensitive information that we have promised to keep to ourselves. Unlike most of the rest of WP contributors, the WMF knows exactly who we are and hypothetically they could be compelled to share that knowledge if there were legal issues related to private information. That is what we all signed up for when volunteering for these positions. So yea, we tend to err on the side of caution a lot. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My concern isn't the functionaries actions. It's what happens after their actions.  Kevin's unblock, for instance.  My inquery is more about 'How much information is not actually private and should be disclosed so that administrators can take action.'  I am aware of the privacy policy, but it's a very bright line.--v/r - TP 01:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think Fluff's post in the above section is pretty much right on. The way we do things now is to leave as little trace as possible. Linking to material we are trying to suppress is counter-productive, and in some cases even the name of the oversighter could be a piece of the puzzle that would be of aid to those who would try and stop us from doing our job. I would assume that is why AUSC is set up the way it is and why suppression logs are not public. However, it is worth noting that any oversighter can see them and you can approach any one of us and ask us to check on something, we can't give out specifics but we can and do double-check each other quite often. We simply can't share the vast majority of what we do with anyone who has not identified to the Foundation and explicitly agreed to abide by the policies that bind us. It's not that we don't trust (most) other admins to have some sense about it, it's that we just aren't permitted to exercise our own judgement in such matters.  The communuty could require a bit more transparency, but I for one would need to see some very compelling evidence that the benefits of doing so would grossly outweigh the occaisional problem caused by the lack of details. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)