Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 22

Transparency
User:Callanecc recently said, "One of the recommendations we made was that CUs be required to put enough information [into the CU log] for themselves and others to determine the grounds for the check at the time and in the future." 

In the same spirit of accountability, I propose the following addition to this policy: "Administrators are required to put enough information into the block log for themselves and others to determine the grounds for the block at the time and in the future." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't see any reason to object to that. I find it very frustrating when reviewing unblock requests to not have a clear indication why the user was blocked to begin with. It's kind of hard to evauate an appela when neither the blocked user nor the reviewing admin can see why the block was placed. It's not that common, but ti shouldn't happen at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think better wording is: "Administrators are required to put enough information into the block log to determine the grounds for the block."

Removes some cruft and gets to the core of the issue. Stuartyeates (talk)
 * Yep, that's better. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems to fit best in the section Blocking policy. How does this look? I've made it more prescriptive than the present version ("should consider" → "should"):


 * --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that there's no requirement to place a block notice at all (I don't, nine times out of ten), there's certainly no requirement about including specific information.&mdash;Kww(talk) 14:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about changing the policy so that you have to leave enough information in the block log for others to review your block. One link is going to be enough for most blocks. I'm happy to change the last part from "should" to "may". So that would look like this:


 * Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd support this, provided that when the information cannot be shared publicly, phrases such as "oversight block", "checkuser block", "arbcom block" are acceptable. Although, where possible, a reference for others with the relevant permissions should be given. e.g. "oversight block. ticket #1234567". Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In the vast majority of cases, one look at the contribs of the blocked user will make it obvious why it was blocked, whether or not there is any kind of block summary. Anyone reviewing the block should be reviewing the contributions of the blocked account; in fact, I'd say it's a more serious infraction to fail to review the blocked account's edits than it is to not include a block summary. Also, I don't know that one can mandate what is "sufficient information". What is the outcome you are looking for here? Are you proposing to desysop admins who do not do all this bureaucratic work for every block, whether of a longterm user or a poop vandal? Are you proposing that blocks be lifted if the paperwork isn't done to some arbitrary level? Is there any evidence that the goals of the project are adversely affected by administrators not using deeply informative block summaries or posting complex block notices? In other words, are you trying to address something that is major problem? In what percentage of blocks does the absence of this information become relevant?  I suggest gathering some actual data, and reporting back, before pushing administrators to do work that is meaningless most of the time.  Risker (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the question that comes to mind for me is what constitutes "enough information" and "grounds". Certainly a block with a completely useless log entry like "lol" or something is something I would be annoyed to see any admin making, but on the other hand there's a wide spectrum information that might or might not be included in grounds-related rationales. For instance, is "disruptive" adequate? Is " disruptive editing "? What about "per discussion", as opposed to "per ANI", as opposed to "per ANI discussion at [permalink to thread]"? One I've seen pretty often and wondered about is things like "block evasion" with no further info - sure, that's grounds for a block, but it alone gives a reviewing admin nothing to work with as far as who the blocking admin thinks the new account is, etc. So yeah, in a perfect world I'd support a policy change that requires us to provide adequate grounds in the log, but in the current imperfect world I have no idea where we'd draw the line between adequate and inadequate. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Fluffernutter, if there's been a discussion, "per discussion at [permalink to thread]" should be more than adequate. It's time cheap and is respectful to the blockee and anyone who wants to know what prompted the block. It's a pointer that's needed in the block summary. Not an ANI case. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Too vague and restricting. You only have a limited amount of space, for starters.  Next, what matters most is what the admin puts on the talk page.  Explaining complicated reasoning for a block is best done on the talk page, not the block summary.  As has been pointed out, most of the time, it is obvious.  I would also note that it is not at all possible to edit the summary once the block is made, whereas you can edit the talk page, so putting a requirement for a detailed summary is unreasonable.  If you slip or forget, you are a "violator".  Not reasonable on that point alone.  It is still a good idea to give a good summary, but using words like "required" or "should" are out of place as there is no way for an admin to correct himself, short of reblocking the individual.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Dennis, regarding, "Explaining complicated reasoning for a block is best done on the talk page, not the block summary." Yes. But a link in the block summary to that explanation - particularly when that explanation is somewhere other than the blockee's talk page - is easy and - WRT transparency and accountability - essential. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really make sense. First you block, then you template, then you explain.  There isn't anything to link to when you are making the block, as the overwhelming majority of blocks aren't the result of some ANI discussion. This is adding bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, and it isn't any more transparent than what we do now.  It is an unnecessary burden that won't work for a number of reasons. Monty explains some of it below.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Usually with a block for vandalism there isn't much need for documentation. An edit summary of 'block evasion' can drive a later admin crazy but realistically it may be hard to do better. Personally I'd be grateful if anyone issuing a block for edit warring would include the name of the disputed article in their edit summary. EdJohnston (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In most instances, a link to the blockee's contribs or a diff will be enough - ten seconds of your life. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems rather bureaucratic to insist on a link to contribs in the block reason when its so easy to just click the contribs link in the block log. And the vast majority of blocks are going to have obvious reasons when you combine the rationale and a quick look there. Its the other ones that are a bigger question and warrant further discussion about just how specific we should be. Monty  845  03:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Forget the link. That was Risker's suggestion. If the block is for obvious vandalism, nothing other than "vandalism" needs to be said. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Obviously we should have enough information in the block log to make it clear the reason for the block. But beyond a reason, when we start to include evidence in the block log entry, we run into two problems. First, we would direct more attention to what ever wrong thing the person did. In the case of edit warring, that isn't a problem, more eyes on a content dispute is a good thing. But when it comes to a blatant vandal, directing more attention at what ever they did is counter productive as discussed in the WP:DENY essay. Second, we have no opportunity to take back, or revise, or extend any the reason once its in the block log. So we should be careful what we say there, and err on the side of saying less in the log, and more on the talk page, where anything wrong can be more readily addressed. Monty  845  03:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In the case of an obvious vandal, just "Vandalism only" is more than adequate. As for the amount of detail to include in the summary of a complicated block - if it's complicated, there will be/should be a discussion somewhere that you can link to. For edit-warring, as Ed says just above, naming the article/s would be plenty to be getting on with for a colleague who wanted to review your work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm mainly focused on how we draw the line of obviousness. Consider this block for block evasion. Now in my view, it was pretty clear they needed to be blocked immediately. But how much time should we spend trying to run down who the ultimate sock master is BEFORE blocking so it can go in the log, and how much time should spend running it down at all in a clear cut case like that one? Or we could sidestep the issue and just call it a vandalism block, even though calling it a block evasion block better explained what was going on... Transparency is great, and I'm always happy for people to review any block I make, but I'm still wary of adding a bunch of paperwork in cases where its really not required for effective transparency.  Monty  845  03:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't need to make a case in the block summary - just put the relevant link in there, and only do that when a quick look at the blockee's contribs and talk page isn't enough for a colleague to go to the cause of the block; like, for instance, when the problems are laid out in an ANI thread, not the user's talk page.


 * In the case you cite above, since the contribs history contained only two entries, and one (this diff) involved an effective admission of editing under another account, I don't think you'd need to say anything but "block evasion" in the block summary. This isn't a make-work proposal. Where what's going on is obvious, you don't need to do or say anything. This addresses those cases where a very quick glance at the user's contribs and talk page doesn't make it very clear what was at the bottom of the block. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but when you start throwing around words like "require", it does become a make-work project, in that an action that was not previously necessary is now required; it's (by definition) more work. What percentage of blocks get appealed to start with? How many appeals a day do we get? How many appeals a day do we get where the reason for the block isn't fairly obvious (whether by looking at the user's contribs, whatever block summary is there, or whatever is posted on the talk page)? If we're talking one a week (or even one a day), it is not worthwhile to impose this rule, given we make hundreds of blocks a day. If it's one per hour, that's a different matter.  So let's see the data showing that this is an important issue, and not just "I don't know why so-and-so did that".  Risker (talk) 04:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * User:Risker, regarding, "are you trying to address something that is major problem?" Accountability is important. Most of the blocks I've reviewed have been for reasons that are obvious upon a quick review of the blockee's recent edits, or displayed on their talk page. In those instances a simple note in the block log like "vandalism only" is plenty. But some require quite a bit of trawling just to find even the precipitating event. It is a courtesy to your peers and those to whom you are accountable - the wider community - to make reviewing your work easy and transparent. When it's not obvious, the blocker needs to make it so, either with a link or useful description in the block log or on the blockee's talk page. That's what this policy should prescribe - clarity. I don't care what wording we end up with.


 * Regarding "make-work", perhaps it's a cultural thing. Where I come from a make-work proposal is one aimed specifically at making work with no intended benefit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This does nothing for accountability. Admin are required (yes, required) to explain any block they make as it is now, and answer to it at WP:AN or the talk page, via WP:ADMINACCT.  That is accountability.  Putting details in a block log doesn't make it more accountable, just more burdensome and more prone to having BAD information permanently stored in the logs.  And as soon as an admin flubs up the link in the summary, someone will sure as hell drag them to WP:AN saying it was evading accountability or some such nonsense.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't understand most of the opposition here - the aim of the proposal is to ensure that in all cases the block log entry is sufficient for the blockee or another administrator, potentially years later, to understand the block. Looking at the most recent 150 blocks, we have for example: So most admins are doing enough already, and you see how little work is actually involved in getting it right. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * : "Vandalism-only account" - nothing more needs to be said.
 * : "Disruptive editing, specifically your repeated removing of sourced material from the Pippa Middleton article in spite of many warnings, plus your previous vandalism on same" - perfect.
 * : "Spam / advertising-only account" - again, that tells you all you need to know
 * : "Vandalism" - a look at the contribs should be sufficient, but it isn't obvious to me at first glance which contribs were vandalism.
 * : "Disruptive editing: removing AfD notices in spite of warnings" - perfect.
 * : "Abusing multiple accounts: User:Cryx88" - perfect.
 * : "Disruptive editing repeated unosurced additions" - perfect.
 * : "vandalism of Archimedes Plutonium" - perfect.
 * : "sock" - this one isn't helpful as there is no mention anywhere in the contributions or on their talk page of who this is a sock of, there is no linked discussion, and it is not obvious from the contribs why they were blocked. Better would have been "sock of ", "sock (of ?)", or "sock (see )".
 * : "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Sockpuppet investigations/Chowkatsun9" - perfect.
 * : "Vandalism" - this one is fine as their talk page has warnings with relevant links.
 * : "part of mass attack, cf. User:86.2.52.154" - this is all-but perfect (the link should be to user talk:86.2.52.154, but that is trivial) as the linked page contains the explanation.
 * Perhaps you've not had the opportunity to run into them, Thryduulf, but there are a significant number of serial trouble-makers who want nothing more than to see their "original" username littered everywhere all over Wikipedia. If you want, I will email you some of their names, but I'm not going to publish them publicly. It's an essential part of their trolling of our project (and sometimes other projects as well), and WP:DENY does have a useful role in a lot of cases. They've even been known to "appeal" the blocks of some of their socks for strictly lulz purposes. I know I'm old and cynical, but this has been a genuine issue since before I even started editing, there is nothing really that can be done to make it better, and it's one of the reasons that proposals such as this (which don't have anything to do with accountability, although I believe that Anthyonyhcole and others have mistakenly thought it does) have never succeeded in the past. Those who choose to deal with a significant number of unblock requests get a skewed view of what constitutes a problem block. The administrator corps as a whole blocks hundreds of accounts every day, and even more are blocked/locked at a global level; there are in the range of 5,000 blocks and locks a week - and I'm probably being conservative. If there are two unblock requests a week that seem to have insufficient information, that is less than 0.001% of blocks. And you're going to be told to jump in the lake if you push stewards to explain why they globally locked another big stack of accounts; the most you'll get is "spam" or "vandalism" out of them. Risker (talk) 14:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 101.191.21.222 is obvious if you look at the edit filter, and even if you don't look at that for everyone. An edit to Edit filter/False positives/Reports is a major flag, I'd say at least half the false positive reporters are upset their vandalism got blocked, and are either ready for a block, or close. Monty  845  14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * What about trying to improve accountability from another angle; we could put together a group, (probably just whoever wants to be involved) to proactively review blocks to see if they have reasonable explanations and if they are consistent with normal blocking practices. The group would then make suggestions to blocking admins on best practices, and in the case of a bad block that can't be resolved with the blocking admin, to bring it to AN or AN/I for review. The load could be adjusted, but lets so hypothetically a bot would pick 2 random talk page revocations, and 2 random regular blocks each day, and post them to a project page, where the members of the project would discuss them, and if there were any problems, reach out to the blocking admin to create a dialogue. Monty  845  15:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an influx of support for that idea. Sounds like a make-work task for people who already have more than enough work to do. I really don't see what the big deal is here, this is just a minor wording change reflecting what admins should already be doing. It's effect is minimal because most of the time this problem doesn't exist. It costs us nothing to add this advice to the policy, but whatever. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just looked through the 500 blocks over the last 6 hours. Mostly bots blocking proxies. But of the 100-odd manual blocks, all the logs were transparent. Beeblebrox is right. Requiring transparency is simply formalising what good admins do. I think that's what policy is meant to do. Clearly, properly worded, this proposed change won't add a jot to the workload of typical, responsible admins. I'll think about this and redraft the proposal in light of the above feedback. Thanks for all your comments. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Not to nitpick, but the current wording is advice. The proposed wording would be a requirement and the basis for contention at block review.  That is the point.  Almost always, admin already give good summaries.  Beefing up the requirement is answering a question no one asked; fixing a problem that doesn't exist, and adding more problems down the line.  Simply put, it is unnecessarily bureaucratic, and we should avoid adding more rules unless we are specifically fixing a real problem.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem exists. I encountered it several times with a subsequently de-sysopped user, and I've encountered it in reviewing blocks by users currently active in good standing. As for the wording, I hear what you say and am dwelling on it. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If the sysop who wasn't using summaries was desysopped, then maybe the existing system works? ;) I agree that a blank summary isn't excusable, but that is rare. I just don't want to get slammed for a summary when I explain in full detail on their talk page, ie: drama. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have explained on their talk page you just need to include the words "see user's talk" or "per user's talk" or something like that if you want to be absolutely certain. However a user's talk page is the obvious place to look so it isn't explicitly needed. This is intended for summaries like "per discussion" when that discussion is not on the user's talk page and there is no hint as to where that discussion is. An edit summary of "drama" when it is obvious from their contributions where they are causing drama is fine, the same edit summary where it is not obvious (e.g. if they're ip-hopping or it has been rev-delled) should be expanded to "drama at page". We don't want essays, we want pointers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Summarizing: The snapshot results indicate that there is no serious issue with administrators failing to explain the reason for blocks; in fact, the snapshot shows that there were no problems at all with the absence of reasoning. There is no evidence that there is a need to require this information, because in almost all cases it is already present. Nobody seems to be proposing that there be specific consequences (either desysop or automatic lifting of the block) should an admin block without completing a block summary and/or block message on the blocked user's talk page. There is no objection to the current wording, which strongly urges exactly the behaviour being sought with this proposal - and there is no evidence at all that there is significant deviation from following that advice. Nobody has produced an example where an unblock request was adversely affected by a lack of a block summary/posting on the blocked user's talk page. Evidence has been given that there are certain WP:BEANS situations where a block summary directly linking an account to a sockmaster is more likely to cause harm than resolve situations, and there has been no example given where the lack of identifying a sockmaster has adversely affected an unblock request. In other words...there is no evidence that there is any point whatsoever in making this a requirement, as opposed to the best practice already outlined.  There are no policies that *require* people do to certain things (there are a few that require them to *not* do certain things like make personal attacks, and those situations have specific potential consequences attached to them), and the proposed use of the "required" terminology is culturally out of place, particularly with no indication that there will be any consequences attached to failing to adhere to the "requirement". Bottom line, nobody's shown any evidence that lack of summaries/block notices is having an adverse effect on blocked users, unblock request reviewers, the encyclopedia, the admin corps, or the community as a whole. Risker (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Regarding your summary, User:Risker, you began by saying this would add an intolerable burden to admins. Now that it's clear it won't, you're asserting that, because most admins do this anyway, it doesn't deserve mentioning for the benefit of those who occasionally don't. Since most admins already are transparent in either the block log or on the blockee's talk page, it's clearly behaviour most admins consider good practice. In this discussion, more than one of your peers has expressed support for formalising this. We could do this without using "require" or "must". How do you feel about "should"? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This is difficult. The only cases where I have seen this as a problem is with certain functionaries, who put "checkuser block" and it has later transpired that no checkuser information was required to make the block at all.  This effectively goes back to Callenc's point that raised the matter in the first place.  Administrators don't really wield to much power, and there are enough admins that anything hidden (by delete etc.) can be checked up on.  The same is not true of functionaries.  Unfortunately functionaries sometimes do have a good reason not to give the cause of a block.  I suspect it is far less often than the cases where no cause is given.
 * Therefore I would support the proposed wording with should since I would be reluctant to see this policy used as a stick to beat admins with.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

Proposed addition to Blocking policy
At end of first paragraph. "Administrators should take care not to apply an autoblock to a bot as this will result in the autoblock propagating to all the other bots that share IPs on Wikimedia Labs." --Neil N  talk to me 05:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems logical to me. Chillum 12:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bit of a "duh", but never hurts to write it down anyway as some may not have been aware of it until they actually tried. WP:DDMP anyone? RegistryKey(RegEdit) 05:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem would be solved if "autoblock" wasn't automatically checked in just about every block form, regardless of whether using the basic one or a scripted one. Perhaps a block form specific to bots might be useful, or a warning message that the account is flagged as a bot should appear on the block form. Risker (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I like your idea to automatically uncheck if the user has the bot bit. Or take away the option in software if the target has the bot bit.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There might be valid reasons to leave autoblock on (i.e. if the operator is also blocked), so it might be good to leave the option available, but making it no longer the default is a good idea. --Rschen7754 01:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 02:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Most bots don't run from the same IP as the operator's account does; the majority of bot activity on this project comes from the Labs, and most of the rest run from dedicated off-site servers. If for some reason it is necessary to add an autoblock, it can be added. It just should not be the default. Risker (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the twinkle code, but I imagine it would be able to check for the bot bit easily enough and default to autoblock off with a short message. I can't think of any good reason not to. Who is the person to ping about that? Chillum 04:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, he's been doing the block module work, I think. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Since account names of bots almost always end with "bot", we can do a simple check for that when blocking accounts and disable autoblock if present. I've added this to the to-dos. Should be fairly easy to implement so hopefully will go out with the next update &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  03:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Is adding the proposed text to the policy now necessary? --Neil N  talk to me</i> 04:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a downside in simply giving Labs-hosted bots IP Block Exemption? Better to do it on bot creation than make everyone do something special later down the line.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It would help, and would probably address about 70-80% of issues. There are a few other bots that are run on non-WMF proxy servers and have been caught in range blocks before. Perhaps IPBE could be added directly to group of permissions attached to the bot flag?  Is there a downside to this? I'm having a hard time thinking of a situation where a misbehaving bot would need both its "account" and its IP blocked, and we are pretty insistent that all bots be properly flagged (unlike several other projects).  Will this be an issue for global bots?  Risker (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh hold on. I've just now looked at the User Group Rights, and all flagged bots automatically have IPBE. Unless I really misunderstand, that should mean that even IP autoblocks should not affect flagged bots. Risker (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If that is so, are there any other services/connections that an IP block would interfere with?  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The traditional problem we have had is with Labs bots operating logged out, and the IP being blocked under the misapprehension that it was an unregistered bot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC).


 * This section should probably mention that a lot of bots can be stopped by leaving a tlak page message or other means. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC).

Is there justice on Wikipedia?
More than 200,000 residents of the London Borough of Hackney have been blocked from editing. Dennis Brown says "there is no justice". Risker is a former member of the Arbitration Committee with intimate knowledge of its workings. Dennis Brown dismisses her view saying "Risker is just another admin, not a judge". 86.149.12.180 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Discussion transferred from User talk:Dennis Brown

Under the collateral damage policy libraries are not blocked. Abuse can be reported to the IT administrator at the institution concerned. All users are advised that their use of the facilities is monitored and access can be withdrawn. In the case of the Hackney libraries, Dennis confirmed that there was no abuse and never had been. That was why no report was ever made to the authorities.

A discussion was started at ANI under the heading "Hackney residents' editing is of a high standard" but this was hatted by Dennis apparently because he felt it was an attempt to discredit the administrator who was repeatedly blocking the library without providing informative block reasons. 86.149.12.180 (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Either retract the claims, or provide diffs. I already removed the copy/paste.  You are just making an attack on me without providing diffs to substantiate your claims. And if you want to overturn an ANI discussion or have an admin's actions reviewed WP:AN is the proper venue.  This page is for discussing changes to the blocking policy itself.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Let me toss it back to you. Why did you hat the ANI discussion? Your answer will be relevant to the discussion as to whether changes are needed in the blocking policy as a result of this incident. 86.149.12.180 (talk) 11:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I hat lots of discussions, either provide a diff, or move on. You are the one making claims, it isn't my job to hunt down your diffs. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * IP, Dennis is correct when he says "there is no justice". Nor should you expect there to be – at least not on Wikipedia. He provided a link to WP:TANJ. Did you read it? If you already have, please read it again – especially the part that says "Wikipedia is not fair...(i)f this fact is a cause of excessive stress for you, Wikipedia editing may not be a good activity for you." If you know someone who has been impacted by a block (at the library or otherwise), please encourage them to create an account. Mojoworker (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC) Note: I chose the TANJ shortcut for any Larry Niven fans out there.
 * The cited essay says seek solutions.  There seem to be two solutions, unblocking the library or registering an account.   The problem with your preferred solution is that the library is blocked account creation blocked.   So the other solution, unblocking the library, would seem to be the better.   What's your view? 86.149.14.244 (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you go to the blocking admin and ask them to lift the "account creation" portion. THAT would be seeking a solution.  What you don't do is start an RFC, provide no diffs (you still haven't) and make unsubstantiated claims.  That is just seeking drama, and of course, the whole RFC is invalid to begin with.  Someone should probably kill that header. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 15:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * According to this sentence added to the discussion the readers perceive themselves as being treated as second - class citizens.   Since you said there was no misconduct coming from them please clarify your stance on simply unblocking the library and being done with it. 86.149.14.244 (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is a poorly formed RFC. It doesn't really ask a question.  It doesn't really even ask for comments.  It doesn't even clearly state what the problem is.  It appears that the problem is that an IP address or IP range belonging to a library has been blocked due to vandalism from IP addresses in that library, and that the poster is saying, rhetorically, that the entire municipality has been blocked from editing as a result.  The OP has already been advised to provide diffs and has been advised that any issues can be taken to WP:AN.  It has already been stated that the affected editors can create registered accounts.  (If the IP range has been blocked to block account creation, isn't there a mechanism for administrators to assist in account creation?)  Does this RFC have a purpose other than to create drama? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Now you're doing exactly what Dennis said you shouldn't do - making allegations without providing diffs.  Dennis said the readers were blameless - what's your motive in arguing?   Dennis's proposition is that users mustn't expect justice - if a block is unfair that doesn't matter because no user has a right to expect fair treatment.   But the whole of the blocking policy is predicated on the fact that blocks will be fair, and if they are not they will be overturned.   Dennis's take is so at variance with this that it becomes a valid topic of discussion. 86.149.14.244 (talk) 16:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the block you are speaking of, and this is the wrong venue to discuss someone else's block. I would propose that someone simply close this thread, as the IP has already been directed to the proper venues to appeal a block, and this entire event is obviously out of process. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no policy that says discussions must take place in a particular venue. Unblocks can be discussed on talk pages, ANI, AN, anywhere. Since Dennis says the readers are blameless my view is that the library should be unblocked. Nobody has put forward an opposing view - and since that would require diffs, I don't think that anybody, including @Future Perfect at Sunrise, is going to. Consequently, there is consensus to unblock 86.149.14.244 (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

In any event, in any discussion on the merits of a block the default state is unblocked. This has been confirmed many times, the latest confirmation being in the discussion about GorillaWarfare's block of Eric Corbett (or maybe it was either The Rambling Man blocking Kww or the other way round). 86.149.14.244 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus here to unblock the library's IP addresses. If you think the IP addresses should be unblocked go to the blocking administrator and request they be unblocked.  If you have access to the IP address you can put the request directly on the IP talk page or through the WP:UTRS interface.  No action to unblock the IP addresses will happen because of discussion here on this page.  You are wasting your time here.  If you want to propose a change to the blocking policy or want to discuss the blocking policy then you are in the right place.  -- GB fan 18:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Re - reading Robert McClenon's post again, it's not "a library" which is affected, it's every single one of nine libraries, which means getting on for 500 computers. 86.149.14.244 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There's now nothing to take to another venue. At the point the discussion closed there was one support and no opposes, so a consensus had formed. I messed up the but even if he opposes (which he won't, because he would have to supply a diff) the unblock goes through because the default state is unblocked (see my comment above).

Dennis' argument is so weak he resorts to shouting (I didn't make the block) - cf "I did not have sex with that woman" - but the people who didn't make the block are the very ones who review it per the blocking policy. Going to the blocking administrator after this !vote would be a masochistic exercise.

As for taking it to the IP's talk page, someone did and what happened is discussed in the next section. Since we're quoting from the ANI thread, I had occasion to make the exact same journey the OP made last night. It was a boiling hot day (it's still a boiling hot day) and the train sat in Bethnal Green station for a loooong time. During that time, as commuters fought to board, others were fighting their way off, to sit in the shade in the waiting room for the next train. However, help is at hand. The Evening Standard reported that Transport for London are putting the Overground service out for tender. Next year, the frequency of the services on the lines running north from Liverpool Street will increase from eight trains an hour to ten. They describe this as as 20% increase in service, but it's actually 25%. It's all something to do with the arrival in 2018 of Crossrail 1 - that's the service that will whisk us from Maidenhead in the west under central London to Shenfield in the east in minutes. The Prime Minister recently went below Farringdon station to celebrate the joining up of the tunnels. Here in Hackney we've been promised another Crossrail - what used to be called the Hackney - Chelsea line - for decades, but nothing has materialised yet. The bigwigs at the council campaigned for years for the tube (subway) to come to Hackney and thought they had achieved it with ELLX (East London Line extension) but it turned out to be just another surface railway (although at Whitechapel you go beneath the "underground" to catch the "overground"). 86.149.14.244 (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed addition of Blocking policy
I have proposed that there be a section of the types of blocks in Wikipedia. I have noticed two types of blocks, hardblocks and softblocks, but never realised which is a hardblock or a softblock until I saw templates of types of blocks. I had found no search results for "hardblock" or "softblock" on any Wikipedia page except template pages. What do you say about this addition of "Types of blocks" as a section? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping me whenever there is discussion in this section. If this discussion all goes well, you may put in the proposed section. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi this is currently covered in Blocking_policy. Does the wording there make sense to you? If you use "advanced options" to search specifically in Wikipedia space you will find that we have redirects for both WP:HARDBLOCK  and WP:SOFTBLOCK   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that is all right. I agree with you. By the way, where are the shortcut names for the shortcuts that you have mentioned? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:HARDBLOCK and WP:SOFTBLOCK.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, and that is good that you showed me some links. Hmm... I hope that some block templates may show about the types of blocks. Does this sound okay to you? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, just because I'm interested, how do you get that "arrow" in discussions that has the aim to prevent an everlasting line of indents? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Use od preceded and followed by two curly brackets. 86.149.14.244 (talk) 10:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Require a training module?
Hey, I was wondering if there was a way that we could start requiring that editors go through one of the training modules like TWA, depending on why they were blocked. I know that in some situations we'll have editors claim that they were unaware of policy and making them go through TWA (or something similar) would help since it'd basically give them an overview of editing guidelines. It'd also be helpful because going through TWA does leave some sort of mark, either via the edit history and/or via tags added to the user's page like at. This would result in roughly three outcomes:


 * 1) User completes TWA and learns policy.
 * 2) User completes TWA and does not follow policy.
 * 3) User refuses to complete TWA and does not follow policy.

The ideal outcome would be that the user would get a rudimentary education in the guidelines and would change their behavior enough to where they wouldn't be at high risk of getting blocked. However if they do complete TWA and still don't understand guidelines then that could provide enough WP:ROPE to where we could easily justify another block. (I know that in some cases it's a clear block but in many instances we give people a chance to improve and they continue to claim that they didn't understand and that we didn't work with them enough. This would give us the chance to send them through a module that isn't used nearly enough by incoming editors.) If they refuse to complete TWA and don't follow policy then that'd make it a clear case of bad faith. It'd also give us a chance to get more feedback on TWA because if someone completes the module and really doesn't understand something, then we can use their feedback as a way to maybe make things more clear.

I've started asking people to do this in cases where there's a conflict of interest and the user has made some type of edit that would result in a block or administrator interaction of some sort. I know that we can't require that every new editor go through a training module but I think that in the case of some blocked editors it'd be a good thing to require. (I'm thinking people who were blocked for issues like copyright violations, disruptive editing that isn't obvious vandalism, COI issues, and so on.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess what I'm suggesting isn't a requirement in the way that we'd reblock them if they don't complete it, more something that would come up automatically in some block templates or as an automatic message in some format. We can always put in the TWA template after an unblock I suppose, but I'd like there to be something a little more official. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  10:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how I feel about this idea, but I am sure I don't like "The Wikipedia Adventure". There is already a form of this, in that some blocked users get the old secondchance dropped on them, which requires them to demonstrate that they can edit constructivelt before being unblocked. Don't see it used much lately though. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the people who get blocked are blocked for very obvious things like vandalism and spam where training would be the wrong solution, we just want them to stop doing what they were blocked for. I can see incivility/civility and overly close paraphrasing as things where training might be useful, but first we'd need to get specific and effective training. I hope that the Wikipedia Adventure isn't the relevant thing for either of those as I see that training as targeted at goodfaith newbies.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly just using TWA as an example of the training modules since that's the one I've run into the most on people's userpages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Rules about handling block avoidance
Are there any? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course a common sense is to notify the blocking admin, but people, including admins, have real life too. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem, are you talking about WP:SOCKING? You can notify an admin who's familiar with the case if they're active, WP:ANI if it's a WP:DUCK case (or WP:AIV if you feel lucky), or open or add to a WP:SPI. Is this a general question (in which case it probably belongs at WP:VPP) or something else? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not a general question. This is question about the text of the policy. It is not exactly SOCKING. It is a special case, specific to blocking. IMO it deserves a separate section in this policy. In particular, it is more often subject to WP:DUCK tehna to full-blown WP:SOCK. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You are going to need be more clear and specific if you want any useful feedback beyond what Neil has already given you. WP:EVADE may be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry, WP:EVADE is what I had in mind. My bad; poor reading skills. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ambiguous phrasing
The block template on offender IP's talk page reads:

If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit
 * This can be easily read as an invitation to block evasion. For newcomers this may be unintentional. And I believe this is what happened in the case of ->.
 * IMO it should be phrased as follows: If you have a registered Wikipedia username ad you believe that the offending edits made from IP address are not yours, you may log in and continue to edit. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears in this particular case that the blocking admin added that themselves for whatever reason, that is not the standard language of uw-ewblock, the template used there. I'm not sure why they chose to do that but that's neither here nor there so far as the actual blocking policy is concerned as it says no such thing. Normally, blocks are understood to be on the person behind the edits regardless of what alternate identities they may have access to. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's from Twinkle. I just had this happen. I'll post to the Twinkle talk page. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The notice at User talk:209.49.242.34 is and that at User talk:24.46.196.22 is  neither of which is specific to Twinkle; both are listed at WP:UWT and also at WP:BLOCKT. Most messages beginning "uw-" are discussed at WT:UW. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IPs get an extra "If you have a registered Wikipedia username, you may log in and continue to edit" sentence? Is that documented anywhere? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the yes parameter on both. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Conversation continued here: Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Question About Hard and Soft Blocks
There is a discussion at WP:ANI about an IP range block by CheckUser. Am I correct, first, that a range block by CheckUser is imposed when CheckUser determines that the range is that from which a blocked or banned user had been editing, and that the blocked or banned user is now editing logged out? Am I correct, second, that such a block is almost always a soft block with account creation disabled, so that it does not block registered users? (In the case in point, it seems that the affected unregistered editor then went to a different coffee shop and created an account, and should now be able to edit.) Am I correct that a CheckUser range block is almost always a soft block? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say you are right, though I don't like the ambiguous term soft block. With schools for example we tell them to go home and create an account. With other ranges we tell them to go wherever they can to get an account to continue editing. Other ranges we just tell them they're closed to unregistered editing. This all assumes they are not the intended recipient of the block, because they're not abusing Wikipedia. If there's still abuse we block the accounts, with increasing administrative interest. After that we don't afraid of hard blocking some ranges where appropriate. Usually we just block the accounts, and coffee shops, in batches sometimes. A block identified only as a checkuser block doesn't really assume any responsibility on the person receiving it, but usually the recipient and others will know through other means that they are blocked. The main point here, such users are usually identified by the extent of their abuse. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Evidence tampering
SPI pages have a section for evidence to be adduced by those alleged to be sockpuppets. It should be obvious that evidence submitted prior to the determination of the case is validly posted, and not to be deleted on the ground of block evasion. However, some editors have been doing just that. Should the blocking policy be amended to make it clear that this is not allowed? 86.134.217.107 (talk) 10:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No it should not. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrator's userspace - huh?
... in that administrator's userspace.
 * I suspect what intended is "admin's area of editing interests". 'Userspace' rather calls to mean User namespace. IMO should be rephrased for clarity. - üser:Altenmann >t 07:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The short section is about conflicts that an administrator might have, essentially a reference to WP:INVOLVED, that would prevent the administrator from blocking. In that context the sentence "It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace" means that if a user is blocking the administrator's userpage, Talk page, or any other page in that administrator's userspace, policy doesn't prohibit the administrator from blocking the user. In other words, it means what it says.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The original wording makes the point clearer: "It is okay for an administrator to block a vandal who has been messing with their own user pages or talk page, as long as it is clear-cut straight vandalism" Actually, it's OK for an administrator to block clear-cut vandals doing clear-cut vandalism anywhere. No? -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Did it really say that (I didn't look)? "messing"? Your second point occurred to me, of course, although not with quite so many "clear-cut"s. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Not here not policy
WP:NOTHERE is not policy, and clearly says at the top "where something is inconsistent with this essay, please defer to those. " Although too often use as a block "reason," it's generally associated with WP:DE blocks (which are a behavioral guideline). NE Ent 01:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is used all the time as a blocking rationale, Ent. Admins even link the damned thing in the block rationales. I point out that this wrong all the time but nobody listens. There's no reason to revert as you did. Doc   talk  01:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The section is titled "Common rationales for blocks" not "common policies upon which blocks are based." Requiring that it be a policy is an arbitrary condition that appears to have just been made up on the spot. The reason it is often cited in block rationales (as I mentioned in my |edit summary) is that is actually one of the pre-written rationales right in the dropdown menu in in the blocking module so it seems weird to bar it from being mentioned here. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is the source of the blocking model? NE Ent 01:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. It is a commonly used rationale for blocks. To pretend that it isn't because it's technically shaky (IMHO) doesn't mean it is not a common rationale used to block editors. Doc   talk  02:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy reflects practice as much as it dictates it. The reality is that people get blocked for not being here to write an encyclopedia all the time. I think it reasonable that the policy warn people of that fact. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 03:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with everyone who wants to keep it as a blocking rationale in the policy. It's not only used and is in the blocking form and block notice. It's used frequently.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed as it's a very accurate listing detailing why many editors are blocked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 05:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The discussion is whether to add it, not keep it. And it's not actually policy; we don't actually block folks for things they don't do, we block them for things they do. Consider "Mary & Slater-4eva," created 2007. Clearly "not here" to build an encyclopedia, yet no one going to block them. If there's some interface that lists "NOTHERE" as reason, the solution is to fix the software, not make up a policy reason that doesn't really exist. NE Ent 10:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You don't have to go far back at all in the list of active blocks to see how often it is used as a rationale.,,,, ad infinitum. So the genie has been out of the bottle for some time. Right or wrong, it's time for the policy to mention the fact. Doc   talk  10:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There seems to be support for adding it. The trouble with some of Wikipedia's very concise shortcuts is that they don't fully convey the meaning of the document behind it. There's an important difference between being "here for some other purpose" and not being here at all. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your cherry picking of one editor from 2008 makes absolutely no sense. And yes, we block users for "Narrow self interest and/or promotion", "Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site", "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Treating editing as a battleground" etc. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please list here all rationales which are hinted by software? Is, as NeilN says, we are blocking for "Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site" etc, then we have a dangerous mismatch between Wikipedia and Wikimedia. Of course, it may be a nitpicking, but some hate this "Wiki P/M Wheel War". Yes, the police follows practice, but the keyword here is "follows". If something becomes a common practice, time to see whether it is a common misuse or a hint to policy update. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem, there is no "dangerous mismatch". There is no "wheel war". The WMF does not dictate the reasons for blocking. The rationales closely follow this list. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 01:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The complete dropdown menu of 40 or so common rationales is at MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. It looks like NOTHERE was added about 16 months ago (in response to the many admins who were already manually using it as a block summary), there was a brief discussion on the talk page, and it was decided to keep it.  Like all MediaWiki pages it is permanently protected to stop people from rushing in and messing it up without a consensus to do so, so please make sure you have a consensus to remove it  before seeking to change that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is this reason encourages lazy or sloppy administrating. I'm guilty of having used it a few times without thinking.  When blocking, specifics should be provided with a citation to policy or a guideline.  WP:NOTHERE includes a bunch of stuff that isn't blockable.  It's too easy to look at an account you don't like and say "not here" and block it.  What's wrong with giving a specific reason: vandalism, sneaky vandalism, edit warring, creating hoaxes, improper username, WP:POINT, WP:DE or something else specific?  The problem with "not here" is that it presumes to judge the user's motive.  What we really need to do is block for their actions, regardless of motive. Jehochman Talk 22:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please list the "bunch of stuff that isn't blockable." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 22:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think all the bullets at WP:NOTHERE are good reasons for blocking, provided you've attempted to explain the issue to the user yet they continue with disruptive behaviour – to a degree that we can definitely say the user is "not here to contribute". Any admin who is just blocking users without any real reason is just being a poor administrator, the little dropdown of presupplied block summaries is not to blame, nor do they govern what the valid reasons for blocking are.I also use this summary for when the account is not vandalism-only, but deserving of an indefinite block. For instance, if they make a few good edits to disguise their trolling or other obvious disruption, particularly when there's an extensive filter log indicative of abuse. "Disruptive editing" of course can work just as well, but it does not imply an indefinite block. This use case for me is for newer accounts and not for controversial blocks, where you might want to give more specific rationale &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Another example: trolls participating in 4chan/reddit attacks get a NOTHERE block after they pop up with their first edit. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" blocks may be a result of specific edits, where NOTHERE can be more fitting when blocking for an overall behaviourial issue. In the end it's at the discretion of the administrator, and any good admin will use NOTHERE where appropriate and not leave the user unaware of why they were blocked, or have other admins questioning it. The keyword I think is that the user is clearly not here, such that others will agree &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DE nutshell: "Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely." I've observed blocks labeled "not here" for at least a year or two -- whenever I look into the circumstances it's generally actually been disruptive editing or personal attacks. Complaining to a blocking admin that they made a reasonable block but recorded the wrong reason struck me as pointlessly bureaucratic, so I never worried about it. NE Ent 00:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are we using blobs? An administrator blocks for one day for alleged "block evasion". Another administrator, whose motive is to punish the editor for being good at her job, comes along and increases that by 5,800%. He needs a reason for doing that, but as she is blameless doesn't have one. He therefore synthesises a reason, "continued abuse", which is not permitted under policy and rightly so. Should the policy be amended to make it clear that administrators who use these weasel words are guilty of abuse of the tools? 217.41.38.76 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the policy should not be amended. If there are concerns about a particular block, WP:AN would be the proper forum. NE Ent 02:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And banned editors don't get to raise concerns. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOTHERE page has a list with a preamble, "Indications that a user clearly may not be here to build an encyclopedia include." When blocking, I think we should cite the specific reason, not point to a vague list.  Some items on the list are not block worthy, such as "Interest in gaining as many rights or "flags" as possible"  If we blocked for that, I could indef  or  right now, for example.  It also lists "Narrow self interest and/or promotion" and mentions WP:SPA.  Many new editors appear to have a narrow focus or start out with self promotion.  Last I checked, we don't block single purpose accounts unless they are disruptive.  There are really only two basic reasons to block:  (1) damaging articles, and (2) severely annoying other users.   In the block tool interface we list a bunch of different flavors of those two basic violations.  Why then do we need to list "NotHere", which is less specific than either of the two basic reasons to block?  Let's be specific. Jehochman Talk 03:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I could indef Kirill Lokshin or AGK right now, for example." <- no common sense. "Blocking a 4chan troll as they're not here to improve the encyclopedia" <- common sense. Admins are supposed to possess a healthy measure of common sense. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Admins are humans, and humans are biased. We've all seen admins abuse their powers, and we've all seen admins get tossed out. Popularizing the usage of the highly interpretive and vague NOTHERE rationale instead of the more concrete reasons that Jehochman suggests is really fostering a rationale that is more likely to be improperly applied/abused/misinterpreted. It's a slippery slope. Doc   talk  08:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I find WP:NOTHERE a lot more descriptive and clear than disruptive editing. Which admins have been tossed for abusing WP:NOTHERE? Or is this a fix to a non-existent problem? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I meant that we've all seen admins tossed from the project (for various reasons), so not all admins can always automatically be trusted implicitly to do the right thing because admins are not infallible by default. Especially when there's extra "wiggle room" to block users. I never meant to imply that any admin has been tossed, or even disciplined, for NOTHERE usage. This is an example of how generalizations can be misunderstood! NOTHERE is not policy, and it's rife for misinterpretation. The only other information page that admins should(?) use for a block rationale here appears to be VOA, which is directly tied to a policy. All other rationales are either guidelines or policy. NOTHERE starts out with "A major pillar of Wikipedia is that editors are here purely to build an encyclopedia". So... what "major pillar" is that?! It doesn't even make sense, which is why it is not policy.
 * There's also this: if anything, admins should link to WP:NOT instead of NOTHERE. Why? Because that is actually policy! Not some information page. Doc   talk  14:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The pillar is WP:5P4 which incorporates WP:AGF. And admins can use customized reasons when blocking if appropriate. WP:NOTHERE is one of them. Of course, they have to defend their reason if asked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The 4th pillar WP:CIV has nothing in that policy that states "editors are here purely to build an encyclopedia". Looking at the history of the page I see that no one pillar is actually referenced from the very creation of the article at all. It's always been just a link to WP:5P. Seems pretty vague. Apparently it's just been blindly accepted that this "major pillar" concerning editors "purely to build an encyclopedia" actually exists. Doc   talk  15:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I frequently post a block notice on a user's talk page which says something like "you have been blocked because you are clearly here not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but rather in order to..." and then goes on to give further details. In many situations, I regard that as more helpful than just saying "You are blocked because you are not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia", unless prior existing context makes it clear what the more detailed reason is. That is exactly analogous to what applies in the case of most other block reasons: "You have been blocked for edit-warring on such and such an article in such and such circumstances" is better than just "You have been blocked for edit-warring", unless previous messages make the details unambiguous already. However, frequently the essential reason for a block is that the editor's purpose here is something other than contributing to the encyclopaedia. Typically, an editor comes here for some unsuitable purpose (such as using Wikipedia to publish his or her own made-up fictitious country, or using a user page as a blog), he or she is politely told that doing so is not what Wikipedia is for, he or she persists, is told again more firmly, persists again, and is then blocked. It seems to me that in such a situation he or she is being blocked substantially because he or she is here not to contribute to the encyclopaedia, but rather for some other purpose, and that being so, it makes sense to say so in the block log. Very often, none of the other common reasons quite fits, so if administrators were forbidden to give that as a block reason, granted that a block log rationale has to be fairly short and concise, the result would be that often a less accurate, and possibly misleading, reason, would be given. I don't agree that every blocking rationale needs to link to a policy, but I do agree that in some ways linking to the page WP:NOTHERE is not ideal. However, whether we should link to that page is a quite separate issue from whether it is reasonable to give "not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" as a reason for blocking. I agree with NeilN that not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia is a clearer reason than the extremely vague "disruptive editing".

As I have attempted to indicate above, there are situations in which not being here to contribute is the essential reason for a block. Since being here for a purpose other than contributing to the encyclopaedia is frequently the most natural reason for a block, it is therefore reasonable for administrators to block for that reason. Moreover, whether people in this discussion agree that it is reasonable or not, it is in fact one of "the most common rationales for blocks", so it makes sense that it should be included in the list of "Common rationales for blocks". We don't have to link to WP:NOTHERE if consensus is against doing so, and certainly I am far from persuaded that doing so is a good idea. Just adding some wording such as "Not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia", perhaps with a sentence or so clarifying it, would be reasonable. For those who think that every block should refer to a policy, the objection that "not here to contribute" is not a policy would then be answered, because it would be included in the blocking policy. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The block reason isn't the "not here", because we don't block users for what they haven't done; we block them for what they actually do. The reason to block should be stated as "You did X" where X is against a policy or guideline.   The "Not here" statement is a fine preamble when giving an explanation, but it alone is not sufficient to justify a block.  Words matter.  We shouldn't have a template reason that is insufficient without further explanation; it could encourage less experienced admins to block too quickly and without sufficient rationale. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Editors must be able to relax collegially together. There is a level of divergence of fundamental attitudes, whether in editing or to the project as a whole, at which this may not be reasonable to expect." This little gem apparently describes editors who are NOTHERE due to their "major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention". NOTHERE is actually far more vague than DE. It's just an essay that rehashes WP:NOT, DE, NPOV and other policies and guidelines. Those original sources should be cited. Doc   talk  17:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to being blocked on those grounds, but do try to make the block coincide with my next holiday :-). AGK  [•] 23:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Motion to temporarily disable
re: The rationales closely follow this list. - The template was created by user:Black Kite in June 2014. Now, where is the discussion to add a block template which is not based on policy? Blocking is a serious issue to expand the scope without discussion. I suggest to disable this option ASAP, since the discussion clearly shows there is no consensus yet.

So far there are equally valid arguments from both sides:
 * It is basically a valid reason
 * Yes, but it is prone to abuse

Staszek Lem (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It was quickly withdrawn. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * Obviously oppose. No examples of abuse have been given and probably thousands of blocks have been given out using this reason. This is not an expansion of blocking reasons. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "This is not an expansion" - please cite the policy for this blocking reason. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "thousands of blocks have been given" - then make it into the policy, after the community discussion, which is wikipedia way of operation Staszek Lem (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "No examples of abuse have been given" - so you are suggesting to wait until shit hits the fan. While I agree the probability is low, the consequences usually cost several man-months of active wikipedians. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Right in this policy: "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia." Also note, "The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks." Some, not only.
 * This is not an extension of policy. Admins may give out blocking reasons other than the ones listed, as noted in the point above.
 * As I suggested above, a fix in search of a problem. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re "Some, not only" - Of course, an admin may block for anything xe sees a disruption. But in this case xe must be diligent to explain xis reason, to avoid bickering. But putting a canned rationale into a drop-down list means some kind of community endorsement, which I see improper without community discussion. And after such discussion, the rationnale is to be added on the list of "some, not only". Staszek Lem (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re "to prevent damage or disruption" - as we see, the discussed essay has some items questioned, while some others are already covered elsewhere. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone in this discussion is on their very first day of Wikipedia editing, but just in case, I would explain that when practices change policies and processes are adapted to the change, not used to shut down the change.
 * TLDR version: policies are descriptive not postcriptive.
 * I realize that this fundamental concept which underlays how WP works has not been out in the forefront in this age of insistence on blnd obedience to "teh rulez" but how this happened is exactly how it is supposed to work here and insisting it be undone a year and a half later because an extremely small minority don't like how it came to be added is exactly how it is not supposed to work. Also, by my read we do have a consensus. Unanimity would be nice, but anyone can see that the bulk of particpants in thsi discussion support the inclusion of NOTHERE as a standard blocking rationale. Even if removed, you would need to get a consensus absolutely banning it as a reasson for blocking or admins could still just type in "NOTHERE" in about one second anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Being here to create an encyclopedia is the basis of the entire project. People were being blocked for not being here to write an encyclopedia before we even had a term for it. It was not new in 2006 and it is not new now. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Privacy VPN blocks
I noticed I can't edit when I have PIA VPN running, even when logged in. It seems somewhat counterproductive to turn on SSL globally in order to enhance privacy, and then to block the use of privacy VPNs even for logged in users. Is this an exceptional instance, or do we have an actual policy somewhere to block privacy VPNs even for logged in users? Gigs (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a bit stale,, but I doubt this is policy, or even an intended effect. I suspect this is an unintended collision of software, and I would raise it at WP:VPT if it is still going on. Or it might be intended from the other side. A VPN I use does prevent me from accessing some sites, although not Wikipedia. I don't know anything about the PIA VPN, but it might somehow block the URLs associated with editing. DES (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know we have blocked their particular ranges due to 'multi-account' abuse from both registered and unregistered users. The point has always been written in policy: "Open or anonymising proxies ... may be blocked". When you use an anonymising VPN, you're usually sharing the same IP addresses as banned users and vandals. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand there's practical issues with socks and such. It just seems that there's an intractable conflict between real privacy and any hope of actually enforcing blocks and against socks, and we'll eventually be forced to decide which way to go with it.  Gigs (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We do have the IP block exemption userright. It allows logged in users with the right to use IPs that are otherwise blocked. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 03:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, I just got that right added. Perhaps we should look at some kind of super-autoconfirmed that grants that automatically. one year old accounts with 1000 edits or something. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is a good idea. IPBE is granted to users who have a demonstrable need for it, on a case-by-case basis. Trying to get around the Great Firewall or something like that is a good reason. "Because I want to" is not. It's better if an actual human admin looks at the circumstances and makes a determination based on the actual reason it is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

BASC reform motion
An arbitration motion proposing a major overhaul of the current BASC system has been proposed. Comments are welcome at that location. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Motion to disband BASC proposed
A second arbitration motion has been proposed which would disband the BASC. Comments from the community are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Arbitration/Requests/Motions'''

Wiki 101 review
Since the above discussion is just a little ridiculous, let's review how we (should) work around here. Repeating yourself isn't likely to change anyone's mind, and repeating yourself in bold even less so. And try to keep in mind it's just a website, and what you're fussing about probably doesn't make that much difference either way. NE Ent 23:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Something's wrong, just fix it (bold)
 * If you think a change isn't an improvement, revert and discuss.
 * If you can't come to consensus through discussion, initiate RFC. Wait 30 days or so. Count votes. Position with more votes gets implemented.


 * Consensus is not determined by counting votes. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 02:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OFCOURSE it is. NE Ent 03:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The linked essay is so full of problems I don't know where to start. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 04:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTHERE isn't much better. Just because it's an information page doesn't make it any less of an essay than that one. Not one of you administrators has answered why the NOTHERE essay is a) preferable to linking the appropriate policy or guideline, or b) different from any other essay. Dismissing the opposing viewpoints as process wonkery, wikilawyering, etc. doesn't make it any less true that essays should not be used for blocking rationales. Why is this so difficult to understand? It's just an essay! It's the same as any other essay. How is it not?  Doc   talk  07:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "Repeating yourself isn't likely to change anyone's mind" - mostly true. However in lots of discussions quite often a new person arrives, reads the top and writes their opinion at the (very far) bottom not really perusing the whole talk. Several times I witnessed a counter-argument to the just posted opinion actually changed poster's opinion. Unfortunately we don't have a convenient way of cross-referencing individual arguments in the talk. Then we could have had like this: (( New: "Aa ...zzz" - Me: "Sorry, did you see my point A27?" - New: "Yes I did; Still disagree." )) - case closed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "If you can't come to consensus through discussion, initiate RFC" - yeah, sure, and get threatened by a block for disruption. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any serious threat of you being blocked for process wonkery. It is not a common block reason. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as persistent assuming bad faith does not make an admin desysopped. IMHO even joking suggestion of block for talks in this page is an indicator that this admin is potential menace. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone threatened to block you about this then the proper place to address it is their talk page or failing that a noticeboard. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 00:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not a complaint; that was an example of admin's frivolous attitude to blocking. By the way, I've just looked up wiktionary for the term unknown to me : process wonkery. If this is what you meant, then no, it was not for wonkery; it was actually for disruptive editing. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a relatively small subset of admins that want to popularize the usage of a freaking essay for block rationales because they like it. Unfortunately, not one of them can explain how it is appropriate to use an essay over a policy or guideline, or how one essay is more important than another when blocking, or why legitimate complaints about using an essay is "wonkery". Their position on this does not represent what the community wants, just as essays do not reflect community consensus. When the admin ranks close, the community pays the price. No admin on the side supporting NOTHERE seems to be willing to see the logical conclusion of the slippery slope: you keep using essays as a blocking rationale, other admins are going to use other essays as well. BURO is the worst argument for using essays as block rationales that I've seen. Make policies, guidelines and essays all the same if you don't want a hierarchy! Seriously! Doc   talk  06:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Heads up - You are not the community. Go monitor ANI and AIV for a month and see how many calls are made for WP:NOTHERE blocks by non-admin editors. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 06:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've monitored both boards for years. Who give a toss what non-admin editors ask for blocks for? Admins should block based on policy, not essays! Doc   talk  06:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "The admins' position is not representative of the community." "Erm, the community asks for NOTHERE blocks all the time." "Who gives a toss what the community asks for?" --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 07:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No. A small subset of admins (including you) want to use an essay to block people. "But some people ask for others to be blocked for that essay all the time, so therefore we should do it." If you can explain how one essay among many hundreds is tantamount to policy or even a guideline, I could follow you logically. Instead you are twisting my words and trying to discredit me, avoiding the issue. For shame. Doc   talk  07:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why can't WP:HERE be promoted to a guideline if it's strong enough a reason to block an editor? Then it's no longer just another essay! Better yet: incorporate the key elements of NOTHERE into the logical place, the policy of WP:NOT. An attempt at rational compromise instead of, "We like it, we've been doing it, we're going to keep on doing it, we don't care if it's wrong or right, and we don't want to hear any shit from you troublemakers about it." By definition, "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community". Why is this simply being ignored? Doc   talk  07:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Because there's no need to promote every blocking reason to a guideline. If an admin uses a custom blocking reason frequently there's no need to promote that to a guideline either. BTW, are you aware that WP:VOA, linked to by VOA block messages, is an essay? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, yes! I pointed it out several days ago: "The only other information page that admins should(?) use for a block rationale here appears to be VOA, which is directly tied to a policy." At least that is unambiguously tied to the one policy of WP:VAND. Is your position that NOTHERE is as good as any other when it comes to using an essay for custom blocking reasons? Doc   talk  14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't care that it's an essay. I could write a three sentence custom block reason and that could be considered an essay. What matters is that the block reason accurately describes the reason for the block. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So linking to any essay as the main block rationale is fair game when you block an editor? Doc   talk  15:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Any good rational whatsoever is fair game when an editor is blocked. There is no need for it to be documented somewhere. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 15:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Doc9871 expects some admins to lose all common sense when blocking. Look, I can block HighInBC as a VOA right now. It's a policy-based reason for blocking as your clamoring for but I'd get desysopped right away because there's absolutely no justification for that (policy-based) reason to be applied to HighInBC. Crying "but it's a policy-based reason!" isn't going to save me. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 15:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How could you could block HighInBC as a VOA right now? Doc   talk  16:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, he's saying he could do it, with a policy-based reason, and it would still be wrong. And NOTHERE, while not being a policy, could still be a correct reason to block. He's saying it is not as black-and-white as some are making it out to be. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Correct. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 16:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A "small subset" may not be entirely accurate. Since NOTHERE was added to MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown in August 2013, there have been 222 different admins who used it when blocking out of the 660 distinct admins who performed any block during that time  (~34%). In total there have been 4794 NOTHERE blocks since August 2013 . I suspect if we were able to narrow down the set of admins to those who work in counter-vandalism and related noticeboards (such as AIV or AN/I), the percentage of NOTHERE blocks versus total blocks would be higher. &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's actually disturbing. So we have solid precedence in using this essay for a block rationale. And we clearly have no desire to upgrade said essay to a higher status simply because... we like it.
 * Now, are this and VOA the only essays to be used for block rationales? Because they are extra special?! Doc   talk  16:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * By way of comparison, there's been 228396 non-NOTHERE blocks in that timeframe . Though, on reflection, I expect rather a lot of them were by, so that's not terribly useful.  More interesting is this list of NOTHERE blocks by admin, which shows that the overwhelming majority of admins using this as a block rationale have only done so a handful of times. —Cryptic 17:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FFS. I seriously had no idea, who is basically the man at AIV, used this rationale so often when blocking. I am even more disturbed than before. Doc   talk  17:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTHERE is preferable to WP:VAND when blocking users reported at AIV. Please explain, Materialscientist. Doc   talk  17:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well we shouldn't be name calling first off (no need to judge when NOTHERE is right there in the block reason dropdown), but for the record Materialscientist is one of the most prolific blocking admins out there. 872 blocks since late 2013 is a very small amount for them (around 5% ), so saying they use it "often" is inaccurate &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Name-calling? How? Doc   talk  17:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, name-calling was not the correct terminology. What I meant to say is this is not the venue to ping admins and question their usage of a particular rationale when blocking, saying you are "disturbed" by it and asking that they "please explain". More feedback is of course welcomed, but no need to put anyone in the spotlight when again NOTHERE is in the dropdown of presupplied block reasons – so people are going to use it, and you should assume they had good reason to &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:03, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made an years before you were even a registered account here. I know Materialscientist quite well. You do not need to speak for him.  Doc   talk  18:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

re: "Any good rational whatsoever is fair game when an editor is blocked. There is no need for it to be documented somewhere." -- Two points: (1) yes a "good rationale" is good to have documented, for spread of good practice. (2) If there were infinite number of "good rationales", then documenting them all would be impractical. Fortunately this is not the case: People have a nifty thing called "abstract thinking" which allows them to classify infinite number phenomena into a finite set of concepts. Example: It is a good rationale: "I blocked you because you put the word 'penis' and "gay" into several articles". I am sure it is an extremely common editing; I remember reverting some myself. But nobody would suggest to put "Adding word penis into an article" into the policy. In our case of NOTHERE we are dealing with an abstract definition of a certain editing pattern, which can cover a big number of concrete behaviors. Therefore in my Book of Logic this is a valid example why NOTHERE deserves to be in the policy, unlike WP:DONT_PUT_PENIS_INTO_RANDOM_ARTICLES. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't expect your "Book of Logic" to become a bestseller anytime soon... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be greatly appreciated if you keep your insults off discussions of policy. I am not really touchy, but you are derailing the discussion. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * P.S. Wait a sec! You are an admin too? How come this discussion is infested with uncivil admins? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not incivility to point out faulty premises and shoddy logic. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, your comment did not point out neither faulty nor shoddy. If you did I could have said "sorry, my bad" (I have no problem with that) or "sorry, you misunderstood me". But your comment leaves me with the only argument: "Certainly not among wikipedia admins I see here." Staszek Lem (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cool-down blocks
the policy says "as they often have the opposite effect. " I guess they have the "opposite effect" if the block rationale says something like "31h for cool off" Otherwise hoiw the blocked would know? :-) Therefore IMO the policy text should say something like "Blocking rationale or further comments should never use the language "cool-down" or similar. We all understand that often blocks are really for chilling; just don't spell it. This is Psyschology 101. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose proposed new wording is much worse than what the policy has said for a long time, which for the record is:


 * "Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption."


 * (Emphasis not added, that is exactly how it appears in the policy) The intent seems to be well understood by the vast majority of admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting a replacement; I am suggesting to add a clarification. The blocker cannot read your brain as to intentions, but they can read your text. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not an instruction to blocked users, it is an instruction to admins considering blocking solely to cool someone down not do so. Unless there is some evidence that admins are misunderstanding this and making such blocks, your clarification would muddle what is, currently, perfectly clear. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I know. My point of clarification is related to the term "solely": that even you are blocking for real dusruption, do not make any personality hints (that you have to cool down, take a wikibreak, etc.)  Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I do have no idea what "do not make any personality hints" means. I also still don't see why you want to clarify something when there is no reason to believe it isn't already perfectly clear to admins, so if you could explain both of those points it might be helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What it means is in the examples given in parenthesis. And it means a mellower version of WP:DNIV mentioned by Cryptic. In fact now it dawns on me that this suggestion is of general kind, applicable everywhere, so you are right, it should be clear for anyone who routinely handles disruption. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The current wording is superior. A block like this is always going to blow up in your face no matter what you put in the summary; that's a much more important idea to get across than a hypercondensed version of WP:DNIV. —Cryptic 07:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Effects of blocking
Not sure where to pose this question. But has anyone actually studied the effects of blocking on editors? One can imagine measuring recidivism, whether the block made an area less/more productive, use of sockpuppetry for block evasion, difference between blocks of experienced users and newbie users etc. There can be many dimensions which can be studied. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 00:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You could also measure the person's attitude towards the English Wikipedia, Wikipedias (not just WMF Wikis) in general, collaborative-content-development projects in general, the WMF as an entity, and the individuals he may have thought were "behind" getting him blocked. As far as I know, no editor has gone postal as a result of being blocked, but it would not surprise me if someone, somewhere, has gotten angry and took it out on those around him, either verbally or worse (just the same as a person with such tendencies might lash out if they got fired from their job, etc.).  On the flip side, you could also hypothetically measure the positive effects of being blocked, such as a person realizing they are a wiki-addict and getting help for their addictive personality, or realizing that their own behavior was what caused their block and changing their behavior and any attitudes that were behind that behavior.  As a very small data point in that direction, being blocked and re-instated has inspired me to put getting a Valiant Return Triple Crown on my bucket list.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not looking for anecdotal evidence (though I don't mind hearing it), but a study, based on some methdology, however flawed. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 02:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know of such a study, but I'd be interested in seeing one. Related but an aside: I'd also love to know evidence about the effectiveness of certain blocking strategies, esp. on new/non-logged-in users. How often does someone who gets three or four warnings then become a good editor within the next six months, for instance? Or are one or two warnings sufficient grounds for an immediate longish-term block. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I found this book which has some propositions in chapter 4, though I don't find anything specifically studying blocking on Wikipedia. One could probably use some kind of research on online communities as a starting point. Perhaps something for the WMF to do? Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 14:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The blocking policy has to be relaxed in order for Chinese users to contribute
Now that the China's government blocks access to all of Wikipedia sites, it is in dire need that this policy be modified to accommodate Chinese users (like me) who must access and edit Wikipedia articles with an IP originating from a VPN or proxy server. Netheril96 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * see WP:IPBE. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Evading global locks
Should WP:EVADE address the issue of individuals creating new accounts to avoid global locks when the locked account isn't currently blocked here? And if so, what should it say? Some such accounts can safely be gotten rid of (e.g. accounts operated by users who are in Category:Wikipedians banned by the WMF), but if a person isn't WMF-wide banned and isn't currently subject to sanctions here at en:wp, should WP:EVADE be considered to apply to such a person or not? Nyttend (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For "EVADE" purposes, a globally-locked account should be treated as if it were locally blocked on all projects including this one. Whether "EVADE" applies depends on the reason for the block: Some block reasons allow the editor to create a new account and edit with it without triggering EVADE.  Others block reasons allow him to use an existing second account or edit without logging in without triggering EVADE.  Other types of blocks only allow editing of certain pages, such as block-appeal pages, without triggering EVADE (these amount to a partial ban).  Other types of blocks amount to a site-ban and don't allow any editing without triggering EVADE. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Unblock conditions
For some time admins have been working in a limbo state where they are unblocking with conditions on further editing but don't have a policy basis to support them (see, for example, Worm's unblock of Kumioko and some resultant discussion). This will be even more important now that the Arbitration Committee has handed block and ban appeals back to the community to deal with. I propose that the following be added as a section under §Unblocking, I've based it on what I have observed of current practice:

Before I start an RfC, any opinions (and suggested improvement) would be very much appreciated. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions:
 * IMO the language "with the agreement of the blocked use" is too mellow. The message must be clear that there is no wiggle space for negotiation. Something like "Administrators may offer the user a chance to be unblocked subject to a specified conditions met."
 * I don't see a problem with allowing negotiation at the unblocking admin's discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see either, but this should not be a privilege cast in the policy. Admins are usually busy. I don't want a situation when a system-gamer starts negotiation, becomes rejected, files an appeal, etc., wasting everybody's time. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But that's what happens now. If I say that I won't unblock you unless you agree to a topic ban, you can disagree and hope another admin comes along and change their mind. The point of unblocking is to bring people back into the community. Admins should therefore use their discretion to discuss it with the blocked user, however there's nothing in the proposal which requires them to negotiate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The same about "expiration time": why negotiate?
 * Consider an indef block for edit warring, if the unblocking admin is happy that a PBAN for 6 months or indef will do the job then why stop them from making that decision? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but why negotiate the expiration time with the blocked user? Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above they don't have to negotiate, but why restrict an admin to only imposing a restriction for the same length as the block? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The part about "uncomfortable" is IMO redundant.
 * Where is that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry you wrote "not comfortable". IMO it is self-evident and just extra verbosity. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My main purpose for including that was so that it doesn't become the norm to impose them anyway, if you're comfortable without them then don't bother, and I think that needs to be in policy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The same "but not exceeed": redundant: when block expires there is nothing to unblock, right?
 * See the point from Beeblebrox below, the unblock condition should only last as long the block they've appealed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my logical blunder. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Must not exceed" must be conditional: "unless grave violations blabla"; otherwise wikilawyers would want "block him for the remaining 10 hours and only then block him for a week". Also, what if a week block is exceeded by 30 minutes? I.e., if kept, make this statement reasonably approximate.
 * What about changing it from must not exceed the original expiry to must not exceed the original duration (for example if unblocked from a one month block, they can be reblocked for another month. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear. I was speaking about the case when the offender not only violates the parole (eg topic ban), but while doing so commits another violation (e.g, gross incivility). Just wonderning whether an extra clarification needed here. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added a bit. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 'Unblock conditions may be appealed' - Redundant. Same as my first notice: no extra legalese room for negotiationismus. Only after you are cond-unblocked and behave, you may try and convince the admin to expand your privilege. But then no extra formalities would be necessary: you may edit any noiticeboards (unless forbidden, but that would mean you were really bad, so you better sit mum). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that denying someone's right to appeal (for example if blocking admin says they won't remove the condition) is the 'right' thing to do or that the community will accept it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Isn't it what is called "admin shopping"? Appeal until a "soft-hearted" admin pops up? There is a generic right to appeal the block. If the offender wants they may plead their case within the existing framework, no need for extra rule. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What about just "to the unblocking administrator or to AN"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for opening this discussion, which I do think we should be having (unlike some other discussions on this page) However, I forsee problems with the first two points:
 * Sometimes, someone is blocked for repeated disruptive behavior, let's say edit warring. Edit warring blocks are often quite short, one or two days. So the admin considering unblocking could suggest a 1RR restriction, but only for two days? Why even bother?
 * On the second point, who will be deciding what is proportional? Sounds like a mess waiting to happen. As the restrictions would be voluntary and the user has the right of appeal later on this seems unecessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the bit about proportionality, thanks. If it's repeated misbehaviour then the blocks would be getting longer and longer as well so any unblock conditions would also be able to be longer. In the past the community has been very hesitant to give admins powers to impose restrictions on their own authority so I tried to make this reflect that. Consider this, a user is blocked twice for edit warring (second block for a week) and the reviewing admin will only unblock if they agree to an indef 1RR or ban from the article. If there is a longer term issue with the user being involved in edit warring then it would need to go ANI for a community imposed restriction outside of a normal block length. Hope may thinking makes sense. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Callanecc, what's normal block length? It is not unusual for admins to indef a repeat edit warrior whose editing history doesn't warrant a temporary block or going to ANI. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a normal block length. My point was that this proposal does not and should not allow a single admin to impose a long-term or indef restriction after a short block (eg second block for a week). Instead the appeal (if no one wants to unblock without a long-term restriction) should go to ANI so that more than a single admin can decide what's needed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "If editors breach unblock conditions they may be blocked or further restricted, but the block imposed must not exceed the original block expiry." Not enamored with this. For example, if an editor is blocked for a week for BLP violations, is unblocked on the condition they won't touch the article, why can't I block for a month if they then go ahead and commit the same BLP violation? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that instance there discretionary sanctions which can be used, and they can be blocked for the BLP vio not just the unblock conditions. The reason I limited it to the original block length is that when a similar proposal went to the community (a while ago, don't remember specifics) there was a definitive no to allowing single admins to impose long-term restrictions on users. I'm hoping that the community will allow it in response to a block of the same length. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Neil. I also think, as Beeblebrox implied, that the unblock conditions should be able to exceed the original block expiration. Even if there are no conditions, say an editor breaches 3RR and is blocked for 48 hours. The block expires, and in they shortly restore their version of the article at issue. As far as I'm concerned, I can block them and for longer without any "agreement".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you could because that's for something more than just breaching their unblock conditions. Just as with discretionary sanctions you can add new sanctions on top of an already existing sanction is there is fresh misconduct. I've added a bit to clarify that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are only really a handful of admins that handle the majority of unblock requests. It's often a lengthy process because the majority of unblock requests, the editor either fails to understand the unblock process (because they haven't read the relevant policies) or fall into WP:IDHT. They are after all (but not always) the most problematic and disruptive editors on the project. When an unblock is finally granted, very often the unblocking admin needs to check in on that editor at routine intervals. It's almost like being their case worker. I'm not saying this is the optimal solution, but it's what ends up happening. Admins need to be able to review the circumstances around a block and implement conditions whereby, hopefully, the reason for the initial block is not repeated. I think there could be an expiration time set for conditions, but it would be as open as up to one year. Sometimes admins have to deal with repeat offenders who have 3-6 previous blocks. Also, indefinite blocks would cause the additional problem of an editor having indefinite conditions set upon them. I don't think we should worry about the blocks that are one or two weeks long. If a set of conditions seem unreasonable or the editor is unwilling to agree to them, they can simply wait out the block. We really need to address long term conditions. They need to be able to be implemented and the edit needs to be free of them at a certain point. Lastly, I'm not crazy about the appeal process. We're going to run into WP:ADMINSHOP which we already experience at Category:Requests for unblock. I think if an editor doesn't like the conditions at the time of their request, they should be able to request (up to one time) for another uninvolved admin to review their unblock request. If, for some reason, we end up having the appeal process, it's going to need to be clear that whoever grants the appeal and relieves the editor of their conditions or reduces them, then must adopt the editor. The reason being is that blocking and unblocking admins are often called back to comment on repeat offenders as they're familiar with the "case". Mkdw talk 18:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Version 2

 * How does this look? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be brave and go first. Substantively, I'm good with this version. I'd tinker with some of the wording, but that can be left to the end if there's a consensus for the change. Thanks, Callanecc.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * We should mention interaction bans as an example of an unblock condition. I think there's still going to be opposition regarding the appeal process. I would go so far as to suggest that simply another unblock request should be submitted if they don't like the unblock conditions proposed the first time so another admin, familiar with the unblock process, will review and possibly offer a different set of conditions. We usually see multiple unblock requests anyway, so this appeal process will simply undergo that work plus new work at AN. The fundamental problem I've seen is that most people who request an unblock don't believe their unblock was justified in the first place. WP:AN might not work for technical reasons because they'll have to "agree" to the unblock conditions to get unblocked, and only then will be able to edit WP:AN. Mkdw talk 16:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm good with this. Mkdw's sugestions aren't bad either. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC).
 * With respect to 's last point, we've unblocked users for the sole purpose of defending or appealing in another forum. I don't see why the user should be in a Catch-22 over this. As to adding an interaction ban, I have no strong objection to doing it, but the "may include" language is intended to be non-exhaustive. The more examples we give the less likely it will be interpreted that way.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've specified IBANs, primarily to limit it to one-way bans. I've also added language about not acceptin unblock conditions as that was my intention. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 21:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


 * IMO the is duplication:
 * "If the blocked user does not wish to agree with proposed unblock conditions they may post another block appeal."
 * "*Unblock conditions may be appealed to the unblocking administrator or to AN."
 * Other than that I support the idea to put this version into policy and proceed with its improvements from that. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that the first point is they can post another unblock request, whereas the second point is after they agree to the unblock conditions, they can later ask them to be lifted.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've clarified this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like there's enough consensus here to take this to an RfC, what were the wording changes you mention above? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Reworded:

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A technical point: Archive-bots and tools archive discussions.  Users should not be held accountable if the notice was applied to the user's talk page in a way that an archive-bot would archive it or if another editor (perhaps innocently, perhaps with mischief in mind) modified the notice in a way that an archive-bot later archived it. I recommend adding a footnote to the last condition to alert administrators to place the notice in a way that it won't be archived, such as putting it at the top of the page in a section of its own, without a "signature" line.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  15:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC about WP:NOTHERE
Whether WP:NOTHERE must be included among the suggested rationales in the policy. I hate to be such a stubborn person, but I genuinely believe that the matter of policy change should not be in the hands of 2-3 a handful of regulars, even if they are 90% right. See also the discussion in. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe your method of counting differs from mine, but what I see in the above discussion is 2-3 people who want it removed, and 7-8 who say it should stay. I'm also not sure why you chose to hide the discussion you just opened and start anew one on the exact same subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my 2-3 was an exaggeration. I should have been less flippant here. And btw I want it fixed, not removed; that's why I hid the previous thread, because I was convinced I was wrong. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if anyone was proposing a policy change? It's just a matter of justifying usage of a particular block summary. The block summary is a text field that I can write anything in, the policy doesn't restrict what I can put in there to certain phrases or wording. All of the bullets at WP:NOTHERE if persistent will eventually lead to a block. Whether you want to use NOTHERE or some other block summary I believe is the subject of the debate &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, the text of policy was changed. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with MusikAnimal. This is not a policy change. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is the suggested change of the text of the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * note to, I did un-collapse/un-hide since your original comment. Staszek, new people coming in via the RfC should be able to see on first blush the discussion that led to this. — Ched : ?  21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I collapsed it back, because the "first blush" is mentioned in the RFC statement, and my suggestion was purely technical issue I was convinced to be invalid. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I uncollapsed it again. It contains relevant discussion as some of us feel this RFC is also based on an invalid assumption. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to think that people are overlooking the form of this page, and that adding a whole new section for this rationale, with a rather strange short description linking to an essay, looks a bit, well, weird. That is all. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really the issue here. How it is presented could probably be done better. However, what is being proposed here is not just that it not be mentioned on the policy page, but that it be removed entirely from the drop-down list of block reasons and that it be disallowed as a block rationale entirely. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well we know the part about policy and practice. But really this addition seems to look out of place and totally lack information; it probably should be presented better. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose We don't actually block folks for things they don't do, we block them for things they do. Consider "Mary & Slater-4eva," created 2007. Clearly "not here" to build an encyclopedia, yet no one going to block them. If the fact that some admins have been using the wrong blocking reason is important to folks, it can be removed from the applicable interfaces, and we can go trout them if they say "NOTHERE." NE Ent 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Um...uh.. what? Let's start with the fact that your weird, out-of-the-blue example predates the creation of the NOTHERE page. So there's that. And not being here to build an encyclopedia is determination based on the user's actions, or what they have done. Because they have done things that indicate their purpose here is not to build and maintain an encylopedia. This is just a nonsense argument, backed up by a nonsense example. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "determination based on the user's actions" -- so why is it so difficult to simply describe those actions when blocking? NE Ent 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Didn't we just have this discussion? Seemed to be a clear outcome to me. I don't think that closing the previous discussion and starting another is going to give you a different answer.


 * To be clear I still support the inclusion of WP:NOTHERE in the list of common block reasons. This isn't new policy, this is a description of existing practices. The reason this is not new policy is because there is no requirement that a reason be listed in this policy to be actionable. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 22:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "Didn't we just have this discussion?" Please read my rationale of the RfC. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I see some people say "This is not a policy change". If you want to split hairs then please notice that this RfC is abut a non-trivial change of the text of the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose until the page WP:NOTHERE promoted to the status of the guideline. I cannot accept the fact the admins base their actions on an essay which contains some questionable advice. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If I didn't understand how Wikipedia works (or should I say doesn't work?), I would ask why are we going in circles here? Seems like the same editors are repeating the same arguments and the same "votes". Doesn't it wear you out (down?)? Can we block Staszek Lem for WP:IDHT? The answer per some editors is no because that's not something Staszek Lem did but something they didn't do. You can go back to your interminable discussion now.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand what the purpose of the RfC is. And the frivolous request of block by a admin, no less(!), is a perfect illustration why the blocking policy must be thoughtful by many. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. Since you are admin, let me remind you that RfC is specifically to handle cases when "the same editors are repeating the same arguments". Staszek Lem (talk) 23:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. The practice is that NOTHERE is used as a block rationale a lot, which makes that rationale policy with a small "p". The whole point of a wiki format is that things are fluid, they change over time, and we don't need to waste our time ratifying every minor change in practice. This RfC is a total waste of time, and the question is a non-issue (I use the rationale frequently for trolls, for example). But since we're here: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; our purpose as Wikipedians is to write and maintain it. Anything else should go somewhere else, and anyone whose edits don't contribute to that aim should be shown the door. That doesn't mean we have to be arseholes about it, but if somebody shows no interest in anything other than promoting their company/recording grandad's war stories/using Wikipedia as a webhost/re-fighting ancient wars/pushing a nationalist POV/etc etc, and we can't get them to stop voluntarily, they should be blocked and "NOTHERE" is as good an explanation for such a block as anything.  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  23:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a long-standing tradition in wikipedia that if something based on a commonly accepted essay becomes a widespread practice, then it should be promoted a policy or guideline. A major purpose of such promotion is cleanup of some careless language. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no such tradition. There is a long standing tradition of editing policy based on simple discussions(like we have already had above) without all the need for official RFCs and closures. When most people agree with something we call it a consensus and move on. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 00:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I had an exactly opposite different experience, during promotion of WP:NGEO. There was a small minority which blocked the promotion of the essay. But unlike y'all here we neither suggest to block the opposite side, nor arrogantly dismiss them as nuisance, neither we push a fake "consensus" down their throats. There were at least 3 iterations of discussions, until a real consensus was reached. May be a cabal does not need RfC, but I do. I strongly suggest you to review the whole process of dispute resolution. Wikipedia is written by thousands of editors, therefore there is something inherently wrong when policies are edited by a handful of regulars. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well if you want to insist on a whole official process then you can try. But I doubt it is going to change people's mind. Policy is descriptive, always has been and WP:NOTHERE is a common reason for blocking. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 02:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are misunderstanding my intentions. I am not about changing people's minds. I am about changing the policy when the practice changes. Y'all say WP:NOTHERE is a common reason. Now I say "therefore it is time to promote it to guideline and then update the policy." And alternative is to continue sloppy "business as usual" until the first scandal. (I admit I went a bit overFormalBoard with the suggestion to temporarily delist it from list of reasons, but I quickly withdrew the suggestion.) Staszek Lem (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a list of common block reasons, not a list of all acceptable block reasons. The essay can remain an essay and still be a common reason for blocking. There is nothing in policy that says every block must be based on a policy or guideline, we can act on the wisdom in an essay. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 02:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This RfC is not about common or acceptable block reasons. And the whole point is that the wisdom of the essay is questionable. An admin can write his own essay and cite it as a reason of his block, and it will be perfectly acceptable. But this admin cannot add this essay as recommended into the blocking policy without broad consensus. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean this RfC is not about common or acceptable block reasons?? Surely this is the discussion you referred to in this revert. The revert was under the section "Common rationales for blocks". Your own words describe this as an RfC to determine "whether WP:NOTHERE must be included among the suggested rationales in the policy". This RfC is exactly about a common acceptable block reason. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 05:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See my prev reply. An admin may block and put the reason "See [my_essay]". It is perfectly acceptable. What is not acceptable is to put [my essay] in the policy. This RfC is not whether HOTHERE is  acceptable reason, it is about putting it into the policy. There are zillions of essays of advice, many of them are sound and commonly cited, like WP:DEADHORSE, but we don't put all them in the policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A WP admin once said of me on the Wikien mailing list that I "wasn't here to build an encyclopedia." I think I had 10 Featured Articles at the time and was feverishly working on several others.  Therefore, I have a problem with WP admins labeling other editors with that phrase, although perhaps it's good to allow them to use it as a blocking rationale, because it makes it easier to identify the WP admins who are tremendous jackasses and can't be trusted. Cla68 (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Socking is covered under "Dishonest and gaming behaviors". Why link to WP:SOCK when blocking when you have NOTHERE? We should add WP:CV to that same section, of course. Why use WP:NPA as a rationale when you can just link the same essay for "repeated hostile aggressiveness" in the "Treating editing as a battleground" section? Everything's there in one neat little package. In fact: why not incorporate all the things that can get one blocked for into the essay and just link to it every time? Let's simplify the process of using block rationales, not complicate it!. Doc   talk  10:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be unwilling or unable to grasp the distinctions. For example, if most or all of an editor's extended activity involves picking fights or name calling then indef block WP:NOTHERE. If an editor with productive contributions goes off the rails then temp block WP:NPA. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 13:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So for an indefinite block the essay should be used for the blocking rationale, and for a temporary block the policy should be linked for the blocking rationale. Makes sense. Are there any other essays besides this one and WP:VOA that should used when blocking over policies and guidelines? Right at WP:ESSAY it states: "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community as they may be created without approval." Is this correct? If it is, isn't it a bit confusing to block using a rationale from any essay? Doc   talk  14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NOTHERE as a legitimate, policy-based block reason. I have no idea why this is controversial. It's 100% appropriate for cases where users violate more than one community norm, for example, edit warring to repeatedly insert antisemitic material into articles about the Holocaust; sneaky vandalism while making personal attacks on editors who revert the vandalism; forum talk on article talk pages while repeatedly adding unsourced content to the articles; inciting discord by making trifling complaints at ANI, supported by obvious meat puppets from 4chan; using multiple IP addresses and proxies in the Ukraine to push an agenda that Nikola Tesla was Croatian, not Serbian. WP:NOTHERE closely aligns with our core purpose expressed in WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building and using a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect." If a user's participation in the project is observed to be substantially contrary to that purpose, then they are WP:NOTHERE to work with others to build an encyclopedia and should be blocked.- MrX 13:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be based in policy, but it is not policy. Doc   talk  14:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were a strict bureaucracy then perhaps that distinction would matter. We're not and it doesn't.- MrX 14:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, "Essays have no official status, and do not speak for the Wikipedia community" per ESSAY. We shouldn't block using essays if this is true. Hey: change it to allow NOTHERE to be used! Doc   talk  14:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Something that is cited as frequently as WP:NOTHERE clearly has community consensus. Per ESSAY: "Policies and guidelines can not cover all circumstances, consequently many essays serve as interpretations or commentary of perceived community norms for specific topics and situations." - MrX 14:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's not one thing in NOTHERE that isn't covered elsewhere (and officially) by whatever policy or guideline it was gleaned from. NOTHERE simply doesn't enjoy the same community consensus as a policy or guideline precisely because it is an essay. I can't imagine why any essay should be linked in favor of the policies and guidelines that are, by definition, considered to be far more accepted as being community consensus. Doc   talk  16:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I echo the comments from more than one editor above about unnecessarily repeating the discussion. "The matter of policy change should not be in the hands of 2-3 a handful of regulars" could well be seen as an attempt at forum shopping: "I wanted to get my way by having a discussion among the few editors who turn up to this page to discuss the matter, but when I realised that I wasn't going to get my way by that method, I decided to move the goal posts and try to get my way by a different method."
 * 2) Some of the arguments against use of "not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" make little or no sense. Here are a few examples: (1) "We don't actually block folks for things they don't do, we block them for things they do." That is empty sophistry: obviously the way we come to the conclusion that an editor is not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia is that we observe them doing things other than contributing to the encyclopaedia. (2) Editors keep on harping on about the status of WP:NOTHERE as "not a policy". However, arguing that something should not be accepted because it isn't a policy is nonsense for at least two reasons. Firstly, many thing we do are not policies, and trying to turn Wikipedia into some sort of bureaucracy, where nothing can be done unless sanctioned by a written policy, is not helpful. Secondly, if there is consensus that the current practice is acceptable, then it can be added to the blocking POLICY if editors want every acceptable practice to be sanctioned by a policy. Arguing that we should not add it to a policy because it isn't policy is pure nonsense. (And, for the benefit of anyone who is unaware of the relevant history, this string of discussions was started because of editors wishing to add it to the blocking policy.) (3) "I cannot accept the fact the admins base their actions on an essay which contains some questionable advice". When did any administrator "base their actions on" that page? As far as I am concerned, I block people because it is clear that their editing does more harm than good to the project: if the particular manner in which that manifests itself indicate that they are here for some purpose other than contributing to the encyclopaedia, then it seems to me reasonable to say so; that does not mean that I am "basing" the decision to block on the existence of that page. If the page didn't exist, I would still be blocking the editor.
 * 3) I have already said the following (albeit not in the same words) in the first discussion about this, above, and I find it unconstructive that a second and a third discussion on the same question have been started, but to avoid any risk that anyone assessing this third discussion may overlook what was said in the first one, I shall say it again: Blocking an editor because he or she is substantially here for reasons other than to contribute to the encyclopaedia is reasonable. When an editor is blocked for that reason, it is reasonable for the administrator to state that it is for that reason. Trying to forbid administrators from doing so is ridiculous. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "If the page didn't exist, I would still be blocking the editor". Let's pretend for a second that the page really didn't exist. You'd be blocking the editor for... what reason? It can't just be "clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia", obviously. There would have to be some concrete reason in a policy or a guideline that you could point to, every time, to justify the block. The BURO card does not play because policies are always going to trump essays. And admins should ideally base their decisions on policies over essays. Doc   talk  17:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You say "It can't just be 'clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia', obviously." Why is that obvious? It isn't remotely obvious to me. And I thought I had already made the following clear, but evidently I hadn't, so I'll try once again. I have never in my time as a Wikipedia editor "based" any decision on an "essay". That does not, however, mean that it is never helpful to refer to an idea which has been expressed in an "essay" to help explain the reason for my decision. Got it now? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's try to hash out this hypothetical scenario again. You no longer have the option of linking to NOTHERE because it doesn't exist. Get it? So now you have to link (once again) to an actual policy or guideline when blocking... instead of the NOTHERE essay. Because it doesn't exist in the hypothetical situation, remember? Bear with me. So it's "obvious" that you can't use "not here to build an encyclopedia" as a blocking rationale in that scenario. There is always something more appropriate to link to that is far more important than this essay when blocking. Understand? Doc   talk  06:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are and experienced admin, and you probably no longer need extra teaching what to do. However from time to time a freshman admin comes blocking left and right based on their understanding of what is right. Therefore if WP:NOTHERE is going to be endorsed by policy, we better clean it up from dubious observations and sloppy advice before the endorsement or ASAP after. But after that it is only natural to promote it to the guideline status. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, now you have made a concrete assertion ("from time to time a freshman admin comes blocking left and right based on their understanding of what is right"). I assume you're referring to dubious blocks. Please back up this assertion with concrete examples. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't we into wikilawyering here? Are you seriously implying that we never had dubious blocks by inexperienced admins? Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because once again, you make an assertion without proof. You stated up above that NOTHERE is prone to abuse but don't provide any examples of that abuse. Now you say from time to time (implying it is a somewhat regular occurrence) a freshman admin comes blocking left and right (implying rapid, willy-nilly blocks) based on their understanding of what is right (implying that WP:NOTHERE is a culprit in this situation). Provide proof. And really, this whole exercise seems like wikilaywering on your part. The status quo is fine and is working. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:09, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re shouting: "Trying to forbid administrators from doing so is ridiculous" - straw man argument. Nobody can forbid admins to do what they see fit broadly understanding the good of wikipedia. We are discussion here whether and how to expand the existing policy, so that "what they see fit" to involve less personal decision and more commonly accepted practice.
 * It's not a "straw man argument". Of course the editors who are plugging this know they can't actually "forbid" administrators from doing it, but their intention is to put administrators off doing so. I am way past thinking it worth spending time making sure that my wording are absolutely literal in every detail in this pointlessly-prolonged disruptive discussion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One more point, which I have mentioned before, but which perhaps could do with emphasising. It seems to me that in these discussions at least two related but different questions are being confused together:
 * 1) Should "not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" be accepted as a reason for blocking?
 * 2) Should linking to the section of the page Here to build an encyclopedia headed Here to build an encyclopedia (commonly abbreviated as WP:NOTHERE) be regarded as a good explanation of why an editor has been blocked?
 * As I trust I have made clear by now, in my opinion the answer to the first question is "yes", if not "yes". However, my answer to the second is "Hmm. Weeeell ... not ideal." I ask anyone posting here from now on to be careful to distinguish between these tow questions. Some of the arguments above seem to me to be arguments against linking to WP:NOTHERE, but expressed in such a way as to suggest that their authors think that they are arguments against using "not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" as a block reason, which is not at all the same thing. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there are more than two:
 * Is "not being here to contribute to the encyclopaedia" a reason for blocking? (of course not)
 * If an admin makes a proper block, e.g. for WP:DE, but uses a "wrong" reason, e.g. WP:NOTHERE, does anyone actually care (probably not), or should the faux pas be ignored per not bureaucracy? (of course). More: It's kind of like the janitor's in the office where I work -- I just care they empty the trash and sweep the floor, don't really care how they do it, and if I started going around and saying "You're not emptying that trash can the right way!" that'd be seriously lame, right?
 * Should we invent a new bogus policy by linking a policy page to an essay? (nope) NE Ent 23:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there are more than three. Now, please take a look at the very top: According to RfC rules (AFAIU), the question was posted exactly about the contested edit of the policy. Despite the venom in my address from some, my purpose was to keep the discussion focused. While it is good that someone again brought our attention that the question is in fact a multipronged issue, the basic issue IMO remains single: if we are to add a new bullet or section in a policy, it cannot remain vague. (Vague issues of policy belong to WP:COMMONSENSE & WP:IAR.) IMO we agree that the phrase "not here to build encyclopedia" is but a shortcut, a tad longer than "WP:NOTHERE", to describe a frolicking behavior with a number of petty violations which, when taken alone each seem insufficient for block. And the real definition of this must be in the appropriate guideline. Such a guideline is a must. Otherwise one can block 80% of editors in Israel-Palestine topics: An admin can say "you are here for pushing Jewish agenda and nothing else", while the person is genuinely convinced he is doing a Good Thing by fixing wikipedia from the recent European surge of anti-Semitism slowly trickling into wikipedia. Therefore, for the purpose of analysis you can split my question (and answers) into as many subcurrents as convenient, the question remains single: whether WP:NOTHERE be officially listed in the policy, and all ramifications mentioned should be viewed as arguments pro and contra. When we collect all opinions, we can decide whether the item is salvageable. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support idea because it reflects reality/precedent, but I agree that we really should be discussing promoting the existing essay to guideline status. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Simultaneously Support and Oppose for the same reason. WP:NOTHERE is a perfectly valid reason to block someone; it's a subset of general disruptive behavior.  It's merely an explanation of the kind of disruptive behavior we're blocking someone for.  Per WP:CREEP, WP:IAR, it is neither desirable nor even possible to list, ahead of time, every single way a person may be disruptive.  So, yes, we should still block people who disrupt Wikipedia.  No, we don't need to modify the instructions to list every way they can do it.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your phrase "a subset of general disruptive behavior" gives me an idea of a compromise solution: do not add WP:NOTHERE as a separate section, 'simply expand the section Blocking policy with the phrase, some like:
 * "Editors with predominantly disruptive behavior which is not clearly described by one of the major types listed above are commonly blocked with the 'not here to build an encyclopedia' rationale", i.e., the advice is to apply this rationale only in gray area cases, based on admin's WP:DUCK judgement. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First, if it's a gray area, admins shouldn't be blocking. Second, WP:NOTHERE can be determined by community consensus as well, not only admins. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I used the term "gray area" in an attempt of extra explanation of my suggestion to distinguish behavior which is not directly covered by the listed disruption types. And yes, AFAIU admins have rights to and do block in this "gray area", per WP:COMMON & WP:DUCK. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If and when WP:NOTHERE will be formally approved by community consensus, it will be elevated to the status of a guideline and it will no longer be in the "gray area" of policies. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand. Right now, an editor can be determined WP:NOTHERE per community consensus and an admin will block accordingly. There is no "gray area". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You right, sorry. I was thinking about text of WP:NOTHERE, while you were speaking about its usage. Yes, the community can decide to apply block or ban, but this happens exactly when there is a "gray area" so that an admin is not feeling sure to block right away. Otherwise just post somewhere at WP:AN and done with the abuser without distracting the community. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This discussion could be the poster child for why more people don't particpate in policy discussions.... Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain what is wrong with this discussion and suggest how it can be improved. IMO compared to some other places this one is a rather civilized exchange of arguments. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, seems like basic common sense that policy pages should reflect current typical practice. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Common rationales for blocks" section goes out of its way to emphasize that it's describing what actually happens (as policies should), rather than what should happen (as most policies attempt to). Claiming that WP:NOTHERE is not a commonly-given reason for blocking amounts to a lie of omission. —Cryptic 16:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * re: "claiming that <...> amounts to lie of omission" - Red herring, personal insult, or failure of logical capacity; take your pick. Comparative example: WP:NGEO we used in AfD for years before it took 2 more years and 3 iterations to promote it to the status of guideline. I expect that a blocking policy is a much more serious issue to expand its content without serious deliberation. Opposite example: "sorry I was running late" was never a valid way to dodge a ticket despite its extreme commonness. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I find it ironinc that you would use that example to rebut someone else's supposedly shoddy logic. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I find it extremely weird that some people don't see the difference between "being in common use" and "recommended by policy". Staszek Lem (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am at a loss as to why you can't get that policy is descriptive and not prescriptive. Why the section heading "Common rationales for blocks" does not seem to indicate to you that it is a list block reasons "being in common use" is beyond me. You seem to be under the impression that a list of common block reasons is a recommended list of reasons to block. It is exactly what it claims to be, a list of block reasons as you say "being in common use". Cryptic's reasoning was not a red herring, certainly not an insult and not failing in logic at all. NGEO is hardly relevant here. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 00:12, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "descriptive and not prescriptive" is a legalese I fail to grasp in this context. What I know is that if something gets into a policy, it becomes an almost unbeatable argument in a dispute. And I don't want that this argument to be based on an essay not scrutinized by the community. NGEO was an example of an exactly similar situation: there was informal "business as usual" until it was decided to clean the act and make it into a decent guideline, and as such formally include into WP:NOTABILITY. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is already regular and largely accepted practice anyway.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per user:NE Ent. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NOTHERE as a legitimate, policy-based block reason. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose until the page WP:NOTHERE is promoted to guideline status . I agree sympathize with and . Block people only for reasons they are here, not for reasons why they aren't. This blocking rationale, especially when used to block users from their own talk page, is infringing on their rights. Block editors because they are here to commit vandalism. Block them because they are here to harass people. Block them because they are wheel-warring. Don't block them for this weasel-reason, because you think your real reason (often "I don't like your POV") won't fly with other admins and the community. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "won't fly with other admins and the community" - reports and results at AIV and ANI say otherwise. And I'm still waiting for examples of abusive NOTHERE blocks. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The admin's block-tool drop-down lists 19 possible legitimate reasons for blocking before finally listing this as possible reason #20 at the end. For the benefit of non-administrators, what's in the drop-down is specified on the page MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown. Is there a way to filter the block log to show only "reason 20" blocks? I don't see the reason "per community consensus at (discussion page)" or similar, is community consensus (by !voting) a legitimate reason for a block? Curious, as this is an area I haven't spent much time in. Wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that there is a parallel discussion at MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown § WP:NOTHERE. – Wbm1058 (talk) 19:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also see that "not here" was added to the drop-down at 11:46, 13 August 2013. Was this a bold edit? I see no discussion on MediaWiki talk:Ipbreason-dropdown prior to the addition. Indeed, no edits to that page at all between 5 August 2013‎–17 January 2014‎. Discussion only started there on July 25, 2014 (at the link I provided above). Wbm1058 (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also observe that Uw-nothereblock was created on 15 June 2014. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * More observations: The drop-down also has an "Other" option, which when used allows the administrator to enter in any free-form reason they want to the block log's block summary – so admins are not limited to the reasons in MediaWiki:Ipbreason-dropdown (these are really just for convenience to save typing, a way to standardize the block log's summaries, and perhaps as a "crib sheet" to the most commonly used reasons supported by policy and guidelines). I note that the policy simply gives a list of "common rationales" for blocks, and only specifies a limited set of reasons for which blocking may not be used. So the blocking policy does not prohibit blocking for the reasons given in WP:NOTHERE. For that reason I've struck part of my original opinion.
 * It appears that 's implementation was bold. It was implemented shortly after he removed several links to deleted pages, and first used to block (9 deleted edits) within minutes of implementation. A reasonable notice was left on User talk:1kdhar. I guess my only quibble with this is that I'd rather see something like "Narrow self interest and/or promotion" and/or "Focusing on Wikipedia as a social networking site" left in the block-log summary. If we could replace the "not here" rationale with these other reasons, which are already included by consensus in the information page, then I think that might satisfy most of the opposition here. Now, if anyone thinks editors shouldn't be blocked for social networking, then that needs to be spelled out in the "When blocking may not be used" section of the policy. You might want to tell Lila Tretikov about community attitudes towards social networking because she seems to want to get people using Facebook to discuss Wikipedia to come over here for their discussions. – Wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The discussion that won't die.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm late to the party here, so it will take me some time to catch up. I'm here due to the mention in Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-11/Discussion report. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support WP:NOTHERE is very useful both as a summary of opinion at a noticeboard like ANI and as a block reason. It highlights that the purpose of Wikipedia is to develop the encyclopedia based on the policies and guidelines outlined at WP:5P, and it is often the kindest way to farewell someone who may be trying but who makes contributions that indicate they are unlikely to help. Some editors are timesinks and net negatives without being blatantly disruptive, and there is no need to waste more time deciding exactly why they are being blocked. They can always appeal and explain how they will contribute. Johnuniq (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * EXAMPLE OF ABUSE You wanted examples? Right here you have.
 * 23:18, 15 November 2015 Kudpung (talk | contribs) blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia)
 * From what I see Lembrazza wanted to add a more detailed categories, such as Category:Science fiction adventure films. As I see he is met with strong oposition. Eventually he got very pissed off : "Fucking godddamn, if there can be sci-fi action, sci-fi horror, sci-fi thriller why there can't fucking be sci-fi adventure?" If you skip f-words, his point is an my uneducated glance is quite reasonable. Now, how the F* he is "not here to build encyclopedia"? Look at his F*ng contributions since 2013. IMO it is a blatant abuse of admins power to whack an infinite NOTHERE block without any cooldown blocks of a long-time contributor. And don't tell me Lembrazza was abusive, disruptive, blabla. Of course he went amok after so much stonewalling. But saying that he is NOTHERE is bullshit. My immediate first thought was to request a reblock, but just as immediately I realized that this user is watched by strong-arm-block aficionados.  Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The above seems to conflate quantity with quality. What is needed are people who work collaboratively to build the encyclopedia—not enthusiasts who edit war (within an hour: 1 + 2 + 3) to add a category which gets ten delete votes and no keep at CfD. The issue was at ANI for five days, and no one opposed the close, and I don't think anyone has requested an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comment is a perfect illustration of the issue. If he is edit warring, we have a very good guideline for block. The block as it was made was power muscle flexing, to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. Yes we need people who edit collaboratively. But this comes from two sides. the user was suggesting a perfctly valid Category:Science fiction adventure films. Where the hell is your collaboration in this respect? Y are talking about quanitity vs quality. Was he edit warring for all these years? Where are the warning messages?  Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm with Staszek here. Clearly, for his last three edits, this editor should have been blocked for incivility. But a perma-block? How would that fly if a "content creator" were perma-blocked for such an outburst. An appropriate cool-down block is all that was needed here. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No one cares about the mini edit war I mentioned—that's just an illustration of a bigger issue. A total of 53 edits have been made to User talk:Lembrazza. Two of those were by Lembrazza, and each was to blank the page. Lembrazza did not contribute to the ANI discussion I linked in my last comment, and according to the report at ANI the issue has been ongoing. I am not concerned by the frustration shown in the last three edits—everyone can flame-out occasionally. What would you recommend for a case like this where several good editors get frustrated by having their time wasted cleaning up, and the editor will not communicate? NOTHERE is an acknowledgement of the fact that not everyone is a good fit for how things operate here, and it is kinder than describing someone as disruptive or incompetent. Johnuniq (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, disagreed about the 'kinder' part. Is someone is dusruptive, block so. If someone is incompetent, request sources. If someone refuses to discuss and continues doing whatever they were doing, only in different pages, this is a disruption of WP:IDONTHEAR type. Just as vandalism in wikipedia has a very specific meaning (but the term is misused quite often), IMO WPNOTHERE is prone to a frivolous "layman" interpretation. Staszek Lem (talk)
 * Yes I looked at their talk page. I have no issue with blocking that editor. My two concerns are: (1) The duration of the block. An indefinite for their first and only block? C'mon, you just don't do that to an editor with this long a history. (2) The block-log rationale should have more specifically described the blocking editor's reasoning. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't get sidetracked by this particular case; the problem was not that NOTHERE is an unacceptable rationale, it's that it doesn't apply in this particular case. Any rationale can be misused; that doesn't mean the rationale should never be used.  I've changed it to making personal attacks and disruption. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No sidetracking. Someone insistently challenged to provide an example: " And I'm still waiting for examples of abusive NOTHERE blocks". Otherwise, they say, what's the fuss. Yes, any rationale may be misused. Th point is that a rationale based on a sloppy essay is prone to be misused. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked for examples. Note the plural. As in, show it is habitually misused and don't build your case on one incident. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 14:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the last 5,000 blocks (~ the past 5 days) I find about 29 "not here" blocks. There are indeed a number of different admins making them, so it is clearly a de facto accepted practice. Some specify additional reason(s), which is good. Jabberwock2112 just made six edits to WP:ANI and the supplemental reason was all edits to ANI, none to articles. I don't think there should be a prohibition on anonymous whistle-blower posts to ANI as conceivably some could be very constructive. So, I don't necessarily disagree that block, but the block summary should have been "only here to make disruptive ANI edits". Note that their first edit advocated a ban with the rationale "clearly a case of WP NOTHERE"... Wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Iam txiii was here to promote a not-notable 16-year-old American social media personality, socialite, and actor, and the log summary could have said that, rather than using the canned "clearly not here to contribute" meme. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Deezqwertynuts should have been blocked for vandalism rather than "not here". – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One thing to note is for blocks like these that are clearly not questionable, it's safe to say they are "not here to contribute" so a more informative block summary (if you want to consider it that) is not really necessary. Sometimes we just want to block and move on to more patrolling. You can argue NOTHERE isn't the most fitting, but it's certainly not inaccurate. The second example had made potentially constructive edits, rendering "vandalism-only account" as a no-go, and "vandalism" while appropriate does not imply an indefinite duration, where NOTHERE does. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify on my last point, Twinkle presets NOTHERE as indefinite, where if you chose Vandalism you'd have to select indefinite. This is trivial as we're only saving a few seconds of our time, but again the user clearly is not here to contribute, without question, so who cares? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What MusikAnimal said. Plus, I don't know why the specificity of NOTHERE blocks is being questioned when disruptive editing blocks are even more vague. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:38, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For 22nd time: the rationale is not questioned. The authority of admin to use any rationale is not questioned. The right of an admin to make a mistake is not questioned. The text of the essay is questioned as unfit for a policy. Disruptive editing is a guideline, which means it passeda rigorous scrutiny (I sincerely hope) and several major rewrites.  WPNOTHERE is an essay 85% of single author (and 17 vandals :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A block "per NOTHERE" is essentially equivalent to a block "per WP:BP", as (I presume) nothing in the policy specifically is counter to anything in § Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia. It's equivalent to a speedy deletion "per WP:CSD" (without specifying any specific CSD criteria). We don't really need to elevate the entire information page to guideline, just § Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia, as that's all that could conceivably be used as a rationale for blocking – or perhaps only some of the ten elements in that section. If they were labeled NH1 through NH10, then the codes could be used as shorthand for the rationales, similar to speedy criteria G1 through G13. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a reasonable option: (A) include a brief section about NOTHERE into the policy after the text is negotiated by the community; (B) retarget redirect to it; (C) Add the essay 'WP:HERE' into the "See also" section, same as we do with  other essays we consider reasoable. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per, NOTHERE is: '…a legitimate, policy-based block reason' (emphasis mine). NOTHERE is not a policy anymore than any other freely formulated apropriate blocking rationale. As per :   also sums it up perfectly with his boldend statement. We should guard against the bureaucracy of trying to include every possible action and infraction in those templated lists - Twinkle is already in such a confusing mess that very often even a hand written rationale is significantly quicker. What we have to undestand is that NOTHERE provides an essay which avoids having to paste its text or something similar into a block log where a reference to NOTHERE will suffice. A user whose editing patern is, or has clearly become, one that is no longer concerned with adding content, maintaining content or other aspect of the site, and is being used henceforth for inciviity, attacking other users, or posting strings of expletives, is IMHO, not or no longer on Wikipedia  in the best interests of the project and should be shown the door.


 * If an admin opens that door and boots the user through it, it is not an abuse of sysop power, and any minor technical errors in doing so should be easily addressed without acrimony. Yesterday in an attempt to derail an Arbcom election, a candidate was accused of grave admin abuse by using NOTHERE as a possibly slightly inaccurate rationale. However, when a user is on a disruptive spree, s/he has to be stopped quickly and to that  end any block rationale from  a drop-down of choices is reasonable provided the  actual  block is appropriate,  which  in this case  it was. It's really  very  bad faith  to  accuse an admin  of abuse and demand he relinquish  his tools for such  a minor error when just  genuinely  carrying  out  the tasks the community  gave him  the trust  to  do and where he has no other history of impropriety. To  project  such  a negative opinion loudly  into  other Wikipedia spaces and discussions is itself rather poor form. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * What you say does seem a bit unfair to the Arbcom candidate. Can you give the diff which links to this poor form demand that the candidate relinquish his/her tools for using NOTHERE as a rationale? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Or are you going to ignore my question as is your usual practice, because you just made this up as an excuse for more bluster? The block you refer to appears to be your own, and is discussed above as the prime example under the heading "EXAMPLE OF ABUSE". The block is also mentioned in a question concerning your bid to become an aribtrator. It was mentioned there as a current example of the haughty attitude you have towards content editors. But no one asked you to resign because of the block... you dreamed that up all by yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This long comment by Kudpung is IMO a yet another reason why we need a clear policy here. The argument "one that is no longer concerned with adding content, maintaining content or other aspect of the site, and is being used henceforth for inciviity, attacking other users, or posting strings of expletives" is dubious in the part "no longer" How long the "no longer" should be? What was the reason of incivility? Was the person provoked that he could not do anything else but vent their frustration? Real people are not machines. Occasional outbursts happen. You do have to block them. Explain the real reason: disruption is intolerable; disagreements must be resolved in civilized way. But don't tell them they are basically a useless piece of shit and kick out forever. Kudpung is entitled to his strong opinion about disruptors and the ways he handles them, but I strongly object that his POV on NOTHERE be part of the policy. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a great example of how off-base an interpretation of what being "here" actually is.


 * Here's another example: a user quite popular with some of the editors here was blocked with the NOTHERE rationale. It met resistance and was emphatically overturned This editor continues to edit... so I guess they are "here" after all! The absurd notion that admins will somehow intrinsically just "know" who is HERE and NOTHERE when blocking is once again proven to be nonsense. Checks and balances, people!!!


 * This RfC truly needs major site-wide advertising before it should be closed per WP:CONLIMITED. This relatively quite small group of admins who basically just "like" this sloppy essay rationale when blocking should not be allowed to override the position of the many other admins and users here through numbers and ivotes. Doc   talk  02:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the equivalent of speedy deletion per NOTENCYCLOPEDIC criteria. Follow that link to see what the community thinks about that (it's on the page "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions"). Wbm1058 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * One can't use any essay as a speedy deletion rationale according to #14. Using an essay as a blocking rationale should be okay though. Doc   talk  09:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It should also be pointed out that we don't use the WP:COMPETENCE essay when blocking, though it is often cited. I see little difference between that essay and HERE when it comes to blocking rationales. Neither are sufficient. Doc   talk  22:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - this would have made getting rid of users like (or even, in his later stages User:Mrg3015 much easier. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Would have? ! Doc   talk  08:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Lest there be any misundrstanding in anything I have sad here. I woud like 2 things t e perfectlylear: I have not voted one wayor the other in this discussion, and at no time have I even suggested that it should become policy, neither have I said it shoukldn't. Concurring with severa other editors/admins whom I have mentioned, I have expanded on how it may be or often is used, and that its used is in now way a gross abuse of admin tool even if it fall shirt 9of f100% accuracy as a blocking rationale My block in the cited example was not overturned and I do believe that none of my 770 blocks in my history as an admin ever have been. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "I woud like 2 things t e perfectlylear:" - couldn't be clearer! ;) BTW, is 770 blocks in 4 years a record, does anyone know?  Leaky  Caldron  12:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose the inclusion of NOTHERE as a criterion. I've actually seen someone indeffed out-of-process by an admin for this, and it was wrong.  NOTHERE is something that ANI/AN/AE/ArbCom can consider among other factors in deciding whether to community-ban or ArbCom-ban someone, but it's not a "I'm an admin and I'm going to block you on this basis" criterion. It's much, much too subjective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:48, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support making this a guideline. Some influential people claim it is not. They need to be shown otherwise. Without this as a guideline, some people will wikilawyer their way out of everything. It is the single most important rule here. If you're not here to make an encyclopedia, why are you here? DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support making NOTHERE a guideline and making it a reason to block. If admins start abusing it ("She was just reading articles! NOTHERE!" "Edited User page before an article edit! NOTHERE!") then the guideline can be rewritten or removed, but I trust its use would be in line with other general guidelines but would apply the general principles of blocking without wikilawyering. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:10, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – As one who has sent many new accounts to AIV, this essay/criterion sums everything up nicely. When a new user makes their five edits (sometimes so sad to see us have to wait even that long sometimes) and they are clearly not even interested in making a constructive contribution, this non-policy covers all aspects of their abusive edits. There is a significant difference between those that make good-faith or test edits, or have a poor understanding of how to improve an article and those that are just here to cause trouble, repeatedly attempting to communicate with their friends across the hall, and downright blatant vandalizers. That said, the policy should not be used on established users where more formal and exact commentary would be more appropriate in case they wish to appeal.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  22:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No comments in two weeks, and it has been over 30 days since first proposed. Are we up for an evaluation and closing?-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  00:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Add section regarding unblock conditions
For some time admins have been working in a limbo state where they are unblocking with conditions on further editing but don't have a policy basis to support them. This will be even more important now that the Arbitration Committee has handed block and ban appeals back to the community to deal with (note I'm proposing this as a community member not as an arb). I propose that the following be added as a section under the Unblocking section, the wording proposed has been discussed above so that is probably useful reading for interested people.Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also pinging those who were previously involved in the discussion: . Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer and per discussion in sections above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - This seems to be a form of parole, as it were. Having a similar system here allows for a blocked editor to "return to society," and provides the entire community with clear language regarding the process. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 09:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I still support the proposal with the change in language. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * may expire up to indefinitely is not very good English &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Suggestions?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after one year or less shall expire after a length of time to be determined by the unblocking administrator, up to and including one year.
 * The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after more than a year (including indefinite) shall expire after a length of time to be determined by the unblocking administrator, up to and including indefinitely.
 * — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about something simpler like "Unblocking conditions remain in effect for the duration agreed upon by the user, or until an appeal gains consensus." We can block for any duration, I see no reason to have special restriction on the duration conditional unblocks. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 19:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Because then you have a situation where you can be blocked for a week and be given an broad topic ban which never expires and which you can only appeal to the unblocking admin or AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all nobody is required to agree to anything. Secondly any user always seek an appeal through the community. If an admin can block for a week they could have done something else also, which would have the same community to appeal to. I don't see the difference. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 01:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Everything was outlined in the previous discussion so these changes seem to be a practical framework. Mkdw talk 14:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Unblock conditions shall be recorded on the user's talk page (in a notice that may not be removed while the conditions are active)" - does removal here include archiving? i.e. is this a notice that has to stay on their main talk page at all times, or simply one that should stay in its place on the talk page and subsequently in that page's archives? Sam Walton (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In my view it can't be archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the purpose of the notice if it can be archived. The whole point is so that other editors are aware of the situation if an issue arises. It would mirror the notices put on pages with ArbCom sanctions. Mkdw talk 15:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe any such notice would be placed in the top section of the editor's talk page so that it would not be auto-archived by a bot. This means that any archiving of the notice would have to be done manually, which would intentionally violate the conditions of the unblocking. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 05:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support based on previous discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - improved during the discussion significantly. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support I don't see a reason against it. It seems to follow all policies that matter and the previous discussion points towards this being logical. Feel free to go against me. Will2022 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't agree with the requirement that unblock conditions must be displayed on user talk pages for as long as they are active, as that strikes me as a badge of shame. I understand the need for administrators to be informed of sanctions, but we have no precedent of requiring them to be declared on user talk pages. I don't see a compelling reason to begin that now. As mentioned in the proposal, Editing restrictions already exists as a central location for noting editing restrictions, and administrators should link to the restriction in the unblock reason. That should be enough. Mz7 (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The best policy additions do nothing more than document and existing best practice, and that is the case here. This addition describes what we do now and will serve to explain this to users without really changing how we do things. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 22:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * However I don't think we should force them to carry a notice on their talk page, it could be seen like a scarlet letter. It is really up to the unblocking admin to keep track of such things. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 22:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Qualified support - the unblock conditions need to be prominently visible to any administrator (such as on a central page or in the block log) and it is okay for them to be visible to everyone, but they need not be on the user's page or talk page ("scarlet letter" etc.). davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As something that is already done in practice anyway. This allows admins to give blocked users a second chance, and gives the blocked user a chance to prove they can behave. As to recording it, an initial tag or other written notice and a note in the log when unblocking seem sufficient, we don't require users editing under ArbCom or community imposed topic or interaction bans to keep a notice on their page, this is pretty much the same thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support but without the non-removal message. The message should be placed, and the diff/permalink for that edit can be added to the unblock log for reference. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support all but the expiry clause - the restrictions should expire no later than the block is set to expire, regardless of the year cutoff mentioned there. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Reasonable representation of what already happens informally. Practice should precede policy.  And it does here.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as per previous arguments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Support as modified. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to support, but I'd rather ditch the "notice may not be removed" part. Even ArbCom unban conditions and sanctions aren't required to be kept on the talk page for the length of the conditions; the longest I've ever seen it is "notice may not be removed or archived for one month" or similar. Point of sanctions is not to punish but to prevent; I'm not quite seeing why unblock condition sanctions should have a constant punish-style requirement to keep the notice up where no other sanction requires that. Potentially as a middle ground, the administrator imposing the sanction could, at their discretion, condition the unblock on keeping the notice up for a period of time, just like any other condition? Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 05:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. Yes, this is what already happens in practice, except for the user not being allowed to remove the notice. That doesn't happen, and it shouldn't be introduced either, per several comments above. I suggest the last point in the proposal be replaced by a requirement that the unblocking admin record it at Editing restrictions. That they do record it, as opposed to the current proposal that they may. It would be nice to have a link to the editing restrictions page pop up for the admin in the context of unblocking; I still remember what a time I had of it finding the right page in February 2015, when I wanted to record the precise conditions for unblocking Ratel. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Bish: we can do that at MediaWiki:Unblockiptext. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the concerns, would you be willing to strike this part of the proposal? Mz7 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a change to remove the requirement that it be kept on the user's talk page and modified the bit about the central page so that they need to be recorded there. Pinging people who have commented so they can decide if they still want to support. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I will oppose with the language struck. I have to think about it. But I do oppose not having it on the Talk page. I've never been much concerned about "badge of fame". When an editor is sanctioned, they are sanctioned, and there's nothing wrong with making that clear. We are doing the user a favor by unblocking them with conditions. I don't see why our lives can't be made easier with the unblock conditions remaining on the talk page until the conditions expire. We could hide them with a title if that helps any for those who don't want them there. Not everyone looks at the block log, and this tells not only administrators but other editors that the user has certain restrictions.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would like to counter-propose wording that instructs admins to mention that unblock conditions were set at the time of the unblock and possibly even a link to WP:EDR. Mkdw talk 00:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Main reason to have a diff/permalink that I can think of is that it makes it a lot easier to find them than have to search through the list at EDR which will get longer, and some will be removed. It provides a log of them, if you like, rather than them disappearing into the page history of the user's talk page and EDR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs)
 * Diff works too in unblock comments as well. Mkdw talk 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Given the change. Sam Walton (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – The required talk-page declaration was my only reservation. Once again, I do understand the need for admins to be informed, but we have never required sanctioned editors to so publicly advertise their sanctions before, and lacking evidence that there is a problem with current practice, I don't see a compelling reason to change it. This is also about editor retention. When we unblock, we want to welcome the user back so that they may hopefully make helpful contributions; forcing them to state their sanctions feels like we're shaming the user. Allowing them to hat or otherwise hide the notice may be an acceptable compromise on this, but once again, that is not how editing restrictions have been handled in the past. Mz7 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; though on a remotely related note, Editing_restrictions is getting a little large (already over 200k) and is probably only going to keep growing, particularly due to indefinite expiries on the restrictions. It might be an idea to start discussing the idea of splitting it into subpages by-user like SPI, and then we can either decide to delete or archive the page if/when a restriction expires.  Using templates, this could also stick restrictions in categories (e.g., by arb case, unblock restrictions, etc) and also automatically flag for expiry.  This would also allow for easier/less bulky automated checks by-script (e.g., shown to admins in popups), if we're looking for less "badge of shame" ways of hinting at an editing restriction.  -- slakr  \ talk / 06:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Editing restrictions is also substantially out-of-date (e.g. a number of banned editors are still listed, which seems rather pointless (or they should have their own subsection...)) – I wonder if the Arbcom clerks(?) should be assigned the task of going through and updating that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – in principle. There will probably be more arguments about the actual text of the policy, but it basically puts into policy what we have already been doing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support A good idea. Clarifies things for all involved. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, entirely sensible. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, Appears to be more appropriate wording. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, especially since this has already been done in practice, but the wording could use some work. The restrictions should be recorded centrally (since people can manage their talk pages at will, there should be some record they can't remove that way), and the general practice has been that the restriction may last no longer than the block would have. I have, for example, in the past unblocked people who were blocked for 3RR on condition that they not edit the article in question until the block would normally have expired, but I wouldn't ever see it as reasonable to impose a year's restriction for lifting a 24 hour block. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as proposed with logging at Editing restrictions. I've created the shortcut WP:ER/UC for easy access to that section. It is good to codify existing practice, as it ensures consistency in enforcement. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding a centralized recording
I think there is a very clear agreement above that we should codify our current best practices. I would like to avoid changing our best practices without discussion though.

I have no objection to a centralized location to record these things, but I don't think it should be mandatory. I think that a simple agreement between two people should be enforceable without special logging. While not all circumstances would call for it I can see the benefit of a centralized location in some situations. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 01:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The benefit of central logging is that other admins are able to know about it and then enforce it (including, for example, the unblocking admin having a wikibreak) whereas if it disappears into a talk page archive or just in a block log then it might (will?) be missed. I don't check the block log of every editor before taking action on an article, but I do generally do a quick text search at EDR in case they're listed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not logging or recording it makes it a personal sanction, not a community or project sanction. Aside from other admins having it to make further administrative actions, it also allows others to review it and be open. When it's not then it's subject to abuse. Mkdw talk 05:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see the harm in logging them centrally. My initial concern is that it is just one more step, but I suppose it acts as a check/balance for the admin as well to have better visibility. I am coming around to the idea. <b style="color:red">HighInBC</b> 01:34, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think documenting the condition is important, but having a centralized page is not necessary - it is easy enough for this to be on the impacted users talk page, with a link to the diff in the unblock log. — xaosflux  Talk 02:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Just thinking outside the box here – is there a way to code a template or Lua module so that only editors with sysop, bureaucrat, or arbitrator bits would be able to see it? If so, that could be a way to place the notice on an editor's talk page without being a "scarlet letter," as it were. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 14:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There does exist a CSS class  that can be used to make stuff display to administrators only. However, non-admins can still see the text by looking at the edit page or through an user CSS that displays the content in question.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think a centralized logging procedure is a good idea. There needs to be some way to record the terms of the unblock so violations can be enforced by anyone.  When the restrictions have expired, the name can be purged from the log.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's an other option: We decide that all restricted users will have a subpage called User:XXX/restrictions (or something like that); this also means that if the user gets renamed, the restriction list is moved with the user name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Removing own user talk page off the bat?
"editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page" (emphasis added)

A coupla years back blocked  indefinitely and removed their talk page access right off the bat. I never clarified it with Coffee, but I'm pretty sure the reason for this was that virtually all of the disruption that led to the block was taking place on the user's talk page already, so blocking them and not removing their talk page access would have been pointless. Some months later this was brought up in an ANI discussion of Coffee being too quick to block, and when I pointed out that Juzumaru's pre-block disruption was on his own talk page the point was dropped. Another admin pointed out that It is normal to deny talk page access to trolls, because they are trolls; surely there are times when we don't need to wait until after a block to see that someone is a troll.

But under a strict interpretation of the current wording it seems that this is still not recommended.

Should it be? It seems really counter-intuitive that admins should be discouraged from removing talk page access in cases where abuse has already been taking place on the user's talk page; should a "troll" clarification be added?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 01:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that we now have WP:UTRS I can't see why we shouldn't be clearer on when to block access to usertalk. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; <big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 01:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it should probably not be encouraged specifically in the policy because "troll" is hard to define and will be abused, but any seasoned admin (I like my with a hint of nutmeg) will understand that proactive talk-page revocation is well within the bounds of IAR. The Wordsmith Talk to me 01:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I should note that should a "troll" clarification be added was a late and not well-thought-out addition to the above post. I really would prefer changing
 * "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in the case of continued abuse of the talk page"
 * to
 * "editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of the talk page, or where a user's abuse of their own talk page was a contributing factor in the initial block"
 * or something to that effect. I agree that "troll" could and would be misused.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction?
In reading through the blocking policy to quote elsewhere, I noticed the "Confidential evidence" section, which states "If a user needs to be blocked based on information that will not be made available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee or a Checkuser or oversighter for action. These editors are qualified to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed." This would seem to directly contradict the 2010 Arbitration Committee statement on checkuser blocks, which was revisited recently in the discussion surrounding oversight blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * What seem to be the contradiction? (I am asking because the Arbcom statement is long; I made some guesses, but what was your issue exactly and what is your suggestion about the remedy?) Staszek Lem (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops, must have missed this in my watchlist. The 2010 statement says, "Therefore, in most cases, appeals from blocks designated as "Checkuser block" should be referred to the Arbitration Committee, which will address such appeals as promptly as possible. If an administrator believes that a Checkuser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the Checkuser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the committee. As appropriate, the matter will be handled by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, by the Arbitration Committee as a whole, or by an individual arbitrator designated by the committee." This would suggest that a user subject to a checkuser block should email the Arbitration Committee, not any individual checkuser. Same goes for the oversight bit: the May 2016 motion says oversight-blocked users should appeal to the entire oversight team or to the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see. This is not exactly a contradiction, but rather a perceived discrepancy, because different actions are in question in the two: the blocking policy speaks about blocking, while the Arbcom piece speaks about block appeals. IMO there is no overall discrepancy: a block is usually imposed under a discretion of a single qualified person, while block review is done either by a blocker themselves or by peers. In our case, simply the "rank" of the "qualified" blockers/reviewers is elevated. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is that someone under a checkuser- or oversight-block may find this page and mistakenly contact the wrong group to try to appeal their block. That exact situation was what led me here to begin with. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2016
Please add a link to this page under the "See also" section of the blocking policy. Thanks 2601:183:100:87AE:5DAF:CD03:B52:A11B (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: There is already a link to WP:APPEAL in the See also section which basically contains the same information. I'm not sure that adding this link is all that necessary, but I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Topher385 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC of possible interest
Editors may perhaps be interested in Wikipedia talk:Harassment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels
Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, 's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the unblock template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.

The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 22:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved editor request a block review?
Can an uninvolved editor request a block review? If so, where is the process described? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * A block review yes. A formal unblock request on the user's Talk page not in my view. In the case of the latter, I would revert it or transform it into a comment.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * For some general background see this archived thread. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the link to this archived discussion that started on 27 June 2012 and attracted hundreds of edits by ?  contributors. Unfortunately I cannot find a summary of the discussion, and don’t have the time to wade through it. Sigh… Ottawahitech (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)please ping me
 * Finding the time to spend would be better than any summary, however, if you're looking for a different explanation than Bbb23 gave above... There is currently nothing in the policy which forbids a third-party appeal (see WP:CREEP). By convention, using the template should only really be done by the blocked user. Block appeals should first be addressed to the blocking admin (this can be done by any user), really bad blocks or those needing further review (including a review of the admin) can be subsequently put on AN or ANI. This isn't in the policy because we don't need every block that someone wants reviewing to be reported to the admin noticeboards. I would add that we will often need to hear from the blocked user. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

New adminbot proposal - blocking spambot IPs
Administrators are currently manually blocking IPs that hit certain URLs on the spam blacklist. It has been requested that a bot perform these blocks to allow for faster response time. Please comment at Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 3. — xaosflux  Talk 01:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

"undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand"?


I would have been just as happy to change "can" to "should", as remove one of the examples, but now that I've been reverted I might as well open a discussion. The current wording appears to imply that if a blocked user engages in block evasion and reverts vandalism, then it is acceptable either to revert them and reinsert the vandalism or to let it stand. I certainly don't think we should say that it is acceptable to re-vandalize a page because the one who first reverted it should not be editing.

Admittedly, deliberately reinserting a typo because the one who corrected it was block-evading is also unacceptable in theory, but vandalism is obviously worse.

So can we just change "can be allowed to stand" to "should be allowed to stand"?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As I stated, the language is clear now. Your interpretation is not a reasonable one. "can" and "should" aren't the same. There's no reason to change anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I know "can" and "should" aren't the same. That is why I propose we change it. Reinserting unambiguous vandalism is simply unacceptable, regardless of whether the vandalism was reverted by a block evader. "can" implies that either option is acceptable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're using should to imply a permanence of what should be done. That's not how these things work. There's quite some amount of judgement that has to be administered on a case to case basis and can is absolutely alright. In fact, may would have been better, to imply considerable leeway and discretion. But how it currently stands is more than enough. No need to rock it. Lourdes  14:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It still seems like the leeway and discretion you are talking about are the leeway not to revert block-evading edits in these circumstances if one doesn't feel like it, but we're not talking about innocuous, benign edits that reverting wouldn't hurt the encyclopedia one way or the other -- we're talking about reverts of unambiguous vandalism. There doesn't seem to be any point in granting editors the freedom to go out of their way in order to re-add vandalism to articles. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You're misreading the policy. That's about it. Lourdes  00:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not clear what you mean -- am I misreading it and it is actually supposed to say what I think it should say (that reinserting vandalism is unacceptable) or is it actually supposed to say what I think it shouldn't say (that reinserting vandalism is acceptable) and my thinking this is just an accident of poor wording is a misreading? If the former, then shouldn't we change it to be clearer so others don't read it the way I am? And if the latter, shouldn't we change what it is meant to say anyway, so as to actively discourage vandalism? Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps I am not being clear. I am not saying that users who accidentally re-vandalize a page because they were mass-reverting edits by a block-evader should be sanctioned or anything like that. That would be "must" rather than "should". "can" just seems like, once a user has established that this or that edit was by a block-evader was a revert of unambiguous vandalism, the choice is theirs as to whether to revert or not. AGF means that "I was reverting a block evader and didn't consider whether I was reinserting vandalism" is a perfectly valid defense of such edits and the vandalism can be removed with no further questions asked, and my proposed change wouldn't affect that. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The current wording is fine, although the commas in the parentheses should be omitted. All wording can be misinterpreted by someone at some time, but I do not see a need to improve the current wording. If it is not possible to explain the potential problem so at least one other person can see it, perhaps the matter should be dropped. Obviously should is different from can, and should would encourage drama-seekers to oppose the application of WP:DENY to banned/blocked users. DENY is the only tool available in an open wiki, and starting mini edit wars over a sock's edits would be highly undesirable. Johnuniq (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, not creating an artificial and pointless conflict between our need to revert vandalism and our preference to revert block-evaders would prevent edit wars, not cause them.I don't know what you mean by "mini edit wars". Just telling people outright not to re-insert vandalism regardless of whether it was previously reverted by a sock would prevent the obvious need for those reversions to themselves be re-reverted. But I can see this is going nowhere, so I'll drop it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)