Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 3

Blocks without policy basis
It used to be the case that logged-in users were never blocked except by Jimbo. Then we added the provision that users whose only edits were vandalism could be blocked (e.g. WoW). Then we added blocks to enforce AC rulings. Now there have been a few instances where users have been blocked based on community consenus, see Account suspensions. I changed the policy wording to acknowledge this. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Self-blocking
Why is self-blocking not allowed? I see no compelling practical reason to disallow an admin to block themselves in order to enforce their own WikiBreaks, but maybe I'm missing something. -- Seth Ilys 22:35, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The relevant sentence contains an "unless" statement: "Sysops should not block themselves ... because the resultant "autoblock" may affect other users ... unless they know what they're doing (i.e., they have a static IP)." Self-blocks are quite okay if your IP is static or you're willing to undo any autoblocks. &mdash; Dan | Talk 01:08, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The "unless" was added later. This had been discussed extensively at one point.  In addition to the problems with the autoblocker, the point was that the blocking mechanism isn't something to be used lightly for such things as wikivacations.  Since admins have the ability to reverse self-blocks anyway, they accomplish nothing useful.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to suggest a more effective method of self-blocking which does not disrupt Wikipedia: editing your Host file. Adding an entry "127.0.0.1 en.wikipedia.org" to it (minus the quotes) will make the site completely inaccessible from that computer until the line is removed. An entry needs to be added for each domain that the user desires to block (wikipedia.org, meta.wikipedia.org, wiktionary.org, etc.). I won't presume to add this suggestion to the policy page, but perhaps someone else would.--TidyCat 23:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Alabambam
I would like to request that someone consider blocking User:Alabambam. (I've read mountains of legal-sounding-policy pages -- none of which seem to be current -- about how to request this and couldn't find one.) The only purpose of this log-in is to spread hate. Here's what he added to Joke:

Q: Why did the nigger cross the road? A: Because niggers are an inferior race.

and:

Q: What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza? A: Pizza doesn't scream in the oven.

You'll also notice in his/her user history (Special:Contributions/Alabambam) that he was fighting on the Hurricane Katrina page to talk about how black people aren't as smart as white people and this is why most of the victims were black.

I hope that someone can help keep this person from vandalizing wikipedia anymore.--Quasipalm 14:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * User:Guettarda pointed me in the right direction: WP:AN/I Requests_for_comment/User_conduct. Policy pages are SOOO hard to find, ugh.  -Quasipalm 15:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Indefinite proxy blocks
When is this a good idea? For any anon/open proxies? Regular proxies used by a large pool of users? How can a vandal-fighter determine when what looks like a proxy can be blocked indefinitely? If this question has already been hashed out forever, please point me to recent discussions; the three relevant mailing-list links on the policy page are from early 2004. +sj +  21:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Semi-open proxies? I hate to get all black and white here, but a proxy is either open or not. Proxies like those run by ISPs to speed up their customers' web access may be a slight problem in blocking, but as they restrict access to those proxies to their customers (with one or two notable exceptions) all edits are still clearly coming from that ISP which makes them easy to checkuser and short term blocks are viable where necessary. Proxies anyone can edit through on the other hand make access untraceable (except for devs, and even then not always), and not indef-blocking them would make RC patrol a nightmare.
 * I meant regular proxies; just ones with so many users (AOL, comcast) that vandals regularly take advantage of the ISP to similar effect. +sj +  23:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your new message on my talk page suggests your issue is mainy with closed-off ISP proxies: My view is that at least for the ISPs that don't force people to edit through their proxies (either through having transparant proxies (comcast I think), or giving their customers software that won't let them change the proxy settings (AOL)), proxies should be blockable just like regular IPs, but there should be a separate template for it with instructions on how to disable proxies in their web browser (writing instructions that work for everyone won't be a small job though) so people can just stop using the proxy and continue editing.


 * A nicer long-term solution is for the list of servers wikipedia accepts the X-forwarded-for header from to be expanded. That way people can edit through their proxies but their edits are tied to their originating IP instead of that of the proxy they're editing through. The only problem is that you have to trust the XFF header the proxy server provides, so it can only be done for proxies of reputable ISPs. --fvw *  22:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I should learn the difference b/t these various situations, since wiki-vandalism is becoming a popular past-time even faster than the projects are growing [though generally on other smaller wikis]. +sj  +
 * Blocking IPs from a proxy network like Tor forever is like locking out an entire provider because of some abusers on his network. Why not make short-term blocking on "dangerous" IPs more flexible, for example by not requiring admin privileges for a short block? --Freedom of speech 15:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Balkanization"
"Administrators are permitted and encouraged to IP-block anonymous proxies indefinitely. See the entire thread for discussions about the legitimacy of using an anonymous proxy to edit Wikipedia. Such blocks are routine but controversial. A better policy to help against this balkanization of the internet would be highly appreciated."

I object to the use of this term even if the corresponding article claims it does not necessarily show disapproval. Any comments?   11:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And they're not controversial either, there are a few people who oppose but there is no controversy. Reworded. --fvw *  13:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No wonder that only a few people oppose. If you must expect oppression for speaking publicly and have to use a proxy to protect yourself, you need much courage to speak at all. Many are not even heard because they have too much fear. Neutrality would be served better if the consensus would not be built only by those who can afford having their words linked to their identity. I'm sure there are better ways to deal with possible vandalism than by simply locking certain people out. --Freedom of speech 18:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

What should non-sysops do about reporting vandals?
If an ordinary user notices repeated vandalism, what can they do to bring the matter to the attention of a sysop who can block the offending IP address? Is there a place to report vandals? I didn't see anything about that on the main Blocking policy page.
 * Try Administrator intervention against vandalism. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Has Autoblock ever displayed a blocked registered user's IP address?
I asked this question on Tim Starling and Brion Vibber's talk pages, but I thought someone else might also have answer to this:

This concerns an ArbCom case that I'm gathering evidence for. A user claims that he was able to view the IP address of blocked registered users by clicking on the autoblock link in the block log. Has this ever been the case? I wasn't able to find any record of this bug in Bugzilla. This user has only be around since early July, so that's time period I'm mostly concerned about. He claims that the bug has now been fixed. I'd also like to know whether any user (other than developers or David Gerard) could have knowledge of registered users' IP addresses through any technical means. Thank you! Carbonite | Talk 04:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The actual IP address rather than a numeric code appeared in the block log up until about a couple of years ago. I am unaware of any recent software bug or feature that would allow an IP address to be determined.  I would imagine that the most practical means of determining another users' IP address would be to get them to click on a link to a non-Wikipedia site that logs such information, perhaps by disguising it as linkspam, a diff, or an offsite-hosted image.  Emailing a message to the user that contains a web beacon would also work if the target user's email program were configured to display inlined HTML images.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)


 * After Brion put the search box in Special:Ipblocklist, there was briefly a bug by which, if one were to search for an actual IP address, autoblocks on that address would also display. However, it was corrected within hours, so I doubt it has any bearing on this case. &mdash; Dan | Talk 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Annotating the reason for blocking
I have been trying to gather evidence for the same ArbCom as above, but some administrators have been blocking people while failing to include a reason or any evidence of a reason or a rule being broken. It makes it very hard to track down administrators that abuse their power. If no valid reason is given for a block, how can it be verified? I added the following to the Blocking_policy. As a simple reminder, I think it's a no-brainer. What do you think?

The "reason" that the administrator fills in will be displayed to the blocked user when they attempt to edit, as well as appearing in the block log and the block list. The administrator fills in which of the following reasons he or she has for blocking the editor: The Administrator adds evidence of that reason or rule being broken that another administrator can easily verify. The administrator does not make up his or her own rules to justify a block. If more than one line is needed to explain the block, the administrator may record the block at policy enforcement.
 * Vandalism
 * Excessive reverts
 * Bans
 * Anonymous & open proxies
 * Disruption
 * Improper Usernames
 * Public accounts
 * Bots
 * Personal attacks which place users in danger
 * Exceptional, widespread community support for the block

--Zephram Stark 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The policy already states "The "reason" that the administrator fills in will be displayed to the blocked user when they attempt to edit, as well as appearing in the block log and the block list.". The policy also states "If it is not for an obvious reason, or if more than one line is needed to explain the block, the administrator may record the block at Wikipedia:policy enforcement." Admins may fill in what they believe to be the best description. If more information is desired, the admin should be asked to elaborate. There's no reason for this instruction creep. Carbonite | Talk 03:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that administrators should have already read the reasons for blocking before attempting to block, but the descriptions in the list are lengthy and confusing. The bottom line is that many administrators have been making up their own rules, citing things that are not in the "exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking based on policy alone," nor do the blocks have "exceptional, widespread community support."  I want to assume the best here, that these administrators are just confused by the lengthy policy description.  I think we should concisely list the situations that warrant blocking in the How to block section as a reminder of the rules that govern us all.  Being an administrator is not a license to do anything we want.  --Zephram Stark 03:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As you are well aware, any incidents of admins abusing blocks should be noted on WP:AN/I. If it's a case of actual abuse, the user will generally be unblocked very quickly. If reported abuse isn't acted upon, it's usually because there's de facto support for the block. The situations that warrant blocking are already described in detail on the same page; there's just no need to list them again in another section. Carbonite | Talk 03:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I hearing this right? Are you saying that an administrator should be able to block someone without stating a reason or providing any evidence whatsoever?  At that point, it becomes the blocked user's responsibility to prove her innocence?  According to the section of this discussion on Responding to blocks, a user can do that by either emailing other administrators or by editing her own talk page.  Yet User:SlimVirgin indefinitely blocked User:EKBK with the false statement that EKBK was a "sockpuppet used to violate policy."  SlimVirgin then protected EKBK's user talk page against editing, so EKBK couldn't prove her innocence there.  When EKBK tried to email the administrators, David Gerard accused her of spamming.


 * Sorry to interrupt your rant, but you cetainly did not hear me correctly. I never said that an admin should be able to block without stating a reason. I said that the blocking policy already states that admins should enter a reason and that your changes was just instruction creep. The reason field is meant to contain exactly that: a reason why the block was made. It's not meant to contain detailed evidence. If someone has a problem with the provided reason, they should contact the blocking admin, or post a report on WP:AN/I. The fact that you don't agree with certain blocks is not justification for changing the blocking policy. Carbonite | Talk 15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you truly feel that a rule should be cited when a person is blocked, you don't have to "interrupt my rant." You can simply say "Agree" below.


 * Regarding your assertion that "If someone has a problem with the provided reason, they should contact the blocking admin, or post a report on WP:AN/I," how exactly does one implement that? If an editor is blocked, how can she post a report on WP:AN/I?  If the blocking administrator is corrupt, what good will it do an editor to contact that administrator?  Since I know that you're a smart guy, I've got to ask, "Are you toying with me?"  --Zephram Stark 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Am I toying with you? I really don't have the time for toying with people. When I respond I assume that the person I'm responding to is sincere. For the majority of blocks, a user is not permanently blocked. After their block expires, they can post a report on WP:AN/Iif they believe it was unjustified. While the block is still in effect (or in cases of permanent blocks), the editor can email the blocking admin, email any of the other 600 admins, send a message to the mailing list, or bring up the matter on IRC. Basically, getting an admin's attention while blocked is not a difficult task. Carbonite | Talk 16:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you do have time to toy with me because you know as well as I that using the mailing list or emailing other administrators does absolutely no good. The general attitude is that someone else will risk their good standing to deal with the problem.  When an administrator sticks out his neck, it is promptly cut off.  The end result is that nothing gets done when a corrupt administrator infinitely blocks an innocent user without citing a rule.  --Zephram Stark 16:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You wanted to know how a blocked user was supposed to bring the matter to an admin's attention. I provided you with several methods to contact any or all admins. If the actual issue is that you don't trust any of the 600 admins to review a block in your favor, there's not much I can say at this point. As I stated above, I will only respond when I believe the person I'm responding to is sincere. I do not believe you are sincerely interested in discussing blocking policy, therefore I will no longer respond to your comments on this matter. Good day, sir. Carbonite | Talk 16:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue is that the administrators have no method to review a block if there is no rule cited for the block. --Zephram Stark 17:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * As you know, Carbonite, this is just one example in dozens of how our rule-based system has recently turned into a monarchy with no effective oversight. I know that you have no problem with that.  In fact, you seem to be encouraging it, but I would be willing to bet that most administrators here liked the level playing field that started Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia still espouses in written policy (if not in implementation).  If we want to get back to a rule-based system, the first step is in enforcing that rules actually be cited when a person is blocked. --Zephram Stark 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * From an examination of the block log, the vast majority of blocks clearly state the reason why the block was made. There doesn't appear to be a problem to solve here. This is simply a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Carbonite | Talk 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If, as you assert, the problem doesn't exist with most blocks, that leaves only the descriptions of few rogue administrators to bring back within a system of rules. This could easily be implemented by unblocking any action that cannot be independently verified.  Of course, if there is no rule cited for the block, independent verification would be impossible and no other investigation would be necessary.  --Zephram Stark 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There has been a gradual liberalization of the blocking policy over time, which I support. I myself have blocked users for combinations of reasons and for reasons that are not on the list, and have found the community to support such blocks in nearly all cases. While I can appreciate Mr. Stark's frustration over his particular case, I see no abuse. Since Mr. Stark clearly owes the community an explanation for some of his edits, I do not believe that this policy proposal should be taken seriously. Accordingly, I have removed the poll that Mr. Stark had added here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please don't change my words in discussion. By doing things to me that you would never tolerate from me, you place yourself in a hierarchy over me.  Such a hierarchy of editing power goes against everything Wikipedia purports itself to be.  Is there any wonder why so many editors are pissed as hell?  They are promised a community of equals, where administrators use their power to ensure that equality, but they receive a bureaucracy of top-down editing and content control.  Is the way to stem the growing tide of vandalism and mass-exodus of quality editors to tighten your reigns, or is it to show a little humility and respect for the opinions of other editors?  --Zephram Stark 17:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

define terms?
Could someone point a newbie admin to someplace I could find answers to these questions, so that I don't block improperly? (A link in the intro to the article, or definitions there, might be a good idea.)


 * How do I tell the difference between a static and a dynamic IP?
 * What is an anonymous IP?

Thanks, kwami 09:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know how to tell the difference between static and dynamic IPs. An anonymous IP is one that doesn't identify either the person using it or their ISP. Brian Jason Drake 07:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * A static IP is one that gets assigned to the same computer/person for a long time; a dynamic one is one that frequently gets reassigned. Blocking a dynamic IP for too long is bad, as the person you were trying to block moved on to an other IP and the next person to get the IP ends up blocked. Telling them apart is more of an art than a science, looking at the reverse DNS is generally a good start. AOL addresses used to all be dynamic (dialup), but these days there are AOL ADSL IPs too I think, though I'm not sure if they can be told apart.
 * By anonymous IP address the page just means IP accounts, i.e. users who haven't logged in and whose edits are assigned to the IP they're editing from. Note that when you block an IP, you not only block not-logged-in users but also logged-in users who edit from that IP. --fvw *  07:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I wasn't sure that was what was meant. But since we're encouraged to block anonymous IP's indefinitely, how do we know we're not blocking logged-in users along with them? Although the problem may be cleared up now, I was thinking of an anon IP that was used as a sockpuppet to revert the Urdu article a good fifty times, with no other edits on its contribution page. kwami 23:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Instant blocking for vandalizing high-traffic articles
We should discuss whether it is OK to instantly block people for vandalizing high traffic articles (specifically, George W. Bush). Currently there's a disagreement over whether George W. Bush should begin with this warning in an HTML comment: "Anyone who vandalizes the page may be blocked for 24 hours or more without further warning." I think this warning was added by User:Golbez during a period of sustained vandalism - see Talk:George W. Bush/Archive 29. Several editors felt that a "zero tolerance" policy towards vandals was better than semi-permanent protection. The warning remained there for several months until it was removed by User:Tony Sidaway, who believes that it is not supported by policy.

Is it good policy to block vandals on the first offense (only for the highest-traffic articles)? George W. Bush is edited hundreds of times per day and most of those edits are vandalism. It's a time consuming task to repeatedly warn vandals, almost none of whom ever go on to become legitimate contributors. More importantly, the more lenient we are with vandals, the more likely it is that the article will be viewed by readers in its vandalized state. Instant blocking does reduce the amount of vandalism on high traffic pages. It isn't appropriate for test edits or edits to low-volume articles. When it comes to high-visibility articles, we need to care more about the integrity of the encyclopedia than about hurting the feelings of some anonymous vandal. The blocking policy may not support instant blocks, but should it be changed to allow them on extremely visible articles? People keep removing the zero tolerance warning from the article so I'd like to get consensus here. Rhobite 00:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I say block on first offense on those articles. Most of the vandalism is obvious and involves pictures of you-know-what on the article and are almost never turned into productive editors - as they most likely came there to vandalize in the first place. Ryan Norton T 00:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you tell "blatant vandalism" from "bored kid who wants to see if he can really stick a picture of a dick on the GWB article"? The latter frequently turns into a worthwhile contributor to Wikipedia. I just don't like the idea of instant blocks; if you want to skip the lengthier test sequence for what seems to be obvious cases, that's what bv is for. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I say treat vandalism of GW Bush in exactly the same way as you treat other vandalism. Instant blocking is OTT and not needed. Reverting has worked fine in the past and I see no reason to suppose it wont work fine in the future. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OTT? My TLA-translator doesn't recognize that one. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:48, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Over the top. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Theresa, reverting has not been working. Given the number of vandals that have been attacking various high-traffic articles, namely the George W. Bush article, I'm not sure that instant blocking is the best long term solution either.  Please read Talk:George_W._Bush/Archive_33 where Rhobite describes an example where the article was vandalised to read "George Bush is a son of a bitch" for close to 2 hours.  Hall Monitor 19:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I think blocking vandals on the high-traffic articles is a very good idea. abakharev 00:40, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * High traffic articles will always get more attention. More newbie tests, more vandalism, more everything. I don't like the precedent of blocks without warning. Secretlondon 00:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I say, one warning, using new template that explains politely that the article they vandalized is a priority article (or something along that line of thought)...then if they vandalize again, impose a 12 hour block (with blocking admin informing user on the usertalk of the block of course)...if they come back in a few days then another warning, then on second incidence, block for 24 hours...etc., etc. But this test, test 2, test 3 stuff is a waste in many cases.--MONGO 01:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Vandalism is too strong. We will always get more newbie tests on high profile articles. 24 hour insta-blocks are too strong. Secretlondon 00:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, and this was discussed here before. Vandalism is expected on these articles and to block for more than 15 minutes seems a bit much, just a note should sufffice. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  00:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Mind pointing me to the discussion? I'm sorry for bringing this topic up again, but I'd like to read the old discussion. Rhobite 00:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No need to appologize, I didn't really mean it like that :) No reason not to discuss it again, was just saying. But the conversation is further up When to bring out the big guns.... Talks about FA articles and blocking. &laquo;&raquo; Who ? &iquest; ? meta  00:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, OK. I skimmed that discussion. It is similar, but in my mind GWB is one of the few articles where this policy is warranted. Not even FAs get the sustained level of vandalism as that article. The people who've posted at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy seem to be against instant blocks, but I'm glad that I brought this up. Rhobite 01:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is an okay policy, with restraint. I think that we should give 1 warning, perhaps a new template that basically says "You have vandalized/blanked a controversial page. If you wish to continue testing Wikipedia, please use the Sandbox.  If you continue vandalizing pages, you may be blocked without further warning." But we should keep some sort of a warning at the top of the articles (i.e. "Vandalism on this article may result in a block. Please make useful edits.")  What does everyone else think? Ral 315   WS  01:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * And I support a shorter block on this as well- perhaps 3 hours, perhaps more like 12 hours or so.  Ral  315   WS  01:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We can use the new template created by User:Doc_glasgow, and after one such warning, and if the vandal persists, we could block. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @

Any banning without warning policy is a mistake. There are just too many tests, many of which are reverted by the 'vandal'. New people simply don't know better. The world doesn't end if there is a little vandalism on a high traffic page and life will become harder and harder the more enemies we make (vs just casual vandals). --Gmaxwell 04:06, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No-warning blocks of any sort are highly questionable and should be used only with overwhelming evidence that the user is inimical to Wikipedia. Vandalizing  does not prove that the editor is inimical to Wikipedia.  Vandalizing editors must get a warning and must get a chance to react to the warning before blocks may ensure.  Period.  End of discussion.


 * I am very concerned about excessive blocking by admins of late. I fear I may have contributed to that, not by deed (I am a very reluctant blocker, to the point that I have trouble remembering how to do it when I do have to) but by fostering a belief in WP:IAR that I think has encouraged far too many nondiscriminating admins to totally disregard the blocking policy and block willy nilly.  Well, enough of that.  It's been a while since we desysoped someone, but that doesn't mean we can't start now.  Kelly Martin 04:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OH, that I'd love to see. - brenneman (t) (c)  04:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

It isn't supported by policy, nor is it sensible, nor is it fair, to block editors who, perhaps in their first edit, expend some animus on George W. Bush, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, Tony Blair or some other hate figure of their choosing.

To warn a new editor who mucks around with an article, go to his talk page and plop a template there. If he keeps it up for long, consider blocking him. This isn't difficult. The new editor may well go on to become a regular contributor. To treat him just the same as a known vandal is not appropriate. --Tony Sidaway Talk 04:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Except for the word "plop".  Use tests 1, 3, 5. -  brenneman (t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  04:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree that this is the most sensible way to do this. My experience is that when "caught" in the act (e.g. a ' added to their talk page immediately after the vandalism, they get the point that there  are consequences and that they better behave and maybe even consider contributing. The most powerful statement to vandals is that there are people that care about the project and the vandalism gets quicklt reverted. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 04:57, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a most enlightened perspective. We treat the project with respect, so you should to. This sort of perspective solves many problems out in meatspace, in dealing with protecting common spaces in communities, I'm sure it's just as effective here. We will never be free of vandalism, so it's wrong to risk alienating people in the name of expedience. If a wikipedia is tired of dealing with vandals nicely, it's time for him/her to take a break from dealing with vandals, not change policy. --Gmaxwell 05:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I fight vandalism every day in WP, and I would rather fight vandalism with the tools we have, than to chill participation. &asymp; jossi fresco &asymp; t &bull; @ 05:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't help thinking that some of this could be dealt with by better or more flexible messages appearing after "edit" is clicked - an idea I've had previously thinking about having Talk-page specific edit messages (see Template talk:Talkheader and its AFD discussions). For instance, we could add messages that only anons see, relating to vandalism and testing and general welcome; perhaps only the first few times an IP edits (unless tagged SharedIP). On problem pages like GWB we could have longer, more specific messages, perhaps directing people to appropriate outlets elsewhere (or even a VandalizeMeCreatively subpage copy of the article - no that's nuts :) ). Yes, it requires software changes. :( Rd232 09:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't like the presumption in the above that only an anon is likely to vandalize. This hasn't been my experience.  Anons are some of our most valued contributors and I don't see the point in alienating them by putting up messages that presume they're about to vandalize. --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * While I think that anons are more likely to vandalize than regulare editors, I dislike these ideas. In my experience, Wikipedia seems to function on [Soft Security rather than conventional security.  A message such as that suggested by [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] might be appropriate, but I don't think insta-blocking is. (Yes, I know, Meatball ideas aren't Wikipedia policy, but they're good all the same.)--Scimitar parley 17:21, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

On one side we lose the editorial effort spent reverting yet another "nazi flaming homo" driveby, time which otherwise could be used improving WP. On the other side we lose all the positive contributions to WP those vandals might be making in the next 24 hours. Tough call there.

To argue against my position, autoblocks for "aggregious and blatant" vandalism means we need to define those terms and not expand them to block newbie tests that happen to cover some small addition that's been discussed ad nauseum and removed.

Dunno...I think it's worth testing the autoblocks for a while, but keeping a close eye on the situation. If the admins get overzealous, we can revert the policy. Maybe we can hit the right balance on getting rid of the users that we know are not going to improve WP without turning away potentially useful editors. EricN 17:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * We have no way of discerning this. It is eminently possible that someone may harbor a deep contempt for, say, Saddam Hussein, and yet be able to absorb and imbibe Wikipedia culture, and go on to produce good editing. We must not expect people coming to Wikipedia and getting the first heady rush of "hey!  you really can edit anything you like!" to understand what we're all about.  They need time to get their bearings. What better clue than a message that says, effectively, "we know what you did and why, but we're not going to block you on this occasion, because you're new." --Tony Sidaway Talk  19:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * isn't that waht test1 does?Geni 19:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There's two things to consider here. One hand, we risk losing editors whose first wiki edit is a "flaming nazi homo" driveby and who are so fragile that a 24-hour ban will chase them away forever.  On the other hand, we risk losing readers when a high-profile article spends, in total, a significant amount of time in a grossly vandalized state.  Frankly, I'd rather keep the readers. EricN 20:23, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Policy issues aside, the fact of the matter is GWB was vandalized just as frequently as any other high-traffic article even with the instant-block warning at the top of the article. The warnings do not work because the individuals who deliberately vandalize an article generally do not care if they get blocked. Adjusting policy to implement an ineffective measure is just silly. Thatdog 19:08, 19 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That same logic could argue for implementing a longer block and actually enforcing it. EricN 20:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * EricN, you should spend some time catching up on the previous discussions with respect to blocking 'vandals'. Most people who edit aren't trying to break wikipedia, in fact they are often quite shocked that the editing worked at all. Further there is actually no way for us to block someone who is determined to cause harm, all we can do is slow them down. Fortunately, thats all that is required: our change patroling process is remarkably effective and appears to scale fairly well, and we're not yet doing anything really creative yet. --Gmaxwell 20:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but should the same rules apply to all articles, or should certain articles be treated separately? If FAs get special treatment when they are highly visible, would that logic not apply to articles that are also highly visible because of their subject matter?  What would it require to create a small class of articles that users cannot make their first edit on?  Making vandals take two actions instead of one is probably a bigger discouragement than a block. EricN 23:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
 * FA's don't, other than perhaps there are more people watching them and thus responding more quickly. If you've seen where someone has insta-blocked someone without warning because they messed up a FA, please let us know... because they need to be advised not to do that. I don't know if the 'don't make your first edit here' would help much, the sort of people whom would be slowed by that don't usually make terribly harmful edits. --Gmaxwell 03:30, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There has been some FA's that are usually never touched unless they were on the front page. I have some FA's like that, so our main concern should be about the highly edited/vandalized articles. I was in a situation where instant blocks were handed out for vandalizing Michael Crook, but the various IP's were the same person doing the same edit over and over again (blanking the page with some variant of "Hippies get pwned." Zach (Sound Off) 06:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Instant, short-term blocks with appropriate messages when they try to edit the page and appropriate warnings before editing are warranted for blatant vandalism. For first time vandalism, these blocks can be removed when they respond (this should deal with the problem of shared IP addresses) (this should be a good test as to their potential as useful contributors).

As for test edits, why not put a link to the sandbox on every page? We want to promote the fact that anyone can edit, I presume? Brian Jason Drake 10:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this for two reasons: first, we shouldn't block without warning, imho. And second, having a warning/threat like that in a HTML comment (or anywhere else) is, essentailly, making a threat that will not neccessarily be acted upon - it is dependent on who spots the vandalism. This second reason is the same reason why I, as a non-admin, do not put test4 on to vandals user talk - I canot act on that threat. When we make empty threats to block vandals, we reduce the effectivness of warnings about vandalism, by creating an attittude of "well, they threatened to block me last time and didn't". -- AJR | Talk 16:35, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Sign me up for supporting a 2-4 hour block for high traffic vandalism. They know they are vandalizing so this isn't going to surprise them. I think they are most surprised when they get to do it repeatedly. A small block like 2-4 hours will not hamper real users. (I agree with AJR that we should not make false threats. If they vandalize block them immediately on their second vandalism on the same high traffic article for a short amount of time.)-  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  19:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I never proposed blocking users without warning. I proposed putting a warning on the edit page. Also, for first-time vandalism, users should be invited to respond and blocks should be lifted when they do so. Brian Jason Drake 07:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I wonder is it easy to implement the different actions on pressing the Save and Move buttons for the ordinary and high traffic areas? Say, on the High Traffic Areas it would first display a dialog You are attempting to modify the content of a highly visible area...blah-blah-blah... vandalizing the page can get you banned or event persecuted by such and article of the criminal code... it is always a good idea to discuss on the talk page ... the sandbox for testing is here... Do you still want to save your edit: Yes/No. ' This might spook off some vandals. abakharev 08:22, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So if it's not a "high traffic area", we don't care enough to have a warning? We seem to be very soft on vandalism, not having any sort of warning on any edit/move pages. Brian Jason Drake 08:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

blocking shared proxies policy
Shared IP addresses like User:169.244.143.115 get used a lot by anonymous vandals in public libraries/schools, and I've noticed moderators in the past blocking an IP for a month when they saw no positive contributions in its history, because they don't have CheckUser power (they were corrected shortly thereafter by emails from the affected registered users). Should a policy of moderators requesting a CheckUser on an IP before making a long-term blocking decision be put in place? Phoenix-forgotten 09:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I see they had more success than me, when my school's IP was blocked (I got no response). Is anyone going to consider my suggestion this time? I suggest that there be a class of users that can edit from any IP, and that other classes of users with elevated privileges automatically get this privilege as well. Brian Jason Drake 11:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of implementing more options for moderators in blocking, in conjunction with a policy like I proposed above. That way, a more cautious anonymous-only block can be made while waiting for CheckUser results. Phoenix-forgotten 01:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Edit: It actually looks like this fits in with what's already being talked about over there.

Blocks for breaching privacy?
User:Nashferatu in this edit and other ediots to the same talk page, has revealed the legal name of at least one wikipedia editor, without permission and againt the wishes of that editor. It appears that this name was discoverable by not too arduous internet reserch, and thr is no allegation that the editor was in any wany endangered by this act, although celarly his privicy was invaded.

I am about to warn User:Nashferatu not to do this again, but I would like support for my contetion that revealing personal if about another editor (apparently simply to make a point, not becauase the name was in any way relevant to the discussion in progress) is blockable conduct -- i argue tht it is celarly a form of disruption. The dispute was disscussed on WP:AN, which is how I came to the matter. DES (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Self-unblocking
A view in Requests for comment/Duncharris is that "While self-unblocking is certainly unwise, current policy specifies that one should not unblock oneself, but does not indicate that one may not do so". This view has received endorsement.

Hence, to avoid this misinterpretation, I suggest that in the phrase "Sysops are technically able to unblock themselves by following this procedure but should absolutely not do so", the word "should" should be replaced by "must". Thincat 14:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe, although the current phrase "should absolutely not do so" seems crystal clear to me. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As per Matt. It boggles my mind that someone could read that as allowing self-unblocking. (It's not as if an admin doesn't know where to go to protest an unfair block, anyhow.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 16:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm when were you last blocked? Not all admins are contactable by email which means you have to rely on the mailing list. This can take anything up to a few hours to get a responce from. Back when I was createing all those dummy accounts on the front page of list user I was getting repeatedly caught in ip blocks and frankly I couldn't be bothered with messing around after the first time and just pulled the blocks.Geni 16:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest, then, that we add a clause explicitly allowing admins to unblock themselves if caught in an IP block by accident. &mdash; Matt Crypto  17:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This seems like common sense to me; does it even need codifying? I've unblocked my IP several times and nobody has complained. &mdash; Dan | Talk 17:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem was that in my case it wasn't exactly an acident. It was the accounts that I was creating that were getting me blocked because they would look insanely suspicious to someone who didn't know what was going on. I did announce my actions at AN/I and they were within policy.Geni 17:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer the "should" wording. Self-unblocking to get around 3RR and other valid blocks is bad and merits an RFC. In a few cases, however, a block is placed in bad faith and should be removed by the victim. Guanaco 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's often the case that the least capable person of rationally judging the validity of the block is the person blocked, as he or she is likely to have a very biased and emotive view of the situation. It's better if some other admin, preferably one not already involved, judges if the block was unfair and needs to be removed. Take as an example the situation with Duncharris above, who obviously felt that the block was in bad faith, but not everyone agrees. &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Matt's point makes sense, but I am still inclined to agree with Geni. If a block violates policy I don't see why you shouldn't be able to unblock yourself.  In Dunc's case, Ed's block was controvertial but not entirely against policy, but I could envision a block which was totally wrong.  While in such a case it should be easy to get someone to unblock you, it shouldn't be strictlyforbidden (much like getting caught by the autoblocker...you can undo that, but even that is less than idea).  Guettarda 17:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess it's better to leave it as a guideline rather than creating a legalistic, watertight rule. The real problem here, I suspect, is that the person arguing that Dunc's unblock was not against policy is taking a far too literal view of how one reads policy (he's reading it like an Internet RFC). I think most people acknowledge, including Dunc, that it was wrong for him to unblock himself. &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think the changes on unblocking are generally an improvement. However, my original point was that "should" should be changed to "must". It is clear in this discussion that there are differing views on what the present policy means. "Should" can be interpreted as a recommendation and, if it is, "absolutely" makes little sense to me. "should absolutely not" should be changed to "must absolutely not" or "should not". I strongly prefer the former, given that quite proper exceptions are provided. I agree with Matt, if an administrator blocks my user account, however foolishly, mistakenly or maliciously, I am the last person to judge the issue. Is it really so difficult to contact another admin? (BTW I think "sysop" should be changed to "administrator" globally). Thincat 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Incorporation of Blocked Users into firewall
The Helpdesk mailing list has received an e-mail from a user concerning incorporation of blocked users into a firewall as follows.

I was reading on your website about banned IP addresses and would like to know, if you have a list of banned IP addresses that I can incorporate into my own firewall software. From most of the attacks you have, they seem to be classed as vandal, and/or computer misuse. I am working on a ban list also, and would like to import your ban list, into the firewall I use also. I could give you a copy of the ban list I am working on if you require also. I think it would be a tremendous advantage to your excellent website, to have an active banned IP list online and ready for all normal people to incorporate into their firewall packages. (...)

I said that I would put his idea forward but stated that there were privacy concerns with the proposal and it might also cause problems for users whose ISPs have floating IPs ie AOL. Any comments you might wish to add would be greatly appreciated.

Capitalistroadster 03:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * all the stuff we are prepared to release can be found on our blocklist.Geni 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed addition regarding blocking in conflicts
I'd like to propose the following text be added to the section entitled When blocking may not be used. This is intended to reflect the consensus that appears to be developing on WP:AN/I over the recent cases wherein an administrator has repeatedly blocked editors with whom he was in active ongoing conflicts.


 * Administrators may not block editors with whom they are in an ongoing conflict, even if they believe the blocking policy justifies a block. Personal disputes, editing or revert wars, or mutual accusations of bias all tend to blur people's judgment of each other's actions. An offense always seems more threatening when someone we don't like or trust is the one doing it.


 * An administrator involved in a conflict should do what any other editor should do -- use dispute resolution. In cases where an administrator in a conflict thinks an immediate block is necessary, they may post to WP:AN/I to ask uninvolved administrators to review the situation and perform the block.

The policy already says that "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict". The above addition is intended to emphasize the point, spell out the reasons for it, and propose alternate courses of action. Thoughts? --FOo 04:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I concur entirely with this, and don't think it can be emphasized strongly enough. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it probably could be emphasized too strongly. "Administrators who block users with whom they are in conflict will be banned FOREVER!!!" I think that would be a little too strong. <TT>:)</TT> --FOo 05:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! Do I have to avoid hyperbole outside the article namespace, too, now? :-) OK, maybe it can be emphasized too strongly (you literalists! sheesh!), but it would save many people a good deal of trouble and bad feeling. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes I think this makes a lot of sense. Paul August &#9742; 05:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wholehearted agreement (and surprised that section is so inadequate). In fact, I would change the "may" to "must." Dmcdevit·t 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I said this before, but apparently my other personality didn't agree. Do we really believe that the admins who do this, and who looking at ANI do it multiple times, don't know that they aren't supposed to block in this manner? Surely we're simply saying "Stop, or I'll say stop again!" by expanding? Oh, I do however support the proposed change. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  05:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, as I'm sure I've said before. I expect an admin to be able to use their judgment to be able to figure out if this kind of stuff is right or wrong, regardless of if it's in policy. Indeed, I would hold them accountable regardless of if it's in policy or not. However, some people tend to see (or act on at least) rightness or wrongness only in the context of policy. E.g. in the case of the type of admin that most recently prompted this discussion: "it's not against policy to do so"-kind-of-attitude. This at least is informative and possibly even preventative as well. Dmcdevit·t 06:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Preventative, not punative, eh? Your faith in human nature is an inspiration. ^_^ I have no objections, only skepticism.  Someone send me some Wikilove, quick!  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  06:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I am an optimist myself. But I'd like to think that perhaps this makes it a bit clearer to those who rely on the letter of policy for guidance. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As one who has made that mistake once and has no wish to do so again, I totally support FOo's proposal. FeloniousMonk 07:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This clarification is clearly a good thing. There's always another admin to check in with, and even for those capable of making unbiased judgements, banning someone they're in conflict with looks bad and leads to further disharmony.  There's never any reason to do it. -- SCZenz 08:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"Stop, or I'll say stop again!"
I understand the concern against saying, "Stop, or I'll say stop again!" However, I'm not sure exactly what to do about it. I, personally, would support a policy which said that anyone with administrator access who abused it in this way would be blocked, or have their admin access suspended pending review. I want administrators to be above reproach, and the only way I can see to do that thoroughly is to make reproachful conduct grounds for loss of admin access.

I didn't propose it that way because I didn't think that policy would garner wide support. People have an aversion to conflicts among administrators. Admins obviously want to trust each other, not suspect each other ... and the rest of us want to trust that our project isn't being run by clowns who ban and de-op each other like IRC kiddies.

But ... maybe I'm wrong, and an "abuse it and lose it" policy regarding administrative access would fly here. Maybe the recent case shows how abuses of admin access can make things much worse for ordinary editors -- to the point of driving people off the project.

What I really objected to, in the case that inspired this proposal, was the impression that I got from the administrator's conduct: that he acted as if his administrative access entitled him to do things ordinary editors are forbidden from doing: bullying, making personal attacks, and POV-warring ... and worse, that he could back up his threats by blocking people who disagreed with him.

The point isn't to "punish" abuse, though. It's to make abuse unappealing to those who might consider doing it ... and more importantly, to make it abundantly clear where the boundary is. It's also to strongly remind people who are in a high-risk situation -- that is, administrators in heated personal & POV conflicts -- that they are not alone; that they don't have to take matters into their own hands; and that they can call for help instead of doing something destructive. --FOo 07:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It's the difference between policy and enforcement of policy. We should have this addition to be able to say "stop," but I don't think this is the place to specify how to enforce that. Administrator abuse is serious, and that's why it takes an arbcom or something to remove the privilege. If an admin violates this policy, or WP:PPol, or WP:DP, etc., then file it under administrative abuse and take the appropriate action. But this is our policy on how and when it is appropriate to block or unblock, not our policy on the administator status. The fact is, I think, it should be dealt with much more individually than a universal policy declaration could ever hope to do. (And, btw, I think a temporary block for any admin abuse accomplishes nothing constructive; the whole point of a block is to prevent disruptive editing, and admins can even still perform admin functions while blocked.) Dmcdevit·t 07:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's a whole bunch of good points. Here's a different one: How long should it take to bell the cat? In the recent case, admin abuse went on for days -- long enough for an AfD to close -- before a relatively uninvolved person (an administrator, as it happened) had the guts to stand up to the abuser and get him to quit. Prior to that, other people had raised the abuse issue but had been basically ignored -- both on talk pages and on the WikiEN-L mailing list.


 * When someone's being a bully -- particularly when they seem to be lashing out at anyone who opposes them -- it's naturally hard to stand up to them. And because it's easy for a troll or kook to cry "admin abuse" when they get blocked for good reason, it's harder to call out real admin abuse because nobody wants to sound like a troll or a kook. So another lesson of this case is that reports of administrators acting wildly against consensus need to be taken seriously.


 * It's easy to say "that was abuse!" after the abuser has already gone away. But in order to stop the abuse sooner, more people need to speak up sooner. How do we encourage that? --FOo 08:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You can't. Anything you do will just result in more fase claims provideing yet more cover for genuin problem admins.Geni 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this proposal, it should remove any ambiguity. Hopefully if anyone does break this the lack of ambiguity should enable swift action to be taken. Thryduulf 09:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is, indeed, a good proposal. There is no miracle solution in increasing admin accountability but this is a step in the right direction. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully support this. &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I support this in principle, but it may need tweaking as pointed out by dab and SlimVirgin below. &mdash; Matt Crypto 16:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

good proposal, but "dispute" should be qualified. Of course, trolls will try to abuse this policy by portraying blocking admins as out to censor their pov (happens already, of course). We should at least say "content dispute", otherwise no admin will be able to block the same troll twice, since the troll has just to rant a little bit on admin's talk page after the first block, and will claim to be in an "ongoing dispute" at the second block. dab (&#5839;) 13:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this proposal for the reasons dab has given. I've seen several trolls and disruptive users claim to be in a dispute with an admin who has simply given them a warning or blocked them for something, and in fact one of the disruptive users tried to float a proposal very similar to this a few months ago. It would mean that any admin with experience of dealing with a disruptive user could be accused of being "involved." I would like to see the wording of the blocking policy on this point stay as it is. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 13:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Perhaps that would happen, and I appreciate that you have a lot of experience with this. But I think that the eventuality you're describing might actually be a feature, not a bug. If there's a clear case for a block then even an admin without experience in dealing with that particular user will see it. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 14:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's not the point, Haukurth. A disruptive editor shouldn't be allowed to stop an admin taking action just by crying "conflict," which becomes true by definition the minute they say it, and this happens a lot so it's not an "eventuality." To ask another admin to act would involve having to post explanations with diffs and so on: more work for what might be a simple and obvious case for the admin with experience of the situation. For example, I have a lot of experience with one disruptive user who I can spot a mile away when he posts with sockpuppets, and I block him when I see it. However, I can also spot when someone is pretending to be him to get him into trouble, which has happened, and I know on those occasions not to block. It would be close to impossible for me to explain how I know the difference, but I've not been wrong yet. That kind of experienced involvement should be encouraged, but this proposal would discourage it, which is why I oppose it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 14:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true that an admin attempting to deal with a troll in good faith (vandal/miscreant/etc...) is likely to end up being "in conflict" with that user in some sense, and we don't always want people posting on WP:AN. I think there is a need to shore up the policy though, to make it absolutely clear that blocks like Ed Poor's recent one are not acceptable. I've tweaked the suggestion above to keep the current policy wording about "article editing conflict", and added a clause in italics.
 * "Users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict. Nor should an admin block if it could reasonably be perceived as a conflict of interest by the wider community, even if they believe the blocking policy justifies a block. Personal disputes, editing or revert wars, or mutual accusations of bias all tend to blur people's judgment of each other's actions. An offense always seems more threatening when someone we don't like or trust is the one doing it. An administrator involved in a conflict should do what any other editor should do -- use dispute resolution. In cases where an administrator in a conflict thinks an immediate block is necessary, they may post to WP:AN/I to ask uninvolved administrators to review the situation and perform the block."

&mdash; Matt Crypto 16:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I really like this. Might it be sensible to also note that IRC often contains admins who can be contacted immediately.  Another way would be to find an admin on recent changes and either email them or leave a message on their talk page.   [[Sam Korn ]] 16:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if this is a case of hard cases making bad law. Matt's suggestion is an improvement, but is there a need to change the policy? Ed had been involved in a content dispute with the person he blocked and the offense wasn't reason enough to block anyway. Ed violated the current policy, so why are we responding by changing the current policy? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 17:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of the proposed addition is just clarification, explanation and good advice. Blocking is typically controversial, so I think it's good to provide plenty of that sort of stuff. So without changing the policy, per se, we could just expand it to:
 * "Users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict, even if they believe the blocking policy justifies a block. Personal disputes, editing or revert wars... "
 * Would you object to that? Somewhat separately, then, I guess, I'd still suggest adding the clause "Nor should an admin block if it could reasonably be perceived as a conflict of interest by the wider community", but it's not, as you point out, a direct response to Ed's recent questionable block (although it's similar). &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Look, if someone is, for example, going around adding white supremacist POV to the African American article, and after being reverted by an admin, goes on a spree of calling that admin "N*gger-lover" etc., then that admin is perfectly within his/her rights to block the individual. As well, editors deliberately create content disputes with admins they don't like; it's easy enough to follow one around and revert their edits, then claim a content dispute. I've seen it happen to others, and it's certainly happened to me as well. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 18:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Quite, I wholeheartedly agree with you. My hope was that the (admittedly wooly) clause about "reasonably be perceived as a conflict of interest by the wider community" would allow admins to carry on doing such blocks in such cases. Currently, of course, the policy suggests that it would be wrong for an admin to block an abvious troll/vandal if they could somehow manufacture a content dispute (although it would never be an issue in common sense practice). &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

SlimVirgin is right. We are proposing major policy changes based upon one example of an administrator who is alleged to have blocked another user in relation to a content dispute; yet the vastly more common case is of admins blocking editors for disruption, 3RR violation, personal attacks etc., and then being accused of having a content dispute with them (or bias against them). Frankly, I have recently become fed up with incessant personal attacks, and have begun warning (more than once), and then blocking editors who indulge themselves in them. I don't intend to stop doing this. Jayjg <small style="color:darkgreen;">(talk) 17:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've had the same problem of people following me around trying to create content disputes with me once I've taken admin action against them. What I haven't seen yet is anyone explain what exactly is wrong with the current blocking policy. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 18:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Any sort of engagement with a troublemaker -- issuing a warning, reverting with a careful explanation, trying to discuss, or protecting a page -- often precipitates retaliatory action by the troublemaker. It is impossible to be fair and evenhanded (giving warnings and using the least draconian means first) while simultaneously maintaining the total freedom from conflict that some are suggesting be required before issuing a block. Clear cases like Ril's should, IMO, be handled by admins without involving the AC. In that case User:Erwin Walsh claimed that I should have refrained from blocking because I was "involved" -- even though I had no prior editing experience with Ril up until acting upon a note from others on WP:AN/3RR. It is far too easy to make such claims, and so policy should not give them any force. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Conflict vs. vandalism
I see that a number of people are concerned that "no blocking people you're in conflict with" would be misapplied to deter administrators from consistently blocking trolls, persistent vandals, or the like.

Let me point out that the basic rule here is already part of the policy. There are no new rules here. There's only new clarifications of an existing rule, and an offer of help -- a reminder that admins who are tempted to break the rule should instead look for help from uninvolved admins.

Nonetheless, I can see how folks would see a need for clarification regarding the difference between struggling with a persistent vandal or troll, and being in conflict with a "real" editor.

Let me point out first that no administrator should be put in the position of feeling that they are the only line of defense against a specific abuser. If you feel you're standing alone, ask for help. Invite other people to review what you've done and what needs to be done, and to help out. We need this kind of review, so we can be sure that admins who are acting with consensus get the support they need ... and admins who are acting against consensus get told so in no uncertain terms.

(If you think you're standing alone, that could mean that you haven't asked for help ... but it could also mean that you're way out of line. That's why people should ask for help and review sooner rather than later in these situations.)

I like the idea of emphasizing the appearance of conflict of interest. Nonetheless, I think there's a distinct difference that needs to be made between a conflict among editors over a matter of substance, and a conflict with a persistent vandal.

One way of getting at that distinction is that the kind of conflicts we want to address here are frequently matters of disputed fact or opinion. They're matters which have a larger scope beyond Wikipedia -- like political, religious, or national disputes; disputes regarding ideology, law, ethics, or morals; and especially current hot-button issues such as creationism, abortion, ongoing wars, or the like.

Anyone have specific phrasing suggestions regarding that? --FOo 19:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FOo, can you say first what it is about the current policy that you find lacking? In other words, what does it allow that you want to stop? SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well ... I thought I did say that, right up front. From my original proposal above: "The policy already says that "users should not block those with whom they are currently engaged in an article editing conflict". The above addition is intended to emphasize the point, spell out the reasons for it, and propose alternate courses of action."


 * In other words, the point here is not to forbid behavior that is presently allowed. It is to make a strong point out of what is currently an aside; to offer defensible reasons for the policy; and more importantly, to point out not only what is wrong to do (abuse) but what is right to do (ask for help). --FOo 00:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, but your suggestion doesn't just emphasize the point. In fact, you're proposing a fairly major change to the blocking policy, which would allow trolls to claim they were in conflict with a particular admin who was getting wise to their ways. It's like people picking fights with arbitrators then demanding they recuse from a case. We should stand up to that, not adjust the policy to accommodate it. The current policy is quite clear: we can't block where we're involved in a content dispute, which makes sure we don't use our blocking powers to gain editorial advantage. I see no benefit in rewording it. SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 00:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see that "fairly major change". The current policy already forbids admins from blocking someone they're in conflict with. There already seems to be a great deal of support for this idea, as reflected in the discussion both above and on WP:AN/I regarding the recent incident. Most everyone who has commented on that case specifically has stated something of the like: admins who are in a dispute with someone shouldn't block them.


 * I think it's important, though, that policy shouldn't just say, "Don't do that!" It should explain the reasons we think "doing that" is bad, and where possible offer alternatives. That's the point of my proposal. Most everyone already agrees that admins shouldn't be using their access to sit as judge, jury, and executioner over people they're in a dispute with.


 * I agree with you, by the way, that it's likely that trolls and other abusers will falsely cite this policy to attack administrators. However, that's only because trolls and other abusers will falsely cite anything to attack people ... just as in the recent case an abusive admin falsely cited NPA, NPOV, and POINT to attack people (and make excuses for blocking them). More specifically, trolls will say anything to piss people off; that's what trolling is. This proposal will not change that state of affairs ... but it will not worsen it, either. This proposal isn't about trolls; it's about providing better guidance for administrators.


 * The first audience of the blocking policy is those who have the access to carry out blocks; that's administrators. The second audience is those who can possibly be blocked; that's everyone. The blocking policy needs to tell the first group what kind of blocks are acceptable and unacceptable to do; and why they are so. The policy needs to assure the second group that they will not be blocked for no damn good reason. Right now, that assurance is frayed and damaged. We need to repair it. What's your proposal to do so? --FOo 05:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Cancelled poll
This poll has been cancelled -- SlimVirgin was correct in that it was a bad idea. --FOo 22:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Phew, I was going to comment about trolls being empowered and the (I'm sure inadvertant, heh) support for which from familliar quarters... El_C 01:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Notifying
I've added one line to "how to block" referring to the fact that some admins (such as myself) a request when their IP is about to be blocked so as to avoid losing work. If I overstepped in doing that, feel free to revert, but I think it is worthy of mention (having just lost work for the third time this week!) Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  11:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Bans because someone is being a completely disruptive dick
I've added notes to the 'indefinite non-policy blocks' section to note the ban on WP:ANI and List of banned users. Note that if someone is being that much of a dick, the usual response on WP:ANI is a string of followups saying "Good!" and complaints of gross admin abuse from an IP or two; such community bans are in practice not all that controversial. Which is nice - even when admins are at each others' throats otherwise, they do try to avoid wheel wars - David Gerard 15:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But they're not exactly banned until then (just blocked). I tried to clarify it so that they don't go to the banned list until the support is there. Dmcdevit·t 20:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Unwarranted threats of blocking
If I am threatened to be blocked for vandalism, and it is determined that the threatening individual was patently false in their accusation, yet they continue to make threats, can any action be taken on them? If so what? I would consider this to be harassment and intimidation, and I would like action taken on this individual (once the administrators have determined that his actions were out of line) Here is the text from my talk page of the offense:

The Rock (entertainer) This message is regarding the page The Rock (entertainer). Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 04:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The Rock's mother is not Hawaiian, she is Samoan. So take your threat and shove it. I already reported you for your unwarranted threat. --208.254.174.148 04:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:208.254.174.148"

In fact, I request Sycthos to be either censured or himself blocked. Other users have responded that he has threatened them as well (please see his talk page) for vandalism. Whatever unwarrented drastic measures he would seek against another contributor, I ask that the same severe level of consequence be applied to him. He should not be allowed to continue to threaten Wikipedia contributors, it's a form of intimidation and control, and it's an avenue to creating a POV atmosphere. --208.254.174.148 04:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the right place to report such things. If you disagree with a generic blocking template, explain why it wasn't vandalism, civilly, to the user who left the warning.  He may have misunderstood it.  If warnings are very persistent, you could file a request for comment, but those are kind of a big deal, so it's easier just to ignore one error.  If you are actually blocked wrongly, the proper place to report it is Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- SCZenz 05:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

So you are saying his comment was a generic automated post of some kind? I am not familiar enough to be aware of that. I think the explanation is already given in what I copied into this section above. --208.254.174.148 07:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It is not an automated post. It is more like a form letter -- a pre-written message that a user can choose to leave on another person's talk page. It doesn't show up on your talk page unless the sender specifically put it there. Using it inappropriately is not OK. --FOo 09:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have responded to the message. See my user talk for a full response. Yes, the template is generic and was already created on its template page. (See test3-n) SycthosTalk 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The "Other users have responded that he has threatened them as well" is also false. Firstly, the template is not a threat message. Secondly, two of the users responding on my talk page are actually genuine vandals posting a message to attempt to conceal their vandalism. Again, see my talk page for more information. SycthosTalk 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Symbol for "block"
I would like to see this symbol, which I created, become a de facto standard image for communicating a block or a ban.

-- Denelson83 09:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Notifying the blocked user: make mandatory?
My apologies if this has been debated ad nauseum before.

I was surprised to find that immediately notifying the blocked user of the block, with reasoning and justification, is not mandatory. The policy page says it is "customary" and only for long blocks. I think it ought to be mandatory except in cases when it is obviously not needed, such as blocking a WoW sock or a bot-generated vandalism account.

Ideally, the software would automatically generate a talk page message for the blocked user with the blocking admin's supplied reason for the block, but it is quick and easy to leave a talk message, and there is no reason not to communicate reasoning and justification with someone you've just blocked. android 79  02:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that this should be highly encouraged. In fact I'm fairly sure people won't disagree, so I've been bold and changed the "how to block" section to read "Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages."  Also, for my own part, I'd be much more likely to undo an unexplained block if I could see no obvious reason for it.  Friday (talk) 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with this in general, especially as the policy has recently been changed to say that admins looking to undo a block must in most cases discuss it with the blocking admin first, but I think there are exceptions. For instance, if an account has been used for nothing but persistent vandalism and they've received proper warnings then there is no reason to add an additional message that the block was for ignoring those warnings. That's just extra documentation of the obvious that there often isn't time for when dealing with a vandal onslaught. Blocks on contributing users are another matter entirely and ought to be fully explained on the talk page and/or AN/I as noted under different sections of the policy. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Undoing other admins' blocks
Discussion going on at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard. Please comment if you have a view so we can determine what the consensus is. Cheers, SlimVirgin <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of contribution's of a blocked user
I think we should add something like: ''The blocking admin can at his or her discretion revert the latest contributions of the blocked user. The reverts done to the last version of a valid contributor do not count as an involvement into the editing if the administrator was currently uninvolved into the article or against the WP:3RR if he or she was involved previously. All other possible types reverts or edits by a blocking admin count as ordinary edits''. The reason I want to put it here is that I saw instances of admins not reverting disruptive edits made from open proxies out of fair to be labeled as involved into an edit conflict/violation of 3RR. abakharev 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * While the policy may not explicitly cover it there is a standard practice of admins blocking people posting clear vandalism even after having reverted that vandalism themselves. I don't think that's a problem. For things which aren't vandalism it is alot less clear. Blocks for 3RR aren't meant to be for 'disruptiveness' or to endorse one version of the article over another - they are to enforce a non-activity period in hopes of discussion rather than just reverting back and forth. I've already seen admins issue blocks (even where no 3RR was committed) and protect pages on articles where they clearly were involved in the content dispute. I don't like the idea of giving such behaviour cover (not that anything is done about it currently) behind an exception for non-vandalism article edits which the individual admin judges to be 'disruptive'. If this is meant only to apply to vandalism, then as I said, I've seen that being done frequently and agree it ought to be formally stated. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)