Wikipedia talk:Fearlessly block

Escalating blocks
The key issue is not blocks per se, but a pattern of escalating blocks in a power play to drive the editor off Wikipedia. I believe that an editor who produces twice as much content as a normal editor should be able to get away with twice as much mischief, because if we lose him, we're getting two normal editors to replace him. If we recruit them at all, that is, which is no longer at all certain. But the de facto policy is that the longer an editor goes on, the more edits his adversaries can sort through. Each block becomes longer and longer in light of his accumulated "crimes", nothing is forgiven on account of his accumulated work. Therefore, editors have a limited shelf life - every editor must expect, eventually, either to cease involvement of his own accord, or to be banned permanently from the project. It is a scant reward to look forward to for years of effort. Wnt (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your position. I personally don't want any sort of artificially-formed pattern of block escalation, just whatever is usually applied to disruption, based on severity. 1 hour, 2, 4, 8, 12, 24, 2 days, 3, 5, etc. Either the user gets the message or not. It's on them. I hope you're not telling me that one particular editor cares so little about the encyclopedia that they will just sit there, like the proverbial frog in a frying pan, and take it, as the blocks grow to weeks, without changing their behavior. I'm sorry but that seems just crazy - are we required to really modify the whole way Wikipedia works to compensate for one stubborn (or incapable) person?
 * I am a recentist in terms of considering disruption. Stale (weeks/years old) incidents which were already addressed by discussion or block or not, should not be newly considered, just for a fresh block discussion based entirely on a recent outbreak. I dislike the "nothing is forgiven" approach taken by some editors, and would personally dismiss any such attempted "deep" attack.  An exponential decay function, weighing older and older incidents less and less, should be adopted, in my opinion, so that 3-or-6-months-old incidents for which a block was given no longer matter at all.
 * Based on what I've read so far, I'd be happy with a) incident b) low-drama, nearly automatic block c) quiet period after block lifted d) loop to (a). Why happy? Because the drama will be lower, expectations will be managed, damage to newbies and other editors will be limited to a single editor at a time(hopefully), and disruptive editor cycles of behavior will be understood and predictable, with predictable outcomes. But that's just me, being optimistic. I'll clarify the prose later today. --Lexein (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

(to Wnt) 'I believe that an editor who produces twice as much content as a normal editor should be able to get away with twice as much mischief, because if we lose him, we're getting two normal editors to replace him'. That approach misses the point that the 'mischevious' editor's behaviour may in fact drive away more good editors than he can make up for. Permitting editors who persistently violate the rules to remain unpunished creates a toxic community which leads, sooner or later, to other editors leaving Wikipedia.

As for 'escalating blocks' - I thought that was policy, isn't it? The standard approach with an editor who keeps misbehaving in a particular way and refuses to 'get the point' is to gradually apply more severe restrictions on them, and if that fails, take them to ANI/ArbCom. That said, I do agree that years-old blocks shouldn't be held against an editor whose behaviour has improved since then. It's a shame there isn't a way to purge old blocks from an editor's permanent record; I suppose we could write a policy requiring admins to ignore old blocks beyond a certain point, but that seems like instruction creep. Robofish (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

While blocks are not supposed to be punitive, they very much are intended to be corrective. They are not supposed to be ice hockey style stints in the penalty box to be factored into one's overall game strategy. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This should come with the caveat that this is the opinion of someone who was censured by Arbcom for issuing what was possibly the silliest block in the project's history. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

communicate and warn first
Whilst I agree with much of this, and especially the idea that no-one is immune from possible sanction, I see this as too close to the trigger happy opposite extreme. Whether someone is one of the usual suspects or a complete newbie there are many incivilities where the best response is to start by asking people to tone down their comments. Giving certain people too much rope is a problem on this site, but so is being trigger happy with blocks. Not all unblocks at AN/I are unjustified, sometimes people use an indef where 24 hours might have been more appropriate, sometimes they have not bothered to try and peacefully resolve matters without immediate recourse to blocking. May I suggest that a couple of caveats would make this more acceptable to the community?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure; note that my point was that when the consensus is reached to block (presumably after warning has already has happened), boldly do it - don't tippy-toe and invalidate consensus. I intended no disrespect to all preceding WP:DR steps & processes. Of course Talk & warning (anything that ensures fairness), is fine. I just don't want to dilute the notion of fearless, drama-free, uncontroversial, relaxed, nobody-gets-hurt hit-the-timer-button blocking. (I'm also considering some sort of anti-gang-up measures...) --Lexein (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The reality is that people do find blocks hurtful, and it is important that we not block unnecessarily. My concern about your essay is that it might encourage people to be too quick to block people and I'd be much more comfortable with it if you put a bit more detail in about there often being better options.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

not but also
Would you mind rereading and perhaps rephrasing "An abusive editor merits no special protection: other editors addressing him frankly, while not violating WP:CIVIL, should not be blocked, without also blocking the abusive editor." The last clause doesn't seem quite right to me.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * "An abusive editor merits no special protection: other editors addressing him frankly, while not violating WP:CIVIL, should not be blocked. If both editors break WP:CIVIL, both should be blocked."
 * --Lexein (talk) 09:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well that is certainly clearer, but I don't agree with it as I don't consider that a block is always the best response to an incident. Per CIVIL I'd be happier with "ultimately either or both might need to be blocked." The rewording comes across as too block happy for my liking.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly relevant
I don't know if it's up to date, but if you're looking for admins who support the aims of this essay, there's Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to make difficult blocks. Robofish (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)