Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut: WT:BP

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Contents 1 BLP section 2 Self-blocking to enforce Wikiholidays 3 Community ban clarification 4 Unanimity for community banning? 5 Suggested addition 6 Naconkantari and Anonymous AOL IPs 7 Anonymous Block Duration?

[edit] BLP section

I restored the BLP subsection, in part because I feel it should be emphasized and not included as one sentence in the disruption section, and in part because it's helpful to be able to link clearly to it when issuing BLP warnings; I find that doing so tends to concentrate the mind of the offender. Hope that's okay. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-blocking to enforce Wikiholidays

I decided to revive this old discussion from archive, because I noticed one fact - anybody is able to self-block itself to enforce wikiholidays, even without being sysop.

It is simple:

1. Create an inappropriate username, something like "I want to destroy wikipedia", "I am king of vandals" or something similarly stupid
2. Wait for admin to indefinitely block it. It probably won't take very long.
3. Remember the password. Now every time you want to enforce one day of holidays, log in as that blocked user and try to make an edit somewhere
4. You're autoblocked for 24 hours
5. No chance for editing -> you have holidays :)

So, is everybody able technically to do this to enforce wikiholidays, or have I omitted something?

Territory 01:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, WP:BEANS? More seriously, just because a policy is not perfectly enforceable doesn't mean we shouldn't have it. We would prefer if that sort of behavior not occur either. JoshuaZ 01:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Technically, most bans here are unenforcable, IF the banned person won't resume their bad behavior pattern (and they use another IP + username) ... but if he/she make no trouble, it's usually not a problem ... Territory 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Why should one need to block ones self?. Why not just take a Wikidamnholiday?--Light current 01:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is more addictive than crack, apparently. Perhaps we should start a 12-step program for people who need to be blocked to avoid editting for 24 hours :-) --W.marsh 01:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is simpler just to go away, I was just curious whether this is theoretically possible. And theoretically this may be (ab)used to block someone sharing computer with you. (Is your brother editing wikipedia too much? Block him :) Territory 02:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically you could put this up in a cronjob (or something similar ...) for a bit more permanent (though interruptible) solution :) Territory 02:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case thers should be a self blocking request desk where addicts can go to request that they be blocked. 8-)--Light current 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Community ban clarification

Right now, the policy states:

"Users may also be banned by community consensus — when a user exhausts the community's patience to the point of being blocked and none of the English Wikipedia's ~1000 admins will unblock.

Community bans must be supported by a strong widespread consensus."

How does this makes sense? If no one will unblock, then there is de facto community consensus. Indeed, it is beyond consensus, beyond a supermajority -- there is community unanimity. (And here "community" is defined as "admins", which is maybe not what was intended.) Can someone clarify this? It's just been raised on AN/I. IronDuke 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That might be a fairly recent addition. I certainly can't remember it being there when I last copy edited; it makes no sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It was added on October 5 as part of a rewrite and must have slipped under the radar. It makes no sense to say that one admin prepared to wheel war means there's no consensus. It used to say:

There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users.

I suggest we return it to the old text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The older version seems much more sensible. IronDuke 22:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means restore the old paragraph if you would like to. If I do it today, Homey will accuse me of "changing policy" to suit myself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Text below moved from AN

I'm thinking that maybe there should be pages to discuss such bans and find out if there's really wide consensus, apart of administrators. A ban is clearly an extreme measure and it should be some way to see if the consensus actually exists for each particular case. --Sugaar 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unanimity for community banning?

Given the "community ban" wording on WP:BLOCK re: 1 of 1000, does that not mean that such a deciscion needs to be unanimous or does WP:BLOCK need to be updated to be in accord with Wikipedia:Consensus? (→Netscott) 00:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

As reflected in today's discussion on ANI, there appears to be substantial uncertainty on this issue. There is also contradictory ArbCom precedent on this issue, compare the Tommstein decision which appears to require unanimity with the St. Christopher decision which appears to require only "consensus." These were both pretty clear-cut cases and I don't know if the ArbCom actually focused on the distinction. Newyorkbrad 00:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Newyorkbrad for your helpful response. One thing is clear I think in this User:Homeontherange discussion is that if one is implementing a community ban then wording needs to reflect that in the block log. Myself I am inclined to go with consensus as opposed to unanimity. Wikipedia works on consensus... why shouldn't a community ban follow the norm? (→Netscott) 00:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me add my thanks, Brad. Let me also say, in re Tommstein, that the principle enumerated there includes the idea that Admin unanimity = community ban, it does not preclude the idea, as in St. Christopher, that the community may ban "when there is consensus in favor of the block." As it stands, the policy is literally incoherent. IronDuke 00:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus has never meant unanimity; one recalcitrant individual, or even a very small number of recalcitrant individuals, cannot hold a community hostage. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

One might want to add the Saladin applea: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Saladin1970_appeal#Ban_by_the_community which states: The touchstone of an appropriate "ban by the community" is that there is no administrator who after examining the matter is willing to lift or reduce the ban.

Based on this, there never was nor will there be a community ban as there are to many people opposed to it, including one ArbCom member. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kim, given that you've left Wikipedia many, many times, and insist you are done with it, why do you continue to involve yourself in conflict here? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not going near the Homeontherange situation (too much back-story predating my time here), but as an abstract matter I can see arguments on both sides of this issue. A "community ban" certainly should need to be supported by a very strong consensus - it's obviously not a relatively routine step analogous to deleting an article or not or promoting an admin candidate or not. Whether a strong consensus should mean literally not a single dissenting voice from the corps of 1000 admins is a harder question. I'd welcome the arbitrators' thoughts on this as they are the ones who are going to have the strong-but-not-unanimous-consensus-to-ban situations to deal with. Newyorkbrad 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflicts) I suppose Kim's citation of Saladin cancels out IronDuke's argument about Tommstein. :) (I'm going to be quiet now; this is getting too much like my day job.) Newyorkbrad 00:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly one touchstone, but not the only one. Consensus does not mean 100% agreement. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well unless someone other than User:CJCurrie does an unblock... (or he decides to again do so himself via wheel warring) this ban looks to stand. (→Netscott) 00:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The community block wording on WP:BLOCK was added on October 5. The older text should be returned. It's clearly absurd to say there's no consensus unless there's 100 per cent unanimity.

Also, we should keep this discussion in one place and not split it off like this. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This was more of a meta-discussion relative to the User:Homeontherange discussion which is why I split it off... in reality it probably should be moved over to Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy but this area was "hot" which is why I started here. (→Netscott) 00:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also think, regardless of the HoTR situation, that it makes no sense to require unanimity for a community ban. The policy, as some are interpreting it, now means that if no admin is willing to unblock, then a user remains blocked. That's just tautology, not policy. A community ban would be when the community (admins and respected editors alike) agree, per consensus, that a user should remain indef blocked. I think we can say the Arbcom has been a bit incoherent on this. If those august members can tolerate a little ribbing, I'll just point out that in the Saladin1970 case, they warn that violators “may be bummed indefinitely.” (I have no doubt they will be ;)) IronDuke 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to edit that for vandalism and then realized it was an arbcom case.... lol (→Netscott) 01:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The unanimity provision was added to this policy on October 5 and seems to have gone unnoticed. I suggest we restore the previous text until it's discussed further:

"There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is widespread community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and must be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree... strong consensus is definitely more sensible. (→Netscott) 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I am restoring the pre-October 5 version. If there are those that want this new wording, please discuss. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, here's the other side of the story:

Wikipedia:Banning Policy used to indicate that community bans should only be applied when "editors are so odious that not one of the administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them". This sentence was removed, apparently without debate, as part of a comprehensive edit on 15 August.

Click here for the diffs.

Would anyone object to the original wording being restored? CJCurrie 01:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I strongly object. We saw today how absurd that would be. An editor is banned after strong community consensus to do so (25 admins/editors in support). Then one person who always supports that editor's edits and who knows him in real life unbans. That clearly doesn't undo the community consensus. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, there's been a bit more than one person opposed to the community ban. Still as I said earlier... consensus is how Wikipedia works... why should community banning be any different particularly given a strong consensus? (→Netscott) 01:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On another matter, do you consider 25 out of 1,000+ to be "consensus"? CJCurrie 01:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry CJCurrie, while I agree with you about not imposing a community ban in HotR's case this argument you're making is a strawman. Obviously not all of the 1000 admins are going to weight in on such decisions. What we're seeing here is a bit of a WP:SNOW arrival at community consensus (which is typically how consensus on Wikipedia is established no?). (→Netscott) 01:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know which version CJCurrie is picking out, but I randomly clicked on one from before that (July), and it also said: "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community"). [1]

CJCurrie also tried to change the 3RR policy after Homey was banned under it. It's getting silly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, the previous wording didn't make sense. It was in conflict with itself. There was the 1 of 1000 wording followed by "strong community consensus". One effectively cancels out the other. (→Netscott) 01:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Response to SV:

1. I was referring to the Wikipedia:Banning Policy page, not the Wikipedia:Blocking Policy page. Since we're discussing bans, it seems appropriate.
2. To be precise, I initiated discussion on changing the 3RR. I seem to recall that quite a few editors raised similar points at around the same time. My proposal was not taken up, but enforcement has generally been more reasonable since those days. (Slim's wording almost implies that I vandalized the 3RR page, which is not the case.)
3. Lest we forget, I initiated the 3RR discussion after HotR was blocked for correcting Zeq's grammatical errors more than three times in 24 hours. CJCurrie 01:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's the version from January 2006: "There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she finds themselves blocked. Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is community support for the block, and should note the block on WP:ANI as part of the review process. With such support, the user is considered banned and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community")." [2]

CJ, you picked out the only time the policy said what you wanted it to say and you call it "the original wording." These are the games Homey has been playing. Please give it a rest because people see through it and it's just a time and energy drain. If you want to make the two policies consistent, choose this wording, because the unanimity thing is unworkable and unreasonable. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks please forgive my saying so as I'm sure you've both got valid points... but this isn't the place to discuss things other than blocking policy. Thanks. (→Netscott) 01:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Slim, you're on the wrong page. Banning policy, not blocking. CJCurrie 01:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you are on the wrong page. This is the page for discussing the blocking policy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we're discussing the imposition of a ban. The two pages are meant to be symbiotic on this point, although in practice they plainly haven't been. CJCurrie 01:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, does anyone know why "Bans" are being discussed on the Blocking Policy page to begin with? CJCurrie 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A ban is just a permanent block.... as we can tell the concept of "community banning" is still evolving. (→Netscott) 01:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But we already have a Wikipedia:Banning Policy page. Given how disorganized things often are around here, shouldn't we (i) have a clear separation, or (ii) unite the pages? CJCurrie 01:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What likely needs to be done is for the Blocking policy to reflect a decision period. Where an admin blocks a given account based upon a sort of final need of preventative blocking (say for a period of a week or so) and then from there proceed to seek a permanent community ban. (→Netscott) 01:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be done is not to tweak policy to allow such disregard for Wikipedia as a project as exhibited here. Once we put our friendships, allegiances, and our POVs in a higher priority than the integrity of this project we are screwed. I would argue that that type of wikilawyering is disruption in and of itself. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

A block is the means by which a ban, among other things, is enforced. Therefore, this page discusses when it's okay to block, and it includes bans in that discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Death threats and its talk page for discussion on that topic (recently moved to that subpage). One suggestion was to make the wording here stronger, and to specifically mention what to do in the case of death threats, as opposed to having a separate page. I'm recording this suggestion here, so that it can be discussed. See also Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Suggested addition. Carcharoth 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naconkantari and Anonymous AOL IPs

Apparently, User:Naconkantari, in an attempt at Being Bold, has decided that all anonymous AOL IPs should be blocked, as it is commonly known that AOL IPs are a frequent and severe source of disruptive behavior. Should this be official Wikipedia policy? — Rickyrab | Talk 06:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

This IP address has been blocked because it is believed to be an open proxy on the AOL network. To prevent abuse, editing from these proxies while logged out is currently prohibited. If you wish to edit, please create an account. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Advice to AOL users.

that's the sort of stuff she's posting on their block notices. I got it from User:Naconkantari/aolproxy. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It is Foundation policy that open proxies are banned. Since AOL software can be downloaded for free and used limitlessly to hop across AOLs vast IP ranges, it rather qualifies under this. Anyone who has AOL as his ISP can still access Wikipedia, either by registering a user account or by using Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, etc. instead of the AOL browser. —Centrx→talk • 02:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's also under discussion on WP:AN. (Radiant) 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous Block Duration?

I had assumed that IP blocking lasted on the order of days, and was going to ask that it be extended to more like months. I was disturbed to find that the policy suggests hourly blocking. That might slow down sprees currently in progress, but it does absolutely nothing about chronic vandals.

Seriously, what is the signal to noise ratio of edits from anonymous IPs? It can't be higher than 10-20%, so why not just nuke them from orbit? -- Frankie

Given how many of the longterm chronic anon vandals are school IPs, giving them a 24 hour block beginning on Friday afternoons probably doesn't result in their ever noticing that they had been blocked. Gzuckier 21:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)