Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Shared IPs section

This section is not newbie friendly - I have a vandal to report but cant find how to "Whois" or "reverse-dns" from the linked pages. If you want beginners to help with vandals then this needs to be easier. (And helping with vandals might be a good way to interest potential admins - or vice versa). SmithBlue 07:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently working on a rewrite of the blocking policy, and the main thing I want to do is separate the "how-to" stuff like this from the "when-to" stuff, which is all that really should be in the policy. I've started to create a detailed help page on blocking and unblocking, it hasn't been copied across here locally yet (Uncle G's 'bot does that every few months) but it's at m:Help:Block and unblock if you would like to help with it, or make suggestions for how it could be improved. Ultimately I think that all of the technical and instructional material should be moved there.

In addition, explanations of these sorts of things could be added to the pages where the reporting takes place, at Administrator intervention against vandalism for example. --bainer (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about blocking a user

I'm a new admin who has a question about blocking. When and why should I click "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent addresses they try to edit from" when blocking a registered user? - Gilliam 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if you want the user to be able to immediately start working under a new account then you deselect the button. It is the case for:
  • Username block,
  • Blocking of a misbehaving bot,
  • Blocking role accounts,
  • Blocking compromised accounts, etc.

• In the most other cases the autoblocking is the preferred option Alex Bakharev 10:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

sorry, I apologize in advance because I'm not a huge wiki-editor (barely any of one at all!)and my not be posting this in the right place. However I just wanted to say that I was disappointed that school IP addresses are always blocked. I have my computer at home log me in to all websites automatically so I never remember my passwords, so when I find mistakes on Wikipedia, I could do nothing to change them. I never have time when I am home. Isn't there something we can do to help school IPs? Bfissa 23:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

They receive warnings most of the time... Short of magically making school kids more mature, what did you have in mind? Leebo⁸⁶ 14:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocking someone who has been stalking or harassing you

I suggest that the blocking policy be updated to prohibit admins from blocking users that have been harassing them, stalking them, engaged in a content dispute with them or in any other way involved in a fight or disagreement. Even when the behavior clearly warrants a block in the eyes of any reasonable admin, I think that a neutral admin should block the user to avoid even the appearance of abuse. The blocked user or an observer may have a different standard for what warrants a block and it may appear to them that the admin is abusing his or her authority. In addition, these situations can cloud an admin's judgment and lead to a truly unjustified block. I think that blocking users that you have had heated confrontations with in the past should be discouraged, but ultimately left to the admin's discretion. In the rare case of a user doing extreme damage, like using a bot to vandalize a large number of articles in a short time or doing something that may crash the site, a non-neutral admin would be allowed to block the user for a short period, no more than 24 hours. Afterwards, he or she would have to put a notice about the block on the Administrators' Noticeboard. A neutral admin could then extend the block, if necessary. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if an admin believes that a user has been stalking or harassing him/her, there is no reason for the admin not to block the user immediately for some duration. At that point, the user may instantly appeal the block to other admins, and the other admins, upon proper consultation with the blocking admin, plus others if necessary on AN/I, may reverse the block. In general, I think that stalking/harassing is such a serious offense that it must be stopped immediately, regardless by whom, and investigated further once stopped. As someone who was wrongly blocked for 'disruption' I know well that being blocked is no fun, and at the time that block made me (briefly) re-think my committment to this project - getting turned down on appeal did not help either. But despite that, things were properly sorted out later, with no lasting damage. I cannot see how stopping what appears to at least one admin as harassing/stalking will cause permanent damage to the project, given the near immediate review by others. Crum375 11:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Minor grammatical point

I spotted a few grammatical inconsistencies in the article. Most of the article has correct use of the singular/plural. eg "if a user does something bad then HE/SHE can be blocked" (emphasis added) is correct. Or "then THAT USER can be blocked" is also correct. But "if a user does something bad then THEY can be blocked" is incorrect. MIxing singular with plural. The fact that it is widely used colloquially doesn't validate it. Especially since the rest of the article has correct usage. So I have corrected a couple of those. Davidpatrick 14:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Singular they --Random832 20:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Disclosure of block duration

I've noticed some admins disclose the duration of a block and some do not. Is there a policy on this? I can see where disclosing the block duration is appropriate for a non-anonymous user, but in the case of an IP vandal it almost invites them to come back at time T + epsilon for continued foolishness. Apologies if the topic has been covered before. Raymond Arritt 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Banning/Blocking

I feel that it takes too much to get blocked and banned on wikipedia. I think people are given too many chances, and as a result there is too much vandalism for us too catch all of it. --Savant13 21:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Notifying users of blocks

moved from WP:AN/I#Blocking

I've noticed a tendency on the part of many admins not to leave a notice on Uses' and IPs' Talk pages when they block someone. This can mean that other editors leave pointless warning notices, not realising that a block has already been imposed, and other admins can pointlessly go through the beginning of the blocking process before discovering that they're wasting their time.

I've been leaving friendly requests on the admins' Talk pages, and so far everyone seemed to have seen my point. Today, though, for the first time an admin has responded by insisting that there's no point leaving a notice. Aside from the fact that it seems to me to be a matter of courtesy, is there any guideline or policy on this? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ive always known it to be a courtesy. The only time I dont is when I indef block a sock or block evader. Then, (and this may be wrong. I delete there page to deny them, any gratification). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See also User_talk:Ligulem#Blocking, where this started. I have seen a lot of other admins blocking IP's/throw away attacker accounts with 20 attack/vandalism only edits *not* posting messages on their talk. Now, Mel Etitis requests me to always post on talk pages to notify "users". --Ligulem 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

"The blocking process": The block log is right on the blocking page, at the bottom. So for me the "blocking process" is hitting the block link and there you are. On talk pages, I would have to wade through the history of the talk page to check if a user has removed a post from their talk page. A user's talk page is not a block history. --Ligulem 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent examples of other admins blocking anon users without leaving a post on their talk: Neutrality, RoySmith, Ryulong, Trebor Rowntree, Mikkalai, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Ilmari Karonen, JzG. --Ligulem 23:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow everything that Ligulem says, but the list of admins who have done the same thing is irrelevant to the question as to whether it should be done. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, there are many block templates and I personally try to always leave one on a talk page after a block, but I didn't see anything in the blocking policy that stated that this is necessary. IrishGuy ^talk 23:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It's listed under the "Instructions to admins" heading, using the word "should". We can debate whether that means it's required or not, but I think most of us would agree that not leaving one should be the exception rather than the rule. Please leave one (excepting obvious trolls or sockpuppets, which I don't think really require them); it takes less than 20 seconds and it's helpful to pretty much everyone. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 23:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

For your information: If you dig into my block log, you will notice that I've only blocked IP's and vandalism/attack only accounts without notifying the user. As I noted on my talk, I haven't and I do not intend to *not* notify users I block that do have some minimally reasonable edit history (I have never block a user of this kind so far). I really fail to see why I should notify a throw-away vandalism only account like User:Chrissu1989. BTW these kind of users regularly remove block messages from their talk pages. So what does that mean if you don't find a "blocked" message on these kind of talk pages? --Ligulem 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that is says we should, but it doesn't appear to be mandatory. The reasons are for other other editors will be aware that the user is blocked...which is a good and valid reason. Should more adming use the warning messages? Probably. But I don't think it necessarily makes them remiss in their duties to not do so. IrishGuy ^talk 23:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Could perhaps this be done automagically?DGG 23:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The relevant quotation (thanks Bbatsell):

"Users should be notified of blocks on their talk pages. That way, other editors will be aware that the user is blocked, and will not expect responses to talk page comments." Wikipedia:Blocking policy#How to block

I must say that I don't really understand "should" except as pointing out that it's mandatory; is there another meaning besides the prescriptive?

Could it be done automagically? The problem would be that there are different reasons for (and different periods of) block. Perhaps there could be a default message that could be overriden when the block is applied?

I see this as just one example of the general lowering of courtesy levels here; increasing numbers of editors fail to use edit summaries, for example, and it's surprising how many tag all their edits, no matter how extensive, as minor. Most simply ignore polite requests to use summaries, and some react with hostility and aggression. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I read "should" as "recommended". Mandatory is exactly that...mandatory. As I noted, I do use the templates and that is because I happen to think they should be used. But I am not going to judge others as being discourteous if they don't throw a template on the talk page. IrishGuy ^talk 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I really feel attacked by your postings here and on my talk. I suggest we move on and I do post a message for each and every block I shall issue in the future. Ok? --Ligulem 00:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I've applied {{block}} to the talk page of User:Chrissu1989, the most recent block I issued [1]. If there is a better template to use for this kind of case, let me know. Thanks. --Ligulem 00:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I normally use one of {{test5}} or {{test6}}, which have only optional parameters. It's largely a matter of taste, I think. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• I frequently don't bother, as commented above for throwaway accounts which are blocked within 10 minutes of being created it seems wasted effort (Or IPs which has a talk page full on warnings and block messages). I check their other contribs and tend to sort those out, so I can't imagine why anyone else would be coming along significantly later to leave them a message or warning. There is a possibility that someone will be looking at the user concurrently and that's where the collisions occur, however in the short timescale around the events it seems a good possibility that crossover will occur anyway. I often go to a page and find someone has just warned them for something I reverted, it's not a problem just a wasted trip. Similarly I get collisions where blocking, or get to the block page and see they have just been blocked (since it shows the log at the bottom of the block page, can't say I go back and look for a block notice). As above I can't say either of those is a big deal and when many people working on things, such crossovers are a good probability. i.e. I think people are going to get wasted trips to pages or post redundant messages regardless. --pgk 13:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

But there's a difference between shrugging off a wasted trip for yourself, and editing so as to cause wasted trips for others. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

As above I if someone does say 5 edits in a 10 minute time frame after creating an account and then gets blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account, it seems most unlikely that someone will be coming along later to post a message. Have you had cases where you've gone to post a message on such an account a significant amount of time after the event? And if so how frequently does this occur? If all their edits have been rolled back I'm not sure what purpose anyone has in deciding to visit their talk page, I would see this as a rare occurance.

If the visits occur at roughly the same time as the block, there is a good chance that there will be some crossover and one or other of those involved will have a wasted trip, this seems particularly the case at the moment where I often see contrib histories etc. lagging quite significantly, I can't see how that can be eliminated.

This isn't some new phenomena, I certainly haven't changed by behaviour in this regard for quite some time and you are the first and only person to mention the issue. Don't get me wrong on this I'm not saying the situation absolutely never occurs, I just wonder how significant an issue it is and if the amount of effort expended "solving" it outweighs the detriment. My own observation and cynicism suggests it's something we are very good at on wiki, spending huge amounts of time solving problems which don't "really" exist. --pgk 18:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a data point, I've noticed the lack of block messages as well and have found it can result in wasted effort when vandalfighting. In my view it's not wise to make vandalfighting more difficult or frustrating, unless there's a good reason. JMHO. Raymond Arritt 18:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)T

Thanks for the further evidence of the issue. Can you give a bit more background. Are the users blocked in the few minutes before or is this a significant amount of time after the blocking? I ask this since as with many I use multiple browser tabs when doing this, so If I'm going to warn or leave a block message I can be that I open talk pages in a fresh tab and carry on with other things coming back a short time later, this is the crossover I mention and indeed does happen to me quite frequently. I'm not sure why we would give those doing anti-vandal work any more or less consideration than others, but from a anti-vandalism point of view which is more preferrable to you, that vandals get blocked promptly or that you save a few seconds not warning someone who just got blocked? (The two needn't be mutually exclusive, but there are going to be trade offs at times.) --pgk 20:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Many editors revert vandalism and don't bother to follow up on the vandal's Talk page, nor check all the vandal's other contributions; I often – especially when it's a vandal on whom I'm keeping an eye – follow up for them, adding warnings or blocks. It's impossible to tell without actually starting the blocking process whether someone has blocked or not. I've often come across cases in which other editors have left warnings after blocks have been placed but not mentioned, and even more often I find myself wasting time on the start of the blocking process only to discover that someone else has already done it.

In short, not taking the few seconds to place a block notice can cause other editors inconvenience and irritation, and the instructions to admins say that it should be done (which, pace Irishguy, in normal English is a prescription, not the expression of a mild preference). Sorry if I sound tetchy, but once admins have been alerted to the fact that this causes inconvenience to others, I'm a bit surprised at the continuing argument. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of inconvenience to others cuts both ways. If I raise that it is an inconvenient for me to add the block notice in certain circumstances then you of course should be bending to me, so not as to inconvenience me? As I say above the number of people raising this has been very small and hence trying to scope this issue doesn't seem unreasonable. If you believe that your inconvenience outweighs the interests of everyone else concerned, then I think there is little more to discuss here. --pgk 13:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "scope this issue", but the rest of your comments are surely mistaken. Consideration for others should trump self-interest. Using edit summaries, providing sources, using correct formatting, signing messages, etc. — ignoring all these would doubtless make editing quicker for the individual, but that's not a reason for doing so. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 13:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Scope, i.e. when does the problem occur. Does it occur for every block done, or is it a specific circumstance. Yes I agree your self interest should come second to the interest of the many admins who in certain circumstances don't put block messages on pages. --pgk 13:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Kindest to ignore this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can give an example which just occurred of the issues of crossover and scoping. User:Creek eek, placing {{indefblockeduser}} on a range of user pages, this is an ongoing troll if you look at the histories of the pages involved. Started at 13:52, blocked at 13:53 (UTC), after blocking I looked at other contribs and rolled back (in multiple tabs). I then went to the user talk page to add an {{indefblockeduser}} tag to that user. Edit conflict with someone adding a warning, redo - edit conflict with the user blanking that warning. Finally place the tag, within a minute or two someone else added to WP:AIV. Now this is obviously frustrating because multiple people are picking up on the same thing, there isn't much which can be done about that. At the same time I can't imagine why anyone would be going back later to look at this page, the user in question is in no doubt about what they are doing, the block notice isn't useful to them. All the edits were rolled back quickly. Was going through those two edit conflicts to the place the message a complete waste of time? To me yes, is not doing it likely to be inconvenien to others? --pgk 14:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

If I were watching one of the articles involved, I'd see activity, check, and discover reverted vandalism. I might then go to the vandal's Talk page to see whether a warning was left (as I've already pointed out, that's often not done), and see no new warning, but a string of previous ones. I'd then decide either to give a warning (which would, unknown to me, be pointless), or to apply a block (only to discover that one had aleady been applied). This has happened to me on a number of occasions.

But there's no point my going on; you've decided that the slight convenience of your not having the courtesy to say what you've done outweighs the inconvenience that you cause to others, and evidently nothing that I say is going to change that. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 16:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why not change the system so that a block notice goes on the talk page automagically when the block is made? Such a thing ought to be possible, what with this being the computer age and all. It would save effort and frustration for all concerned. Raymond Arritt 17:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

And you've decided the slight inconvenience to you outweighs the inconvenience to the many admins who do this. However as I have already said, my intent was to discuss the matter and scope the issue - how broadly it is felt an issue and in what circumstances is it an issue. That's the way things work around here, when there is a disagreement we discuss and try to find a compromise/consensus to the way forward. Your declaration above that you merely stating you felt inconvenienced by it should mean everyone would run off and do as you asked, is what started this part of the thread. Clearly if 100 admins don't warn for 10 blocks each and yet only you have a problem, and it occurs for 10 of those 1000 blocks, the cost benefit seems quite simply not in your favour. OTOH it maybe that those 10 are pretty specific circumstances, or it may come out in the discussion that many people find this an issue. From your description above it seems that you don't trust others reverting to consistently warn properly and that is the real root of this problem. --pgk 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I can't see how having a notice automatically added as a part of a block will add any more work for an admin; quite the opposite if anything, since the notice would be added with no effort on their part. Raymond Arritt 18:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my response wasn't intended to go with your post. Reading back I guess some of the basics aren't clear either, the real point here is that either side declaring the other is being "selfish" and not considering the inconvenience of the other party(ies) is not really helpful, as it is of course a matter of perspective. Hence the need for some discussion to work out minimising the impact on everyone. The automatic message is a reasonable idea, though perhaps a simple marker which will tell people at a glance of the current blocked status, whilst still encouraging more comprehensive messages where appropriate. --pgk 18:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it useful when the "blocked" messages are left and almost always post a note or template myself, with one important exception: when the username itself is harassing (e.g. User:JohnSmithIsABadPerson (bowlerized example)). In those cases, I don't leave anything and I delete the userpage if it exists, because leaving the page with that name can actually perpetuate the harassment. Newyorkbrad 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

New addition... unilateral action disruption.

I just added this... I think it will be invaluable:

• Unilateral actions to close discussions early against concensus, disrupting the community by forcing additional debate and conflict, and is blockable.[2]

Thank you. - Denny 16:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note that inappropriate early closure of a DRV by an administrator is part of the rationale behind an imminent 10-day (!) arbcom ban. Milto LOL pia 17:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that is far too bold. Decisions from the Arbitration Committee do not make policy. The decision was made in a very specific context. There is a difference between the ArbCom or the Wikipedia community deciding to block, and a single administrator doing the same. The other entries in the list cover blocks which are regularly made and broadly supported. On the other hand, somebody who closes a discussion inappropriately is likely to be a regular editor, probably an administrator, and such a block will always attract drama (like the cool-down blocks mentioned further down). Changes to policy, and this one in particular, should be discussed for some time and not made in reaction to a highly charged case. For all these reasons, I reverted the addition. If you want to discuss this, by all means do so on this talk page or the Village Pump, but I don't think there is a consensus for the point you added. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not punishment. The decision you cite doesn't even say anything about blocking based on WP:SNOW. —Centrx→talk • 19:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

XfD/deletions/unilateral to disrupt

would there be any merit to adding that initiating XfDs or unilaterally deleting pages that are hot-button or controversial could be seen as disruptive/blockable? Thinking specifically about the Brandt & Essjay messes. Note that someone just now (less than 24 hours later) sent the Essjay article back to AfD for poor reasoning... - Denny 00:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

No, there would not be any merit in doing that. —Centrx→talk • 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies and Requests

I would like to apologize for this IP Addresses vandalism of this website. This is a school, and I am a student, and I would appreciate having our IP address blocked from editing content, but not blocked from viewing content. Thank you very much. 209.7.218.5 13:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning

This page really never says that editors should receive a warning before placing blocked, although it is implied is some areas. Is that intentional?--BirgitteSB 20:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Not every block requires a prior warning. Some cases require instant blocking, to prevent further damage. Crum375 20:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But the policy clearly says which blocks don't require warnings without ever talking about the general principle of warning before blocks.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that it is in general up to the discretion of the blocking admin. Often the warnings are issued by other editors, not necessarily admins. In the case of WP:3RR for example, we encourage a warning to be issued to new editors who may not be familiar with the policy. I think overall the warnings, like the blocks, should be done with common sense, according to the specific case. Crum375 20:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess my point is, where is in any guidelines or policies does it say that editors should be warned about their behaivor? Or, where does it say it up to the discretion of the admin? Reading the policy there is clearly an implication that warning is the standard and the X, Y, and Z are exceptions that do not need warning. But I looked at a bunch of policies and guidelines and I cannot not find any general dissucsion of the principle of warning. Everything I read seems to assume there is a general principle, but where is it?--BirgitteSB 21:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• It isn't really anywhere, except in the headers of some process pages. Perhaps this page needs a bit of editing to reflect that, or Wikipedia:WikiProject user warnings should explain their thoughts on some policy pages. >Radiant< 09:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Adjustments to blocking policy?

I posted on ANI here in response to what I thought was excessive blocking on the part of Naconkantari (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). The majority of admins who commented on the issue endorsed the blocks, which says to me that actual blocking practice is not in line with blocking policy. One way or another, this needs to change. WP:BLOCK needs to reflect the actual rules we follow when blocking users. So what needs to happen here? And should this discussion occur on the village pump instead? TomTheHand 15:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to block without warning? If so, under what circumstances? Is a single vandalism edit enough? Does it depend on the severity of that vandalism? What is a "severe" single vandalism edit? If a single vandalism edit isn't enough, how much vandalism needs to occur? If it isn't acceptable to block without warning, how much warning needs to be given? Should we require at least a single "final warning, block imminent" before blocking? How long of a block is acceptable for an unknown IP? How long is acceptable for a known educational institution? Should a registered user whose only contributions have been vandalism be blocked indefinitely? If so, should it be without warning? If so, how much vandalism should occur before blocking a registered user indefinitely without warning? Is a single vandalism edit from a new user enough to justify an indefinite block? TomTheHand 15:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO we have to give admins a wide leeway, and expect them to use common sense. Trying to tie their hands in red tape and bureaucracy will be counter-productive. Admins have to primarily ensure a comfortable working environment for collaborative and productive editors. At the same time, they should not be too harsh on new users, who could potentially contribute in the future, and they must also beware of blocking innocent users via IP blocks. So the bottom line is that admins must have discretion and follow common sense. Crum375 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My general view is that we can, and should, be tolerant, up to a point, when somebody is just "testing", which might mean things like adding the Wikipedia logo image, "hello", "test" or "YIPPPEEE!!" to articles. These things are done in good faith, and we will just have to accept that newbies, unfamiliar with what is and what is not appropriate, will do such things.

When it comes to clear and indisputable vandalism though, things like replacing articles with profanity, or adding images of genitalia in articles, we should be strict. Indeed, I would not object to having "one strike and you're out for 2 hours" be the standard treatment on such issues, even for a first time offense. I cannot imagine a person on the receiving end of such a block being particularily surprised at getting blocked over a thing like that. If the block is reasonably short, there is not much damage either. (This is the practice at the Norwegian Wikipedia, and it works pretty well.)

Also, sometimes there are tell-tale signs that an IPvandal is a returning vandal with a new IP. I remember from the days I was an admin, a vandal who did this, this and this before I caught him and gave him a pretty quick and harsh {{test4im}} warning. When he proceeded to replace that with a tier-1 {{test}} message, as if having a new IP entitled him to make four vandal edits, I blocked immediately. There is no need to have people here who think they have a right to vandalize. If they complain, we will just have to accept that we are iron fisted, poor excuses for admins.

One note is that I think it might be a good idea to deliberately keep the formal wording of the blocking policy a bit more conservative than what we actually do in practice. People in general, not just admins, have a tendency to bend the rules a little, so if we make the formal wording slightly over-conservative, I think we will get pretty much the treatment of vandals that we should. If we then bend the rules a little and a blocked vandal complains that he didn't get the "last warning" which the vandal is "entitled" to before getting blocked, well then let's just say that vandals don't have rights. And then bending the rules a bit to keep those who blatantly and indisputably seek to cause harm to Wikipedia off the site should be a tolerated practice, even if we don't boast about it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When it comes to clear and indisputable vandalism though, things like replacing articles with profanity, or adding images of genitalia in articles, we should be strict. Indeed, I would not object to having "one strike and you're out for 2 hours" be the standard treatment on such issues, even for a first time offense I fully agree with this statement. There is no reason to not immediately block someone that is intentionally damaging the encyclopedia. Naconkantari 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

By definition, any vandalism consists of intentional damage of WP, otherwise it wouldn't be vandalism. So the criterion for instant blocking has to be more carefully defined. Crum375 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I asked all those questions, I really should try to answer them myself. I believe that blocking without warning can be justified, in a case where the vandalism is blatant and overwhelming. If I saw an IP replace a dozen pages with profanity in as many minutes, I'd be willing to block that IP without warning to stop harm to the encyclopedia. However, I don't think that there is any single, isolated edit that can possibly be made by an anon vandal that justifies immediate block without warning, especially for 31 hours, as Naconkantari commonly does. I fully support the warning system. If someone makes a single, blatant act of vandalism, I have no problem with leaving a "this is your first and only warning" message and blocking upon further vandalism, but I would prefer at least two warnings, with one containing "final warning, block imminent" language. If you try to give out a full set of warnings you'll find that most vandalism stops when the vandal realizes "Wow, I'm being watched." I know, I know, it takes less time to just block the account, but I view that as biting.

As far as blocking of IPs known to be shared by many different people, such as those of libraries, any block longer than a few hours is blatant overkill. You're trying to stop someone who's in the library for an hour or less. Blocking for a day or more is harmful to legitimate users of the library. If you run into a kid who's coming into the library for an hour each day to vandalize, I can see applying longer blocks, but for an educational IP with sporadic vandalism over the course of many months, each individual burst of vandalism should be considered as a brand new individual, because it probably is. I also think that blocks of shared IPs should be "soft"; it should be possible for a user to create an account. We are an educational resource. We should not shut out educational institutions, even if they are the source of much vandalism.

I also think that indefinite blocking of a registered user whose only contributions have been vandalism hurts the encyclopedia more than it helps. It makes it far less likely that such people will turn around and make positive contributions to the encyclopedia. An immediate, indefinite block of a registered user that has made only one vandalism edit is definitely entirely too far.

I understand the need for admins to have discretion in these matters, but it's also necessary to have limits. TomTheHand 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some consistency, and some limits, but the tendency appears to be too lenient, if anything. Donorman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a vandal-only account, was blocked for only two days after dozens of disruptive edits, including this and this. And it's unclear to me why it took three hours for Wikipedia to corral him. -- TedFrank 14:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the change that was just made about indefinitely blocking accounts that have not made productive edits. In the above example of Donorman, I might not have indefinitely blocked myself, but I would not object to such a block because of the volume of vandalism and because he had received many warnings. I'm not opposed to language allowing indefinite blocks for such users.

However, in my opinion, an account that has only made a small number of unproductive edits should not be blocked indefinitely without warning. There is a good chance that such an editor can become a positive contributor, as soon as they realize that Wikipedia is not a joke, and people see what you do and care about it. They need to be warned and given a chance. An indefinite block almost certainly loses that user forever.

I really don't think indefinite blocks without warning are acceptable except in cases of severe vandalism. I think it'd take a dozen vandalism edits to justify an indefinite block without warning. An account with fewer edits should be warned at least once, and if the vandalism continues then a block could be applied.

I can accept some negotiation on how much vandalism should justify a block without warning, but I think that an indefinite block without warning for one edit, as happened to Chyeahitsdiana in response to this, is way too severe. TomTheHand 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that assuming good faith will go a long way in helping guide the kinds of decisions at hand here. If an attempt is made to lay down a strict set of criteria that say when an admin should apply what kind of preventative action we are subjecting ourselves to too much policy creep. I believe that for the most part the admins can be trusted to make level headed decisions and do what needs to be done to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. That said, there is a valid concern about gray areas, and some valid examples are brought up. Perhaps there is the need to establish some minimal guidelines as far as these questions are concerned. I agree that applying an indefinite block, sans warning, based on someone's first edit is just a little on the harsh side. If an adjustment to the policy is going to be made then there needs to be consensus on what defines obvious and severe vandalism. Arkyan 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do understand the arguments that it's important not to tie admins' hands with a restrictive blocking policy, I think we should have a statement that, though the recommended blocking justifications and durations are guidelines and should be applied on a case-by-case basis, admins should not consistently apply blocks outside of the guidelines. I believe such a statement would solve the problem of unnecessarily tying admins' hands while also forcing admins to obey this policy.

For example, currently the guidelines state that blocks should not be applied to isolated incidents of vandalism. If an admin runs into an isolated incident of vandalism that, in their judgement, is severe, they could apply a block, but an admin should not consistently block isolated incidents of vandalism.

Similarly, the guidelines state that logged-in users should be blocked for 24 hours for the first block and each successive block should be longer. An admin could decide that in a particular case, like that of Donorman, the vandalism is severe enough and enough warning has been given to justify a lengthy or indefinite block. However, an admin should not consistently block user accounts indefinitely for one or a handful of vandalism edits.

We don't need to objectively define "obvious" or "severe." We just need to say "Use your judgement, but on average, follow the guidelines." TomTheHand 21:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to expand a little on what I've just said. I think we should tailor the guidelines on this page to deal with your average, run-of-the-mill vandal, who blanks a page or two or inserts a couple of words of profanity. If you're doing RC patrol, and you run into an anon vandal who's making a dozen edits a minute, throw the guidelines out the window and block that IP on sight. However, nine time out of ten, you're dealing with people who put "hi" at the top of various pages, and in that case, you should be following the guideline to the letter.

If you're an admin who spends most of their time on CFD or something, and you only pull out the banhammer to deal with severe problems, you shouldn't feel bad that the majority of your blocks are more severe than the guideline. That guy who's put porn onto ten major pages so far probably shouldn't be given a full set of warnings before a block.

You shouldn't ever have to feel "Gosh, this vandalism is terrible, but my hands are tied by WP:BLOCK!" However, you should usually feel "Man, this vandalism is average. I am going to follow WP:BLOCK, because that's exactly what it's there for." TomTheHand 21:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(mec)Policy and guidelines exist to further the building of an encyclopedia; we therefore, in (s)electing out admins, choose people with commonsense who will use the block function in a number of ways for a number of reasons to further that ultimate goal. "Use your judgement but on average follow guidelines" is exactly what the vast majority of admins do, Naconkantari in particular. Each block is open to appeal, to review by others admins and to community input. We encourage this, despite the fact that those questioning a block are rarely aware of the full facts.

We must allow admins leeway. (S)Electing people and then tying their hands because of process or a desire to slavishly follow rules is a ludicrous way of building an encyclopedia. And, no offence, presenting a big pile of admin actions and presenting a class action on them is neither fair nor useful. By all means challenge individual blocks - please! it keeps people on their toes - but a class action sucks lemons in the way it stacks things up against the user being questioned (30 seconds to compile, about 2 hours to reply to).

(added)By the way, your last paragraph is a vandals' charter - providing a set limit of "tolerable" vandalism is just holding Wikipedia to ransom. Do you know how many vandals appeal blocks because they haven't had the "right number" of warnings? They count them. They know. They are perfectly prepared to use our policies against us. Have you ever done Recent Changes and/or New Pages patrol? Spend a week on those jobs. You'll soon see that the majority of vandalism isn't as random as we'd like to think it is. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Naconkantari absolutely does not follow guidelines on average. He has said himself that he blocks for isolated incidents of vandalism. He did so for 31 hours in the majority of cases until I confronted him, and has on average reduced this to 3 hours since then, which still violates policy. He consistently blocks user accounts indefinitely for making as few as one vandalism edit. To say that he on average follows guidelines is absurd; he openly admits to not following them. I absolutely agree that admins require leeway and have said so, but Naconkantari consistently blocks outside of the guidelines.

As far as presenting a big pile of admin actions goes, I did so because I did not know how else to communicate the problem. I did not cherry-pick what I felt were the worst, most indefensible blocks. Maybe I should have. Instead, I listed sixteen blocks that violated WP:BLOCK that were given out over one hour. That was the vast majority of the blocks Naconkantari gave out over that hour. When Naconkantari claimed that one block of a single-edit IP address for 31 hours was an exception and possibly too long, I had no trouble finding six blocks of single-edit IP addresses for 31 hours that he handed out in a half hour period the previous day.

I have said that admins need leeway. However, we also need limits. If you have a reason to block an IP address for 31 hours for a single edit, do so. However, if you RC patrol and block nearly every single isolated act of vandalism you see without warning for lengths of time greater than policy guidelines, you are breaking policy. To be clear about that, you are doing exactly what the vandals are doing. WP:BLOCK is just as important as WP:VAND. TomTheHand 22:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what our blocking policy is for if its purpose is not to set out the guidelines we should follow when blocking. TomTheHand 22:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I think I can see the points you are making. To boil them down to how they are reading to an outsider:

• Process is good. We need more process.
• You don't like User:Naconkantari.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm so far missing any other point(s) you may have. Indeed, I've started reading your posts across a couple of forums in a negative light for which I apologise.

Can you dumb it down a shade for me? :o) Your point is being lost at the moment. 〈REDVEЯS〉 22:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No no, you seem to have misunderstood me. My points were:

• • Blocking policy should give good guidelines for when and how to block.
  • Admins should follow policy.
  • I took the actions I did for reasons which I am willing to elaborate on when questioned.

Glad to help out, feel free to ask more questions if needed. TomTheHand 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The policy should provide general information and guidelines about blocking, which it does. But the actual implementation, as Redvers noted above, is up to the common sense and discretion of the admins, who were elected as trusted members of the community to ensure a comfortable and safe editing environment for productive editors. We want the admins to have maximum flexibility, and each of their actions is subject to review. Crum375 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so how is providing guidelines that people don't follow, and have no reason to follow, productive? An appeals/review process for anons and new users who are blocked out of process exists, but it's not going to be used, because they don't know how. They're just going to leave forever. Are you saying that if nobody complains then it's ok? TomTheHand 23:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Each block is subject to scrutiny, by the blockee and others. Many blockees do complain, quite loudly in fact, to multiple parties in multiple channels, even about the most simple straightforward blocks. Adding more red tape will not make it easier for the admin. Some admins may decide to just ignore the situation and/or let someone else do it. I believe that discretion and flexibility are critically needed here. Crum375 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I have not, at any point, suggested more red tape. I have only said that admins should generally try to follow blocking policy, as right now it seems to be meaningless. I believe I explained my problem below: it is not with admins who apply blocks more harshly than guidelines if they feel it's needed, even when those blocks are harsher than I'd apply myself. It is with admins who apply blocks more harsh that the guidelines consistently, with no justification. I am not trying to force admins to follow guideline at WP:BLOCK all the time. I just think that admins should follow WP:BLOCK unless they have a reason not to. TomTheHand 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you a scenario. Say you notice a block. It is longer than the guidelines here suggest, and/or it was given for less reason. You contact the admin who placed the block, and say "This block doesn't follow the guidelines over at WP:BLOCK, and I was wondering why."

Now, certainly if the admin says "Oh, that was a sockpuppet I was dealing with," you're going to say "Oh! Good work there."

What if the admin says "Oh, that's just what I do." What then?

This is a serious question, because it's exactly what I've run into and it's why I'm so frustrated. I am not suggesting that an admin must have an ironclad, defensible reason for every block that deviates from the guidelines. I'm asking what to do if an admin has no reason at all to deviate from them, but does so constantly. TomTheHand 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

You can always decide, and it often happens, that the original blocking admin was too harsh, and unblock. Or you may decide to mentor the offender and assume responsibility. Most admins would gladly accept someone else's input and would rarely object. If they do, there is always AN/I, for the longer blocks anyway. Crum375 23:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That really looks like a path straight to wheel war land. Let's put an extension on the scenario. Say the admin in question applies blocks that exceed guidelines 10-20 times per hour, and has stated that they have no reason for the deviation. What do you do then? I'm pretty sure unblocking everybody would be a Bad Thing. I discussed the issue with the admin here, and posted to ANI here, noting sixteen times in one hour when blocking guidelines were exceeded. The majority of admins endorsed the blocks, which brought me here, trying to figure out what the heck is going on. Is WP:BLOCK broken? Is ANI?

Is the problem with me? Am I seriously wrong in thinking that admins should follow blocking policy unless there's a reason not to? TomTheHand 00:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Would I be taken more seriously if I went out and found other blocks that are much harsher than guidelines for no reason? I realize that this is coming off as just an attack on Naconkantari, but I had never encountered Naconkantari before running into one of his blocks. When I was looking at Special:Ipblocklist I saw many blocks that were harsher than guidelines. If I talk to the admins involved, and if they tell me that they did not have any particular reason for the harsh blocks, would it help? TomTheHand 00:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking generally to the blocking system rather than speficically to any one admin or block or anything else; the system in general works as well as it can. If it is an imperfect system, it is only because it is an imperfect world. As someone who considers himself a fairly active vandal hunter, I have never considered it my job to ensure that a certain result is gotten against a vandal. I have always felt that my job it to make the admins aware of the problem, and let them deal with the problem as they see fit. In a few cases, I may have felt that the admin who dealt with the problem misunderstood the nature of the problem; and I will go to an admins talk page when I feel this has happend. But, I have never felt that I was seeking a certain result from a listing at AIV or ANI. I generally trust admins to use good judgement, and to dicker about whether a 2 hour block or a 6 hour block or a 24 hour block is appropriate in a certain case is moot. It is not my intention to get admins to do my bidding, or to punish bad users, or anything else like that. It is to make admins aware of a problem that may need addressing. Thats it. I could care less how much of the blocking policy is written, how slavishly the admins follow it, or even if they fix my problem at all. I trust them to fix the problem in a reasonable way, and they always do. Might I consider some of their blocks too harsh? I might. Might I consider that they don't block an IP I would have? I might. However, my opinion is largely irrelevant and I realize that. My time is better spent improving articles and preventing damage to other articles, not hunting down a specific vandal and seeing to it that they are punished, or railing against a specific admin who doesn't enforce the blocking policy as I would. I'd much rather work with the admins to make wikipedia better rather than set up an adversarial role against them... In conclusion, no, the system is not broken. Yes, it works fine as is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that from your perspective the system works fine as it is, because when you report vandalism, someone stops it. However, overly harsh blocks chase away new users, and you will never hear them complain. The complaints you do hear are from repeat vandals who have learned enough to try to game the system. The people who are actually hurt by harsh blocks are voiceless; they are chased away from Wikipedia forever before they can learn to contribute.

The guidelines exist to strike a balance between protecting Wikipedia from vandalism and remaining accessible to new users. I can agree that we may need to tweak the guidelines to figure out exactly where that balance is, but I'm really shocked that so many people seem to feel that there's no need for admins to follow guidelines at all. I sort of doubt that if someone went up for RFA right now, and their answer to "What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with?" was "I will block users who make unproductive edits immediately, on sight, without warning, temporarily for IPs and permanently for registered users," their request would be all that successful.

Part of your post seems to be from a "Calm down, Tom, and leave the admins to their business" perspective, so I'd like to point out that I am an admin, and how we operate is my business. Frankly, it's yours as well. TomTheHand 05:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I am an experienced editor, and I do care to see that admins execute their job fairly and equitibly. I can only say that based on my experience, they do. If there is a systemic problem, then it would show up all the time. The fact that you constantly cite a single admin in your criticisms would seem to indicate to me that it is a problem with one admin, and as such should be redressed on a personal level. To propose wholesale changes to a system merely to correct the behavior of a rogue seems excessive and unneccesary. I agree, scareing of a potential good editor should be avoided at all cost. However, I rarely see an admin acting in a way that I think will cause that to happen. Do some of the thousands of admins do that. I am certain they do. Should they be disuaded from doing so? They should. Are the vast majority of admins exercising their judgement in appropriate ways. Yes they are. Thus, we shouldn't change the system merely to stop the few problematic admins. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what wholesale changes to the system have I suggested? I want to add a sentence or two to the policy, stating that the exact details of blocking are up to the discretion of the blocking admin, but admins should follow the guidelines unless they have a reason not to.

If there is consensus among admins that the blocking policy is too lenient, then maybe the block length guidelines should be adjusted, but I see no need to touch them.

I just think that the policy needs language that says "Yes, you need to follow these guidelines unless you have a reason not to," and then I think admins need to follow the guidelines. I am not suggesting a vast bureaucracy which records the reason admins give, and I am not suggesting we set up a special cabal to review every block and make sure the reasons are good enough. However, I'm saying that if you're blocking some run-of-the-mill blanking vandal, you should follow the guidelines, and if you block someone for a length outside the guidelines and someone asks you why, you should have a reason. Because you've been dealing with this same vandalism in this IP block all week? Sounds good. Because it's a sockpuppet of so-and-so? Keep up the good work. Because you have your own blocking policy? No, sorry.

Tomorrow I will take some time to find other cases of the guidelines being violated for no reason so that this stops looking like a problem with one admin. TomTheHand 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I was not actually able to find anyone else consistently applying blocks outside guidelines for no reason. TomTheHand 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) without reading prior discussion, my opinion on the matter is this: if administrators across the wiki are found blocking with little or no warnings posted, then the relevant policies should be adapted. We are not here to restrain our administrator's block buttons with red tape - WP:IAR is paramount for an efficient system for dealing with vandals, and it allows administrators to use their own common sense - which is by far the play-safe option: a situation-by-situation decision, guided but not controlled by policy .. as oppose to blocks where they are inappropiate or vice versa. anthonycfc ^[talk] 05:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are not the appropriate response on a first offense; they're there to stop someone who's causing harm and continues to do so after weaker measures have been tried, such as a warning. I've given indef blocks to users who have not received the full range of warnings, because they make it clear that they know what they're doing and would vandalize after warnings, but those are exception and should not be codified as a rule. Policy is not there to reflect practice. We wouldn't change NPOV because people really felt like editorializing, and we shouldn't compromise the policies that embody the assumption of good faith just so some admins can feel justified in handing out excessive blocks. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it certainly is acceptable to block without warning if it's clear the blockee is malicious, and yes, it's also acceptable to permablock vandal-only accounts, and we've been doing that for years now. >Radiant< 13:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got no problem accepting either of those, but is it acceptable to block without warning, or permablock an account, for one edit? If so, what kind of single edit, with no other history of vandalism, would you have to see in order to block it without warning, permanently if it's a registered user? Assume that you're not dealing with sockpuppetry here; if you're dealing with sockpuppetry, then it's not actually one isolated edit and you can certainly block the hell out of them. TomTheHand 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I can top you on that by claiming it's acceptable to permablock (without warning) an account that has zero edits, as is commonly done for impersonator accounts or anyone with "on wheels" in their username. Note that sockpuppetry cannot generally be easily seen. Note also that permablocking a registered account is less bad than permablocking an IP (which we generally don't do anyway). Of course these are the exceptions rather than the rule. Three examples that come to mind would be (1) posting personal information on any user, regardless of whether or not it's true; (2) legal or physical threats; and (3) replacing any template with an image of genitalia. I'm sure there are others. >Radiant< 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If it's an impersonator account or an account that otherwise violates user name policies it's a completely different matter. So let's say you don't suspect sockpuppetry. The above are three cases where you'd be willing to block without warning for one edit? I can accept those; they're quite severe. How about if someone replaces a page with random characters, or some nonsense like the word "hi"? Again, you don't suspect sockpuppetry, you don't suspect any connection to any prior vandalism, and the IP has never edited Wikipedia before. There are no special circumstances whatsoever. Is it acceptable to block without warning for that one edit? TomTheHand 14:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
        • No, I would not. But it seems to me you are trying to write a formal list of what is and is not acceptable; such a list is probably not possible and certainly not needed. >Radiant< 08:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break

Response to something up there^ (quote for reference) TomTheHand said: "I was not actually able to find anyone else consistently applying blocks outside guidelines for no reason.". Well??? So you found one admin who you feel misapplied the rules? Doesn't sound like there is a real problem then. What seems to be missed by most of this discussion is that policies are largely being followed except when unique circumstances present themselves. To ask a question like TomTheHand did: "Is it acceptable to block without warning for that one edit?" seems to be reaching for a definitive statement like "It is never OK..." or "It is OK..." The truth is, for normal garden-variety vandalism, this isn't OK, but we don't need to address it, because it isn't being done. There will be unique cases that require unique responses. Several people have already provided reasonable situations where a one-edit vandal (or even a no-edit vandal) can be blocked. However, to say something like "Other than these already itemized exceptions, we should never block someone for only one edit" and making that policy uneccessarily ties the hands of admins, since situations will inevitibly arise for which such a block will be justified, and for which no one now is even imagining. Avoiding instruction creep is about not creating rules to fix problems that don't exist. The existing block policy seems to be adequate. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is in response to both Jayron32 and Radiant, as they've both brought up the same point. I am not trying to propose that we come up with an formal list of exceptions. I agree that that would tie the hands of the admins too much. I have no problem with the exceptions being in the mind of the admin and being entirely up to their discretion. I have a problem with if an admin has no reason, even in his or her own mind, for making the exception. There is no need for a codified list of rules, and such a thing would be harmful. However, an admin should be able to say why they applied a harsher block if someone happens to ask.

I'm not saying you should be able to ask me about a block I applied four months ago that I don't even remember, but if you ask me about a 31 hour block I applied to an IP yesterday which had replaced a page with "hi", I should be able to tell you why. I don't want a codified list of "good enough" reasons to apply a harsher block; if you don't think my reason is acceptable, you can use the appeals process already in place, but if I didn't have a reason, I think it's always unacceptable.

I want to explain how this started, because I admit that my original point is completely gone. I ran into an admin who consistently applied harsh blocks for no reason (I am not making an assumption here; I asked, and he said that that's simply how he deals with vandalism: any unproductive edit equals a block). I posted to ANI, and the consensus was largely "I don't see a problem with it."

My thoughts at that point were "If it's acceptable to apply harsher blocks than the guidelines state for no reason, we need to amend the blocking policy, because the blocking guidelines should tell you what blocks should be applied when there are no special circumstances involved." I came over here because I wanted to argue my side of the case, that the existing blocking guidelines are fine and strike a good balance between stopping vandalism and protecting newbies.

When I came over here, I found that nobody agrees with my entire premise: that the blocking policy should be followed unless the admin has a reason not to. I am not proposing instruction creep. I am not proposing that there be a list of acceptable reasons for harsh blocks. However, I do feel strongly that admins should follow blocking policy, and if they have to apply a harsher block, they should be able to explain why if asked, and if they didn't have a reason why, it's unacceptable. TomTheHand 13:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I for one completely agree with the idea that, where there are conventions about block reasons and lengths, and an admin chooses to depart from those, that admin should be able to explain why they are doing do. The policy currently hints towards that already, at least with reasons for blocking, with the text at the top of that section. --bainer (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply to TomTheHand: You say "I do feel strongly that admins should follow blocking policy, and if they have to apply a harsher block, they should be able to explain why if asked, and if they didn't have a reason why, it's unacceptable." And yet, with a single event notwithstanding, by your own admission, all admins always do this all the time, again, with a single exception. So what is the purpose of the whole discussion we are having. You propose no changes to the policy, you note that of the well over 1000 admins we have, a total of 1 is behaving in a way that runs counter to your idea of how blocking should work? From what I can see:

1. You propose a reasonable standard of behavior when admins block someone. Everyone agrees with you on this point.
2. With a total of n admins, n-1 admins already meet this standard of behavior.
3. What is the big deal?

--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Until just now, with Thebainer's post and yours, nobody has agreed with me on that point. Everybody, so far, has misunderstood what I'm saying, which has made it difficult for me to go beyond that. TomTheHand 20:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. So we have establish that you call for a standard of behavior, and we also accept that that standard is being followed by every single admin save one. What now do you propose? --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly... I've got no clue any more. After the discussion at ANI, where the blocks were endorsed, I got the impression that this kind of blocking was common. I thought that meant either blocking policy needed to change to reflect blocking practice, or blocking practice needed to change to reflect blocking policy, but it seems that blocking practice is in line with policy and nothing actually needed to change here.

I still don't really understand why ANI endorsed the blocks, assuming that they do agree, in principle, that admins should follow guidelines unless they have a reason not to. I think there might be a strong tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to blocking admins. Naconkantari continues to block in excess of guidelines. However, the solution doesn't seem to be here, in making any change to blocking policy.

I do have some ideas for some things I'd like to see in the policy. I don't want to propose new rules or regulations or anything, but I feel like currently the page lacks information on "soft" blocks. I'd like to write a little more about what they are, their advantages, and their disadvantages, but I will not try to say "in this situation, give a soft block, and in that situation, give a hard one." Before anyone rips me a new one, please let me think about it and come up with a proposal; I'll post a new thread for it. TomTheHand 13:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism post-block

A vandal has been repeatedly blocked for vandalism; his talk page is littered with "last warnings" and a statement that he can be blocked without warning. The block expires, and he starts vandalizing again. Does one really need to waste time issuing another "last warning" before reporting to AIV? -- TedFrank 14:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• No. >Radiant< 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• An admin put a form notice on my talk page to the contrary after rejecting my AIV report. -- TedFrank 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • AIV is a quick-response sort of place, and it is quite possible, indeed probable, that the admin in question did not fully understand the nature of the situation. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User requested indef. blocks?

Having just seen this it made me curious. I don't see a provision for requests of self-blocking on this policy page. Is there some mention of such a thing elsewhere? (→Netscott) 05:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• In general I thought we didn't do that. >Radiant< 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• That was my thinking as well. (→Netscott) 08:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Added a paragraph on the subject. Please copyed. >Radiant< 08:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Looks good. (→Netscott) 09:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Softblock for Tor proxies

I live in China and have to use Tor to edit articles, because the only alternative – the HTTPS connection – doesn't allow users to do so any more.

The Tor proxies are very often blocked. If I've understood correctly, since the policy to block open proxies was introduced, a new technical possibility has become available that enables registered users to use Tor, while still blocking anonymous users who use Tor.

(I've tried to address this issue elswhere, but there was no solution. Please see also: Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall#Request a softblock and Wikipedia talk:No open proxies#Users from China are banned by this policy; if you read German, pls also see de:WP:AN#Ganz China ausgeschlossen.)

The blocking policy should be modified accordingly: Tor proxies should generally be softblocked. — Babelfisch 07:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anon-only block with account creation disabled would be fine, but I am wary of allowing account creation through proxies. Guy (Help!) 09:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a soft-block (anon block, account creation block, logged in editing allowed) is preferrable. Vassyana 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Where does that leave the millions of possible chinese editors who dont yet have an account? -M^ask 00:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Tor proxies:

The blocking of Tor proxies can collude with Internet censorship by the Chinese government. Please have a look at this discussion on the blocking of Tor proxies: Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Softblock for Tor proxies. — Babelfisch 07:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• It can also prevent massive vandalism and ban evasion. Note that Chinese readers are unaffected. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Wikipedia is about being a free encyclopedia, not a political anti-censorship vehicle. To quote Jimbo "If you have such a severe personal situation that editing Wikipedia with the level of anonymity provided by an ip number is dangerous to you, well, I guess you shouldn't edit wikipedia." [3]. But generally regarding censorship no one in the world is permitted to write here based on anything other than verifiable, reliable sources if those sources exist then censorship of that information isn't occurring. --pgk 12:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

end of copy

You've misunderstood me or I haven't been clear enough. This is not a problem of anonymity. Chinese users cannot even read Wikipedia without a proxy, because the Chinese government is blocking access. With a proxy, users in China can circumvent the blocking by the Chinese government and read articles, but when they want to edit articles, they are blocked by Wikipedia administrators. This situation is absurd. Mr Wales may be right that people who are concerned about anonymity shouldn't edit articles, but that's not the point here. I'm not so much concerned about my anonymity, but using Tor (or other open proxies) at the moment is the only way to edit articles at all.

If users in China can't edit articles on Wikipedia, because their only technical possibility to do so is blocked by Wikipedia administrators, that means that Wikipedia is consciously excluding all users from China. How "free" is an encyclopedia that does that? — Babelfisch 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Im on your side here Babelfisch, but lets get one thing out in the open very quick. The 'free' refers to free content not any rights on man or cost analysis. You are free to fork the project, you are free to redistribute and even make money off of it. Thats what free means so dont make such a blatent emotional appeal based on nothing. Its entirely a 'think of the children!' style defense. -M^ask

"Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." – That's the first sentence on the main page, and it's simply not true. At the moment, Wikipedia administrators seem to collude with the Internet censorship of the Chinese government. 137 million Internet users are blocked by Wikipedia as "collateral damage" in the war against vandalism. Yes, I'm quite emotional about that, but there is a simple solution and I hope it will be adopted. — Babelfisch 02:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Well let me put you mind at rest, no one from the Chinese government has contacted me on this matter and encouraged me to block any tor node. As already noted blocking doesn't stop you reading. The information is not being censored. Not being able to edit isn't censoring you, this isn't a project about free expression. --pgk 06:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who needs an account in order to edit through Tor can simply request one, either at Wikipedia:Request an account or by privately asking an administrator. I've handled several such requests myself. If you're mad about the Chinese government censoring Wikipedia, your ire should be directed at the Chinese government, not Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

TOR proxies need to be hard blocked. I don't go searching for TOR proxies; rather, I find new accounts doing something fairly awful, and discover that their IPs are TOR proxies. It happens all the time. It turns out it is trivially easy for an editor to get a new account name by finding some unblocked TOR proxy; once they do so, the full range of TOR proxies become useable by them. I wish there weren't vandals, but there are, and they're often extremely nasty. Jayjg^(talk) 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Slowking Man, I've created an account in June 2004 and I've been editing articles on Wikipedia since then. This is not about creating accounts. Hardblocking Tor proxies means that I can't edit articles even if I sign in. By using Tor, I've been able to circumvent Chinese government censorship since it was imposed, but now I'm blocked by Wikipedia administrators. The Chinese government has so far been unable to prevent me to contribute to Wikipedia, but Wikipedia administrators are now blocking me.

When I was blocked for the first time, I searched Wikipedia and found this:

• "Tor proxies can now be softblocked so logged in account users can edit via a tor connection. If you find an IP that has this problem please request an unblock to a softblock for tor." Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall#Request a softblock

That looks like a great solution, but it seems to be disputed, and some administrators don't follow this advice. It's not a policy, but has it become obsolete? In that case, the "advice to Tor users in China" should be rewritten or scrapped.

Quotes from relevant Wikipedia policies:

• "However those who edit in good faith, show civility, seek consensus, and work towards the goal of creating a great encyclopedia should find a welcoming environment." (Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, third paragraph)
• "Assume good faith." (Wikipedia:Assume good faith)
• "There are only 5 actual rules on Wikipedia: neutral point of view, a free license, the wiki process, the ability of anyone to edit, and the ultimate authority of Jimbo and the board on process matters." (Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset, my emphasis.)
• "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. [...] ‘You can edit this page right now’ is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred." (User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles)

I don't understand how this spirit and these principles can be discarded and 137 million Internet users in China can be blocked from Wikipedia as "collateral damage" of blocking potential vandals. This blocking policy and the ban on open proxies are not absolute, it's not their intention to block registered users who are not vandals, and they should not be used to violate much more basic principles of Wikipedia. — Babelfisch 07:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Any further comments, please? — Babelfisch 03:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The comments are that allowing open proxies enables great problems with vandalism, which vandalism requires the blocking of the proxies after the fact anyway. Wikipedia:No open proxies actually is absolute. Anyway, you seem to be able to find proxies to edit through. — Centrx→talk • 04:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If TOR is hardblocked, some of us will have to leave, just FYI. Some TOR nodes already are hardblocked, but at least there are enough that aren't that Wikipedia is still basically editable through TOR. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course, there are plenty of soft-blocked TOR proxies, which means that they might as well not be blocked at all - just keep trying till you get a soft-blocked IP, then do whatever you like. That's how they were able to keep deleting the Main page today. Jayjg^(talk) 19:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There were plenty until you blocked 50 or whatever today. As for TOR and the main page, see User talk:Misza13; summary for the rest of you is that TOR is an orthogonal issue here and the deletions would've occurred with or without TOR.

On a sidenote, Jayg's crusade against TOR reminds me - in a very bad way - of the kneejerk response to the Seigenthaler incident. --Gwern (contribs) 23:42 7 May 2007 (GMT)

It's no kneejerk response; it's been the practice to block open proxies since I became an admin over two years ago, so this is nothing new. These proxies lead to too many problems with vandalism and sockpuppetry, and soft-blocking is almost pointless. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I've heard elsewhere that hardblocking is pointless anyway because admin accounts are not affected by IP blocks. Is this true? --Gwern (contribs) 05:04 8 May 2007 (GMT)

Absolutely. See here and here. Sysops are not affected by any IP-based blocks (including autoblocks). Even if they were, they could simply undo them anyway. --Michael Billington (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not pointless at all, because these TOR proxies (like all proxies) are used by editors so they can commit vandalism and other policy violations (usually personal attacks of an often loathsome nature) without revealing their own real IPs, and thus never getting caught or stopped. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Meta:Meta:No open proxies is a Foundation-wide policy applying to all Wikipedia projects. It is not an issue of certain admins making up rules you don't like. TOR proxies were always blocked. When softblocking became possible, it was tried as an experiment. The experiment failed. The checkusers have repeatedly discovered serious vandalism coming from softblocked anonymous proxies (not just TOR). Thatcher131 19:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the most relevant page seems to be Meta:Editing with Tor. Nothing in the page implies that there's any sort of official all-projects block ("This is because many Wikimedia projects block Tor exit nodes from editing. Some details and discussion links follow."; "English Wikipedia tends to block every Tor exit node."; "Meta and Wikimedia Commons block some Tor exit nodes, but not most of them.").

Note even further that Meta:Meta:No open proxies specifically recommends "This policy is known to cause hardship to some editors, who must use open proxies to circumvent censorship where they live; a well-known example is the government of the People's Republic of China, which attempts to prevent its citizens from reading or editing Wikipedia. Chinese readers who wish to edit Meta should read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor to bypass the Great Firewall."

I looked on the talk page, and I noticed that the understanding of the policy seems to differ from that listed here - it's not that all projects must ban all open/anonymous proxies, but that "Yes, this is a Wikimedia Foundation policy that is binding for all projects. All projects are allowed to block open proxies; I suppose strict enforcement of the policy is up to individual communities, but projects that do not do so will be wide open to open proxy-based attacks." (in relation to Hebrew Wikipedia's decision to heavily enforce it.) --Gwern (contribs) 23:52 9 May 2007 (GMT)

The statements "Users are prohibited from editing Wikimedia projects through open or anonymous proxies" and "Open proxies are banned from editing Wikimedia projects" seem pretty clear. --bainer (talk) 05:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that Jimbo is still our god-king, No open proxies is indeed official policy [4] [5]. Thatcher131 11:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's just a board member. He has moral authority as god-king and the public face, but he can't unilaterally impose policy. The Board can and does (WP:OFFICE being a pertinent example). --Gwern (contribs) 05:26 11 May 2007 (GMT)

Last i checked jimbo had stacked the board by placing two people who are not wikipedia related and almost certain to vote with him if asked to on it so he can effectively force the result of any vote. Has that changed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plugwash (talk • contribs) 11:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

Honda Pilot

someone told me i'll be blocked. and then i heard about autoblocking for ips, did autoblocking always block account creation? HP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Honda Pilot (talk • contribs) 11:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're blocked, and the blocking admin uses "autoblock", the IP addresses that you try to edit from will be blocked for 24 hours. If the admin also uses "prevent account creation", then during that 24 hour period where your IP is blocked, you won't be able to register a new account. However, autoblocks are temporary. TomTheHand 14:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A single edit?

Do you have to vandalise multiple times to be blocked? Or can you be blocked immediately and indefinitely after your first vandal edit? The Serene Silver Star 15:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

For vandalism that is particularly severe, some admins feel that an immediate, possibly indefinite block after a single edit is appropriate. If the vandalism is run-of-the-mill page blanking, I would say that such a block is probably not appropriate and would probably be overturned on appeal. If you're blocked and you feel it was for an inappropriate reason or for an inappropriate length of time, you can put an unblock request on your talk page (which you can still edit) with {{unblock|your reason here}}. TomTheHand 15:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, note that it's possible that an account has several vandalistic edits to pages that have since been deleted. Such edits don't show up in the contribs log. >Radiant< 15:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Also please be aware that some apparent vandalism, for instance the blanking of the lower part of a long page, may be due to a browser software bug, newbie mistakes, or other innocent reasons. In the case of one such event, or a few slowly paced events, time may allow discussion before blocking. In the case of a rapid series of such edits, a block may be prudent to prevent further damage until discussion resolves the problem, even though you assume good faith and innocent error on the editor's part (and in this case the block reason should avoid suggesting guilt or deliberate malice). -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

attack and outing sites

Per previous precedent and commonly accepted practice, linking to attack sites, or linking to sites that attempt to "out" the identities of Wikipedia editors for any purpose is a blockable offense. This includes re-inserting such content that was already removed, and its initial insertion. Users who post such information or links, or that re-insert them after their removal, may be blocked for the safety and protection of other editors.

I've added that text. I can't believe it wasn't there already as this seems to be common practice. We don't support harassment. - Denny ^(talk) 18:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

What sort of thing is covered under "linking to attack sites". For example, various racist orgs maintain what might be called "attack sites", but those often should, perhaps must, be linked to in articels about such gorups or controversies in which they have been ionvolved. I presume that this policy is intended to mean linking as a whay to make by proxy an attack that could not be made directly on wikipedia pages, linking as a way to evade WP:NPA. But the words here could be taken to mean that any link to soenmthing that could be considered an "attack site" is out of line and blockable, which it obviously is not. Perhaps this wording should be clarified to distinguish these two cases? DES ^(talk) 20:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The attacking isn't such a big problem. The stalking is. I really wouldn't get terribly upset if someone linked to a site that said what a horrible person User:ElinorD is. However, it would be completely unacceptable for someone to link to a site that said "ElinorD, in real life, is . . . and works in . . . and her husband is . . . and her children go to . . . School". As far as I'm aware, no such site exists, but there are sites that give such information about other editors, particularly administrators. And posting the URL in a nowiki'd form, or posting the name of the site, so that people can just add the http://www bit should also be ruled out, as should posting hints that would enable people to find it with google. ElinorD (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was more concerned that "attack site" could be interpreted to mean other kinds of sites completely, but since I see that thsi new text is under the section header "Personal attacks that place users in danger" the kind of site intended is perhaps reasonably clear. DES ^(talk) 21:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this change. This is something that should be handled with common sense on a case by case basis. This is instruction creep, and a solution looking for a problem. Frise 23:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite for me a single example where we should legitimately link to a site that defames, libels, publically attacks, or attempts to out the "IRL" identity of editors here?:::: - Denny ^(talk) 23:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Policies are too long and unwieldy as they are. Adding on to them just to address something that might someday be a problem only makes them longer. As it stands, you can sit there and watch a newbie's eyes glaze over as he tries to find something buried in a hundred lengthy pages of policies. You can't codify against every eventuality, and trying to do so only leaves the doors open for the e-lawyers to comb through and look for loopholes. It's not like we have admins standing around saying, "This person linked to ED! We would do something, if only we had a policy against it." Just let people use some common sense. Frise 00:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately its a very real current problem, endangering the physical safety of editors here. People need to be aware of the repercussions of their actions in the strongest sense; harassment will not be tolerated. Stating that those who threaten the safety of editors... will be blocked, is not instruction creep. I wish to AGF but I can find no good faith reason... to support these links, or to support not clearly saying this is blockable (which it is anyway, and policy reflects practice). - Denny ^(talk) 06:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What shall we do when "attack" sites are used as sources? Remove them? Frise 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing requires all sources to be web accessable. If we really needed to we could cite an attack site like a book, and omit the URL. --Gmaxwell 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AGF isn't an issue here. AGF tells us not to make assumptions about people's intentions... but it's completely reasonably for us to say that for the well being of our community, we must block anyone who engages in certain activities regardless of their intentions. I.e. "Hello Mr. Alkivar's phone number is XXX. We know you are trying to help us,.. somehow... but you are causing serious harm so we have to block you. Have a nice life.". Nothing in WP:AGF instructs us to ignore objectively harmful activities.

As far as the policy being too long.. We'll this is just common sense, so it would be nice if we could omit it.. but since so many of our users think all that isn't explictly forbidden is permitted, we are kinda stuck with bloated policies. If this bothers you, the first step is to chase down all the people who block the use of unwritten commons sense rules and re-educate them. After that I'll happily help you cut down the policy pages. --Gmaxwell 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nail on the head. People if they see or perceive loopholes, will stumble through them (all of us, me, you) for whatever reason. For the really nasty stuff (like this), it never hurts and can't do any harm to put in a lone sentence or two specifying it out--that alone will help long term since it reinforces the idea that its wrong and bad. - Denny ^(talk) 06:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, I completely agree with Denny here. ElinorD (talk) 08:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I've edited Wikipedia:Harassment to make it clearer that posting the address of a website that publishes an editors' personal details is just another way of posting those details yourself.[6] ElinorD (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the current phrasing strikes me as being a bit ambiguous as to what exactly an "attack site" is -- it might not be clear to an outside reader what we mean by it. Would "linking to sites which attack or identify personal details of Wikipedia editors" (linked up as you please) be a more specific wording? Just my thought. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

That would address my concerns, expreseed above. DES ^(talk) 20:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps linking to this new essay at Wikipedia:Attack sites/WP:BADSITES could help? - Denny ^(talk) 20:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider that every single news source that ran an article about the Essjay controversy and used his real name would be considered an attack website under this proposal. Anyone proposing that we delete all references to CNN? ABC? The BBC? New York Times? Didn't think so. This is instruction creep with the potential to do more harm than good. Risker 09:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a site which publishes Essjay's real name would not be a problem (as long as it's not a site that publishes the real names of people who are still trying to be anonymous), because it has been acknowledged by Essjay himself, and because it's public knowledge. I quite agree that this proposal should not be worded in such a way as to consider BBC and New York Times attack sites. But if it is worded that way, we need to clarify the wording, not dump the whole proposal. ElinorD (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"implying how to find" attack sites is absurdly tangential (it's not even "stating how to find") and, even beyond possible innocent links to attack sites by a user, it is not unlikely that someone might innocently "imply how to find" something (what does it mean? if I say "Wikipedia:Protected titles lists some attack sites" is that supposed to be blockable according to you? It is a simply descriptive statement related to the administration of Wikipedia that anyone may say. —Centrx→talk • 18:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the wording so that it now reads Users who, without actually linking to these sites, post information on how to find them, may, in certain circumstances, also be blocked. I also put that bit in a new sentence, so that it wouldn't seem as if that was also part of the ArbCom ruling, and, while I kept the links to Wikipedia:Attack sites and to the MONGO arbcom case, I changed the order of the links. ElinorD (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Those "attack sites"

What this really seems to be about is Wikipedia Review, since it is this site which DennyColt has taken it upon himself to excise from Wikipedia. Well, on the principle that any such critical site which is subjected to such censorship is worth investigating, I checked it out. Frankly, it isn't worth the hysteria. But more to the point is that if people there try to "out" people here, it is part of a larger pattern of criticism of the administration here. And therefore there have been several references and outright quotations. And this raises problems, because DennyColt authorized himself to delete the links to these, without removing the quoted text. I've restored (and corrected) those, because they can be in no way characterized as the kind of stalking attacks discussed here, because essays are not guidelines, and because the deletions simply give critics ammunition.

The whole thing seems ill-advised. Those who exercise power under a cloak of anonymity have to expect attempts to strip away their veils. Actual attacks are one thing, but blanket ex post facto bans of sites which might be involved in such attacks simply ratifies their complaints about the opacity of wikipedia process. And the attempt to make WP:BADSITES into a guideline without going through any process at all is unacceptable. Mangoe 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

"Those who exercise power under a cloak of anonymity have to expect attempts to strip away their veils."

This completely goes against what we are, doesn't it, to even support or condone this? Would you be willing to disclose your real name, employer, and if you had one, your username at Wikipedia Review? - Denny ^(talk) 18:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, posters on the Wikipedia Review initially broke and further instigated the Essjay controversy. That patiently was a huge attack against Wikipedia and against one of our best editors here. I dare say, if it wasn't for the media response instigated by WR, specifically by Daniel Brandt, Essjay would probably still be sitting on ArbCom, with Jimbo's continued blessing. However, it seems to me that removing references to WR is rather beside the point of removing all references and articles associated with Brandt, who is the real threat, while WR is the vehicle by which he makes his activities known. I would say keeping links up to WR provides more WP editors with an "early warning" monitoring system for Brandt's stoking of developing controversies on WP. More awareness may lead to preventative or corrective action next time; outlawing references to the site "here" won't stop the investigations they undertake "there," further media controversies stoked by Brandt will hit the WP general editorship blindside, and actions like this will look like attempts at cover-up rather than attempts to deal with criticism/controversy pragmatically or honestly.--Academy Leader 19:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The outing is one part of the problem with WR. The other part is that they have published actionable libel, discussion about the sex lives of women editors, and copyright violations, not to mention the hundreds of insults, the deliberately hurtful photographs, and so on. Also, look at the tiny number of people who are actively involved. There can never be a legitimate reason to link to it, that I can see. I believe we do already have guidelines in place that say don't link to sites that contain libel or copyright violations. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We have Wikipedia:Copyrights, which is policy. "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry)."

WR publishes photographs of people without the permission of the copyright holders. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

So this is all really about Essjay again. It's amazing how much in the way of overwrought new policy is being in rolled forth in (over)reaction to an embarrassment which was an inevitable consequence of practice here.

SV, your reference to the copyright policy verges on misrepresentation. I have trouble imagining that you cannot tell the difference between a reference to a "work" carried on the website and that website as a whole. Maybe you have a point concerning a reference to a particular post that bore such a photograph, though I'd also expect some proof that the photograph was copied in violation (for after all, it's generally reasonable to assume that any image on that net that is not obviously proprietary to the website is in violation). In the real case that I dealt with, there's no such photograph, and no question at all that the material was created within that forum by the user who posted it. I can only hope you haven't read the material to which I refer, because your implications about it are incorrect.

I do not condone posting personal details about people, but I have to say that if you go out in public under an assumed name (and this counts), you will run the risk of having your true identity exposed. You can accept the risk or not, but it's going to be there. I wish I could be surprised at the lack of understanding of how counterproductive this vendetta against the WR people is. It looks petty, and there's nothing that attracts the media sharks like the opportunity to expose such pettiness. Mangoe 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that harassment of Wikipedia editors by external sites is something that we here cannot control. On the other hand, by linking to those sites, or in any way providing them publicity, we become complicit ourselves, and we in fact promote and encourage the harassment by feeding the trolls. ArbCom has already ruled on this, and it is patently obvious that editors should not in any way aid or abet this harassment. This is not 'petty' at all - it is common sense and common decency to our fellow editors. Crum375 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, you seem to have replied to my posts without reading them. I didn't mention Essjay, for example. Can you address the points about libel, discussion about the sex lives of women editors, the insults, the photographs published without permission? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Magoe, you wrote: ", but I have to say that if you go out in public under an assumed name (and this counts), you will run the risk of having your true identity exposed." That may be true, but Wikipedia should not link to these sites, unless that person is notable. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, did you go and look at all the references that were changed under this new "policy"? I did. I did not find lots of people saying, "over on [banned site], it says that Googlesmertz is really Natty Bumpo!" I'm not sure that I found any, in fact. Most were passing references or simple references to it as a critical site. Two cases were cites for which there was no possible justification for vandalizing the reference.

SV, the reasons you give are punitive. That's a bad position to put yourself- and I mean you personally- in. I haven't found the discussion of anyone's sexual habits yet. As for the photo, I have only your word about it. I think it's rather rude of Brandt to post a photo of you, accurate or not, for what that's worth. It wouldn't be unreasonable to remove links to that image, though I have to wonder how you'll prove it is copyrighted without confirming to everyone that it is of you. Be that as it may, this smells at present like a vendetta by a group of admins here against a site whose criticisms of WP specifically include the way administrators (and you in particular) behave. You're as much as admitting that, since you can't take the heat, you are the tyrant they accuse you of being.

You don't need a specific policy to cut out specifically libelous or abusive references, so if the reasons give applied to the specific cases it was invoked against, you wouldn't need the policy anyway. Mangoe 21:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Mangoe, I think you are simply missing the point. The WR site, as an example, attempts to out WP editors, e.g. by guessing at their real names, locations, etc. - you don't need to read a lot to discover that. In addition, it harasses them by speculating on their personal lives, that are unrelated to WP. All of this is disruptive to WP editing, and can potentially put editors at risk from stalkers. Any attempt to condone this behavior, or to help it in any way, e.g. by providing links to such attack or harassment sites, is obviously detrimental to the project and its contributors. Such activity is clearly blockable. Crum375 21:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a "punitive" reason is, and I'm not talking about the photograph they think is of me, but about all the photographs they've published. But as you seem to be parroting their line, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm about at the point of bowing out of this, seeing as how, in the cases I really care about, reason is prevailing over (proposed) policy. And it's apparent that my warnings against the folly of this are not sinking in. But I have to say that I simply don't see them as a real menace. Mostly what I see is, on their side, a varied group of those who have issues with the way Wikipedia is adminstered. It does not, in my judgement, constitute the malicious conspiracy that is being hinted at in all the allegations you have made. I don't agree with "them", but then, they don't agree with themselves. I'm sticking with the claim that simply having one's anonymity broken is the risk one takes for making onesself a public anonymous figure.

But as far as their thesis is concerned, it has some merit. Since it has already been established that specific links to specific "attacks" are verboten, without reference to additional policy, it is hard for me to understand this as anything but an attempt to censor out the other material, that which is not an "attack" except in the sense that it is criticism. And the whole episode surely has the potential to lead others to the same conclusion. That is why I think this is unwise, and why it comes across to me as a punitive act. You-- you personally-- give the appearance of trying to punish those who oppose your exercise of power. I am somewhat unconcerned with how justified their complaints are, and for that matter among themselves they express reservations as to the legitimacy of what some there claim. What I do notice is that this act is lending credence to their complaints, and at the same time leading the curious to check out what is so awful about the site. Tha tis why this is folly. But as I have given advice here more than once, and there is no sign that it will be heard, much less heeded, I shall most likely turn aside to more fruitful pursuits. Mangoe 14:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I concur with objections to the links based on existing US copyright law and WP policy. I agree that there is a lot of slander and innuendo in the WR forums, but it is a message board site and references to it, hotlinked or not, are already prohibited in article mainspace by existing attribution policy. The creation of a special policy, or modifications to existing policy, specifically against linking to "attack sites" I think creates a slippery slope so far as what the potential definition of what an "attack site" is. (Recalling, to my mind, the problems associated in defining what an " unlawful enemy combatant" is.) Any agent of a public figure notable enough to have some online media against them could use the policy to quell userspace discussion/debate of the appropriateness of these references for the article mainspace... it is a slippery slope but one that the creation of a blanket policy would seem to exacerbate rather than effectively prevent. --Academy Leader 02:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

(restoring indent) The problem you mention - agents of public figures abusing Wikipedia for their own gain - is a very real one, and is related to the problem of attack sites. One attack site was created by an employee of an Internet company, to push the agenda of his CEO and company. In addition to attacking Wikipedia editors and administrators, this corporate official created multiple sockpuppets to edit the Wikipedia article on his CEO, his company, and his CEO's critics. The New York Times said this CEO's attack site was part of a "campaign of menace," and Bloomberg news service called it a "creepy" p.r. strategy. It has also been extensively mentioned in blogs. In fact, an entire blog is devoted to researching and exposing this corporate smear campaign. Under existing policy, blogs of any kind are usually not usable as source material. So yes, I presume the agent of this CEO could use this policy to, as you put it, "quell userspace discussion/debate of the appropriateness of these references." However, since this subject has received attention in the major media, references to blog criticism, whether from "attack" blogs or otherwise, is not necessary.--Mantanmoreland 12:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it would seem to me that the issue of determining whether or not any of these links in userspace were posted maliciously would have to be a context-sensitive issue, depending on the nature of the site, the editor, the specific item referenced, etc. It would seem to me that links to specific items in "attack blogs" and such could be used to warn the subjects in question... links in WP userspace also let other people know a certain user is under attack. It would seem to me that if any of these links are used maliciously, to taunt the users under attack on other sites, that could go to support a block under WP:NPA... I still think a general policy covering (potentially) every instance of a link to a non-reliable source with "attack content," as opposed to copyright violations, is overdoing it. On WR, for instance, not all the content is malicious, (though a lot of it is) and some respected WP editors do post on particular threads there. I agree that these sites can never be used as reliable references, but in an era when blogs and such can break news, a blanket policy forbidding userspace references to them seems a bit draconian and needless, as it wouldn't solve the real problem of any information exchanged on these sites occasionally bearing fruit.--Academy Leader 21:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We have a general policy that precludes the use of blogs except in articles about the blogs themselves, or when the blog writer is a widely published and reputable individual. Attack, harassment and hate sites, in general do not fall into these exclusions, hence there is no reason to use them. If there is any useful information on them, then the mainstream media should pick that up, and then we could use the information, once properly vetted and sourced. Since we are an encyclopedia, there is no rush to get the latest speculations or innuendos from some blog, and certainly not at the cost of promoting the harassment of our editors. In general, linking or facilitating linking to such sites is harmful to the project, and anyone doing so can be blocked. Crum375 21:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Academy Leader, let's go to a real-life example I mentioned earlier. As I mentioned, the blogs are alive with material indicating that the CEO of an Internet company is engaged in all kind of impropriety. These are not attack blogs. They are just blogs. This stuff has been alluded to in the media but not reported on in any detail. Much of it involves vandalism of Wikipedia. Do you believe it would be appropriate to chat on the talk page of this CEO about all the dirt on him and his company in these blogs? Please draw on your long editing experience [7]and address this question. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 23:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Under a blanket policy, any matter of mentioning "I heard 'yada yada yada' on 'yada yada' site'" or any critical comment on some dubious content of such sites would be prohibited... Cases of links to actual slander on such sites I think would best be handled according to the discretion of any admin made aware of the situation. If the poster appears to be a proponent of the POV of the site, wants to get a blog or some other informal source listed as a citation in an article, and won't back down on the issue and disrupts WP to that end, then obviously a block is in order. But if it's a matter of someone asking "Hey, can anyone verify or collate 'some item of negative information' I read in an informal source 'here' elsewhere?" I don't think every such instance would potentially lead to WP being sued for slander. I don't think every instance of a link to negative material (as opposed to slanderous material) in a blog or other informal source in userspace is automatically worth blocking someone over, in my reserved opinion. Best, --Academy Leader 00:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you don't want to touch my real-world example. No problem. Your theoretical is disembodied from the real world of attack sites, as what they publish is not recipes for bread pudding but personal attack on editors. Rather than insert loopholes in a sensible policy, I think we can do without yada yada on whatever non-attacking content may exist on those sites. That doesn't mean one sends every transgressor to the gas chamber. But if, as happened just yesterday, someone links three times to attack sites after being warned, a block is warranted.--Mantanmoreland 02:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, could you provide a link? Without a link to a concrete instance, of course such conversation would remain hypothetical. This rather neatly illustrates my (entirely theoretical!) point that sometimes referential links are necessary to illustrate the points we make. Show me to the actual situation you are talking about and I'll comment on that, rather than offer more general comments on the "type of" situation you are "generally" describing.--Academy Leader 02:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

'Showing a link' in this situation is akin to demonstrating how jumping off a cliff is bad for you. If you just assume that a site contains malicious harassment, libel, attacks, etc. and fails our sourcing requirement, then there is no need to include it or discuss it, and if someone insists on posting a link, it would be blockable. If you disagree with this general rule and logic, you need to come up with a hypothetical scenario, where promoting an external attack and harassment site by posting its link on Wikipedia's pages provides benefits that clearly outweigh the harm to the affected targets. Crum375 03:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Nah, the scenario he was describing seemed to exist, in part anyway, on Wikipedia. Once I got a hold of the relevant WP page (subject) information I would have done a Google or Technorati search to find any offsite info on those terms... eliminating links on WP wouldn't hamper my ability to do that, but it would make the practice of finding any anecdotal information more inconvenient.--Academy Leader 04:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

By "link" I am not sure what you mean. A link to the attack site that was posted three times? Obviously not. A link to the CEO's page etc. wouldn't violate policy, but I see no point in naming the CEO and being bombarded with posts from his hirelings. I think I've described the situation with reasonable enough specificity. My point is that even when non-attack blogs are involved, the chitchat on blogs is of really no relevance unless they can be cited. If what they say is important enough to be picked up by citable sources, or by blogs that fit our criteria, it is another matter. The section of the blocking policy on attack blogs therefore deprives the project of absolutely nothing and is beneficial.--Mantanmoreland 14:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with "Judd Bagley," would it? I notice you claim to have been stalked by him in a userbox on your page. If this issue significantly has to do with WP, I don't see how providing the relevant page links or editing diffs on a WP page would be a problem. My counterpoint is that sometimes links to information posted in non-reliable sources may be necessary to make an accurate determination of any potential relevance the information may have for the encyclopedia, when properly collated by other reliable sources of course. A blanket policy entirely prohibiting informed discussion of these matters, due to any possibility of real or imagined "attack content" therein, seems to me "jumping of a cliff" in another direction. --Academy Leader 17:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you say what you mean by "sometimes links to information posted in non-reliable sources may be necessary to make an accurate determination of any potential relevance the information may have for the encyclopedia, when properly collated by other reliable sources of course"? I can't think of a single example or even work out what it means exactly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a user-produced, comment-driven meta-site like Slashdot, for instance, where the bulk of commentary may be germane to WP without being something we would reference on an article page. If we were to dig around this thread "Wikipedia and the Politics of Verification" [8], I bet we could find some examples of posts virulently condemning Wikipedia or Wikipedians, but many others with some worthwhile critical content that could be safely linked to and discussed in an appropriate user-forum on WP. While I am not advocating linking to actual, obvious instances of libel or slander, my concern is that entirely banning links to sites that may offer such content along with critical commentary of WP would frankly deprive the community here, and render WP a more isolated place from its various off-site detractors and critics. Such persons may be unruly and ill-mannered, but whatever concrete posts they may make could help serve some purpose here in keeping WP on the straight and narrow. Best,--Academy Leader 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about sites that might have a few derogatory comments on them along with a host of legitimate content. We're talking about attack sites: sites that are more or less (or entirely) dedicated to causing trouble for individuals, where there is no responsible person administering the site, no one you can write to to ask that material be removed (or if you do, you risk being ridiculed by them all over again), little or no concern about libel, little or no concern for people's privacy, little or no concern that they're engaged in, or aiding, stalking and harassment, and sometimes physical threats. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(restoring margin ) The purpose of article talk pages is to discuss the content of articles, not to be a stalking victims discussion forum. This policy serves that purpose by taking a zero tolerance toward trolls and stalkers. If you had ever edited an article, and not just posted on policy discussion pages[9], you might have an idea of what I am talking about.--Mantanmoreland 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I have used another account for editing articles before, I registered this one because I liked the connotation, but so far I've only used it to comment on policy matters and haven't been doing other editing on WP.

As a component of this discussion is the propriety of "outing" people, I think any victimization by identifiably "real" or anonymous persons, against any identifiably "real" or anonymous persons on WP, or elsewhere and reported on WP, is relevant. If you are not comfortable talking about circumstances pertaining to your own situation, fine. But I think forthright and complete disclosure of any concrete instances of harassment would be appropriate towards discussing the applications of policy in your or other cases. Best,--Academy Leader 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said before, I don't think it's appropriate to go into detail on specific instances of cyberstalking and trolling. There is a middle ground between feeding trolls with accounts of their exploits and providing hypotheticals that are totally disconnected from reality. If I assumed good faith in your posts, which I do not because of your use of an alternate screen name, I would be happy to send you details of the trolling via email. I provided you with a hypothetical based on a specific situation, and you wouldn't touch it with a ten foot poll. I think it is amusing that you talk about being "forthright" while you're not forthright enough to use your main user account. --Mantanmoreland 19:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

My prior account was Amerique (talk · contribs · email). I don't believe we've crossed paths before, but as someone who has been harassed by trolls (Amerigue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), Ameriquə (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)) I can tell you I didn't appreciate it one bit, and do appreciate the relative security anonymity provides. However, reporting on such instances can be a way of identifying whatever policy issues are involved, rather than prima facie violations of policy. Regards, Sir.--Academy Leader 21:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your transparency. No, we've never crossed paths as best I can recall. The trolling, vandalism and such to which I was/am subjected presents no special policy issues, as it was always clearcut. Though an attack site was involved, it was secondary to the serial vandalism. What I alluded to about the CEO etc. is just icing on the cake, and has been mentioned in blogs ad infinitum. I brought it up to illustrate my point that blog discussions, even those which denounce Wikipedia trolls, warrant airing in only exceptional circumstances.--Mantanmoreland 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This thread has been an interesting read in terms of honest disagreement, but I have to admit my eyebrows got hijacked when I read Crum375’s comment “If you just assume that a site contains malicious harassment, libel, attacks, etc. and fails our sourcing requirement, then there is no need to include it or discuss it, and if someone insists on posting a link, it would be blockable.” (emphasis added) I certainly hope it was not meant as broadly prescriptive as it reads, or else the heart of every dedicated, hardworking POV-peddler and troll will leap, and their dark and tulgey caves resound with cries of “O frabjous day! O frabjous joy!” Not that this isn’t already their manxome modus operandi, but to have their frumious practice enshrined in policy and the vorpal sword of discernment braken upon the rock of beamish common sense could naught but leave them chortling in uffish, ironic glee.

While empathizing with those bearing scars from having been troll-bebitten, I find myself more in agreement with Academy Leader’s observation, “I still think a general policy covering (potentially) every instance of a link to a non-reliable source with "attack content," as opposed to copyright violations, is overdoing it.” It should be evident to the most casual reader that Wikipedia holds itself to higher editorial standards than does Wikipedia Review – and that, therefore, WR is its own worst enemy. WR fails very much in the same ways it accuses Wikipedia of failing, and since it gives itself so much less room to fall, its “trollicksomeness” rather effectively ruins the credibility and worth of its occasional more accurate and relevant critiques. While Wikipedia strives to be like the New York Times (UK: The Times) and more often than we’d like doesn’t make it past the New York Post (UK: The Sun), they remain useful sources for reliable information (when handled with care), while very few expect to find it other than accidentally or incidentally in the National Enquirer (UK: The Daily Star), however “wickedly entertaining” the latter might be. (This editor’s opinions.) Askari Mark (Talk) 18:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

I think it's right to block editors who link to attacks on other editors, but DennyColt's essay is written a bit too broadly. We all know what sort of thing we mean, and I'd agree wholeheartedly that anyone linking to Wikipedia Review's many attacks on editors here should expect to be blocked swiftly for doing so (and I've expressed the view that we could and maybe should ban anyone who contributes to it). However, a website that links to Wikipedia Review could be described as "facilitating" or "encouraging" Wikipedia Review, and an overzealous admin could use the policy here to block someone for linking to that website. I think this needs some more thought anyway, because "attacking" someone is a very broad concept. I've "attacked" a few people here who thoroughly deserved it in my view, but I've never defamed anyone or made the sort of vicious remark that defaces Wikipedia Review. I'd also be concerned that we do not write very loose policy in this area that can be used to ban just about anyone who says anything about anybody offwiki or comments on someone's saying something. It can very easily be read as intending to have a chilling effect on criticisms of Wikipedia or its editors. I recognise that it can be very difficult to draw the line between a valid criticism of an editor and nasty shit, but making linking out to too wide an area of criticism is not a good idea in my view. Grace Note 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I also think that the idea that simply mentioning the name of a site, without a hot link, constitutes a "link" and is a form of "promotion" of a site is way over the top. When we discuss such a site for legitimate purposes, we must be able to say what we are talkign about. Even blogs are citeable as sources about themselves, so when we discuss WR or any other "attack site" per se, we must be able to name it, and indeed to provide enough info that editors who want to verify claims can do so. DES ^(talk) 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no 'legitimate' purpose that would justify providing a link to an attack or harassment site. If a site contains material that attacks, attempts to 'out', or otherwise targets and harasses Wikipedia editors, linking to it, either 'hot' or 'cold' (I fail to see a distinction) promotes that site and provides it a vehicle to spread its malicious content. Therefore the editor who posts the link is effectively aiding and abetting the the attacks and harassment, clearly a blockable offense. Crum375 00:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the links that I had to restore was a cite to an "if I were running Wikipedia" message on the Unspeakable Forum. So as to legitimacy of purpose, the evidence is already against you.

When the next NYT article comes along, giving a name to an administrator here, are you going to block it as an attack site? It would be stupid to do so, since they would most likely "retaliate" by reporting on such an attempt to shut them up. And of course, the NYT is very important to Wikipedia as a source, and it would not do, both in terms of credibility and in terms of sheer power, to fight them on those grounds. But since the Unspeakable Forum is supposedly so unimportant, censoring them out would be no loss-- but then, if they were so unimportant, censoring them out wouldn't be necessary.

That's why this is coming off as the Arbitration Cabal^TM trying to suppress dissent. I don't agree that exposure of identities over there constitutes "harassment" anyway, but as it stands it's happening as part of their larger thesis that administrators are taking advantage of their anonymity to abuse power here. It is therefore reasonable to expect that they are going to try to expose the identity of those who act here against them. I see no real injury happening here that isn't the result of taking actions as administrators (or in one case, apparently, as an administrator surrogate) that attract their attention as critics. If you are afraid of being revealed, then you shouldn't be doing anything anonymously that as a real person you would have to answer for.

I'm not going to argue this on the basis of what you are or are not empowered to do, except for the sneaky-looking end run of WP:BADSITES appearing as an essay and then immediately being used as if it were a guideline or policy. What I'm trying to get across is that this is folly: carrying it out is only going to improve their position at the expense of your own reputation. And I also think that you need thicker skins. Comments as to the badness or even apparent malice of your acts aren't harassment. Mangoe 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry i cannot agree with a statement this absolute and sweeping, and i do not think this has anythign like a policy consensus behind it. To link to a page is one thing. To mention a site by name is not the same thing. Many such mentions might well be attempts to promote the site, or to aid in the attacks. But if the site has an article, or is othewise beign discussed as a site, themn naming it cannot be considered promoting it to the extent of being a blockable offfense. The result must depend on the detailed circumstances, not on this kind of "black is black adn white is white and never th twain shall meet" rationale. DES ^(talk) 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, such sites are generally not acceptable as sources, so 'having an article' there would not be justify mentioning it, as we could not use it as a source. To 'otherwise discuss it as a site' would not make sense if it's not usable as a source. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in rumors and speculations about editors, or to otherwise help external sites bent on harming the project and/or its editors. Such behavior is clearly disruptive and must be stopped. Crum375 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, i must have been unclear. By having an article I meant when wikipedia has an article about the "attack site" or in which actions on the "attack site" are an essential part of the article (such as Essjay controversy). Such sites are celarly valid sources about themselves or about actiosn that took place on thsoe sites. By "otherwise being discussed as a site" I mean when actions that take place on the site are relvant to actiosn on wikipedia, not simply to an exchange of gossip. For example, when content posted to an attack site is relevant in an arbcom case, or an RFC. Or when an attack site raises a possibly valid criticism of wikipedia itself (as WR has done on occasion) the issue may not be able to be fruitfully discussed without at least mentioning the site where it was raised. There are other possible situations.

I have put a pointer to this debate on the pump, and i hope for more eyes here. DES ^(talk) 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of attack sites is redundant

Guys, we're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on particular sites and what sites are "bad" and what sites are "good", when the issue is one of behaviour and what an editor is doing.

We don't need a special paragraph for "attack sites". Making a personal attack that puts someone in danger is blockable behaviour. Posting personal details is blockable behaviour. Making persistent personal attacks is blockable behaviour. Just look at what someone is doing by linking to a particular site. Is it probable that they are doing it for one of those blockable reasons mentioned above (or any other of the blockable behaviours)? If so, then they get blocked.

Going into great detail about these things not only creates redundancy and inconsistency, it invites people to Wikilawyer and argue that what they did wasn't within the letter of the policy, distracting everyone from what is important, the purpose of the policy, which is to prevent people from engaging in certain types of behaviour. --bainer (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said about the arbcom decision that was the basis of the sentence or two we're discussing. Why not just toss that out too?--Mantanmoreland 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That was an application of policy to particular circumstances. I don't think we need to mention every ArbCom decision related to the blocking policy on this page. --bainer (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that posting information about a site that harasses, attacks or attempts to 'out' Wikipedia editors is tantamount to actually taking these actions, and is hence a blockable offense. However, it seems to me, based on comments I have read here and elsewhere, that some people mistakenly think that merely providing a link (hot or cold) to an attack site is somehow acceptable. I believe the policy must make it abundantly clear, as did ArbCom in its ruling, that posting a link to an attack site is in fact promoting that site and its attacks, and is therefore considered an attack by itself. Crum375 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that posting personal details and making persistent personal attacks is blockable behaviour. Some are arguing that merely mentioning the name of a site that has been deemed an "attack site" is blockable, or at least that the name can be deleted and that reinserting it is blockable. We should not have an index expurgatorius on wikipedia, not an "Attourny General's list" os suspect organizations. We are suppsoed to be about the sum of knowledge, adn i find the idea that even mentioning the name of a site is forbidden to be so completely agaisnt that core principle that I can in no way accept it. DES ^(talk) 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In the 'sum of knowledge' we specifically exclude purported personal details, attacks and harassment. Crum375 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

And to be clear, i am not arguing for posting any of that, nor even for links calculated to publicize any of that on other sites, nor for links or mentions whose only plausible purpose is to publicize such info. But the mere mention of the name of a site which includes such content should not be off limits when and only when there is a legitimate reason to mention it. For example, in the Essjay controversy one of these "attack sites" and its operator had a significant role in the notable events. In other cases, participation in an attack site has been cited as evidence of lack of good faith or of bias in wikipedia editing. In other cases, there have been actual articles on WP about sites which are, at least arguably, "attack sites". In these and similar cases, it may be needed or at least proper to conduct discussions on wikipedia in which such sites will be referred to. i don't think that really constitutes a "cold link", but if it does, in such cases, any policy against linking should be trumped by other considerations. I am willing to concede that any reference to such a site should be treated with suspicion, but not that it should be barred without question, regardless of the circumstances. That is what has been proposed, at least by some, as the effect of this policy. The policy needs to be limited so that it takes the relevant circumstances into account. That is all that I am saying. I am not proposing a freeforall for libelers and harassers. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that common sense is always important when deciding on blocks. Crum375 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Crum375, my point was that any behaviour that amounts to making a personal attack that puts someone in danger, making personal details available or making persistent personal attacks is blockable behaviour. Why should we invite wikilawyering by identifying particular instances of such behaviour? The current version already constricts the definition of "attack sites" to sites which publish personal info. What about sites which make personal attacks that put someone in danger? Obviously that's intended but the wording unnecessarily complicates the point.

The issue at play is that we want to make clear that linking to external sites can attract a block if it amounts to blockable behaviour. Surely this is the case for other blocking reasons and not just this one (eg, linking to an external site that makes legal threats on a Wikipedia user). Wouldn't it be a better approach to have a section making clear that, in this policy, linking to something may constitute blockable behaviour just as much as putting that something on wiki? --bainer (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Re your comment, about "sites which make personal attacks that put someone in danger." (by which I assume you mean, other than the ones addressed by this policy) Wouldn't that result in blocking of legitimate websites? Let's say the New York Times or Wall Street Journal publishes an editorial attacking Wikipedia editors. No way that could be ignored in, say the Criticism of Wikipedia article. The aim of this policy is to prohibit linking to a tiny number of sites that are clearly defined. The aim is limited. What you're suggesting seems much broader and would seem to be more troublesome from the standpoint of the criticism that has been raised. --Mantanmoreland 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that the policy focuses (and ought to focus) on behaviours which are not acceptable (eg, making personal attacks, or performing vandalism) and not particular actions, which may or may not constitute an unacceptable behaviour depending on the circumstances. As in, we don't say that you can be blocked for doing X, we say that you can be blocked for doing X in order to achieve Y, or for the purpose of Y, and so on. The recent addition about linking attack sites is an attempt to prohibit actions, and not behaviours.

I quite simply have two points to make:

1. The paragraph about linking to certain sites is redundant, since we already prohibit all of the behaviours which are unacceptable instances of the action (linking to make personal attacks, to publish personal information, etc), and thus we already implicitly permit all of the behaviours that are acceptable (eg. using sites as an article reference, like you mention);
2. By explicitly identifying the action (linking to external sites) and tying it only to one particular behaviour (publishing personal information) the recent addition unnecessarily limits the operation of the policy. What I suggested above is that linking to an external site that contains a legal threat against a Wikipedia user, for example, is surely blockable behaviour just as posting the legal threat on-wiki is. We shouldn't be tying actions to particular behaviours; if we want to mention external linking in the policy, it should be mentioned as a type of action which can constitute any of the unacceptable behaviours in the right circumstances.

Is this clear now? --bainer (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES

I've removed the line that was edited to make it reflect WP:BADSITES - someone else can put back whatever was there before this tendentious editing began. Regardless of what one thinks of the proposal itself, editing live policy pages to gain an edge in passing a new policy is, well... just not cool. --Random832 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This addition in the "Personal attacks that place users in danger" subsection lacks consensus. 4.250.168.230 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is done, I request that the section regarding off-wikipedia activities in WP:NPA is in sync with what is written here. Andries 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warrings

I've protected the page due to edit warring. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be a good idea for people to step back a little from this. I can't work out what's going on, but we suddenly have forest fires about attack sites breaking out everywhere, with an RfAr, a request for clarification, an RfC suggested, people posting links provocatively, insulting each other, a policy proposal, and now a policy protected. Perhaps we should just carry on doing what we were doing before, which was basically just using common sense. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with that. Common sense and prior policy adequately covers what these changes were trying to proscribe.--Academy Leader 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This may help to answer some questions. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for Conflict of interest-only accounts

→ See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive84#Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts? it has been proposed that accounts that appear to exist for the sole purpose of promoting some person or company be indef-blocked after a single warning. I think this is a policy change, but I support such a change. Note Brad Patrick's statement on the increase in corporate promotional spam [10]. I therefore propose the following addition to the blocking policy:

• Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any admin may block the account indefinitely.

I hope that this proposal gains consensus promptly. DES ^(talk) 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, we need this. We can hardly keep up with Conflict of interest/Noticeboard because many of these single-purpose-COI accounts will fight endlessly to protect their spam articles. If we can nuke them in fewer steps, that may turn the tide. Jehochman (^talk/_contrib) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• This has my strong support, obviously, since I'm the editor who opened the WP:AN thread. My reasons are posted there. Durova^Charge! 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• It would seem that such accounts are fundamentally incompatibly with our mission of building an encyclopedia. We already nuke COI-only articles, with good reason. My only quibble is that the wording is too legalistic. >Radiant< 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've been involved (on a local level) with drafting actual ordinances; I perhaps tend to write that way when drafting policies or rules. If you want to suggest improved wording, feel free. DES ^(talk) 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with the above, and would add or service to the list. Obviously someone can then say 'what about the promotion of an idea' (e.g. political, religious) - I personally would support even that, but I suspect there may be more resistance there. Crum375 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with "service". i think 'Idea" or "memme" is already covered under our methods for dealing with POV pushing and Neutral point of view violations. DES ^(talk) 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have revised the wording above to include "service". DES ^(talk) 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
• Hell yes. We seriously need to crack down on vanispamcruftisers. As for the religious services, yes - I have seen church vanity before (like this). It'll also give us a way to nuke "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" only accounts. MER-C 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong, strong support. To quote BradPatrick: "This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy." — Athænara ✉ 06:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Kill the spammers. We've need stronger measures against vanity/promotion for a while now. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have strong reservations about having "a person" on the list, as the subject of an article has certain privileges under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well as certain legal rights. As for companies, products, and services, could we add the words "for profit", so as to only include situations where the conflict of interest is most likely monetary in nature, and exclude things that are most likely neutral point of view disputes. "For profit" applying to the companies, products, and services, not the editors, as even if we are going to block them we should still give them the benefit of the doubt. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC), 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have seen single purpose accounts devoted to creating promotional pages for non-profit or charitable groups. I don't see why they should be treated any differently. they can often be particularly tenacious. Note that even if a person is blocked that person can still object to content on a page about him or her via email -- there is at least one notorious case in point on wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• Yep, this is an improvement. Regarding legitimate concerns raised by Armedblowfish, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons still applies including "reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do", also from Wikipedia:Blocking policy "established users with significant constructive edits should not be indefinitely blocked except when there is a community ban" remains policy. However, spammers that aren't removing libel and haven't made constructive edits can now be indefinitely blocked. Addhoc 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• I support this proposal and think any clarification or strengthening of the ability to block spammers is good. That said, I would be more comfortable if there were some sort of quantifiable aspect to the proposal, perhaps something analogous to Three revert rule. As it now stands, I could see someone spamming once, being warned, spamming a second time, and being permanently blocked for two edits. This seems a bit extreme - for comparison, 3RR requires 4 edits and a warning for what is typically an initial 24 hour block. Wikipedia has a fairly steep learning curve and I think that needs to be taken into account. Perhaps at least two spam edits and a warning, followed by more spam for a permanent block (and no or very few other constructive edits). If I am reading this wrong, please forgive my misunderstanding. Ruhrfisch 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
• This proposal is a good idea, I fully support it, Wikipedia has nothing to gain from such accounts. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal is overly broad

I'm quite uncomfortable with the proposal as described; it is overly broad, goes beyond that which it attempts to address and has the potential to be interpreted in all sorts of ways that are not necessarily intended by the editors supporting it here.

Everyone agrees that spamming is inappropriate. Why not simply explicitly identify spamming (which by now has a pretty good broadly accepted definition) as one of the disruptive behaviours which are blockable? I certainly share Brad's point of view that corporate promotion and astroturfing are a significant concern. My concern is that an addition phrased like this will be used for unintended purposes, by unscrupulous editors as a weapon in edit wars or as a method for biting newbies, or by well-meaning literalists.

I fully support any changes which are addressed at stamping out particular unacceptable behaviours (such as spamming), but I cannot support changes which are based on systems of labelling editors as good or bad because they are much more likely to be abused. --bainer (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an indication of how this could be rephrased - for example possibly specifying the admin should be uninvolved. Also, in your opinion, should the statement also remind the reader of WP:BLP and WP:BITE policies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

My concern is not necessarily with admins, I would be more worried about editors in general engaged in content disputes using this kind of thing to intimidate each other. I think problems like this arise any time that something tries to label people as "bad" as opposed to their behaviour. Quite simply, we could add "adding spam links" to the examples of what constitutes disruption, to emphasise that this is already unacceptable behaviour. The task would be to more precisely identify which behaviours we are talking about here which are unacceptable; clearly spamming is one, but there are others which we would need to develop some sort of definition of. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what bainer is saying. Perhaps we could just say, "Users who do nothing but continually spam articles which clearly do not have defamatory problems may be warned and, if the spamming persists, blocked indefinitely. It is better form for someone not involved in the dispute to do the warning, in case there are defamatory problems that the editor involved is unaware of." — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Before offering or lining up behind an alternate version that would gut the proposal, I very strongly recommend a week at WP:COIN or WP:SSP to get firsthand experience about how serious this problem really is. This goes far beyond mere spam. Durova^Charge! 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, I fully accept that you have cleared backlogs at WP:COIN + WP:SSP and many others (including me) haven't. Also, I appreciate that in Wikipedia "spam" usually refers to adding links, instead of creating articles. Personally, I am supporting the proposal on the basis of trusting the editors involved and hoping the wording is going to be clarified in due course. However, in my humble opinion, bainer is representing entirely reasonable concerns.

Also, the current proposal appears to be a stand alone paragraph and I'm not sure how it would be included. The blocking policy is structured with a list of disruption types that at minimum would just include conflict of interest and guide to blocking times that would presumably be along the lines of "Conflict of interest — Blocks should generally not be used against isolated incidents in relation to conflicts of interest. Dynamic IPs: up to 31 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 31 at most, to avoid collateral damage. User accounts with persistent violations may be blocked indefinitely." Addhoc 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I would insert it as a separate sub-section under "disruptition" parallel to and just after the "1.2.1 Biographies of living persons" section. This would become 1.2.2 DES ^(talk) 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned spam because it's an obvious, well-defined and clearly unacceptable behaviour which is part of many COI violations. There are many other behaviours which are part of this and naturally they should all be identified and mentioned in the policy to remind people that they are unacceptable. But no amount of time at WP:COIN will convince me that a policy that is based on labelling people as bad, as opposed to their behaviours, is a good idea. --bainer (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This policy would say that people who engage in aprticualr behavior are to be blocked. We all ready do that with persistant vanfals, with abusive sockpuppeters, with block evaders, and various other categories. This is no different, IMO. DES ^(talk) 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Durova, policies intended for dealing with editors more concerned with things like having fun causing trouble or promoting something for-profit, rather than improving the encyclopaedia, often end up being used in content disputes, where everyone is interested in improving the encyclopaedia, even if they have radically different ideas on how to go about it. In short, WP:COIN is not the only places where conflict of interest and suspected sockpuppet concerns come up. Having editors with partisan or religious interests in an article is a normal part of content disputes, and our Neutral Point of View policy is designed such that people with such interests, on opposing sides of a debate, should theoretically be able to work together towards something they can all agree on. In such a situation, a accusations of conflicts of interest are likely to make it harder for the editors to work together, and blocks could result in unbalance in the dispute.

Besides, given that we should comment on content/contributions, not editors/intent, it is better to focus on negative promotional (promotional being distinct from biased) edits themselves, rather than an editors purposes for making them.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

At the administrators' noticeboard where I first proposed this, I offered two specific examples of accounts that deserved to be indef blocked on sight. In my opinion the current language of this policy is sufficient for that purpose. Would the editors who oppose the proposed language change support the interpretation that would allow me to take action against these single purpose abusive accounts? Durova^Charge! 03:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Links? It would help if I could see the situations you are referring to. Hey, if the Conflict of Interest rule doesn't apply, and they are being highly disruptive, you can just block them for that. So it wouldn't be so terrible if the rule were a bit loose.

But it is still important that effort be made that a Conflict of Interest blocking rule does not apply in things which are really just neutral point of view disputes. Accusations conflicts of interests can make such disputes hard to resolve - blocks can make them impossible. Neutrality requires people from all sides of the dispute - if one side of the dispute is blocked for a conflict of interest, neutrality cannot be attained. Hence, making the rule too tight could have a serious impact on controversial articles.

— Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Implement change to allow COI blocks?

Mosat of the editors comemtnign here seem to support this, although not all do. Do we haev a rough consensus to implement the above proposed wording? How about a slightly more gradual version, such as:

• Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocekd indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute shall not be considered as a reason for such blocks.

Is there consensus for the above? DES ^(talk) 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Support - do you want to add WP:SPAM as well as WP:COI? (support either way) Ruhrfisch 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have no objection to adding "or the anti-spam guideline" if people wish, but policy already covers blocks for spammers, I thought. DES ^(talk) 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is a most needed addition, I look forward to it being enforceable. I support this very good idea as it is worded above. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• This has been discussed for a full week here, and before that on ANI and elsewhere. I see at least 10 editors who have posted in support of this here, and only two who seem to oopose. I also find the arguments agaisnt (that it might be misued in a content war, and that it labels editors rather than edits) to be unpersuasive. I am going to add the wording above. If people think this needs further discussion, say so, and feel free to revert the change on the policy page if you feel that there is not consensus for this, and we'll discuss further. DES ^(talk) 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the words "in apparent violation of Conflict of interest". This encourages assumption of bad faith. Please change to "whether or not in violation of Conflict of interest" or don't mention COI at all. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I respectfully disagree, AGF says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", so one would not have to assume bad faith. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Are we saying that advertising is evidence that a person has a conflict of interest? I can think of other explanations... besides, we don't need to assume that they have a conflict of interest. Just block them for the advertising part and don't speculate on why they were advertising. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Strong support either to the proposed language or to my proposed interpretation of the existing language. It's counterproductive to treat COI-only accounts the same as every other new account, when so many of them clearly exist for no other purpose than self-promotion. Too few editors track this kind of abuse to halt it. It only encourages exploitation to slow the productivity of the diligent Wikipedians who work toward keeping the site honest. Strongly recommend the opposing voices obtain firsthand experience to see how blatant and serious the actual problem is. Durova^Charge! 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think this is far too prescriptive. Where did these "shalls" come from? If someone is engaging in inappropriate editing, talk to him, warn him and give him a disruption block if he persists. There is no need to put another bloody silly clause into the policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Policy pages should be, to some extent, prescriptive. That is the difference between a policy and a custom. But if you don't like the wording, propose a better one. This proposal arouse because such accounts have been problems, but noting in the blocking policy clearly permits blocks in such situations. IMO simply giving a 'disruption" block for anything that an admin feels is not productive is a poor idea. DES ^(talk) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • My proposed alternative wording is "". We don't need this silly thing. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• No objection - given the conflict of interest policy allows for blocking, making the (necessary?) addition to the disruption section in the blocking policy didn't require any discussion. The wording being offered is legalistic and, per Tony, overly prescriptive. However, if the wording is added, in due course, hopefully we can rephrase. Addhoc 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The wording has already been added, as was mentioned above (unless it has since been reverted, i didn't check). But it can always be removed or rephrased given a consensus. DES ^(talk) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• Supported in the AN discussion, and I support it now. Spammers aren't here to make constructive contributions, and they're never intending to. They don't see "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", they see "The free advertisement that you can write yourself!". As to the above concerns with "for-profit", actually, the corporate spammers often give up as soon as they're caught. (Though not always.) It's the ones that will start in with "But it's for a good cause!" "But how can this be an ad? I'm writing it about an open-source program!" and the like, that are often the most tendentious. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Look. does anybody agree with me that this silly 'bold thing has gotten quite ridiculous? It isn't the fact that you think something that is important, or the strength with which you feel it. To reach consensus we have to discuss stuff, but summarising your opinion in a single bolded word or phrase actually signals "I've made my mind up, don't try to discuss this with me, let's just line up and vote." Which is about as sure a way of killing consensus as can be imagined. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revised draft

Based on the concerns raised above, and some of my own, I propose the following narrower draft:

Accounts that are used for the sole or primary purpose of repeatedly advertising, promoting, or spamming for a particular company, product, service, or individual in violation of the Conflict of Interest policy may be blocked where necessary. Except in truly extreme cases, such accounts should first be warned that the edits are viewed as problematic and the user requested to consult Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest before continuing to edit. Where blatant violations of the policy continue after such warning, a block may be imposed (generally not more than one week for the first such block, except in extreme circumstances). Where a block or warning is evaded through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, the subsequent accounts should be blocked without further warnings.

Please note that blocking for conflict of interest accounts is reserved for serious situations such as those involving spamming or self-promotion on multiple articles. Such blocks should not be routinely invoked simply because an individual is editing in good faith an article about himself or herself or a company with which the individual is affiliated, even though such edits might better be avoided. They especially should not be invoked, except as a last resort, in situations where an individual is attempting in good faith to bring an article into compliance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In such cases, the editor should be advised of the appropriate means for addressing contested BLP matters.

Comments invited. Newyorkbrad 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yep, much better. Addhoc 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Second paragraph is good, but first paragraph is in one way worse than the other version. Advertising, promoting, and spamming can happen even when a user does not have a conflict of interest. Delete the first "in violation of the Conflict of Interest policy". And before requesting that they consult the COI policy, try asking them why they are advertising - there could be another reason. If it's not confirmed COI, try pointing them to an advertising policy, or, if there is none, WP:NPOV or WP:EL. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:SPAM is the advertising policy, plus the "blatent ad" section of WP:CSD. DES ^(talk) 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• I would request that "in violation of the" be returened to "in apperent violation of the", because except in the rare case where an editor explicitly states that s/he is an owner, employee, or the like, it requires mind-reading across the net to prove a violation of COI. Thare was a suggestion above that "or in violation of WP:SPAM" be added. IIRC no one objected to this, but not enough people commetned on it at all to IMO establish consensus. Should that be added too? DES ^(talk) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, I didn't say, except for the "apparent violation" issue, i am fine with this revised draft. DES ^(talk) 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • "Apparent violation" is better than "in violation", but it still asks the admin to make an assumption about the user's intent. "Whether or not in violation" would be better. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • "in violation of WP:SPAM" would be even better, to completely avoid guessing at the user's motivation. Thanks for the link, DES. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • Part of the argumetn here is that some promotional COI edits are, taken on there own, borderline as to whether they are spam or not. so how abiut we cite both. see below. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
• proposed further revised draft:

Accounts that are used for the sole or primary purpose of repeatedly advertising, promoting, or spamming for a particular company, product, service, or individual in apparent violation of the Conflict of Interest policy, or the anti-spam guideline may be blocked where necessary. Except in truly extreme cases, such accounts should first be warned that the edits are viewed as problematic and the user requested to consult Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest or Wikipedia:Spam before continuing to edit. Where blatant violations of this policy continue after such warning, a block may be imposed (generally not more than one week for the first such block, except in extreme circumstances). Where a block or warning is evaded through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, the subsequent accounts should be blocked without further warnings. If blatent violations resume after the block has expired, a longer block may be imposed.

Please note that blocking for conflict of interest accounts is reserved for serious situations such as those involving spamming or self-promotion on multiple articles. Such blocks should not be routinely invoked simply because an individual is editing in good faith a single article about himself or herself or a company with which the individual is affiliated, even though such edits might better be avoided. They especially should not be invoked, except as a last resort, in situations where an individual is attempting in good faith to bring an article into compliance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In such cases, the editor should be advised of the appropriate means for addressing contested BLP matters.

Comments invited. DES ^(talk) 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay. However, in the long run, I would prefer to expand WP:SPAM such that WP:COI is nothing but advice for people with conflicts of interests. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Again I suggest that we don't need this silly bloody thing. If someone is editing disruptively, they can be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd also prefer to keep it simple and have COI blocks subsumed under blocks for disruptive editing. COI isn't in itself a reason to block; it's only if it becomes disruptive that it is, in which case it's the disruption provision that kicks in. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. The question is whether it's useful to pin down "disruptive" a bit more with regard to this particular type of editing. Not sure either way. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Very strong oppose. This is a wordy and legalistic way of reinforcing exactly the dilemma that the undermanned WP:COIN and WP:SSP volunteers have been striving to overcome. When a user edits for nine months toward no other purpose than personal self-promotion, then declares an intention to violate WP:MEAT, the account deserves to be nuked. When another user edits toward no other purpose than astroturfing this institution of higher learning whose only independent source identified it as a one room campus, the account deserves to be nuked. Anyone who supports this proposed language should consider himself or herself ethically obligated to follow through at those boards after the weeklong blocks on those accounts expire. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please listen to Durova. Though I've *not* been following this debate closely, I'm one of the undermanned volunteers at WP:COIN. I'd appreciate any change in the blocking policy that would give more effective turnaround on reasonable block requests for persistent COI violators. A thing that makes conflict of interest rules uncomfortable for us to enforce is that COI is 'ad hominem' by its very nature. That goes against our usual preference of judging the edit, rather than the editor. If you don't want to make *any* ad hominem judgments, then abolish WP:COI. EdJohnston 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Durova on this matter. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, I initally supported stronger wording. It was clear that wasn't going to get consensus. The above is stronger than what we have now, and is at least a step in the right direction. The alternative at the moment seems to be no change at all. 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that it says "Where a block or warning is evaded through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, the subsequent accounts should be blocked without further warnings", this means that in your example, the account can be nuked. DES ^(talk) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No one has responded to my renewal of my original proposal, which is that the community endorse an interpretation of current policy language so that sysops may handle severe types of single-purpose accounts as sophisticated vandalism and indef block pretty much on sight (after a single warning). When a user makes no significant contributions to this website other than to violate WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:SOCK, that user simply has no business being here. The effect of entrenching the current proposed language in policy would be significantly worse than no action at all because it would codify a futile solution and empower the abusers to wikilawyer against the small group of volunteers who strive to protect this site against that exploitation. Durova^Charge! 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Applying a block too late...?

Re here, I'm wondering if the indefinite block on this account was applied too late. Of the two accounts mentioned in the thread, the user only wishes to retain the one that is currently blocked indefinitely. Any thoughts...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

{{editprotected}}

I think Category:Wikipedians who required user interventions should be replaced or supplemented with Category:Wikipedia blocking – Gurch 10:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done John Reaves (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Undoing another admins block

It currently says "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended."

I suggest we change it to "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment, or you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin, a discussion on WP:AN/I is recommended." which seems more in line with our actual practice.

Other wise Admin A can do a block, Admin B can say "I think your wrong", Admin A can respond says "But I am not wrong, and here are my reasons..." then Admin B can unblock with the knowledge that he discussed it with the blocking admin. Admin A is now at a loss due to fear of wheel warring. Thoughts? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Oh. Well, yeah. In general if the two can't reach agreement, it requires broader discussion. In some rare cases B may simply overturn A's block even if A doesn't agree, but at the very least A should be notified (who can then take it to broader discussion anyway). >Radiant< 13:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that a difference of opinion alone did not justify reverting another admin, and that some sort of consensus was need with the blocking admin or the larger community. Am I wrong in that? Do I really just have to tell the admin, then undo the action? I would rather get consensus first, and I would rather others do the same. Not sure which way it really is/should be though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, in general it does not. There are a few exceptions, where it may be better to leave the user in question unblocked until there is consensus to block him, the most obvious one being an admin blocking a user he was in conflict with. Then again, this is tricky business; I can think of at least three users who have a long-standing pattern to ask around until they convince some outside admin to unblock them (generally by wikilawyering or by calling the blocking admin biased) which had the result of them being effectively unblockable and encouraged further disruption on their part. >Radiant< 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• That is one of the problems I am hoping to address(the whole "ask the other parent" trick). But also I hope this could avoid the type of editing between admins that we don't like to see in regular editors(the type where disagreements are settled by reverting, not reaching consensus). If an involved admin gave the block, and does not agree to the unblock, then it really should got to ANI anyways. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with the last sentence there: admins should be strongly discouraged from unblocking if the blocking admin doesn't agree. They should also be encouraged to post their own blocks to ANI if they are likely to be disputed. I notice lately that some people (mostly nonadmins) are starting to think that posting to ANI is in itself some sort of disciplinary action, which it isn't. CMummert · talk 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This change is a good idea. Another sysop recently reversed one of my blocks without attempting to communicate with me even though I had already submitted my actions for community review at one of the administrative noticeboards. When I discovered what had happened and sent a polite follow up query via e-mail I received a stunningly rude answer. When I replied with a courteous presentation of evidence the other sysop failed to respond at all. Shortly afterward the same sysop insulted another editor in good standing who had taken an interest in the case. I'd prefer not to disclose more specifics at this time since I hope that was an isolated lapse of judgement. Whether or not my block was correct, that isn't the way to resolve a difference of opinion. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't bad, although in practice I've tended to find WP:AN to be more use for block review. --Tony Sidaway 22:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed it to "If the blocking admin is unavailable for comment, or you cannot come to an agreement with the blocking admin, a discussion on WP:AN/I or WP:AN is recommended." Please discuss if you disagree. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Series of copy edits

I've just completed a series of copy edits intended to remove jargon and clarify references to shortcuts. Even if (unfortunately) our discussions are sometimes peppered with jargon, it's best if our written policies are written for clarity. --Tony Sidaway 14:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of templates, and communication with users

Undoubtedly templates are useful for large-scale block warnings such as those for dealing with vandalism. However I think the current wording, even though it deprecates use of warning templates, isn't strong enough. Failure of communication prior to (as well as after) blocking is a frequent cause of administrator error leading to sanctions from the Arbitration Committee, so this is pretty important.

The current wording says:

A variety of templates exist to warn users of undesirable behavior that may lead to a block. Their purpose is in part to notify novice users they may be breaking a policy they are unfamiliar with. These templates exist solely as a convenience to editors who repeatedly make similar warnings. The templates do not form a mandatory part of blocking process, and to long-term users, custom-written warnings are more appropriate than the premade warnings.

I suggest a stronger wording such as:

A variety of templates exist to warn users of undesirable behavior that may lead to a block. Their primary purpose is to aid busy administrators who may have to deal with several simultaneous instances of blockable behavior. However they should not be used where normal human communication is practicable. Except where the action is seriously disruptive, communicating with a user in the first instance should normally aim to dissuade rather than threaten or warn, and administrators should use their own words in preference to a warning template. This is important both in communication with apparently genuine new users (Do not bite the newcomers) and with established, highly valued editors. Avoid use of jargon in all communications as an administrator.

This would be a fairly important change, but I think it's necessary. Giving a warning template or saying something like "You will be blocked for 3RR if you continue" is unfriendly and masks important communication in unnecessary, hostile jargon. --Tony Sidaway 14:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've just rewritten this page. The rewrite hopefully achieves a number of things:

1. reduces the wordiness of the prior version (including much repetition)
2. consolidates related parts together (eg, everything about unblocking is now in an "unblocking" section)
3. separates the policy stuff from the "how-to" stuff (which is now at m:Help:Block and unblock; local copy)
4. expresses some of the ideas around blocking that maybe haven't been included in the policy before, or maybe have been lost in recent versions (eg, the "education and warnings" section, or the "reasons and notification" section)

Discuss. --bainer (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That looks good; I made a few other tweaks. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:59:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You also removed the section on blocks for advertising completely, and while there was still debate on the form of this, I think there was consensus on some form of it being in the policy. I think this was a very large edit to a policy page to be done without discussion in advance. DES ^(talk) 13:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Significant changes made in the rewite

The following changes were made in teh course of the massive rewrite, which i think are undesaireable, adn should be discussed or simply undone.

1. The following very important paragraph under the headign Disruption disappeared. I think it should be reinserted.

   Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.

2. The following cautionary paragaph disappeared. While i would edit it to say The community rather than The Arbitration Committee (to reflect the actual source of policy) I think some version of this should be retained, until there is a wide consensus on this issue, which there currently is not.

   The Arbitration Committee has not reached a conclusive and binding decision pertaining to the addition of links to or material derived from sites that engage in attacks and harassment against Wikipedia users, as documented by two different cases here and here.

3. The following cautionary paragraph disapared, and i feel that its contetn is valuable and shpuld be retained:

   Users who aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies may be blocked if there is a consensus among uninvolved users that it is necessary. Such persons should be dealt with kindly and patiently, but should be prevented from wreaking havoc over the period of weeks or months it would take to process an obvious Arbitration request. Remember to note the case on WP:ANI. Be kind.

4. The following paragraph on advertising disappeared compeltely. While discusion on the presise wordign ans scope of this provision was still ongoing, I fell that some form of it should clearly have been retained.

   Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocked indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute shall not be considered as a reason for such blocks.

• I feel that these, and posisbly other changes made in the rewrite, should be discussed and the content cited above should be restored to the policy page, unless the consensus is to remove it. DES ^(talk) 14:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This often happens during a rewrite. I suggest you just be bold and reinsert them, they already have community acceptance, and there is no indication their removal was anything but a mistake. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to ac\void accusations of edit warring on a policy page, considerign the recent fuss of WP:ATTACK and related issues. But since you sugest it, i will do so. If any one thinks my edits are improper, the matter can be discussed here. DES ^(talk) 14:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was not aware of any of those confounding issues. Regardless, be bold. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have missed what I was trying to do with the rewrite. One of the big things I was doing was separating the technical "how-to" stuff into a help page (m:Help:Block and unblock) and the policy "how-to" stuff into its own section ("Implementing blocks"), leaving the accepted reasons for blocking succinctly mentioned on their own. You've reintroduced one paragraph which mixes all of this stuff up together and is in the wrong place conceptually anyway. To address each of the things you identify separately:

1. This is verbose and not particularly necessary. It's much better dealt with by positively defining what disruption is and then listing the most obvious types of disruption.
2. I don't think anything should be said about "attack sites" at all. The policy already deals with personal attacks, placing users in danger, disclosing personal information and so on.
3. This paragraph is extremely poorly worded. Which policies does it refer to, for starters. And what is an "aggressive" violation of policy? Presumably this is attempting to address people who can't stick to content policy, but there must be a better way of expressing that than this.
4. The removal of this paragraph was intentional, because it was added recently without consensus. Spamming is already in the list of well-accepted examples of disruptive behaviour. But it is in no way prohibited to edit when you have a conflict of interest, though editing disruptively is and that is already covered.

--bainer (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that paragraph was added after extensive discussion in several locations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If people want to discuss specific rewording or repalcement of the content above, or even if there is a consensus to remove any of it, fine, so be it. i don't think the goals of your rewrite justified the incidential losses. Ohers may disagree. Taht is why i think with an extensive rewrite it eould have ben beter to create a /draft sub-page, put the rewrite there, and move it when consensus was achieved. But since that wasn't your prefered course, here we are. Specifically:

1. I disagree. People have so often requested, an indeed imnposed, blocks over contet and policy disputes, we need to keep in a strong statment that such blocks are not appropriate. partixularly since the list of blocking reasons says that it is not comnprehensive. If you want the specific wording changed for greater bervity, that could probably be done.
2. Since a number of users have been claiming that all such links should be removed, and the removal enforced by block, and since that position is hotly disputed at present, I think it is vital that some text warnign that such blocks are contrntious remain. Again the exaxct wording could be debated and i am not wedded to the wording above.
3. This one I am least atached to. I think the substance should be included, but it could well be improved by significant editing
4. I think that ther is consensus for some form of this, it was recently added, but after a prolongued discussion, and at the time it was addded, IMO had apparent consensus on the talk page. Discussion about the format and content should continue. It might well be advisable to separate the how from the why, in line with your other changes, but in reinserting text i wanted to stick closely to versions that had significant support in the past.

• Can we discuss the specific marits of these and perhaps other changes, and find a way to achieve consensus going forward? DES ^(talk) 16:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there are serious problems with the passage which implies that it could be controversial to block people who deliberately link to a site that identifies anonymous editors.[11] We want, or we should want, to do everything in our power to discourage the practice of "outing" people, and to write a loophole into the blocking policy is a very bad idea, in my view. Also, the first arbcom case referred to made a particular ruling. The second one did not cancel it out; it merely declined to restate it. Only a ruling that these sites may be linked to could cancel out the MONGO ruling. ElinorD (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree. Privacy is, or should be, a significant concern. Part of the promise of Wikipedia is to be able to work anonymously. People have various reasons for wishing to protect their privacy but its not my intent to defend every rationale. Regardless, it seems clear to me that the community and ArbCom have forbidden the practice. Vassyana 22:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

See the detaild discussion and warm dispute now in progress at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. It is a fact that a number of editors and admins stronmgly oppose the blanket removal of links to "outing sites", while there is general consensus for the removal of links directly to pages containing personal information. Blocks based on the wider concept are in fact controversial, and more than one admin has indicated a willigness to overturn such blocks in at least some hypothetical cases. I think this should be made clear. Failing that, what aboput a link to WP:NPA and its talk page, where this has been discussed at length. See also the rejected policy proposal on attack sites, which again makes it clear that consensus on this is quite narrow. DES ^(talk) 22:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

We already have (and have had for some time) items in the policy like "disclosing personal information" and "performing actions that place users in danger" expressly there which are more than sufficient to cover all malicious linking; saying something about non-malicious linking can wait until there is a real consensus about it. --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

DES, you mention that the substance of the "aggressively and repeatedly violate fundamental policies..." paragraph is important. Would you support a wording that was focused more tightly on users who persistently violate content policy (because that is what it is seemingly addressed at)? --bainer (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That would seem reasoanble. I am by no means insistant on the precise language. DES ^(talk) 12:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

When is a block without warning appropriate?

The section title sums up what I'm curious about. I realize there are probably times when it's necessary but I'm wondering what determines an immediate block? Anynobody 06:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

To help focus the issue, a current example: I've got an un-warned block posted for review on WP:ANI right now. (Though it'll probably have rolled off tomorrow—that's ANI.) Bishonen | talk 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC).

It should be noted that the situation by Bishonen | talk does indeed address part of my question, but is not the only reason I have posted this question. I'm certain that there are situations where an unwarned block is necessary/unnecessary beyond just WP:NPA concerns.

To summarize I'm interested in knowing all known situations where such a block is warranted. (WP:NLT for example). Anynobody 06:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the paragraph about education and warnings that I introduced in my rewrite a while back, it's consolidated from other statements and seems to represent current practice pretty well. The purpose of warnings is to educate users about policies, and generally speaking any time someone is aware of a policy already, education is not necessary, and so warnings are not necessary. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, once a person has been warned and then blocked if they do the same thing again there generally shouldn't be a second warning for the same issue (keeping in mind that there's always exceptions of course). Is it fair to say an editor knows the nature of policies he/she quotes to others, example an editor who cautions someone not to break WP:NLT and then turns around and makes a legal threat doesn't need a warning. Anynobody 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally don't give warnings if it is reasonable to think that the person was already aware what they were doing is wrong. I don't see the need for warnings such as "Don't replace pages with hate speech" or "Don't redirect peoples userpages to Penis". ^(H) 12:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That also makes sense, but I am curious about a variation of the situations you mentioned. Lets assume the editor who redirected another editor's userpage to something else was retaliating to a similar action made by the other editor. (Assume they both reasonably should have known better.) Would a block on both be appropriate? I'm not saying retaliating is right, but it's "understandable" after being provoked and I think only blocking the editor who "returns fire" is sending a bad message to those who would initiate attacks. Anynobody 22:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why would one not block both? Is there a specific instance you've got in mind? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one specific incident, I've just seen it happen a few times. I want to be clear that I'm not here trying to get admin action against anyone for recent actions. These questions don't appear to be addressed by the text very well, and though I think it's just common sense as you do jpgordon^∇∆∇∆, that doesn't mean the policy actually does work that way. (I've learned that the hard way elsewhere.) Anynobody 23:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith on the part of the blocking admin, one must assume that the situations you've seen were errors or difference in opinion. However, I must admit that "why'd I get punished and not him when he did the same thing" never got very much traction when I tried to use it on Dad! "It's unfair!" More to the point -- the purpose of blocks is not punishment; the purpose of blocks is to prevent or stop disruption; and if the disruption is stopped by blocking one editor and not the other, there you go. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 00:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the policy isn't meant to be punishment, but the intention doesn't make it so. Editors who are blocked tend to feel punished, or at least that is the impression I get. This seems especially true when one editor is blocked and the other who committed acts of bad faith is not. Anynobody 01:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• WP:KETTLE really doesn't cut it as an argument. It is an unfortunate fact of life that if you get a speeding ticket, the fact that some other people who were also speeding did not get a ticket does not count as an excuse. >Radiant< 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but the point is well taken that a one-sided block of this sort would unnecessarily cause hurt feelings. We should strive to be fair, when it doesn't get in the way of the more important task of creating an encyclopedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly my point jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ :) Would it be appropriate to include advice for admins to research the circumstances before issuing a block? In the situations I witnessed I didn't find it an inconvenience to get more background on the situations. I'm not saying the admins who issued the blocks I'm talking about were doing anything intentionally unfair, I think they simply forgot that there are two sides to each situation. Anynobody 21:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)