| Revision as of 10:13, 22 July 2024 edit129.208.151.57 (talk) Stop Blocking My User!Tags: Manual revert Reverted Visual edit← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:37, 12 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24) (bot | ||
| (71 intermediate revisions by 37 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Policy-talk}} | {{Policy-talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:BP|WT:BLOCK}} | {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:BP|WT:BLOCK}} | ||
| {{tmbox|type=content|text={{center|{{large|'''This is not the page to report problems to administrators<br/>or request blocks.'''}}}} | |||
| This page is for discussion of the ] itself. | |||
| * Report incidents such as block evasion at ''']'''. | |||
| * Report violations of the ] at ''']'''. | |||
| * Report active, persistent vandals at ''']'''. | |||
| * Report violations of arbitration remedies at ''']'''. | |||
| }} | |||
| {{WikiProject Policy}} | |||
| {{merged-from|Misplaced Pages:GlobalBlocking|18 October 2012}} | |||
| {{merged-from|Misplaced Pages:Block on demand|25 July 2016}} | |||
| {{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=4|units=months|index=/Archive index}} | {{archives|auto=short|search=yes|bot=MiszaBot II|age=4|units=months|index=/Archive index}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |||
| |counter = 24 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(60d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn | |||
| |target=/Archive index | |||
| |mask=/Archive <#> | |||
| |leading_zeros=0 | |||
| |indexhere=yes}} | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| == Use of user talk page while blocked == | |||
| ] | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12#Blocking policy}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> <span style=white-space:nowrap;>] <span style="background-color:#e6e6fa;padding:2px 5px;border-radius:5px;font-family:Arial black">]</span></span> 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == RFC on users posting promotional content outside of mainspace == | |||
| ''Administrative note: the linked-to thread is now in ]'' ] ] 14:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)) | |||
| See ]. ] ] 21:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| At ] (]) there was discussion about what it is acceptable for a blocked user to post on their user talk page. Many people state it should only be for querying, clarifying or appealing the block, admins have revoked talk page access to enforce this, although it was pointed out that the does not appear in policy - some opining that a bit of leeway should be given, others that almost anything should go. Indeed policy is currently largely silent on the matter: | |||
| == Questions about TPA and UTRS notification following TPA removal == | |||
| Based on the linked AARV discussion I think it would be beneficial to expand on this so it more closely matches actual practice. My first draft of an alternative is presented below for discussion (''not'' voting). Green text is unchanged, underlined text is new, unmkarked text has had minor rephrasing but is unchanged in meaning: | |||
| I have two policy questions, and two best practices question about blocking policy. This voablock (]) of {{noping2|Robenceic}}<sup></sup> and follow-up TPA removal (]) by {{u|The Anome}} were perfectly appropriate, and I have no issues with them. It does prompt some questions in my mind regarding what policy has to say (if anything) about notifications of two types: | |||
| I don't intend the list in the "should be disabled" section to bind admins but rather to be guidance around which discretion can be exercised. I'm not sure that comes across in the wording but I've not thought of anything better. ] (]) 08:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : 1. Does blocking policy require notification of talk page access removal? | |||
| : I routinely see such notifications (<span class=plainlinks></span>), but the expression "{{xt|talk page access}}" does not occur anywhere at ]. I think at the very least, such notification should be encouraged, if not required, if only to forestall wasting the time of good-faith third-party users who might follow up by offering their advice to a blocked user, not realizing they cannot respond. (Especially, but not only, if the blocked user managed to squeeze in a question or comment before TPA removal, not the case here however.) | |||
| : 2. Does blocking policy require notification of the ] unblock procedure after TPA removal? ("{{xt|UTRS}}" also not mentioned on the policy page.) | |||
| ] (]) 08:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| : One peculiarity of today's block is that in the transition from the initial block to TPA removal, the language explaining a standard unblock appeal was removed, which I get because they can't add an appeal to their page; but the ] alternative was not added. | |||
| Which leads to my best practices questions: | |||
| : 3. When upping the restriction on a user from ] by adding TPA removal, is there a recommended method, such as replacing the entirety of the previous template with some other template that has the block notification but mentions UTRS instead of an on-page appeal, or alternatively to follow up the initial block template with another one notifying them about TPA removal? | |||
| : 4. Is TPA ever removed on a non-indefinite block? This would equate to saying, "Shut up and just wait it out", but I don't know if I've ever seen this. I have definitely seen a few cases of time-blocked editors being their own worst enemy while blocked for a relatively short time, and ending up indeffed before the block expired because they just ]. I wonder if there might be a subset of those where the editor might have been saved and later turned around into becoming a good editor, if they had just been gagged for a bit for their own good during their shock and reaction to the initial block, in order to prevent them from making things worse; maybe they would have been calmer after it expired. Wonder what admins think about temporary TPA removal, only when deemed of possible benefit to the user, to go along with a temporary block? | |||
| Maybe all of these questions are already answered somewhere. If that is the case, could someone please link them from ]? Thanks, ] (]) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :1), 2), and 3) Editors find out these things when they try to edit. They're prominently presented with some version of ] which contains all relevant information and links. If the block message transcludes a template then that will also be transcluded. Policy does already contain ], which seems applicable. A block to revoke TPA is still a block. Confession: for most blatant VOAs, trolls and socks I rarely bother with additional notification. They get their notification through the block message (and they don't seem to have problems working out how to appeal). Also, have you come across ]? It can be appended at the bottom of the page and they'll figure it out its relationship with previous messages. The ] used in your example also has a 'notalk=yes' parameter available (though obviously unused in this case). Most of these template details are really best left to procedural pages instead of policy pages, with the relevant policy parts being notification and explanation as already seen in the policy. | |||
| :4) Yes, TPA can be removed for temp blocks. There is a bit of a timing issue since it has to go through off-wiki channels, with perhaps the original admin being consulted, combined with some negotiation about agreed behaviour. However it can be done, and is sometimes prudent for the reasons you mention, and it can be appealed (generally if they convincingly agree not to do what got their TPA revoked). For short blocks it's probably sometimes not worth pursuing an appeal, or actioned too late, but that's life. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Speaking generally, I believe admins should drop a template when revoking TPA in most cases, but there may be times when it is within the usually allowed admin discretion to not do so. I have, on occasion, gone so far as to delete a user talk page because their username is so foul and their intent so obvious that a talk page seems like a waste of time. As zzuuzz says above, the blocked user will see the change if and when they try to edit. | |||
| ::Pulling TP from time-blocked editors is not common but is also perfectly within admin discretion if it seems warranted. ] ] 23:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, the blocked user clearly finds out they can't edit their talk page, when they try to. But I think Mathglot's question was (also) about other users; how do they know TPA has been pulled, if there is no notification of that, and should a notification therefore always be given? Or, put another way: is there ever a reason why such notification should ''not'' be given? -- ] (]) 08:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It's always possible to argue that a vandal might reform if given the right template but I have seen several who get pleasure from the attention. They also laugh at the naive admin who thinks that adding a template to state the bleeding obvious was helpful. Adding a template takes admin effort and a total ] might be best in some circumstances. Anyone interested in a particular editor should look at their contributions. That instantly reveals their block status. ] (]) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Very much so. I sometimes attempt to engage with indeffed users that I think are worth the effort, either to advise them about their new, narrower Talk page remit (i.e., clarifications about their block, or to place an appeal), or if it looks hopeless, to advise them to try editing at ] or a foreign Misplaced Pages for six months, as a way to build a positive track record that may help them in a later appeal at en-wiki. But I don't want to waste my time, either, if they cannot respond. (Or, I need to know that so I can tell them to respond from Simple, or wherever.) Certainly placing the TPA revocation helps me, as a possible third-party editor retention interventionist, therefore, I echo DG's question. And btw, thanks to all responders; I am learning and eagerly following, and hoping for more opinions. This is actually kind of fascinating. {{ec}} ] (]) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'd again refer you to the contributions link. It's hard to conceive that anyone could meaningfully engage with a user without looking at their contributions. The parameters for the block are included in the block notification (which is bright pink): 'cannot edit own talk page'. In this particular example, and really most others, there's also an additional block note saying something to the effect of 'TPA revoked for misusing the talk page'. I know admins learn how to quickly parse these things, but I think it's fair to say that it really is clear (and usually much easier to parse than a talk page full of templates), especially if you're looking with enough depth to engage them on reform. That said, and I say this as an admin who rarely uses talk page notifications, for any editor with a glimmer of redemption, a talk page message is usually added. I think the blocking policy does already establish this in principle, while still allowing us to not waste any effort on trolls and other irredeemable characters. Your example may fall under the category of 'anomalies' -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :There are a decent number of time-limited IP blocks that get TPA revoked, particularly for LTAs. That usually occurs at the time of the initial block. | |||
| :Also, regarding the original block template, the blocked user can remove the message, and there's no need to replace it. So you may see a subsequent TPA revocation without a visible original block template. — ] ] 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| It's generally a good idea to leave talk-page-revoked message as a tiny act of courtesy, but in this case the behavior was so egregious that it seemed pointless, as vandals like this are usually just here for the attention, and and further response to them is counterproductive; the user will find out when they attempt to post to the talk page, and that suffices. (By the way, it was good to learn about {{tl|TPA revoked}}). — ] (]) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :Notifying the participants of the AARV discussion {{ping|XMcan|Doug Weller|Pppery|Licks-rocks|Pawnkingthree|Black Kite|TarnishedPath|Yamla|Dennis Brown|Serial Number 54129|Bishonen|Levivich|Isaacl|NebY|Newimpartial|KoA|North8000|Queen of Hearts|ActivelyDisinterested|Awesome Aasim|Extraordinary Writ|Phil Bridger|Joyous!}} and {{ping|Firefangledfeathers}} who expressed a desire to contribute to this discussion. ] (]) 09:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I do not think this is liberal enough, to be honest. Right now, there isn't any limit to what they can use the talk page for and over 99% of the time, it hasn't even been questioned. If they are breaking some policy, then sure, remove the talk page access, but there are cases where someone is blocked for a week or two, and it is actually helpful that they can discuss with others. Removing the ability to have reasonable discussions (which might include ''civil'' discussion as to why the block was wrong) is more like punishment. It also looks like ]. And that is the rub: Refusing to allow reasonable discussions that aren't directly related to an unblock is '''punishment''', not preventative. It is entirely reasonable for an editor to disagree with the block and be willing to wait it out. Many blocks are "borderline", some admin would have blocked, others would not have. This isolates them further from the community, which isn't conducive to encouraging better behavior next time. The best example I can give happened during my RFA. {{u|Kiefer.Wolfowitz}} was blocked for disruption while opposing my candidacy. Some wanted to block TPA, but I insisted on keeping it, and instead I went to his talk page and engaged him, building a bridge where they were trying to burn one. I ended up unblocking him myself, probably one of my first acts as admin: unblocking the person who was disruptive when opposing me at RFA. We both gained respect for each other. I think we need to be able to try to engage people, let them vent a little, start a discussion that might not be directly related to getting unblocked, and bring people back in the fold when we can. ] - ] 09:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Example: While we don't want proxy editing, if another editor comes and ask questions about an article they were editing (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:DUE, etc) then I don't have any issue with the discussion. If the blocked editor belongs to a Project and someone asks their opinion of a proposal, again, I don't see the issue. Sometimes other editors might come and explain why their edits were edit warring even while they didn't pass 3RR. We are trying to prevent disruption, not spank them. We want them to realize the mistake, and understand that after the block is over, we '''want''' them to edit, just avoiding the errors that got them blocked. It isn't personal. I don't think we can list all the "okay" actions, we have to use judgement, and if anything, plainly spell out that Wiki related discussions (short of proxy) are ok. ] - ] 12:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I think it might matter ''why'' someone was blocked. If they were blocked for being disruptive, then we want to separate them from that topic area, and short term blocks are different to indefinite blocks. This is why I've tried to express everything in terms of discretion because every situation is different, but why are editors particularly soliciting the opinions of people who have been blocked? Mainly my thinking is that if you've been blocked it's for a reason - if you are a productive presence then you should be able to successfully appeal your block (possibly converting it to a partial block or topic ban if disruption is limited to a particular area) so you don't need other editors to proxy for you. If problems got the point where you had to be blocked then obviously we ''don't'' want you to edit, or at least not in the manner you were - the block was necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopaedia you were causing (and if it wasn't you should appeal the block). ] (]) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::This is why I think it's best left to the discretion of admin, but at the same time saying tpa is not limited to just unblock requests. If someone's blocked for spamming and has 12 edits then obviously that is a different kind of block that a long-time editor who got into an edit war that is otherwise productive. We are better off as an encyclopedia if we err on the side of being lenient. ] - ] <small>(alt: Dennis Brown)</small> 21:49, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *This is certainly one of the better interpretations and proposals I've seen, however, I'm a bit troubled by the construction of 'solely'. Perhaps a better alternative would be something like 'principally' or even, probably my preference with this formulation, removing the qualifier entirely. As Dennis has pointed out and this proposal somewhat acknowledges, there's so many other things that talk pages can be legitimately used for. As a minor point, I wonder if this will properly fit in the current location for block options (I've always seen this a somewhat technical how-to part of the policy). -- ] <sup>]</sup> 10:35, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:{{ec}} I'm not especially attached to "solely" - either "principally" or nothing would work but I prefer the former I think. Currently this section functions as all of how, when and why to remove TPA. I'm not opposed to splitting but obviously we'd need to decide where to split it to and add links between them (and decide which the ] shortcut should point to, but that's a minor point). ] (]) 12:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::How about "primarily"? I'm not overly attached to any specific wording here. --] (]) 12:57, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I like that (though leaving it out entirely is also growing on me). I've replaced 'solely' with 'primarily' in the proposal above. You two don't seem too attached to the wording here; I think it changes the entire flavour of the proposal. 'solely' is one of those definitive words that people will take too literally, with outcomes that I think we all want to avoid. As for the rest of it, I'm neither for or against moving forward at this time. I should admit that I added the words "abuse of the talk page" to the policy in the first place. It's remained for 15 years and I kinda like it for various reasons. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Agree wholeheartedly with Dennis. IMO, policy shouldn't say merely that use for other purposes ''may'' be tolerated (through the grace of admins). It's important that users know what to expect, and also that they don't feel they have to wait on how an admin feels. I like the original version altogether. It certainly matches my own practice. If we want to add a list of the kinds of abuse that are likely to lead to talkpage access being revoked, that's all right by me (except for the last item on the list, "Extensive and/or prolonged use of the page for purposes unrelated to discussing or appealing their block"; please skip that). And it's very proper, if so, to keep Thryduulf's formula "includes ''but is not limited to''"; you never know when somebody will come up with some novel kind of abuse, so there should certainly be admin discretion on that score. ] | ] 12:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC). | |||
| *:Regarding "extensive and/or prolonged use of the page...". I strongly feel that shouldn't be allowed - if you're using the talk page to constructively improve the encyclopaedia then you should be unblocked so you can do it directly - so use the talk page to appeal the block. If your use of the talk page is not constructively improving the encyclopaedia and not related to your block, then you're being disruptive and/or using Misplaced Pages as a forum and you need to stop or be stopped. ] (]) 16:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Policy already covers that without any changes. It boils down to this, are we removing TPA too frequently or not frequently enough? I would argue that if anything, we're removing it too frequently. ] - ] <small>(alt: Dennis Brown)</small> 21:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Structurally, it would seem that the three general reasons for blocking TPA would be: | |||
| *#If the reason for the main block is (also) relevant to talk pages and they repeated the offense there. | |||
| *#If the TP activity is used to evade the intent of the non-TP main block. | |||
| *#Things that nobody is allowed to do on a talk page anyway. Why reinvent the wheel by trying to repeat those rules here? | |||
| :Maybe we should just clarify the above. The OP idea includes new prohibitions which are none of the above. For example, "making their case" (for reading by other editors) regarding their block. Sincerely, <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 12:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' the general approach here. Thanks, Thryduulf, for bringing this up. I strongly believe the default should be to leave talk page access enabled and nothing here suggests otherwise. It's unusual for TPA to be revoked for limited-duration blocks, revocation is almost always only used for indefinite blocks (and only rarely, there). I believe it is ''generally'' inappropriate for an indefinitely blocked user to use their talk page for anything other than getting unblocked, and in particular for asking others to proxy edit on their behalf. They are blocked indefinitely to prevent them editing Misplaced Pages, I don't think they should try to side-step that by having others edit on their behalf. "Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests" is also a significant problem, with people making unblock request after unblock request after unblock request, exhausting the pool of unblock reviewers and showing no insight into why they were blocked. --] (]) 13:14, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' in principle as a good idea and a codification of already expected community norms. ] ] 13:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Oppose''' in principle for the reasons stated by Dennis, Bish and N8k above. Generally I disagree with the principle that TP should only be used to appeal a block. I wouldn't be opposed to changing the text to specify some additional things that aren't allowed, but both the spirit and letter of the proposed changes go too far. ] (]) 14:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Support''' the general approach but those who '''oppose''' have made some useful points. Note I was the admin involved in the recent XRV where my decision to remove TPA from Sennalen was supported. I find myself a bit confused by the comments above as it appears that some opposers support some of the suggestions and some of the supporters don't support them all. Thus Levivich says that some of the text perhaps should specify some things that aren't allowed, and I think that would help both blocked editors and Admins. | |||
| :For instance, I see no argument about "and typically should not be checked without a specific reason." | |||
| :We need to differentiate between indeffed/banned editors I think. Banned should mean banned, ie not able to use their talk page for anything but an appeal. Editors with short blocks should be given more lenience and I certainly do. Ranting is probably ok so long as it doesn't include personal attacks. BLP violations certainly are not nor is doxxing. We should discuss the list below the heading "Talk page access should be disabled if the user abuses that access, which includes but is not limited to:" | |||
| :Without being much more specific I don't see how anyone is going to be able to close this discussion with some agreement to some specific proposals. ] ] 15:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::We recently had a very long RfC broken up into I don't remember how many proposals. Would that help? ] ] 16:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{tpq| I find myself a bit confused by the comments above as it appears that some opposers support some of the suggestions and some of the supporters don't support them all.}} this is why I explicitly said {{tpq|My first draft of an alternative is presented below for discussion (''not'' voting).}} and I'm slightly disappointed at the bolded comments. A line-by-line (or similar) RFC may be helpful, but it's too soon at the moment - the discussion hasn't been open 12 hours yet and those who've commented so far may or may not find their opinions align with a clear consensus. ] (]) 16:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Barring the obvious (abuse, etc, as mentioned above), most things should (and often ''do'') get met with leniency up to a certain point. I wouldn't want to see a restrictive list of "you can say X, you can't say Y" (and I don't believe this proposal is suggesting that), but perhaps it's worth nothing that strict''ish'' management of a blocked user's talk page normally helps them to "stop digging a hole"? Being told to stop and "take a break" instead of responding while things are raw benefits everyone, though I'm unsure if that angle could ever be reflected in what you're suggesting. — ] (] • they/them) 16:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't have a lot of time to participate further, but I did notice the AARV discussion and watchlisted this page so I could say one thing. I very much disagree that talk page use for a blocked user should be limited to dealing with the block itself. I also disagree that removal of access for anything besides clarifying the block, requesting an unblock, etc. has been our ongoing practice. My experience has been that if there's no actual disruption or continuation of blockable behavior, removing talk page access seldom happens. As long as this provision that it can only be related to the block doesn't get added to the policy, I'm OK, but my preference would be to not try to list all the specific things you can do on your talk page while blocked, and all the specific things you can't, and instead just say talk page access can be removed for ongoing disruption or continued violation of policy, mostly to avoid instruction creep.--] (]) 16:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:That sums it up nicely. ] - ] <small>(alt: Dennis Brown)</small> 21:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' with the suggestion of replacing <b>should</b> with <b>may</b> in the following text: "Talk page access should be disabled if the user abuses that access". That would give it a more discretionary/liberal meaning. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Weak oppose''' I'd normally say with the exception of when there is otherwise blockable behaviour or excessive unblock requests or requests to make edits on their behalf that there is no real problem with users continuing to edit their talk page, see ]. ''']''' (]) 17:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Does anyone know if this 2012 close {{tqq|nor is there consensus that a blocked user may not point out issues in other articles}} is the most recent consensus on the matter, or has there been a subsequent discussion that superseded it? Seems to directly contradict the "only for unblock requests" theory. ] (]) 15:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I don't know if there's been another such discussion but I see that close continued {{tq|The closest thing to consensus is that this kind of thing needs to be handled on a case-by-case basis and is an area that requires "discretion and common sense" on the part of the admins involved}}, confirming administrators can block in such cases without saying they must. ] (]) 16:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I don't either but in any case things have changed in the last few years due to the introduction of partial blocks. In any case blocks (whether partial or siteside) are technical measures rather than social means. So I'd argue just like a user blocked from editing a page can still discuss the topic I'd argue that while talk page access is mainly for appealing blocks that there isn't a particular reason why it should be limited to it and it should only be revoked as a result of abuse. If a user if site banned then that's a bit different, per ] they can only use their talk page to appeal but in any case I'd be cautious about revoking talk page from site banned users who may use their talk page for a bit more than just appealing the ban. ''']''' (]) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * The core issue here is the inconsistency in TPA revocations. The recent XRV and this discussion have shed light on widely varying interpretations of what justifies revoking TPA. On one side, some admins firmly believe that a blocked editor should only use their talk page to appeal or seek clarification about their block. On the flip side, other admins advocate for various degrees of leniency toward banned/blocked editors. These inconsistencies aren't just about the type of block or the seniority of the editor. There are clear discrepancies in how indefed “senior” editors are treated. Take the comparison between Sennalen and Martinevans123, for example. While one was penalized apparently for pointing a stale link and a typo, the other continued to make , many including specific edit recommendations and unsolicited pings to other editors. I'm of the opinion that giving admins too much discretion only exacerbates these disparities. That's why I stand behind Thryduulf’s push to establish clear rules around TPA revocation. However, these rules should reflect the leniency advocated by Dennis Brown, Bishonen, Levivich, and others. In fact, I take it a step further: I believe blocked status should not factor into the decision to revoke TPA. In other words, <u>there shouldn't be two separate sets of rules for blocked and non-blocked users regarding what they can say on their talk page.</u> ] (]) 22:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I doubt anyone will accept the suggestion that all editors should be subject to the same restrictions re TPAs. As for Sennalen, I repeat, we have no evidence they were a senior editor. All we know is that she had an earlier account. So please stop making assumptions. It may well be that Martinevans123 was given too much leeway, but that's not a typical case. Sennalen was blocked first for personal attacks/harassment for 31 hours, then indefinitely as an AE block.And I didn't remove TPA "for pointing a stale link and a typo", I doubt that anyone else looking at her page would agree and your attempt to reinstate TPA access failed. It wouldn't have failed if your reason was correct. Martinevans123 was blocked for copyright violations after many warnings, and most of the posts during the block were about those violations including helping to clear them up and what he would need to do to get unblocked. Chalk and cheese. He didn't claim the block was incorrect. She did. ] ] 07:46, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Having the same user talk page rules for blocked editors as for unblocked editors makes sense to me. Blocks are preventative not punitive. If the user talk page isn't being used for disruption, then there is no preventative reason to remove TPA. And whether the user talk page is being used disruptively doesn't depend on what other pages an editor can edit. I could see an exception for CBANed editors (no use of the talk page except to appeal the ban), but not for blocked editors. ] (]) 15:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::{{tpq|Having the same user talk page rules for blocked editors as for unblocked editors makes sense to me.}} it doesn't to me. If someone is using their talk page to continue contributing as if they weren't blocked, then their being blocked isn't preventing anything - either they are productively editing the encyclopaedia (in which case they should be unblocked), they're using it to clarify/appeal/etc their block (in which case they're using it appropriately and all is good) or they're editing unproductively/using Misplaced Pages as a forum (in which case they should have TPA removed so they stop wasting other editors' time. Obviously some leeway should be given, but it must be clear that it is leeway given at admins' discretion and if they want to continue editing Misplaced Pages they need to be unblocked first - which should be easy if they're productively using the talk page for matters relevant to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 17:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::I disagree with "If someone is using their talk page to continue contributing as if they weren't blocked, then their being blocked isn't preventing anything". Take for example the classic edit warrior: their edit warring is disruptive, so they're blocked to prevent edit warring. If they then proceed to suggest edits on their talk page, they are not edit warring -- incapable of it in fact. The disruption is prevented, and their suggestions on the talk page may be productive, constructive contributions to the encyclopedia. Thus, the blocked edit warrior who makes what are basically edit requests on their talk page is not disrupting anything, and is constructively contributing. And the block is still preventing something: the disruption of edit warring. ] (]) 17:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::If someone is editwarring at a particular article but constructively contributing otherwise then why are they fully blocked not partially blocked? ] (]) 18:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::I didn't say "a particular article." We fully block edit warriors when they edit war across multiple articles. An editor who edit wars across 100 articles and gets fully blocked for it, and then makes edit requests on their user talk page, is no longer being disruptive; in that scenario, the block prevents disruption while still allowing them to contribute constructively. ] (]) 18:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::What do you make of the system of escalating block lengths? Is the system as a whole aiming to prevent disruption by teaching the editor that if they edit-war, they'll be unable not only to edit-war, but to edit the encyclopedia at all - which it's assumed is a sanction they'll find meaningful? Sometimes it seems hard to tell prevention and punishment apart. ] (]) 18:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::IMO I do not think the system of sanctions should be aimed at teaching any editors anything. We're not a school, we're not parents, we're not here to correct misbehavior for the sake of correcting misbehavior. I believe in escalating block lengths (generally speaking that is; there are of course exceptions where we should go straight to indef) simply because we should start with the least-disruptive way to prevent disruption: if a warning prevents disruption, there is no need for a block; if a short block prevents disruption, there is no need for a longer block; if a three-month block prevents disruption, there is no need for an indef; etc. For the same reason, I don't going from like one day to three days to one week to two weeks to a month to two months, etc., is really productive; if a one week block didn't prevent it, a two week block probably won't prevent it either. But in larger steps, like warning->short block->long block->indef, it makes sense to me. ] (]) 19:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::I came here from seeing this discussion mentioned at Martinevans123's talk page, and I want to comment on the mischaracterization, above, of what happened there. The block was for repeated violations of the copyvio policy, and there was an understanding at the time of the block that his talk page was to be used to establish that he was learning to do things the right way, as a condition of unblocking. And his efforts to be unblocked on that basis were successful, and he has improved his work considerably (not perfect, but still a very solid net positive) as a result. Pretty much ''all'' of those so-called "specific edit recommendations and unsolicited pings to other editors" were him posting proposed fixes for the CCI investigation, and pinging the editors who were working on the CCI in order to have them evaluate whether he had gotten it right or not. Above, that was made to sound like he was soliciting proxy edits and bothering other editors about it, which cannot be farther from the truth. I honestly cannot think of any other editor, ever, in all my years of contributing here, who has worked harder and more patiently in order to earn back his position in the community after being indeffed. In fact, he was unblocked by an administrator who is widely respected as an authority on copyright and paraphrasing. So let's not mischaracterize his talk page use in order to imply a false equivalence. --] (]) 19:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I didn’t paint the full picture of Martin’s contributions and I’m sorry for that. I only painted the lines needed to compare him to the user I was advocating for. I didn’t ping Martin here nor in the XRV because I don’t want him to feel the need to comment and defend himself in front of a bunch of admins. I have never claimed, nor do I believe, that Martin deserves a TPA revoke. In fact, I hold Martin as an example of why additional rules for indefinitely blocked editors are potentially damaging. Imagine some gung-ho admin indefinitely blocking Martin on the basis that {{tq|"it makes little sense for an indefinitely blocked editor to be discussing anything with other editors."}} Would Martin still be contributing to Misplaced Pages today? Or would he be thoroughly discouraged by the "fuck off" implied by the indef TPA revoke? ] (]) 20:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::I doubt very much he’d be discouraged. And as the person who brought me to ] you know there’s a venue where you can object. Having lost there you seem to be here to relitigate that for for your colleague (I call her that as you both were quite involved in the subject of Cultural Marxism from the same pov. ] ] 20:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::::::::::Thanks for clarifying that. --] (]) 22:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::::::::I think Martin's is case where there was a specific consensus to use the talk page and that would override any general policy. If this sort of thing is to be done with anyone in the future then I'd recommend a message on the page explaining that so well-intentioned but uninformed admins didn't remove TPA when the page was being used as intended - however I would encourage TPA to be revoked if they abused that access and extensively used the talk page for unrelated matters. Alternatively a partial block from all but the user and user talk namespaces could be used. ] (]) 21:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' any change to existing wording. As written, it sharply contradicts the heartless notion that a blocked user ought only use their talk page to appeal a block. Some of our most active editors can spend > 40 hours a week here for years on end. Misplaced Pages becomes a central part of their social life, it would be cruel to needlessly cut them off just because they cant currently compose a successful unblock. It's regrettable what happened to probably the most graceful polymath ever to join our community, but changing policy so others are treated more harshly doesn't seem the best way to honour her memory, even if it would arguably resolve an inconsistently. In her last edit she took a risk as she wanted to It's beautifully poetic in a way, and we could probably leave it at that. ] (]) 20:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Removing talk page access is the most straightforward way to stop a blocked editor from ] their talk page while still allowing them to request an unblock via ]. The proposed wording clarifies what {{xt|"continued abuse"}} (from the existing wording) refers to in common practice. It is not acceptable for a blocked editor to continue to use their talk page to further content disputes or ask other editors ]. Blocked editors who have disruptively edited their talk page remain well-served with UTRS, a well-designed interface. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 19:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support, broadly'''. We should be clear that administrators do have the power to block TPA in such circumstances (which seemed to be at least implicitly questioned during the recent review), and editors who are at risk should be able to see that spelt out. We should not, however, say that TPA "should" be disabled in such circumstances; it would be enough to say "can" and to leave it to administrators' discretion. I'm not quite sure the phrasing fully encompasses sealioning such as, in a recent example, pinging an administrator to an exposition and challenge on the meaning of "fringe"; perhaps that could be improved. (We might imagine dealing with that by withdrawing the ability to ping, but I don't know if that can be done either generally or specifically - or should, so long as TPA remains.) ] (]) 20:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' Clarification that TPA can be blocked and when it may be blocked is definitely helpful. Also blocked editors are not just technically blocked from making edots, to allow continued proxying is to allow them to continue to edit. -- <small>LCU</small> ''']''' <small>''«]» °]°''</small> 12:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests === | |||
| * "Posting excessive and/or frivilous unblock requests" is one of the additions proposed. I mentioned above that I very much like this. I frequently see people making five or ten or even more unblock requests. We don't have enough unblock reviewers for a unique reviewer to look at that many requests. Without trying to get specific about the wording, I believe users should be entitled to three reviews plus one every six months on the low end, assuming they aren't being particularly abusive. I think any more than five, though, is simply pointless. Keeping in mind the limited number of unblock reviewers at any given time, what do others think about this? (I'm hoping the subheading focuses discussion and allows uninterested people to skip sections, but am happy to take feedback if the subheading is actually disruptive.) --] (]) 17:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I don't think putting a number on it will be helpful - if someone makes three quick unblock requests that get declined, then takes a fortnight off to reflect and then comes back with a much better request we should evaluate that sincerely and shouldn't penalise them if they very nearly but not quite "get it". If we do adopt this wording, then guidance on what counts as "excessive" or "frivolous" is probably something we should have somewhere but I think somewhere like ] might be a better place for it than here. ] (]) 19:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::Excellent points. --] (]) 19:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:I'd support adding "posting excessive and/or frivolous unblock requests" to ]. It's not a bad idea to signal that to blocked users, e.g. that they shouldn't just expect to make an unlimited number of {unblock}'s, that they should "make them count." ] (]) 19:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::I am not opposed since that's the actual practice, although I'm not sure it needs to be stated explicitly. ] - ] <small>(alt: Dennis Brown)</small> 21:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *Here's an interesting example. Note I'm not going to take any Admin action here and I am NOT suggesting anyone here should. Comments? ] ] ] 13:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:Pretty good example of excessive or frivolous unblock requests, and removing TPA would prevent disruption by preventing unblock queue patrollers from having to read and respond to excessive or frivolous unblock requests. ] (]) 16:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *::@] After I posted this they were indefinitely blocked with TPA removed. ] ] 17:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well I thank the editor for providing a timely example for us 😂 ] (]) 17:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC) | |||
| === Admin Tools and TPA Revocation === | |||
| We seem to have reached an impasse regarding the TPA revoke rules, a situation not unfamiliar to us and likely to recur, given the history. However, a point raised by {{u|Thryduulf}} suggests a potential avenue for improvement. As someone without admin privileges, I wasn't fully aware of the limited options available to admins dealing with indefinitely blocked editors like Martin and Sennalen. It appears they're left with a binary choice: either an indefinite TPA revoke or no action at all. Perhaps expanding the options available to admins could lead to better outcomes. Why shouldn't admins have the ability to impose a timed TPA revoke for individuals like Martin and Sennalen, rather than being restricted to an indefinite revocation? The current coupling of indefinite TPA revoke with indefinite bans seems to be a technical constraint. If the community desires greater flexibility for admins, it's feasible to update the software accordingly. Let's put it to a vote. Show your support if you believe admins should have the authority to determine the duration of TPA revokes independently of other factors. Express your opposition if you prefer maintaining the status quo. (If someone wishes to formalize this vote by adding appropriate RFC tags, rewording, etc., please feel free to do so.) ] (]) 17:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm all in favour of this, but I think the key question is about the state of technical development. I want to point out that the protection policy at ], which forms the original foundation of this TPA policy, still retains this time-limitation clause. This policy still links to that policy in the TPA section. This was by design when the TPA policy was transferred here. If such an option was available I am sure admins would use it. So I think it returns to the question of the availability of the option. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm no programmer, but based on my understanding from the discussions on phrabricator around introducing partial blocks this would be a major change to the software. As I understand it, currently an account can have a maximum of one concurrent block with a single expiration time - i.e. it is either blocked or it isn't. A bit of searching finds ] that suggests allowing multiple overlapping blocks ''might'' be work in progress (as of September last year). If/when that feature is introduced then we could (I think, but I'll ask there for clarification) effectively do this by setting two full blocks, one with talk page access allowed and a second with a shorter expiration date with talk page access not allowed. We should get clarity on this before we open it up for an RFC or whatever. | |||
| :I don't know at the moment whether I would support it if/when it is possible, but regardless of that we will still need clarity on the original question which will apply also to blocks where TPA revocation is a shorter duration than the block. ] (]) 19:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *In a perfect world, this wouldn't be needed, and I'm not sure I would ever use that feature if it was available. If someone is abusing talk page access, blocking them from accessing it for two weeks (for instance) isn't likely going to help. Normally, you only block TPA if they are truly being abusive, or trolling and wasting people's time intentionally. It probably gets used too much, granted, but the solution is to use it less, not limit it by time. I have no idea how much time I would block TPA if I had that choice. And having that choice, almost makes it like a "cool down block", which is something we avoid. I think if you need to remove it for a day, you need to remove it indef. The person can then go to UTRS and get it restored at the proper time if they are acting in good faith. We might could monitor it better from UTRS and be quicker to give second chances on TPA, but there is no way we would know ahead of time how long a TPA block should be for each circumstance to be effective. It isn't at all the same as a standard block, which is "incentive based", getting longer each time. Short answer, it wouldn't be very useful, imho. ] - ] 06:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't think the ability to give people multiple blocks of multiple lengths should be a high priority for the devs. Misplaced Pages is not a reform school, partial blocks were already a gift to disruptive editors (and do they even work, really?). ] (]) 13:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are a lot more important things the developers should be doing, yes. ] ] 13:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm curious, Doug, and feel free to ignore my hypothetical question: If you had the timed option, would you have still given Sennalen the indef TPA revoke? ] (]) 14:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] No, they can always use UTRS to request it. Anything indefinite can be short or long. ] ] 15:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Ok, but isn’t limiting the options to the UTRS like punting the decision (and therefore the responsibility) to someone else? ] (]) 15:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Also, I wonder if those patrolling the UTRS are self-selected in some systemic way. For example, it seems much more expedient to agree with a prior decision than to take time to review each case on its own merits. There is little incentive, quite the opposite, to oppose other admins' decisions. ] (]) 17:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Partial blocks are a mixed bag. I don't use them a lot, but there are times when someone is active in many areas and only becomes a problem on one article, (gets carried away in an edit war when they normally aren't disruptive) that they make sense and is actually a productive use of the tool. As for using it on new users (particularly SPAs), the benefits are less clear. ] - ] 04:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ===Proxy edits for blocked user=== | |||
| And apropos of the above discussion, we've got {{u|Evrik}} proxying edits for {{u|Me Da Wikipedian}} (blocked by {{u|ToBeFree}}) from their user talk page into a DYK discussion. Whatever. I guess as long as you can find somebody to proxy your edits for you, being blocked isn't much of an inconvenience. ] ] 00:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *I would not have removed TPA for a single comment. If anything, the frustration of having to only make a comment or two and not being able to be hands on will serve as a reminder to not get blocked in the future. To me, this isn't a disruptive type of proxy edit, and a simple reminder that they probably don't need to participate further is sufficient. This is what I'm talking about, we have to be careful to not disable TPA over simple things that aren't actually disruptive. Else it seems petty and punitive. ] - ] 00:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :*{{u|RoySmith}}, I'm not sure why you decided to call me out on this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but '''Me Da Wikipedian''' was blocked from editing - that was their "punishment." ] says that they have to ''direct'' someone to make edits. That didn't happen. Second, the policy says, "... unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." I think that using their one comment to bring this nomination, ] to closure was both productive and had a meaningful result. This was a simple edit that was productive. I don't think this was the best example of a proxy edit. Making the rules more restrictive is not helpful. | |||
| ::I'm not going to comment any more here. --] <sup>(])</sup> 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Some admins interpret this much more strictly than others. I agree that closing out something that others are depending on is an okay thing to do, as is simply discussing sources or similar activities. If they were trying to continue an edit war, or just make generic edits to random stuff and getting others to do the work for them, then yes, I would see that as going too far, but not every admin agrees with me on this. ] - ] 04:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Protected edit request on 29 May 2024 == | |||
| {{edit fully-protected|Misplaced Pages:BP|answered=yes}} | |||
| -formatting per ]: | |||
| <syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext"> | |||
| #REDIRECT ] | |||
| {{redr| | |||
| {{R from shortcut}} | |||
| {{r wp}} | |||
| }} | |||
| </syntaxhighlight> <span style="border-radius:9pt;border:solid 2px #f00;padding:1px;background-color:#800">] ]]</span> 22:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{replyto|2003 LN6}} {{done}}. ] (]) 22:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :By the time a situation progresses to the point of needing to revoke TPA, I'm really not worried about being courteous. ] ] 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Block policy adding request == | |||
| :I indeffed a number of abusive socks over Xmas (see my talk page filter log) with tpa removed without blinking. RBI is the best response in these instances. — ] (]) 17:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Bad Link On Page == | |||
| I request add this in policy: | |||
| Got here on a wiki walk, I noticed a bad link, but since I don't have editing permissions on this page I can't fix it. | |||
| Unblock request should be review by another administrator (not the blocker). | |||
| Under "Unacceptable Unblocking" | |||
| It may help for the unjust administrator to make malice block and block the appear. ] (]) 07:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :It's already there: "]" This is the policy on the English Misplaced Pages; the Chinese Misplaced Pages may have different rules. ] (]) 07:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy. Arbitration enforcement blocks may be appealed using the ]. | |||
| == PBLOCK community consensus == | |||
| "Special appeal provisions" is a bad link. The correct link is (as far as I can tell): | |||
| ''Partial blocks may be used at the discretion of any administrator in accord with the rest of the blocking policy, or community consensus.'' | |||
| ] | |||
| What does this mean? Is it simply saying that a community discussion can result in a PBLOCK, or is something further intended? If the latter, I'd like to amend the sentence to ''Partial blocks may be imposed at the discretion...blocking policy, or may be imposed by community consensus.'' ] (]) 13:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I've always understood it to mean that partial blocks may be placed in any way that a full block can be - i.e. in circumstances articulated in the blocking policy or in any other circumstances if there is a community consensus to do so. That would mean your proposed change would not alter the meaning but may clarify it. ] (]) 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :For future reference, when you see an error on a page you cannot edit you'll generally get a quicker response if you make a ]. However, in this case I've not made the change as while I agree the current target is wrong I'm not sure that the target you suggest is the right one - and I've not been able to immediately find an alternative that I think definitely is right, so it needs more eyes. The reason it's wrong is due to the change from ] to ], so I'll leave a note on the talk page there to hopefully attract someone knowledgeable. ] (]) 05:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::When partial blocks were the new hotness there was much fear of the unknown which got hashed out at ]. One of the questions was "Should partial blocks be limited to community consensus only?" That got voted down nearly unanimously, and the "discretion of any administrator" language came out of that RFC close. ] ] 14:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have fixed the link (FWIW, this info is also in the contentious topic procedures). Best, ] (]) 05:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::PS, I can't think of any reason a discussion at ] or ] couldn't end with "There is broad consensus by the community to ban User:Foo from Some Namespace (or from some specific list of articles)". The community passes bans like that all the time. Bans state the will of the community. Blocks are just a way to technical way to enforce a ban. If the community banned somebody from (for example) a namespace and that user violated that ban, I suppose an admin could then impose the corresponding pblock to enforce the ban, but I think it's more likely they would just block the user completely; that's usually what happens when users disregard community-imposed restrictions. ] ] 14:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't see anything needing changing; admins can make unilateral partial blocks (e.g. in cases of edit warring) or at the close of a discussion where consensus is achieved (e.g. an article subject who can't be neutral on their article). ] (]) 22:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:37, 12 January 2025
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blocking policy page. |
|
 | This is not the page to report problems to administrators or request blocks. This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages blocking policy itself.
|
 | See WP:PROPOSAL for Misplaced Pages's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Misplaced Pages guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages. |
 | The contents of the Misplaced Pages:GlobalBlocking page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy on 18 October 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
| The contents of the Misplaced Pages:Block on demand page were merged into Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy on 25 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
"Blocking policy" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Blocking policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Blocking policy until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
RFC on users posting promotional content outside of mainspace
See Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity. El Beeblerino 21:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Questions about TPA and UTRS notification following TPA removal
I have two policy questions, and two best practices question about blocking policy. This voablock (diff) of Robenceic (talk · contribs) and follow-up TPA removal (diff) by The Anome were perfectly appropriate, and I have no issues with them. It does prompt some questions in my mind regarding what policy has to say (if anything) about notifications of two types:
- 1. Does blocking policy require notification of talk page access removal?
- I routinely see such notifications (thousands), but the expression "talk page access" does not occur anywhere at WP:Blocking policy. I think at the very least, such notification should be encouraged, if not required, if only to forestall wasting the time of good-faith third-party users who might follow up by offering their advice to a blocked user, not realizing they cannot respond. (Especially, but not only, if the blocked user managed to squeeze in a question or comment before TPA removal, not the case here however.)
- 2. Does blocking policy require notification of the UTRS unblock procedure after TPA removal? ("UTRS" also not mentioned on the policy page.)
- One peculiarity of today's block is that in the transition from the initial block to TPA removal, the language explaining a standard unblock appeal was removed, which I get because they can't add an appeal to their page; but the WP:UTRS alternative was not added.
Which leads to my best practices questions:
- 3. When upping the restriction on a user from indef by adding TPA removal, is there a recommended method, such as replacing the entirety of the previous template with some other template that has the block notification but mentions UTRS instead of an on-page appeal, or alternatively to follow up the initial block template with another one notifying them about TPA removal?
- 4. Is TPA ever removed on a non-indefinite block? This would equate to saying, "Shut up and just wait it out", but I don't know if I've ever seen this. I have definitely seen a few cases of time-blocked editors being their own worst enemy while blocked for a relatively short time, and ending up indeffed before the block expired because they just couldn't stop digging. I wonder if there might be a subset of those where the editor might have been saved and later turned around into becoming a good editor, if they had just been gagged for a bit for their own good during their shock and reaction to the initial block, in order to prevent them from making things worse; maybe they would have been calmer after it expired. Wonder what admins think about temporary TPA removal, only when deemed of possible benefit to the user, to go along with a temporary block?
Maybe all of these questions are already answered somewhere. If that is the case, could someone please link them from Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1), 2), and 3) Editors find out these things when they try to edit. They're prominently presented with some version of MediaWiki:Blockedtext which contains all relevant information and links. If the block message transcludes a template then that will also be transcluded. Policy does already contain Misplaced Pages:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks, which seems applicable. A block to revoke TPA is still a block. Confession: for most blatant VOAs, trolls and socks I rarely bother with additional notification. They get their notification through the block message (and they don't seem to have problems working out how to appeal). Also, have you come across Template:TPA revoked? It can be appended at the bottom of the page and they'll figure it out its relationship with previous messages. The Template:Uw-voablock used in your example also has a 'notalk=yes' parameter available (though obviously unused in this case). Most of these template details are really best left to procedural pages instead of policy pages, with the relevant policy parts being notification and explanation as already seen in the policy.
- 4) Yes, TPA can be removed for temp blocks. There is a bit of a timing issue since it has to go through off-wiki channels, with perhaps the original admin being consulted, combined with some negotiation about agreed behaviour. However it can be done, and is sometimes prudent for the reasons you mention, and it can be appealed (generally if they convincingly agree not to do what got their TPA revoked). For short blocks it's probably sometimes not worth pursuing an appeal, or actioned too late, but that's life. -- zzuuzz 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Speaking generally, I believe admins should drop a template when revoking TPA in most cases, but there may be times when it is within the usually allowed admin discretion to not do so. I have, on occasion, gone so far as to delete a user talk page because their username is so foul and their intent so obvious that a talk page seems like a waste of time. As zzuuzz says above, the blocked user will see the change if and when they try to edit.
- Pulling TP from time-blocked editors is not common but is also perfectly within admin discretion if it seems warranted. Beeblebrox 23:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, the blocked user clearly finds out they can't edit their talk page, when they try to. But I think Mathglot's question was (also) about other users; how do they know TPA has been pulled, if there is no notification of that, and should a notification therefore always be given? Or, put another way: is there ever a reason why such notification should not be given? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's always possible to argue that a vandal might reform if given the right template but I have seen several who get pleasure from the attention. They also laugh at the naive admin who thinks that adding a template to state the bleeding obvious was helpful. Adding a template takes admin effort and a total WP:DENY might be best in some circumstances. Anyone interested in a particular editor should look at their contributions. That instantly reveals their block status. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Very much so. I sometimes attempt to engage with indeffed users that I think are worth the effort, either to advise them about their new, narrower Talk page remit (i.e., clarifications about their block, or to place an appeal), or if it looks hopeless, to advise them to try editing at Simple or a foreign Misplaced Pages for six months, as a way to build a positive track record that may help them in a later appeal at en-wiki. But I don't want to waste my time, either, if they cannot respond. (Or, I need to know that so I can tell them to respond from Simple, or wherever.) Certainly placing the TPA revocation helps me, as a possible third-party editor retention interventionist, therefore, I echo DG's question. And btw, thanks to all responders; I am learning and eagerly following, and hoping for more opinions. This is actually kind of fascinating. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I'd again refer you to the contributions link. It's hard to conceive that anyone could meaningfully engage with a user without looking at their contributions. The parameters for the block are included in the block notification (which is bright pink): 'cannot edit own talk page'. In this particular example, and really most others, there's also an additional block note saying something to the effect of 'TPA revoked for misusing the talk page'. I know admins learn how to quickly parse these things, but I think it's fair to say that it really is clear (and usually much easier to parse than a talk page full of templates), especially if you're looking with enough depth to engage them on reform. That said, and I say this as an admin who rarely uses talk page notifications, for any editor with a glimmer of redemption, a talk page message is usually added. I think the blocking policy does already establish this in principle, while still allowing us to not waste any effort on trolls and other irredeemable characters. Your example may fall under the category of 'anomalies' -- zzuuzz 10:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- There are a decent number of time-limited IP blocks that get TPA revoked, particularly for LTAs. That usually occurs at the time of the initial block.
- Also, regarding the original block template, the blocked user can remove the message, and there's no need to replace it. So you may see a subsequent TPA revocation without a visible original block template. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
It's generally a good idea to leave talk-page-revoked message as a tiny act of courtesy, but in this case the behavior was so egregious that it seemed pointless, as vandals like this are usually just here for the attention, and and further response to them is counterproductive; the user will find out when they attempt to post to the talk page, and that suffices. (By the way, it was good to learn about {{TPA revoked}}). — The Anome (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- By the time a situation progresses to the point of needing to revoke TPA, I'm really not worried about being courteous. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- I indeffed a number of abusive socks over Xmas (see my talk page filter log) with tpa removed without blinking. RBI is the best response in these instances. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Bad Link On Page
Got here on a wiki walk, I noticed a bad link, but since I don't have editing permissions on this page I can't fix it.
Under "Unacceptable Unblocking"
- When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy. Arbitration enforcement blocks may be appealed using the special appeal provisions.
"Special appeal provisions" is a bad link. The correct link is (as far as I can tell):
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Ban appeals
Piningforpines (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- For future reference, when you see an error on a page you cannot edit you'll generally get a quicker response if you make a edit request. However, in this case I've not made the change as while I agree the current target is wrong I'm not sure that the target you suggest is the right one - and I've not been able to immediately find an alternative that I think definitely is right, so it needs more eyes. The reason it's wrong is due to the change from discretionary sanctions to Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics, so I'll leave a note on the talk page there to hopefully attract someone knowledgeable. Thryduulf (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I have fixed the link (FWIW, this info is also in the contentious topic procedures). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)