| Revision as of 22:05, 8 March 2010 editRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →Civility blocks: fine← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:37, 12 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,448 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Blocking policy/Archive 24) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{shortcut|WT:BP|WT:BLOCK}} | |||
| {{Policy-talk}} | {{Policy-talk}} | ||
| {{Talk header|noarchive=yes|WT:BP|WT:BLOCK}} | |||
| {{talkpage}} | |||
| {{tmbox|type=content|text={{center|{{large|'''This is not the page to report problems to administrators<br/>or request blocks.'''}}}} | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="padding: 6px"> | |||
| |- | |||
| | colspan="2" style="font-size: 150%; line-height: 1.25em; text-align: center; height: 2em" | '''This is not the page to report problems to administrators<br/>or request blocks.''' | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] | |||
| | This page is for discussion of the ] itself. | |||
| This page is for discussion of the ] itself. | |||
| * Report incidents such as block evasion at ''']'''. | * Report incidents such as block evasion at ''']'''. | ||
| * Report violations of the ] at ''']'''. | * Report violations of the ] at ''']'''. | ||
| * Report active, persistent vandals 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}} | |||
| {{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 ] == | |||
| {{archives}} | |||
| ] | |||
| 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 == | |||
| == Discussion before unblocking not always needed == | |||
| See ]. ] ] 21:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| I hesitate to even post this because it seems lately every time I initiate one of these threads it goes off in some direction I never intended, but here we go anyway: Currently some of the blocking templates say that you should not lift a block without discussing with the blocking admin first, and this policy page says it is "strongly discouraged" to undo a block without discussion, I think this is somewhat out of step with current practice. In some cases, such as username-only blocks, there is no need whatsoever to discuss. If the user agrees to change their name, and that was the only reason for the block, there's nothing to discuss. In many other cases where the user demonstrates that they understand why they were blocked and are will avoid the problematic behavior in the future, making them sit there and remain blocked more or less for the sake of process seems unneeded. Of course in more complicated or controversial cases discussion is still needed, but I think we should soften the language up to indicate that it is not ''always'' necessary and in practice is often not done. Blocking templates based on checkuser evidence should retain the stipulation that you should discuss with a CU before lifting the block. ] (]) 21:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I've gone ahead and made a small change to the policy page , and will begin reviewing the templates. ] (]) 22:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Sorry, I disagree and have undone this. The proposed language is inconsistent with longstanding policy and practice, and also with ], which says: "except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." As a matter of collegial courtesy, and also to prevent the circumvention of sanctions through admin-shopping, discussion should be obligatory in all but the most exceptional circumstances. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You got to at least concede the point about username-only blocks. If the username is the only reason for the block, and the user agrees to change it to something that does not violate policy, what is the point of having a discussion? It's process for the sake of process in such a case. ] (]) 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, I don't oppose a clarification for this particular case. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Questions about TPA and UTRS notification following TPA removal == | |||
| I think the all to often failure to consult and gain agreement with the blocking admin and failing that to seek consensus for the unblock is one our more significant problems. In situations where someone has clearly made a good faith error, or when the situation has significantly changed I agree that admins should just be able to unblock(ie a user retracts a legal threat, or requests a rename to something more appropriate). What I don't think should be allowed is one admin interpreting policy differently and then just undoing another admins block. I think we can loosen up the wording regarding unambiguous errors and changed circumstances while making more clear the prohibition against undoing a block merely because you disagree with it. The requirement of communication with the blocking admin or the gaining of a larger consensus is particularly important when the admin who wishes to unblock is not in possession of all of the facts. ]<small> <sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 22:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Entirely agreed. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| 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: | |||
| ==Propose new section for WP:INDEF== | |||
| : 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.) | |||
| I would like to propose a new section for INDEF blocked Users, the proposed name is WP:Parole. The goal? To offer a system similar to the common law Parole system where indef blocked Users e.g Users that cannot edit there talk page can have minimal privileges to prove wether or not they can be 'reintroduced' into the wikipeida community. Good idea, bad idea or something in the middle? P.S I may not be online untill tomorrow so if this becomes a talking point please be patient if you expect a reply from me. ] (]) 17:29, 22 January 2010 (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. | |||
| :I take it this discussion has failed to get of the ground by the looks of things. ] (]) 14:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Which leads to my best practices questions: | |||
| ::] and ] exist as essays, there's the unblock request template and the {{tl|2ndchance}} template mentioned in the block review section, and, when the user cannot edit their talk page, they also have the option of emailing the blocking admin, another admin, or Arbcom. I don't really see what else you can offer. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : 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? | |||
| :No User:zzuuzz there is not. I guess you are right. ] (]) 11:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC) | |||
| : 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) | |||
| == essay == | |||
| :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) | |||
| :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 == | ||
| 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. | |||
| I've noticed that there is a page at ] that allows you to quickly block users, but there is no ] page for quickly unblocking users. ] (]) 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Under "Unacceptable Unblocking" | |||
| == Civility blocks == | |||
| * When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy. Arbitration enforcement blocks may be appealed using the ]. | |||
| The policy currently states that, under the heading of "disruption", "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely ]; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a ] and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia."... i.e. users may be blocked for "persistent ];" | |||
| "Special appeal provisions" is a bad link. The correct link is (as far as I can tell): | |||
| I propose that this be amended, by adding at the end of that list (after "persistently violating policies or guidelines") | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Established users should not normally be blocked for mere civility by an administrator acting alone; such decisions are too frequently highly contentious. Instead blocks which may be merited for ''patterns'' of incivility amounting to disruption should be proposed at an appropriate ] venue. It will generally be expected that prior methods of dispute resolution such as ] and ] will have been employed before the community is willing to support such a block. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| ] | |||
| Related policies might not also need amending, if this is agreed. (One of the issues with civility enforcement is the grey line between ] and ]; merging might possibly be helpful.) | |||
| ] <sup>]</sup> 22:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :I don't agree. In practice, such blocks are only contentious when applied to the relatively few vested contributors who are habitually incivil. We ought not to enshrine in policy this systemic failure of our community to deal with disruption. Compare also ]: "Strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy, not even from highly experienced, knowledgeable editors who produce quality content." <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:14, 7 March 2010 (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) | |||
| ::Well that's why I said "Established users" - it's here that problems seem to arise when such blocks aren't discussed beforehand. (Though arbitrariness in relation to civility enforcement seems a more general problem, it's only established users who have the clout and determination to raise a stink.) In any case, these problems come up often enough that any suggestions for improvement should be worth discussing. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have fixed the link (FWIW, this info is also in the contentious topic procedures). Best, ] (]) 05:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with ]. That a few problem editors are teflon-coated and can get away with wanton abuse of anyone they dislike, is no reason to do away with the few tools we have to prevent descending into complete anarchy. ] (]) 22:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::I fail to understand how requiring prior discussion is such an issue. By definition, "persistent incivility amounting to disruption" is - for established users at least - a gradual process, and blocks for it typically have a "straw that broke the camel's back" character. This makes them contentious even when merited, which makes people not use them when they should, which allows people to get away with murder. More clearly laying out a WQA -> RFCU -> civility block discussion path should be helpful in combating civility, not merely in combating drama around civility blocks. Basically, civility enforcement is currently broken - do you have a better idea to fix it? ] <sup>]</sup> 22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The fundamental problem is that there is no way to make a 24-hour block stick on a well-known editor with valuable contributions. If such an editor were to receive and serve even one civility block, their behavior would be extremely likely to change; because that does not happen, the behavior does not change. If the editor were taken to WQA or whatever, their supporters would overwhelm the stodgy "tolerated incivility will damage the project" messages, and people would start saying "let's close this now; waste of time; people shouldn't be so sensitive". With the current system, there will inevitably be an admin who reverses a civility block, and that provides those wanting to enforce reasonable civility with a herculean task. I suppose it's unachievable, but something like the following might help: agree on a new arrangement whereby an admin can issue a warning to a user (with no more than one warning per four-hour period to allow some cooling off); a second warning could then be given; on a third incident the user can be 24-hour blocked with a template that declares that no unblock can occur except by arbcom or a strong consensus at ANI. The warnings are live for three months, and are kept alive by another warning. An admin who abuses the warning system would be discussed at ANI. ] (]) 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' the proposed change. Sandstein is exactly correct. We should not enshrine a few manifest failures of the community to deal with incivility into policy. ] (]) 01:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *No, no, a thousand times no. We want people to go forth and use their reason. If someone makes a mistake, follow dispute resolution. Rules cannot be a substitute for dialogue. ] (]) 01:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| * No. This is absolutely not the right way to resolve the experienced but abusive user block/unblock blowups. ] (]) 02:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| *The current wording is adequate because the approach works with 99% of editors. Most people draw upon a limited reservoir of very blunt expressions when they mean to be rude. Usually a civility block has the effect of persuading the editor to join the majority of the community with civility. Exceptions exist where this approach fails because the skills and talents that yield really innovative rudeness are closely related to the skills and talents that yield superlative article writing. Many of Misplaced Pages's best content contributors are very polite people; those who choose not to be polite can generate types of incivility which are alternately maddening or witty (depending on one's perspective) and which are basically unblockable. The existence of exceptions is not sufficient reason to change policy; it is reason to exercise rational discretion and decide which problems are better to address through dispute resolution. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Why do these responses make me feel like people didn't read beyond the first sentence of the proposed text? The problem is, as stated, that currently ''patterns'' of incivility are handled in an ad hoc way, which makes enforcement unpredictable and ineffective. If you don't like the prescription to use dispute resolution (to help establish a pattern) and pre-block community discussion (to establish if the pattern is agreed to amount to disruption), what do you suggest? The status quo is the best we can manage? ] <sup>]</sup> 09:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :I did read the entire text of the proposal, and I just don't agree with it. Admins should have the unfettered power to block users for substantial incivility (whether particularly egregious individual instances or for patterns of incivility). Requiring "dispute resolution" in incivility cases is like telling a bullying victim to "discuss their differences" with a bully. There is nothing that currently prevents anyone from opening an AN/I thread about a particular user in cases of sustained incivility or any other pattern of disruptive behaviour. However, changing the language of the policy to ''require'' dispute resolution in cases of sustained incivility is will needlessly hamstrung admins dealing with disruptive behaviour. Established editor or not, '''editors involved in gross incivility should be blockable on sight'''. Yes, some of these blocks may be contentious, but this is better than giving "established editors" the appearance of a license to be incivil. ] (]) 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :For my part, I also read the proposal, but the exact content isn't much an issue for me. The problem is what I read to be a ] approach to problem solving. I want administrators to be able to use their common sense and judgment in the field, and I want people to talk it out in cases where there is disagreement about an individual case. I don't want rules to be a substitute for dialogue in any case whatsoever. People ought to figure out what to do on a case-by-case basis with policy informing their decisions, not dictating them. | |||
| :But perhaps even more importantly, this is not a good way to draft policy. Policy should reflect what is already being done. Ad-hoc discussions by whoever might be watching this policy talk page is ''not'' the way to effect these kinds of prescriptive rules. --] (]) 19:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::Then what do you suggest? I was hoping at least for a little debate about the problem the proposal seeks to address. In my view, generally the civility blocks that stick on established users are those that have sufficient prior dispute resolution and established patterns of incivility to back them up, along with substantial community agreement. That suggests to me a policy conclusion to discourage bad practice. The wording was intended not to ''disable'' civility blocks by individual admins, but to discourage them; hence qualifiers like "normally" and hedging like "generally expected". This could be tweaked of course, but I think the principle is sound. Nobody is talking about giving a "license to be incivil" - quite the opposite. The repeated and public failure to make civility enforcement stick encourages people to think they can get away with murder (and generally they can). As I alluded to above, changing the blocking policy in this way ought to be accompanied by some attempt to make dispute resolution on civility clearer and more effective. Part of the reason it hasn't been is because in principle simple blocking is supposed to be enforcement enough; but since it rarely is enough in practice, something ought to change. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, no. If anything, the language of the policy should be made ''stronger'' not weaker. Incivility is a big problem, particularly when coming from "established users" since such incivility, when left unchecked or when tolerated and de facto condoned, drives away other established users and newbies and in general makes productive discussion impossible. Chronic incivility by established users is a form of bullying and it should be treated as such. The real issue here is that in a few particularly bad cases a chronically incivil established users is protected by a group of admin friends who are willing to wheel-war and to lift the civility blocks whenever such blocks are imposed . However, the solution cannot and should not be to codify instances of such irresponsible admin behaviour into policy. On the contrary, the policy needs to be very clear that gross incivility, whether by newbies or by established users, is completely unacceptable and can lead to a block. Whenever a particular admin lifts a justified civility block for his/her pal, the admin should be reminded of the policy and, if necessary, the case should be referred to arbcom. Some admins will still continue the irresponsible practice of protecting their friends from civility blocks, but they should not be able to hide behind policy. Both the status quo and strengthening the policy language are better than the change that you propose. ] (]) 21:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Fine, propose something concrete that makes it "stronger". I'm not trying to make it weaker. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::We actually have begun resolving this by the simple if slow expedient of these people causing sufficient admin headache that they get taken to Arbcom for a permaban. | |||
| :::Reality is that apparently we both have sufficient disagreement in the community to stymie effective per-incident admin responses, and yet enough to generate successful arbcom cases against those same users. This seems like it should be wrong - but it's working out that way. | |||
| :::The problem with your approach is that (as I see it) it's attempting to insert an intermediate step which will *both* stymie per-incident admin responses and to some degree interfere with when we'd normally initiate an arbcom case. ] (]) 21:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The real problem is that highly uncivil, belligerent, and aggressive behavior by admins. The expression of frustrations by common editors isn't a big deal at all. They are human. It's the regular abuses of policies to after and antagonize that is corrosive. For example Sandstein just made a false accusation on an arbiration report page and Georgewilliamherbert regularly targets editors he doesn't care for, but when an admin calls a good faith editor a "drama lovign troll" he doesn't say or do anything about it. An environment that is so political and hypocritical will always engender resentment and frustration. But if the community chooses to encourage respect and colelgial cooperation instead, and weeds out the corrupt and dishonest hypocrisy then progress can be made. ] (]) 21:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::With all due respect, you are one administrator "close" vote from being banned from Misplaced Pages for the next 12 months. No administrator has voted against either remedy. | |||
| :::::Your opinion has been noted repeatedly, but the community disagrees. | |||
| :::::] (]) 21:43, 8 March 2010 (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)