Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 5

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 5

Wikipedi lain

The following additions have been proposed by Users: Shultz IV: Users can not be blocked just because they have been blocked on foreign Wikipedia, because their affairs must remain completely separate. However, you may discuss the block with the users in question if you so wish.

I do not think this is a great addition. The best thing, it is m: creep instructions. At worst it can promote wikilawyering or otherwise block reasonable steps to limit damage caused by cross-wikipedia intruders. FreplySpang (talk) 21:39, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that this is not a good idea - even though we should not always hang around making sure all our blocks are lined up, there might be situations involving traitors who cross-project roughly should be banned based on their patterns elsewhere. (ESKOG) ^(Speak) 21:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is not a great addition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:18, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

So if you know of any users here being blocked for destruction on foreign Wikipedia, what would you do? Do you let them alone or talk to them about it? - Shultz IV 22:22, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

I'll watch them a little more carefully than most, and I'm not likely to cut it. But that's a subjective thing - no need to codify it. FreplySpang (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FreplySpang; this can be decided from case by case. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:13, April 8, 2006 (UTC)

And I think you'll also ask why they did what they did on the foreign Wikipedia in the first place. --Shultz IV 04:35, April 9, 2006 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 5

Death

I see this added to the policy page by Ryan Delaney (talk o contribs o block o protect o removal o move) . First of all, I am wondering where the discussion is about this, and secondly, I do not see why a block is needed. In fact, I would think that there would be the possibility of additional damage if it were done. Just a thought. --BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 14:53, April 15, 2006 (UTC)

Hm, interesting. And how do we know if someone has died FreplySpang (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

If someone dies, their account usage in the "past" (last few minutes) may not trigger an auto-block, unless sysop is not enough to add when they die in front of their screen in some weird situations.

To verify the death of a fellow editor, that's not always for sure, so we have to be careful both in the application and the words (no block message saying "You're off.Go." or something :-)).

BTW, I'm really confused by your comment, BorgHunter, that you "wonder where the discussion is" Ryan's plausible addition - since when Wikipedia became the place where policy amendments should be made by parliamentary decisions? -)

James F. (talk) 22:14, April 15, 2006 (UTC)

It is customary to file changes to official policies rather than just adding them. Why? I mind... and you have responded well. thanks. And if I observe a Wikipedian die in front of their screen... I will save blocking them until the next day to avoid autoblock.Ã,;) --BorgHunter ^ubx (talk ) 12:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed there was a typo in this section... (died) 207.179.172.217 12:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipediawan that really died? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 17:16, May 21, 2006 (UTC)

See WP: DW. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 17:18, May 21, 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, accounts of both English Wikipedia users in WP: DW, KwantusÃ, (talkÃ, Ã, Â · contribs) and CarolineÃ, ThompsonÃ, (talkÃ, Ã, Â · contribs), has been blocked before. today by Deskana (Quantum block log, log block Caroline Thompson). While I personally think blocking dead user accounts, along with protecting their user pages, is a good idea, does anyone know if this was ever done before the "Death" section was added to this page? (I will open up the possibility that there may be some dead Wikipedians that have never been added to WP: DW and whose accounts are blocked.) There is a little back and forth on this issue, and I'm not sure the consensus is really strong on such blocks. szyslak (t, c, e ) 20:32, May 21, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Policy about blocking ISP web proxies?

I am aware that at least two ISPs in Thailand are permanently blocked recently. One of them is KSC Internet, the second ISP in Thailand and one of the largest, which uses IP address 203.155.1.245 for outbound web traffic. (See [1] for a long list of contributions before the block.) Another one is TOT, the second largest ADSL operator in Thailand, which recently used address 202.47.247.116. Using a public IP address here is the norm as some web filtering is enforced by the Thai government. Because too many users are affected by one bad user (I suspect it was hacked or spywared), I propose that both of these addresses be released. And there must be something that marks the user page that the IP belongs to the ISP web proxy so that administrators can only block for a short time. - Lerdsuwa 15:10, April 17, 2006 (UTC)

Did the proxy send a forwarded header-x-for? if so it would probably be a good idea to talk to devs about making them believable. Plugwash 15:40, April 17, 2006 (UTC)

Here's what I got for 203.155.1.245 when checking with [2].

 via 1.1 wc-bkkbt1 (NetCache NetApp/6.0.3)  connection remains alive  referer http://www.google.co.th/search?hl=th&q=http header & amp; btnG = à ¸⠀ žÃ ¹⠀ ° à ¸â "à ¢  Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Â, Ã,   Â% B8% AB% E0% B8% B2% E0% B9% 82% E0% B8% 94% E0% B8% A2 Google & amp; meta =  receive-language th, en-us; q = 0.7, en; q = 0.3  x-forwarded-to 203.107.204.92  content length 0  host www.ericgiguere.com  thank-encoding gzip, deflate  receive text/xml, application/xml, application/xhtml xml, text/html; q = 0.9, text/plain; q = 0.8, image/png, */*; q = 0.5  thank-charset TIS-620, utf-8; q = 0.7, *; q = 0.7  cookie JSESSIONID = A7855EC696CCC6CE25F027F916D0F73D; __ utma = 135980773.2094759798.1145289195.11  Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Â, Ã, Ã, 45289195.1145289195.1; __ utmb = 135980773; __ utmc = 135980773; __ utmz = 135980773.1145289195.1.1.  Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã,  Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, utmccn = (organic) | utmcsr = google | utmctr = http header | utmcmd = organic  user-agent Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: 1.7.5) Gecko/20041123 Firefox/1.0  

This is a dial-up connection. The following is the log for the address used by the connection.

 Apr 17 23:05:19 host pppd [12010]: local IP address 203.107.204.92  Apr 17 23:05:19 host pppd [12010]: remote IP address 203.107.130.172  17 Apr 23:05:19 host pppd [12010]: Primary DNS address 202.44.144.37  17 Apr 23:05:19 host pppd [12010]: secondary DNS address 203.155.33.10  

For address 202.47.247.116, I will ask the person who has the problem for this information. - Lerdsuwa 16:10, April 17, 2006 (UTC)

Information for the 202.47.247.116 address I received:

 x-bluecoat-via F58248E7BE268626  Keep-Alive connection  referrer http://th.wikipedia.org/wiki/à ¸§à ¸Â'à ¸ à ¸Â'à ¸žà  , Ã,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::% % E0% B9% 80% E0% B8% A5% E0  B8% E0% B8% 8A% E0% B8% B2% E0% B8% A7% B0% E0% B8% A7% E0% B8% B4% E0  Ã, Ã, Â, Ã, Ã, Ã, Â, E0% B8% 94% E0% B8% B5% E0  Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã,  Ã,Â% B8% A2  thank-language th  content length 0  host www.ericgiguere.com  thank-encoding gzip, deflate  receive images/gif, images/x-xbitmap, images/jpeg, images/pjpeg, apps/vnd.ms-excel, apps/msword,  Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã, Ã,  application/vnd.ms-powerpoint, application/x-shockwave-flash, */*  user-agent Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; Maxthon)  max-stale cache control = 0  

- Lerdsuwa 14:49, April 18, 2006 (UTC)

src: darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com

Biography of living people

I would like to add this to the policy, and would greatly appreciate the feedback.

An editor who repeatedly inserts important material into the biography of the living person (or his talk page), or into the section about the person living in another article (or talk page), may be blocked under the terms of the interruption of this policy if, in the opinion of the admin blocking, the material has no resources, or the source is wrong, and may cause defamation. Blocks created for this reason are designed to keep material from the page until it is written and sourced in accordance with the content policy, including WP: BLP, and therefore should be kept short in the first instance. Repeated violations should draw longer blocks.

I have handled some cases where the new editor tries to add non-sourced material that can cause legal issues. Dealing with this is very time consuming, because the policy should be explained to the user multiple times, and then the source must be found and used correctly. In the meantime, they came back to recover the material, and we only had three returns if it were not simple vandalism. Ask another admin to block the editor for strange interruptions because the current policy stands, because arguing about the use of source and quality of writing is considered a content dispute and therefore can not be blocked. Asking Danny to deal with all these cases is unrealistic, because there are so many of them, and he limits himself to official complaints. It seems unreasonable that, with about 1,000 admins, Danny should handle all these complaints, when we can lead some of them on graduation by taking initial action against users making these problematic edits. My guess is that only a block threat to the disruption will be enough in many cases to show the new editor that Wikipedia takes this matter seriously. Any thoughts what? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:55, April 20, 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable, and I will block it, but I'm afraid the only way most people will, and the only way to prevent blocking by AGFer who do not understand, is if someone creates a series of boilerplate warnings that are getting strong... just as I hate those damn things, such as {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, etc. Pathetic, I know. - Apr. 20, '06 [23:01] & lt; freakofnur _x ture | talk & gt;

Good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:07, April 20, 2006 (UTC)

View Template: Defwarn. Jkelly 23:20, April 20, 2006 (UTC)

See also template: Defban. -Is Beback 08:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I just created {{blp1}}, {{blp2}}, and {{blp3}} along the lines of vandalism. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:29, April 20, 2006 (UTC)

The posted template Jkelly indicates it's already a policy that we can block allegedly defamatory people (which I'm not aware of has been made explicit), so I assume it's okay to go ahead and add it to page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:32, April 20, 2006 (UTC)

While we all work on different issues (such as the nickname of a gun), the libel of a living person may be the most serious legal issue faced by the Wikimedia Foundation and individual editors. Enforcement of these extensions or clarifications can even help the editors by preventing them from causing harm they can find responsible. -Is Beback 04:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "defemation"? Critical material quoted and balanced in NPOV mode with non-critical material, or unbiased and non referenced critical material? Jarlaxle Artemis 06:32, April 21, 2006 (UTC)

In this case, it is material that does not have the resources that matter. If we have a reliable source of information, and we summarize it with NPOV, then negative information is allowed. -Is Beback 08:08, April 21, 2006 (UTC)

& lt; & lt; & lt; I welcome this initiative for all that has been disclosed. My only concern is that WP: LIVING is a guide and not a policy, so the words of {{tl | blp''n ''}} templates require different words referring to the new section of WP: BLOCK related to Biography of the living, hopefully SlimVirgin will add it to the page. ? jossi? t o @ 09:53, April 21, 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I added it. Thanks for all the inputs, all of them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I also tweaked the appropriate blp warning template. ? jossi? t o @ 10:34, April 21, 2006 (UTC)

What about the statement about refactoring the libel text from the talk page? We need that. Deleting text like that from the article is fine because we can assert that this is in vio [ation WP: V and WP: NOR, but our hands are tied up when the text appears on the talk page...? jossi? t o @ 10:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good work, Slim, rather quickly. I do not think you'll take my idea so seriously, I'm really flattered. Now we just need to get people to actually use it, so cross to the required department. - Apr. 21, '06 [10:49] & lt; freakofnur _x ture | talk & gt;

Thank you, Fon. Your template idea is great. They look pretty good: serious but not overly exaggerated. Jossi, I agree we should say something about when to remove the material from the talk page. Maybe I'll try adding something later, or make a proposal here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

interruption

Is "editing a 2 month old poll result" is a nuisance case? Raphael1 01:58, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

It will depend on the context, Raphael. You may need to provide more details. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:00, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

He refers to the cartoon controversy of Jyllands-Posten Muhammad where he will fight the supermjaority editor who wants it saved and has been invited several times to start a straw poll if he thinks the decision is no longer valid but has instead decided to delete images at random without discussion. Pegasus1138 ^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 02:10, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

Well, the supermayor is 2 months old. In addition, I never reject any discussion because you can easily see the Talk page: Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. Raphael1 02:22, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

src: darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com

NPA

It has come to my attention that NPA violations are not listed separately in the blocking policies, or blocking mentioned as a possible consequence on the NPA page. Wp: npa # The consequence states that "repeatedly involved in personal attacks" may lead to a ban; not mentioned is made of the common interim method of the block. WP: BP # Distractions mention personal attacks. Should it be mentioned also on the NPA page? Posting on both Wikipedia chats: Wikipedia blocking and talk policy: NPA; I suggest the discussion continued on Talk: NPA. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 04:18, April 26, 2006 (UTC)

src: i.kym-cdn.com

"Patient community patience"

Part of this policy is (a) unnecessary (you can already block people for interruptions) and (b) potentially very divisive (if there is no distraction, many people will consider the block unfair). Can we get rid of that part? Zocky | popup image 02:07, April 28, 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a useful way to describe the level of interference that can get you banned indefinitely. "Tiring people's patience" is a great way to put it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

We usually can not be blocked for first interruptions. If many people think the block is unfair, there must be an admin who will argue that the block should be canceled, and that is an indication that the public's patience has not been exhausted. It's all really successful in practice, and I do not think it makes sense to remove it. Jkelly 02:22, April 28, 2006 (UTC)

This is not a good way to describe it. To anyone who threatens with such a block, it will surely sound like a troll-basher wet dream. The community is not human. About who exactly who we are talking about?

In fact, all users listed on Wikipedia: The list of illegal users # Prohibited by the Wikipedia community is prohibited because community members debate and decide that the presence of further users will never be useful for the encyclopaedia. There is no patience, frustration, or other emotion involved, at least in the "Wikipedia community" section.

In addition to being redundant, it may even be wrong. Unlimited blocks of communities are not blocks, they are prohibited and they are protected by their own policies, prohibiting, as method # 1 to ban users. Zocky | popup images 04:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is mentioned briefly in the ban policy, but I see no harm in mentioning it here as well. This is where the new admins come to learn when to block, and even though you actually call it a ban, it's a ban imposed by admin blocking, and knowing when it's okay to do. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is also mentioned in the top right. Also, any restrictions are imposed by admin blocking, so I do not understand the rest of the arguments. The disadvantages are obvious - things written in many places can be changed in many places, causing unnecessary inconsistencies and disputes. Zocky | popup image 13:10, April 28, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

blocking indef

Where can I see a list of things you should block people indefinitely? I have seen some admins block people unlimitedly because they have nothing but vadalism in their contribution logs, but I do not know what to do in a case like this: Special: Contribution/Evieman. Only user editing is vandalism. Should I hold it? --Dijxtra 13:01, May 4, 2006 (UTC)

Generally we do not limit indefinitely to one edit that is vandalism. The exception is if the account is a sock doll (which seems likely) from a user who has been banned indefinitely for previous bad behavior (which I do not know in this case). I would probably just place a warning and then short blocks later and maybe sock checks if they continue to damage. --CBDunkerson 13:17, May 4, 2006 (UTC)

We tend to block for single vandalism editing if it is offensive. If the account is only used for vandalism, then it should have been blocked indefinitely (though that does not apply to IP addresses). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

src: i.kym-cdn.com

Canceling another admin block

I would like to rewrite the section called "If you do not agree with the block" to reinforce the caution against the cancellation of other admin blocks without discussion. While it is generally accepted that we should not do this, it keeps happening. This section says:

If you do not agree with the block placed by another admin, please contact the admin to discuss the issue. Some reasons you might want to unblock are:

• The user was blocked for violating this policy
• Blocking reason is no longer valid

Keep in mind that a blocked user usually sends an e-mail to some admins who claim to be victims of maltreatment by a biased admin. Because it's not always clear from a blocked user's editing history what the problem is, it's a matter of courtesy and common sense to consult a blocking admin, rather than doing a self-blocking.

The exception to this is where unambiguous errors have been made...

I want to change it to:

If you do not agree with the blocks placed by another admin, do not unblock without discussing this issue thoroughly with the block admin , and with another admin on WP: AN/I if appropriate. Blocked users typically send e-mails to some admins who claim to be victims of injustice, and therefore it is not always clear from the contribution of blocked users what the problem is, it's a matter of politeness and common sense to consult a blocking admin rather than unblock themselves. An exception to this is where unambiguous errors have been made (not rating calls) and blocking admins are not online: for example, if a user is blocked for 3RR, but there are obviously only three returns. If you think the error was created, and the blocking admin is not available, you must notify the block admin on the talk page and the entire administrator community in WP: AN/I that you unblock blocked users before doing so. If there are no unpleasant errors, do not cancel the other admin blocks without prior discussion.

Any feedback will be appreciated. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, what about an admin that no longer exists? If there is an unambiguous error, admins should not be afraid to unblock it if the block admin is lost for a while, although this does not prevent discussion on ANI. --BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 11:52, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

Hi BH, an exception is if the block admin is not online for any reason, and an ambiguous error will also be an exception, as said. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:14, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. I am even willing to be repeated here. :) There are some cases where it is necessary to undo the admin action very urgently they can not wait until the discussion supports them. If the admin is blocking under the policy no other admins should return it without consensus to do so. If the block is not good, the consensus that it is bad will quickly develop and the user can be blocked with minimum damage. If no consensus develops, it should not be canceled . Reversing another admin action is a problem, and just following the above will eliminate it for the most part. - Taxman ^Talk 12:47, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

• Support this rewrite. It's done well. Yes there are exceptions but need to be pronounced strongly. Admin must support each other. Lar: t/c 13:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree too; this is just a specific example of Wikipedia: Assume good faith, which is already policy. It is unfortunate (and somewhat sad) that it should be stated explicitly, but history shows that there are a number of admins who do not seem to understand this. Jayjg 16:26, May 11, 2006 (UTC)

It's sad, but I'm glad there's a deal, and I think people are becoming more aware that it's liked. I will add it to the page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, May 15, 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. AnnH ? 20:30, May 15, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Wikipedia: No personal attacks

There have been recent attempts to address real issues in the wrong policy. People who fight against Wikipedia outside Wikipedia is one (maybe real) problem. People who make life difficult (attacking, harassing, giving personal details) to Wikipedia contributors are a problem. I advise everyone who thinks Wikipedia: No personal attack is a good place to solve some part of it, instead of concentrating on making this policy very clear about which part is applicable in the Wikipedia virtual world and which parts apply to activities outside of the Wikipedia cyberspace as well (starting with "The board can block IP addresses or usernames that interfere with normal Wikipedia functionality, or pose any threat to it."). WS 4.250 19:51, May 9, 2006 (UTC)

src: darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com

Double Blocking

The "Expiration and application time" section in this policy says that if a user is blocked by more than one administrator at a time, the user will be blocked until the shortest block ends . Is this true? If so, how does sysop extend the expiration time before the current blocking period ends?

Is not it more logical that the most recent block period replaces all of the past expiration periods? - Adi Japan Ã, ? 08:40, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

It would be great if it could be changed, because at the moment, if we want to extend the block, we have to manually unblock it, including cancel autoblocks, and then reboot. This also means that if admin A blocks for a week, and admin B blocks again for 24 hours without checking that admin A has been blocked, it is 24 hours prioritized, so block admin A has effectively been undone without his knowledge, and probably without admin B who asked for it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:01, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

The blocking code is currently being re-created from scratch, as there are currently hack hacks according to Rob Church who is working on it. That's why WP is clear: BPP has not been added as another hack. - Taxman ^Talk 14:12, May 16, 2006 (UTC)

src: www.wikihow.com

Blocking Without warning

Can This Policy Expand to Blocking Without warning. I was recently blocked for my first WP violation: POINT Without a notice on my conversation page that I was blocked. The person who blocked me told me that only new users get the warning and because I know clearly the policy (and related to it) I am eligible to block without warning or notice. I know we are not entitled to a rule of rest (The no rule rue) But I feel that under special circumstances, they are exceptions. I am under the impression Blocking is the last resort used to stop interruptions in action. I was very upset because I defended what I defended and finished with this problem and I was blocked after the incident.

I feel that the important thing is not the law itself but what defends the law. Is it ever appropriate to have a minor WP violation: POINT which only affects one user to maintain another WP user form: BITE in action.

Do not you hate it when you disagree with a user who happens to be an admin? - E-Bod 03:07, May 18, 2006 (UTC)

Well it makes sense to block people who are annoying wikipedia. Can you show us (no purpose) for the incident you're talking about? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 17:19, May 21, 2006 (UTC)

I have posted a long reply in User: Yskyflyer/Block_Complaint. This is my short answer.

• Here's what I'm talking about. User_talk: Ed_g2s # Fair_use_uncyclopedia
• This is the answer from the user. User_talk: Yskyflyer # Unenecyclopaedia

Unfortunately they are the difference in what Wikipedia does Wikipedia to believe in Wikipedia and what is believed by the new wave of Wikipedians. Wikipedia has its own life. Wikipedia is great for tight control of one person and another. Wikipedia is Beaurocracy WP: NOT and their rules are not blanked. If the user does not agree with my edit, he should discuss it with me so as not to block me.

This is a page with edit I protest.

The longer you are around the more conflicts you face. Differentiating people because metaconflit is unacceptable. (Nether is part of my edit) - E-Bod 19:47, May 21, 2006 (UTC)

Basically I feel I am not Annoying Wikipedia but more than one user interchangeably interrupts user space while refusing to talk to users. After that

Blocks are not appropriate because it prevents my form from resolving a blocked issue. That's enough to frustrate me so I no longer want to go back and change my comments with an apology. Silenced is a terrible feeling. I am used to having the right to speak and to be heard and to listen to others.

Another problem is when you block someone, Blocker almost needs power. They will say that they will unblock you if you acknowledge what you did wrong. This policy is unacceptable because the people of Unsisere will lie and say they know they are wrong

I feel someone should just be blocked when there is reason to suspect they will repeat the offense. Admin shoed considered good faith.

I have not returned to complain to this user because of how I can complain to an arbitrator. --E-Bod 19:47, May 21, 2006 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Blocking when a user is involved in a request for mediation, comment or arbitrage

A user is blocked and then blocked by a second admin, partly because the user is involved in a mediation request. I think we should have some policy/guidance on whether to unblock when the editor has a request for mediation, comment or arbitration going on, as this has appeared before and will almost certainly appear again. I am reluctant to give them a complete exception because some editors are often involved in such cases and they can take a long time to complete, so editors may not be blocked for significant time. Also, their behavior may be worse if they know they will not be blocked. Instead of blocking this editor, I suggest that the blocks be short, 24 or 48 hours long. If they are not effective, then something else can be tried, like a temporary ban from editing certain articles. I think that users can get long-term blocks and respond to RfX on the talk page. - Kjkolb 06:12, May 23, 2006 (UTC)

Or we can use our common sense, as we have done. In some cases, blocking should be avoided. Some examples:

• Requests for comments take a long time, there is no reason to block blocks altogether.
• Arbitrage also takes a long time, but actually gets useful results. Do not block it more than a few days.
• Users in most mediation should not be blocked, other than in extreme circumstances. --Phroziac ???? 14:37, May 23, 2006 (UTC)

• • So what, the admin should act like a rational person and make sense with common sense? Oh, that will work. ;-) I do not think it would be a problem to make a small note about your suggestion on the page, but this is definitely not very important. Thank you, Kjkolb 06:28, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

src: i1.wp.com

Proposal

Hi, I want to add a bit to the policy, stating that IP may block indef if they are zombie/open proxy (already policy); but would like to add that some sort of network admin (in the requested place) has asked the Wiki admin to block the indef. what do you think? K ilo-Five | ^(talk) 16:51, May 26, 2006 (UTC)

src: darksouls.wiki.fextralife.com

Tell users how long they were blocked for

I have noticed that users are not informed how long they have been blocked unless it is an unlimited block, of which there are templates. It seems people generally do not know how long they've been blocked. They can look in the log block, but many people may not know about that page. Is there a perceived advantage in not saying how long the block is? I would think that it would be somewhat frustrating, with the user constantly checking to see if the block has ended. - Kjkolb 23:23, June 3, 2006 (UTC)

{{test5-n}} allows the length to be filled as part of the message. This is the template I used to use. However (I do not know because I was never blocked), did not appear on their screen along with "You have been blocked by X... The reason for your block is Y"? AnnH ? 23:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

MediaWiki: Blockedtext is a page that has the text you see when you are blocked. From what I can say, there are four parameters

• $ 1: Block an admin username
• $ 2Ã,: Blocking reason
• $ 3 :: Blocked user IP address
• $ 4: It seems to block admin usernames again.

... and none of them included block time. I do not think it tells you. I think the link to the log block would be nice on that page but I am afraid to touch it. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 23:49, June 3, 2006 (UTC)

There is a link to the log block at the bottom of the page. Thank you for your help. - Kjkolb 00:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

how to report a user?

I'm sure this is here, I can not find it. Joeyramoney 01:40, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

WP: AIV Jkelly 02:18, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

getting frozen

Can user accounts be "frozen" (ie permanently disabled) on Wikipedia? ['fr? s.ti] 22:29, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

It may be blocked indefinitely - this block type lasts until the user is blocked by sysop (which may never happen). See also Wikipedia: Blocked user list and Wikipedia: Account_deletion # Deleting_your_user_account. googl t 18:48, June 9, 2006 (UTC)

When blocking can not be used

Self-blocking to run Wikiholiday or departure is specifically prohibited.

Why? As long as nothing is affected (dynamic/shared IP), I see this as a crime without a victim... Should not Wikipedia be libertarian "community"? --Gutza ^{T T} 19:34, June 10, 2006 (UTC)

Well... no. This is an encyclopedia project, not a society in any form. It has no evil as well. --FOo 00:15, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

I mean all that fine... Regardless of anything, why? - Gutza ^{T T} 00:25, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

1. Privaledges administrators should not be used with ease. â € <â €
2. Admin must use privaleges in wikipedia service, not themselves.
3. Admin does not need to know if their IP is a permenant.
4. It's trivial to unblock, so blocking is useless

Theresa Knott | Feel Korn 00:32, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

1. When someone blocks themselves, I think they have a good reason.
2. Seizing privilege inherently involves an error against a person, or discrimination against a person. This will not be a problem.
3. I will not comment on this, I find a very offensive proposition.
4. Rationally, yes. Subjectively, I'm not so sure. Have you or someone you know ever tried to break the habit? Smoking, maybe? (Not sarcastic, evil, etc., just make a point.)

--Gutza ^{T T} 00:41, 11 Juni 2006 (UTC)

These days, I tend to ask before punishing, as experience has shown that there are usually superior reasons for many rules (on Wikipedia) or law (in real life) that seem absurd at first sight. I do not see a strong reason for this one though, even after the clarification, so I will continue to punish. :-)

Each set of rules must be consistent to work. I feel that this particular rule is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy - I find it intrusive, arbitrary, essentially dictatorship and contrary to the Wikipedia spirit. Allow me to parse it.

There are two sides to my objection to this rule. First, I feel this rule is basically patronizing the administrators ("we, the Wikipedia lawyers, know that you, the administrator, may want to rest, and we also know that blocking yourself might help you achieve that, but we will not permit it, because we know better "). Secondly, I do not think it makes any sense: can the Wikipedia rule also prevent me from canceling my contract with my ISP, should I choose that method to discontinue my Wikipedia contribution? Could it prevent me from failing to pay for my Internet subscription, should I file a banckrupcy? What if I choose to kill myself, just to stop being an admin - will you raise me from death? (Ok, that's too extreme, but you get the idea.)

Full disclosure: I am not an admin on Wikipedia English, but I am an admin on the premises. A few weeks ago I wasted an hour or so cleaning up vandalism on the local Wikipedia during office hours, in my office. I am gradually improving one vandalism to the next, so I end up blocking myself for a few hours (literally) to escape. I am then interested to order (kidding) by other contributors to each Wikipedia. You can summarize my feelings from my comments above.

--Gutza ^{T T} 01:42, 11 Juni 2006 (UTC)

When this rule appears, there are some admins who block themselves to apply wikibreak. Some of them do not realize that their IPs use proxy caching. When they block themselves blocking everyone using the same proxy, causing some people to get annoyed! Non admin can not use blocking to force wikibreak, why admin can do it? Theresa Knott | Taste Korn 07:55, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

Is there someone approaching me and ask me to block them so they can go to WikiHoliday, I just tell them not to edit, I will not block them. Thus, I will not block myself. That's totally unnecessary. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 09:05, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, that makes sense - but I do not think this is not the case; after all, there is a separate provision for that situation (" The board also should not block themselves for testing unless they have static IPs that are not shared because the" autoblock "results may affect other users. ")

Deskana, I see you are not the first one that shows no point in blocking yourself. I see no reason why Wikipedia policy should explicitly prohibit useless exercise. --Gutza ^{T T} 10:44, June 11, 2006 (UTC)

Evasion

There seems to be a mistake in policy. A recently blocked user states that, although blocked, is not in a policy that prevents him from continuing to edit using a different IP address. If this is covered somewhere, please tell me where. If not, can we add something like the following:

When blocked, users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. Users should not try to avoid blocks.

It may also be wise to include existing practices (block period extension).

Jakew Comments 18:46, June 14, 2006 (UTC)

The current policy has nothing about circumvention at all. Evading blocks is, in most cases, considered justification for resetting or occasionally extending the original block... especially when they avoid blocks to resume the same behavior. I am surprised that this is not mentioned here. This should really be mentioned as well. --W.marsh 23:06, June 14, 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few words to it to spur things up. As always, do not hesitate to edit it mercilessly, or be patient (unlike me) and discuss it here. --W.marsh 23:18, June 14, 2006 (UTC)

In such situations, a dodge user can have a number of IPs available to him. Does it make sense to treat the editing as vandalism, so there is no upper limit to undo the mischief? Jakew 09:38, June 17, 2006 (UTC)

I follow the logic "Revert to view, block out view." Blocked point can not be edited. -Randall Brackett 16:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Infinite/Indefinite

What is the difference between "unlimited" and "in bb> de limited? In which case should I use each? - King of ? ? ? 23:36, June 14, 2006 (UTC)

This is a confusing change someone makes about the interface. Both are technically identical, only the "unlimited" are practically wrong. It's deleted now. -Splash - tk 16:56, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

presents evidence to support allegations

I was blocked by Jayjg for being a sockpuppet of two users I've never heard of. The admin does not show any evidence supporting the claim or he has not tried to contact me before. He or she does not leave a message on my talk page as the blocking policy instructs to do so. I find out what users are accused identical to me have edited, and even there is no similarity in the articles they focus on with my article. I looked it up on the checker page. There is nothing about two users who are accused of being socks. About me there is a case about the fourth user. It was a user who blocked my protests when he was blocked because of a "personal attack" that in my eyes did not exist. The admin who blocked me did not agree about this with me. Since this was the only event when I contacted him, I got the impression censored. The case was labeled "unconvinced" by a user with comments on editing two of two different European countries that did not need to be identified: The best advice would be: If it smells like a sock, it might be. As a sidenote, it bothers me that someone who does not know about the principle of the benefit of the doubt and with the history of blocking, even for vandalism, seems to almost exclusively deal with sensitive fields such as reviewers.
I was asked to be released, but the blocking admin did not answer, and the other told me that I should email him. I can not because I've gotten enough spam and do not want to provide an email address. He or she did not answer my unblock request, which was deleted three times by the admins confessing I should contact him first. Unblock requests for instances where users feel unfairly blocked, so they may not trust the admin who was blocking them and should not be asked to contact him. Because Zocky agrees with me:
Blocking cancellation request is not a request to be notified of sending mail to the block admin. The above comment by Shell Kinney is entirely inappropriate. Zocky 10:38, June 16, 2006 (UTC)
So I asked another admin, Theresa Knott, who provided the link on the user's page to his web page where the email address could be found. He was very kind and responded quickly and asked Jayjg who had blocked me. All he answers is this, indicating that he actually has no evidence to support his claim With this experience, I recommend four changes to the policy: 1. Blocking admins should be instructed to send evidence that can be proven on charges against blocked users on the talk page.
2. Block an admin should be instructed to view the newly blocked user talk page to make sure they see if there are any protests that appear.
3. Block requests should not be deleted unless the admin can present verifiable evidence for allegations against blocked users - of course if the previously blocked admin is present and the blocked user does not respond with assured, the request can be removed by stating this only./b>
4. Policy checker should be enforced:

Checker is the last resort for difficult cases.

Even if the user misuses, we recommend not disclosing personal information where possible.

If you are in doubt, do not provide details.

Since this is relevant both to the checking policy and to the blocking policy I posted back on Wikipedia_talk: Requests_for_checkuser # Enforcement_of_policies. My advice is to post comments where they are more appropriate. Socafan 16:47, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

Socofan you need to keep your mouth shut. You make yourself look bad, and actually you also make me look bad in the process because I unblock you. Essjay is a highly respected admin, the so-called "history of its blocs even for vandalism" is proof of what it really is? Anyone who sees the block log will see it for what it is - two blocks of joke, one error block and one block of the previously mentioned error. Please stop making personal and calm attacks. Do not make me regret unblocking you. Go and have a cup of tea or something. Theresa Knott | Taste Korn 19:30, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

You can honor him for what he did in other cases, and it is your right to do so. When he handles my case, I think he's violating the policy, and when you write it yourself, he does not answer my complaints properly. Furthermore, this is not to anyone personally but to a general policy that I believe needs to be improved. Please stop claiming that I personally attack others. I do not, I just give factual reports about what happened, and in fact I feel it's a personal attack on me to say that I personally attack other people when I do not do it and tells me to shut up when I try to improve polciy. If the history of the block does not show past violations, as Armedblowfish is also shown here, I would say it should be removed. Socafan 21:40, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

Socafan, why do not you remove references to admins and certain actions and instead concentrate on your general proposal? This is really not the place to complain about the perceived injustice, and you will find that people are more receptive to your ideas if you do not mix them up.

Just my opinion, but I will say that your first two suggestions are worth considering. I have to give other people more thought. Jakew 21:58, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

Think it will be more clear why this is necessary if a particular case is presented where it will help, but proceed if you can make it more concise and more convincing. Socafan 22:36, June 16, 2006 (UTC)

Based on the conversation here, I believe that we should have the system available for longer static IP blocks with an identifiable source from which virtually any editing is vandalism. AlisonW has noted the presence of about 20 IP primary schools from which abundant vandalism flows whenever blocks are not in place, and objects to the limit of 1 month to block IPs such as wasting admin time. He also noted that the IPs in question were blocked almost all the time, as they started destroying again as soon as the block was over. Either we need a change in policy to address this, or maybe a bulletin board where the proposed IP permablock can be brought. Applause! bd2412 T 22:52, June 20, 2006 (UTC)

I will clarify that, sfaiac, while 'vandalism' has a policy that suggests one month as maximum, interruption (this is very clear - see Archive65 and Archive54 plus Wikipedia: Abuse_reports/Internet_for_Learning for a long discussion earlier about this IP range) is the problem here, and the policy states that blocking on static IPs can get longer.

I do not like that I have to take this step because I believe it is someone else, but we have to see what makes sense to Wikipedia and what makes this IP address open for edits. We didn t stop them reading Wikipedia, we just stopped them ruining it. I would not see this to be a common procedure, but we also need to realize that one size is never suitable for all and where many are trying repeatedly to make vandalism and interruption stop - and fail at any moment - we end up having to stop hitting the proverbial head we fight the brick wall and accept we do not have a better solution that is permablock. --AlisonW 23:08, June 20, 2006 (UTC)

How much time is actually wasted? I do not think so much. Do you suggest indefinate blocks? It did not seem necessary to me. But the term is usually fixed and well known. I will support a proposal to allow admins to block troubled schools until the end of the present. This could potentially be ~ 3 months max. Does this seem like an idea that people can live with? Theresa Knott | Feel Korn 07:06, June 25, 2006 (UTC)

Extending for up to three months or more seems reasonable. Did anyone try to contact the school about this issue? Maybe they can punish those who damage. Even just a special warning about the destruction of Wikipedia might help a bit with elementary school kids. If capability is available, requiring those with an IP to register for editing may be an acceptable solution. - Kjkolb 08:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Theresa! Yes, the exact blocks may be just as good, though if the term practically comes to the same thing. Kjkolb's suggestion is, of course, exactly what we need, but the Bugzilla entry to activate it has been here long enough, unfortunately. --AlisonW 14:02, June 30, 2006 (UTC)

Awakening community patience

In my opinion, this section:

There was a situation where the user had spent the patience of the community to the point where he found himself blocked. The blocking administrator in these cases must be confident that there is community support for the block, and should record the block on WP: ANI as part of the review process. With such support, users are deemed to be banned and must be registered on Wikipedia: Blocked user list (under "Communities").

has some issues:

1. Instead of defining rules, it just seems to state something that has been added and seems to say implicitly that it does not matter
2. There is no specification of what legitimate patience or patience should be: it seems to imply that whenever a group of users feels they have lost their patience about the behavior of some other users (possibly after the war) they can be legitimate to block it
3. There is no specification of what it means to have "community support": sure it does not refer to the entire wikipedia community, so how many people are needed to create "community support"?

Do you not think that this section, as stated, can be easily misused? --Pokipsy76 13:41, June 27, 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentences

The following sentence from WP: BLOCK # Expiration time and application part potentially confusing:

For example, if an administrator blocks a user for one day, and another administrator blocks the same user for two days, then the user will remain blocked for a day, assuming that the block is assigned at the same time.

Very unlikely the two admins block the pen

Source of the article : Wikipedia