Wikibooks talk:Blocking guideline

Relatively minor changes
I added info on how requests are logged at WB:ACW. As well, noted that multiple, persistent requests can be a form of vandalism, and may warrant an infinite block and protected user talk: page. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can someone add info on how to figure out if an IP is an open proxy to Blocking guideline? – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Derbeth, Herby, or Az usually take care of this, maybe they will chime in. -within focus 01:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Move to enforce as a guideline

 * 1) Proposed text with a static version set at: Revision as of 16:41, 12 October 2007 by Mike.lifeguard
 * 2) Pared-down verstion by darklama:

Votes

 * Only registered users with at least 20 edits can vote.
 * Vote ends one week after the last posting or consensus has clearly been reached.
 * Add votes in the format  #~ 

Decision
Consensus failed. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 22:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1)  - I think all the areas of concern mentioned above have been adequately addressed in this guideline proposal. So far as I can tell, the community seems to be following this guideline of it's own accord already. That's consensus enough for me. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Panic 19:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  I was going to abstain, but on second thought I am in general support of this. Not to say that we can't improve it over time. I agree with herby that we can't hope to cover every possibility, so I suggest that this be a guideline and not a policy. We should also make sure we add something about how the text isnt always definitive and that admins are encouraged to use their best judgement. I specifically like the part about not being bold, because an admin wheel-war isnt a possibility that should ever be allowed. Now, admins can certainly question other admin's blocks, and raise the possibility of a reversal, but the key is discussion and not rash action. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

No

 * 1)  No blocking policy guideline will ever cover every eventuality and will merely lead to opportunities to argue that someone is in the wrong -- Herby  talk thyme 08:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with what Herby says.  I also disagree with the "blocking and unblocking is not being bold" statement.  If I disagree with another admin's block then I want to revert it and I'm quite happy for another admin to come along and revert any of my blocks.  Wikibooks works well because admins have different views and we all watch over each other and have the ability to revert each others actions.  I also disagree with blocking IPs which are suspected of being proxies.  There is no proof that this has stopped vandalism and it has a very bad affect on people in many countries who rely on open proxies for uncensored access to the Internet. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 10:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocking OPs is a foundation policy, and unblocking them is a violation of foundation policy. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I talked about possible reverting of an admin's block/unblock I wasn't referring to blocking of OPs. If admins wish to persue this pointless activity of blocking OPs then they can but I'm not willing to do so but I won't interfere with these blocks made by other admins.  Open proxies are used extensively in countries like China and Vietnam and also in places like Italy where Internet access is closely monitored by the authorities.  Open proxies are also used by those who use very busy ISPs which are often blocked because of vandalism by a small number of users.  In addition, in countries like Singapore ALL Internet traffic is routed through a very small number of Government proxy servers (which censor any anti-government content).  Such pre-emptive action hasn't had any affect on vandalism on Wiki projects. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) - per Herbythyme. The only thing blocking policies (or guidelines) do is create more opportunity for wikilawyering. Blocking is the last choice tool for preventing disruption, and if wikilawyering in encouraged, we only get more disruption. -- SB_Johnny  | PA! 14:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I realized that the current form of this guideline is limp, and there is already a section about blocking on the administrators policy that covers this material. The only things that this draft should have added were a restriction against being bold to prevent wheelwarring, and a set of guidelines for dealing with an unblock request. The current draft contains neither, and in my opinion is significantly worse then what we already have. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) At first I was trying to be proactive but after some thought I realize this guideline is pretty useless now. I prefer this version and feel we should work from there, not stripping it entirely. Some editors here really freak out about a few simple things. The solution to someone trying to be a lawyer is pretty easy: don't listen or respond to it. Rejecting something because it can't predict the future is silly. -within focus  12:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just want to reiterate this point: no policy can completely predict all future possibilities, and none of the policies that have been accepted here in the past do this. We can cover common cases and expect admins to be able to extrapolate from those to the uncommon cases. Considering that all actions are always open to discussion and review, I don't feel like that's a bad system. Also, fear of wikilawyering is virtually nil. We can simply ignore people who are abusing and twisting policy (especially personal misinterpretation of policy). We would be better served in this policy and in any policy to cover the important common cases, and provide enough clues to help guide admins when they venture into unfamiliar territory. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1) [[Image:Symbol neutral vote.svg|15px]] Abstain - Well this was a dismal failure. I'm going to declare this as consensus not acheived, then hope that common sense and what little guidance is found in WB:ADMIN will be enough. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 22:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion / Comments

 * Panic was asking if I thought this would move forward given past objections. My refactored reply:
 * ...I think all the concerns have already been addressed on the talk page, including those in the archive. The only outstanding issue I could envision being a sticking point is that of sock puppets. In that case, there seems to be a consensus that a)this is a guideline, so there's room for leeway and b)blocking would apply to bad faith sockpuppets of the type mentioned - those used for astroturfing, evading blocks, violating policies or guidelines in some other way. Other issues that seem to have been resolved:
 * The wording on "be bold" seems reasonably clear - blocking is not a place to be bold. Admins should not change another admin's block (with the usual exceptions).
 * A guideline on cross-wiki vandalism was added, which addresses the issue nicely, IMHO.
 * Much of the opposition should be appeased simply by having this as a guideline instead of as a policy.
 * As I said above, admins seem to be following everything in this guideline already. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In regard to the two opposed votes: This is a proposed guideline not a proposed policy, and covers what we should do not what we must do. Also the open proxy thing is a Wikimedia wide policy, so even if it weren't included in this guideline, it would still apply to Wikibooks. If you have a problem with that policy, I suggest discussing it at Meta:Talk:No open proxies and try to get that policy changed or overturned. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Darklama as far as NOP aspects are concerned and certainly Meta is the place to discuss it. I can only conclude that Xania is not active enough to realise just how much vandalism has been changed here (and on other projects) by the blocking of open proxies.  I am sure some people will suffer but I was reverting more vandalism in a day last November than I am probably in a month now.  For myself I only block ones I find currently active and vandalising Foundation wikis.  Equally I will not currently block for longer than a year on any project.  Other than school IPs the vast majority of vandalism (& vandal accounts) I encounter come from Open Proxies -- Herby  talk thyme 13:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice that several people have noted that having a guideline gives people a way to argue that some admin's block is wrong. I think that's a good thing, provided the guideline notes that excessive wikilawyering is itself disruptive, and action can be taken to stop it. That's half the reason we need a guideline on blocking. The other half being that it gives guidance to admins.

The reduced version by Darklama is fine except that it reverses the previous stance on being bold. The static version, and all the minor revisions made up that one insist that blocking is not a place for admins to be bold, and encourages us not to revert other admins' blocks (to prevent wheelwarring) except if there's some good reason (and such examples are given). The current version instead says that administrators may be bold except when they shouldn't. This is wishy-washy in the extreme. I like the previous version much much more, and I still think that it accurately describes how things happen on Wikibooks, and that it should be enforced. I still support this tiny version. I suppose it should alleviate a few concerns about wikilawyering, though it may leave too much up to an admin's good judgment (luckily our administrators have no shortage of good judgment the vast majority of the time). – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 16:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Be bold" removed now. I added a clause about seeking consultation of the blocking admin or other admins when there is disagreement (that's how it works on all of our sister projects, but it hasn't always worked that way here, unfortunately). -- SB_Johnny | PA! 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually trying to go with "except when being bold can itself be disruptive", as thats the way I had interpreted the larger version as saying. I was trying to leave out whether blocking and unblocking is an action to be bold with in general, and focus instead on it not being the case at the very least when it can be disruptive. I believe we need to explicitly say in some way that an action shouldn't be taken without prior discussion if it will be disruptive, due to past problems with this and to prevent wheel waring. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  19:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If all we are looking for is a way to guide admins, while still leaving the details up to personal judgement, maybe this material would all be better in Using Wikibooks, or one of the help pages then as a guideline here. I like the material, but I agree that as soon as we codify things we raise the possibility for wikilawyering. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * We can't have the cake and eat it to, we have to select what is best, to have policies and guidelines or just let things to personal judgments and interpretations. Blocking a proposal by claiming it will be used for wikilawyering is argumenting with an appeal to fear or a threat (argumentum ad baculum). We have to work inside the rules we selected that is hoping people are working in good faith, using arguments that violate that basic understanding should be avoided.
 * We must opt if we are going to have the formalization of rules and practices or not once and for all, going around in circles is getting tiring, personally I don't trust personal judgments because I'm at the core a programmer and think I have a good understanding of history and human limitations and fragilities. The "proven" way is to set things in paper and agree upon it, this permits evolution and adaptation. The only way to avoid wikilawyering is to have it written as good as we can, leaving nothing left to interpretation and no loop hole that can be abused.  --Panic 11:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * People have a lingering fear of wikilawyering because you specifically have become so proficient at it, Panic. We most certainly can have certain guidelines and ask that people use their own judgment in following them. We are not robots to be programmed, and the more you say that people "must" do, the less people will be interested in doing anything at all. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that using the texts to support or disapprove an action/interpretation is Wikilawyaring, if the interpretation is valid and not an abuse of the text (one is as free to perform interpretations as any other), and agree that if a particular text is not mature enough it shouldn't be supported. On the other hand I see the laking of a written approved text as indication of existing disagreeing opinions, that in itself creates even more fragility on any decission reached without established consensus. Personally I've taken to change most the wording from must to should in guidelines, must is only proper in policies and used sparingly. --Panic 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)