Wikibooks talk:Blocking guideline/Archive1

Unblock reviews
Nothing to do with Panic!

An unblock request from an IP came thro a couple of days ago (& the same IP made the same request a day earlier on Commons). Because of RC watching I thought I would deal with it and did so. Then I realised that it was the first one I had experience and I wondered what the procedure was!! I think this one is straightforward (and may well be one to be unblocked and then reblocked for consistency - the blocks on WP & Commons are indef whereas here it is a year and IMO should be indef) and the request was declined in a similar way on Commons.

However - are there any guidelines or should there be. Reading the draft I see that it should be the blocking admin who reviews - nothing against that but that could wait around a fair while until the blocking admin was 1. around & 2. noticed the request.

Equally the page remains in that category, should it? -- Herby talk thyme 00:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the user page of this request? Since there isn't a standing policy to deal with this, you can use your best judgement in this. This is a new policy proposal, and there are still alot of kinks to work out. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User talk:72.177.68.38 -- Herby talk thyme 00:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Your action is fine by me. If they were to have unblocked this IP on commons, that might be a different story. It does pay to be vigilent of actions on other wikis. By the text of this proposal, you likely would have had to start a discussion on the matter, probably WB:AN. Say something like "This user was blocked a while ago, has requested unblocking, this is the evidence for or against, etc". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I see this as a kind of obvious one and I am sure I would have consulted had I felt it was controversial (as a point of interest there was no consultation on Commons tho a 'crat dealt with it - after I had pointed the request out ).
 * Similarly I would not overturn Derbeth's block without real thought although I think it may be appropriate in this case - I take it you looked at the WP page - not seen one like that before - quite a history there -- Herby talk thyme 00:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Could we make this a guideline?
I have noted before that I do not like a prescriptive list of when to block and when not to block, so that any admin making a block on very good reasons, but not in accordance with the prescribed list, risks being damned as rogue. I can, however, see benefits of a general guideline, that covers points that are commonly dealt with, that does not purport to be exhaustive, and that makes clear that there is a commonsense override, particularly in situations not contemplated when that guideline is written.

Could we therefore move this proposal to Blocking guideline? Jguk 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely. I think that this likely doesnt need to be a policy as per your justifications. However, there are some things in here that really do need to be written down to prevent problems. A guideline is a perfect happy medium between the problems you outline and the problems that arise from not saying anything at all. This should be a guideline. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR
I'd suggest we don't use the time limit on that like WP. If 2 (groups of) editors are reverting back and forth, they should all get warned, then blocked if they can't keep it on the talk page. -- SB_Johnny | talk 21:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ughhh. Do we really need a new long list for this? Personally, if I have made a block that another user has expressed concern about, I reconsider carefully whether continuing the block is justified, and if I think it is, I'd seek to explain why. I just don't see why we need 5 pages of new policy that good faith editors do not need to be concerned about, and which can give a stick to bad faith editors looking to find an admin in technical violation of the policy. Finally, we just do not need a 3 revert rule here on Wikibooks at present. If things change in the future, we can introduce one, but we don't need it now, Jguk 08:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * If, as you say, it hasn't been much of a problem yet, I wouldn't call this the top priority either. OTOH having a bit of discussion on it won't hurt, so long as there's no heavy push to adopt it "by Tuesday, 5PM". There's several proposals slowly developing at the same time right now in any case. -- SB_Johnny | talk 10:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved the majority of this text here (with few additions) from the text of Administrators/Unstable, which in turn is essentially the text of the current administrators policy. There is already a policy to govern deletion, and a standing proposal to govern page protections, so for symmetry it was suggested that there be a separate page concerned only with blocking, so here we are.
 * I would also say that as recently as this month, there have been instances of admins reverting each other's blocks, and assuming a large amount of bad faith. You need to understand that not all people are bound to the same level of professionalism or courtesy as you are, Jguk. Plenty of mistakes have been made, and without explicit say-so, plenty more mistakes will be made in the future. I would much rather be safe then sorry, especially when admins start warring with one another. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also disagree with the inclusion of the 3RR. I think action should be taken at the first revert, and we shouldn't have to wait for a dispute to escalate beyond that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have defended early the 3RR rule and it is a simpler rule to be applied, it is not perfect but beats taking action on first revert. --Panic 18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Being Bold
Nice to see the inclusion of this point in the proposed policy (not). As some blocks can be classified as 'being bold' it seems unreasonable that an unblock of the same user can't be 'bold' also. People might not like that I unblocked Panic (and then blocked him for 2 weeks) but also many didn't like the fact that he was given an indefinite block in the first place. In addition, according to this proposal, the indefinite block give to Panic is not allowed.

I can't support this proposal as it stands. Xania talk 22:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's expressly stated in this policy that blocking and unblocking are never instances where people should be bold. Blocking is an important thing, and it's terrible to think that admins could be blocking people on a whim, or reversing blocks and "wheel warring" on this instance. Wheel warring in any situation is against policy, even more so with admin tools. Admins who revert the actions of other admins without proper discussion should be reprimanded. For that matter, admins who use admin powers without proper justification should likewise be reprimanded.
 * Second, you are highly misinformed on the whole panic issue. The first 3 blocks were all less then 2 weeks, and the fourth block (by User:Withinfocus) was 6 months, not indefinite. Even now, Panic is blocked for a 2 week span, although Johnny has indicated (and he has community support for this) that the block will be extended until the problem is resolved. According to this policy, the blocks against panic are fully justified: He has repeatedly broken the WB:CIVIL policy in the past, and he has demonstrated no desire to correct his behavior. By this proposal, he is lucky Johnny is trying so hard to fix the situation. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also think the Be Bold should be removed if all parties are working in good faith there is no need for that clause, stating that is working against the good faith policy. --Panic 18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppets
What I was attempting to do there is more define what a sock puppet is; we use the term a number of times without really explaining it. GoToMan has raised some question on my talk page about how this would work, in particular because with a company or home gateway there could be multiple users and user IDs sharing one IP address, which makes it hard to differentiate a sock puppet from a shared IP. My personal opinion is that if user X does thing Y and is blocked, then user Z starts doing thing Y, there is a very real chance that no matter what the IP address, user Z is a sockpuppet of user X; though the same IP address could be indicative. (But not entirely – I personally edit from four different static and one dynamic IP address.) But that is beside the point – that's more along the lines of how they are detected.

GoToMan would prefer to put a policy in place that simply bans sockpuppets. I would quite agree; it would, among other things, cut down on astroturfing. But whether or not they are forbidden by policy, in a case of a block, they will happen; so I would like to see a more formal definition of what a sockpuppet is, and a more solid policy on when they can be banned. And that was the intent of my writings. Chazz 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, GoToMan is User:Panic2k4's puppet. He's created at least 4 since yesterday to "prove his point" about sockpuppets. -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of legitimate uses for puppet accounts, I personally have a few "secondary" accounts that i use for specific purposes, or that I don't use at all. All of my puppet accounts are well marked, however, as belonging to me. I think what people are concerned with is the bad-faith puppets, puppets who are used to circumvent blocks (a la panic), puppets that are used for vandalism, or puppets that are used to make one side in a dispute look more numerous. While it is frequently possible to make an educated guess about the validity of such accounts, it isn't always possible. The point is that even if we ban sockpuppets, there will still be sockpuppets that we can't identify. I am in favor of such a policy, so that when we find the sockpuppets, we can nuke them. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that there is no blanket reason to ban sockpuppets, I think that banning them outright is probably a bad idea. However, we should probably have some sock-puppet specific ban language: e.g. no consultation is needed to block a sockpuppet identified as belonging to a blocked user, though the puppet's talk page can be left open to allow for a misidentified account to be reinstated. Whiteknight's other two bad-faith uses, vandalism and astroturfing (fake grassroots), may need more discussion before we can set policy. I'll work on that a little later. Chazz 22:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Just a minor correction, "he" didn't say policy but guideline. Blocking or actively disallowing (as in policy) sock puppets, will cause more problems that will solve, an example is the unbalance it will create on the user base (those that know how and those that don't), will also enable witch hunts and create conflicts, what I did propose was a guideline that requested users to avoid using them, nothing more... If a user or (a sock puppet) does break policy he should be blocked, another case is the use of Open Proxys the first method and simplest to bypass Wikimedia checks (normally a user can have several account in one IP, those are easy identifiable), the Open Proxys are indeed dangerous as they will be primarily used for harmful actions in that regard policy should be to block users using them, I don't see a good reason to allow it, but ultimately there is no fix for sock puppets. --Cinap(se) 22:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Language here would seem to suggest that Cinap(se) is a sock puppet for Gotoman... Chazz 04:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * He is. Those accounts, and half a dozen more, are all sockpuppets of User:Panic2k4. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. He has even stated as much on his talk page... Chazz 17:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anyone defend the block of a sock puppet, I think it should be changed to clearly state a sock puppet that votes on a discussion, that is the only case I can see for a block to be justifiable on a sock puppet. --Panic 18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Up for Review?
I am liking the text of this proposal now, and I think we should bring it up at least for a quick informal review. Wikibooks does take a harder stance towards vandalism then wikipedia does, and in general I would say that our project suffers less vandalism because of it. Also, this proposal introduces new concepts for which we have no pre-existing policy, especially dealing with trolls, and a proceedure for requesting and handling an unblock. Besides these new additions, there is almost nothing in this proposal that is new, and nothing that does not represent the way we already handle blocking and vandals. This is a case, basically, of policy being written to reflect community practice, and it's my hope that this will speed up the adoption of this proposal. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy with this - my small point would be that I do take into account performance on other wikis when I block. If there is a bad track record on WP I will reflect that in my block - they know they are vandals and are looking for "soft" targets (AFAIK Derbeth is of the same view as I ran it past him some time ago) -- Herby  talk thyme 15:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not add it to the text (with the proper precautions about ID), it is a good rule... --Panic 16:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)