Requests for Comment/Block Policy

Hello. It is I, Moisty.

This Request for Comment is proposing a block policy. I want to create this so that everyone gets a fair punishment. We don’t have a clear block policy, but as one of the biggest wikis on Miraheze, I feel that needs to change. I also want to introduce another way to prevent disruption and toxicity. This is what my policy entails:

Main Policy
Edit Waring:
 * 1st Offense - Warning
 * 2nd Offense - 3 day block
 * 3rd Offense - 1 week block
 * 4th Offense - 2 week block
 * 5th Offense - 1 month block
 * 6th Offense - Behavior Contract (see below)
 * 7th Offense - (After the Behavior Contract has expired) Recommended for a community ban, admin’s discretion is needed from this point

Excessive Spam/Excessive Gibberish:
 * 1st Offense - Warning
 * 2nd Offense - 2 day block
 * 3rd Offense - 1 week block
 * 4th Offense - 2 week block
 * 5th Offense - 1 month block
 * 6th Offense - Behavior Contract
 * 7th Offense - (After the Behavior Contract has expired) Recommended for a community ban, admin’s discretion is needed from this point

Toxicity/Bad Faith/Personal Attacks/Trollism
 * 1st Offense - Warning
 * 2nd Offense - 1 day block
 * 3rd Offense - 1 week block
 * 4th Offense - 3 week block
 * 5th Offense - Behavior Contract
 * 6th Offense - (After the Behavior Contract has expired) Recommended for a community ban, admin’s discretion is needed from this point

If the user has 2 offenses in each of these categories, then they are eligible for the behavior contract.

Behavior Contract
The behavior contract is something that I came up with. This is the contract (An admin needs to sign this with consulting other admins):

Qualitipedia Behavior Contract

Due to multiple behavior infractions, it’s become necessary that *Username* signs this contract in order to continue contributing on Qualitipedia.

When someone is put on the contract, they agree to the following:


 * Qualitipedia rules cannot be broken
 * Improvements in contributions need to be shown
 * Not eligible for the staff team

These restrictions last until *what the team has decided, at least 6 months from when the contract was mutually agreed to*. If the contract is broken, then *Username* will be blocked indefinitely. After *what the team has decided, at least 6 months* since the block was taken, *Username* will be eligible for an appeal.

If *Username* does not consent to this, they are not allowed to use Qualitipedia and they are blocked until they agree to this contract.

This is my proposal and what it fully entails. Vote below. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 01:00:11, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) As proposer. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 17:25:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png


 * Just like the other "policy" RfCs in the past, this one will only prove inconvenient if it's passed due to its overly-restrictive and wonky nature. Severity isn't taken into consideration at all here when issuing blocks. For example: A user acts super toxic and resorts to death threats and spreading false rumors towards other users, and all they get as a result of this RfC passing is a simple warning. Something like that example usually warrants an indefinite block, and likely a global lock from the Miraheze staff. The 7th offense should just be an indefinite block instead of a community ban RfC, because the main purpose of that type of RfC is when a user has proven to be exceptionally disruptive yet hasn't done anything particularly terrible to warrant an indefinite block. As for the contract, this sounds downright unorthodox and will almost certainly never work. I don't think an explanation as to why I think that is needed. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In cases of threats and severe stuff like you mentioned, it would be an indefinite ban. Breaking the Code of Conduct and/or Community Guidelines are usually always an indefinite ban. And you wouldn’t have to make a RfC for the community ban, it’s just up to Admin’s discretion at that point and it’s up to, well, you. This RfC was only intended for small offences. If something is not listed here, it’s likely an indefinite ban. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 01:20:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 1) I disagree with the "behaviour contract" idea. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 22:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why’s that? Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 03:32:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * To me at least, it's really over the top. FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 03:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't feel like have it to be implemented and there may be flaws about this policy. --PictureField55 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All this does is introduce an unnecessary amount of steps to something that should be straightforward. If we want blocks to be fair, then we're better off educating administrators on not being reckless and avoiding beating dead horses. Only then can proportionate and justified blocks become more common. Marxo Grouch (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn’t really introduce unnecessary steps, it would actually reduce the work because the punishments are predetermined. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 03:32:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 1) per w:WP:SNOW    15:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That has nothing to do with this RfC at all. Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 17:34:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * It does - basically, it means if everyone is opposing, then the RfC is likely going to fail. I don't see any other supports other than yours, hence the w:WP:SNOW.   19:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think Moisty is asking the reason why you vote oppose, as your reason is basically “I oppose because others vote oppose too and it will be closed under the Snowball clause”, which doesn’t address the proposal content at all. -Matttest (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you voting oppose? the snowball clause has nothing to do with opposing, it mostly has something to do with premature closure of the RfCs. Basically you’re opposing because everyone else is opposing it other than Moisty. Please, leave your vote about the content of the proposal, not about the amount of people voting for x. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 08:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm really sorry, but I can't support this new policy. I know what I said earlier when you presented me this idea in private, but after looking at it a second time and seeing the other opposes my opinion has changed. This whole thing only reminds me of two previous requests by  and  that had a similar complicated and overly organised approach on topics that are usually a simple and quick process. This policy and the contract slow down what's supposed to be that, a quick process, while generalising on the sort of offenses that shouldn't be a part of that 'well, you messed up but we forgive you, have a nice day' collection and being too merciful on what's nothing but bad faith. Thanks for contributing and doing your best to help the network, but this proposal isn't what we, or at least I, need.  19:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Since when did I make a block policy RFC? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 06:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I added the links. Zangler (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How was my reception policy RFC unnecessary? FatBurn0000 (sandbox | CentralAuth) 21:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, I must've let myself go when I said that. It's weird since I supported that request. Zangler (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) It sounds unnecessary (at least in the last two categories). Rem69 22:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn’t provide much discussion value. Can you elaborate? Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 03:32:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 1) As with other opposers above, I honestly don't really find this necessary at all, because if we do want fair blocks, we should go with what Marxo said, besides users like Bluba already did something similar to this in the past and it failed. DragoniteSignatureImage.png Dragonitetypeface.png]] DragoniteTalk.png]] DragoniteContribs.png]] 10:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) I'm not going to shoot this down because a policy is necessary and it's one of those projects I keep sitting on and don't have the backup or motivation to complete. It's coming one way or another, just matters what form it's in. This I'm afraid has a few functional issues that make it unrealistic; I applaud the move towards more gradual steps especially with non-extreme offenses and it's something I want to see in general, but the particulars are a bit too bureaucratic and that's something to be avoided if we want a policy that will be used. --Raidarr (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What would you consider non-extreme then? Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) | Posted at 22:19:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC) Yup4au.png
 * 1)  I do support having in some way a consistent block policy. However, consequences should be based on severity of actions rather than quantitative infractions. A vandalism only account who persists after the first warning should get a indefinite block. Same with toxicity, trolling, etc. An edit warring and bad faith editing infraction system sounds good, however, I'd say after the 4th offence it should be an indefinite block (with the ability to appeal after a few weeks).  -  15:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  This is something I can’t really explain well. I believe that a consistent policy would be necessary for a network with a large sum of users, however this RfC is something that as raidarr said, some of the proposed additions made are unrealistic and in my opinion, unnecessary.
 * The “Behavior contract” would be a good concept of an olive branch after a user is indefinitely blocked, not before. If it is implemented for a before, the 6 months should be lowered to 2-6 and for after 6+.
 * Sanctions for the threats are a tad bit high. In my opinion, it should be a week block then indefinite.
 * It’s certainly something I don’t want to say isn’t thought out, but some parts are unorthodox. Most of the others are decent, and thus, my vote is an abstain. -- Cheers, Justin Aves (talk • contribs • global • rights) 08:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Aren't we better off with the system we have now? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 14 August 2022 (UTC)