Requests for Comment/Creating a Blocking Policy

{{ClosedRfC|This is a messy RfC, but aside from the apparent lack of consensus to execute as described, there is another issue. The opposing arguments are unquestionably poor. In fact, I'm going to go on a limb here - they were awful.

It was asked multiple times how this policy would be 'too kind' when it is largely in line with what is expected in the Miraheze Code of Conduct, and there was no direct answer or even a real attempt to answer, even from the opposing bureaucrats involved.

The RfC explicitly singles out long term abuse and deliberate and persistent disruption. It advocates against petty blocks (revenge/harassment). It positions blocks as preventing disruption instead of a bludgeon for punishment (standard logic on Wikipedia where surely DarkMatterMan would have seen the merits given his involvement there and prolific imports of WP templates/citing of WP pages). It seeks to end indefinite blocks for charges that are not very serious in nature. It asks for clarity in block summaries, and it asks that users be allowed to appeal blocks especially if the blocking reason was not extreme.

Frankly, this is all stuff that is in my personal code as a bureaucrat (and part of the platform I ran on in the first place) and as a Miraheze global sysop. The principles are consistent with the global Code of Conduct, which is the basic behavioral expectation for using this platform. These are also standards I use when processing an appeal, and believe me many blocks issued by QP admins would have a good shot at appeal. They are standards I expect from admins. I would ask for admins who don't consider the above to be reasonable to resign, because if basic responsibility in using the block tools cannot be achieved, the user should not have access to them. This is also something I intend to enforce going forward as much of the principle here should not have to be written, even if a portion of it already is and more of it will be.

Closing as disputed, but mark the above that the gist of the RfC will be enforced; as it should be yet never was, and hopefully will be going forward. I advise all admins (particularly those voting against here) to bear this in mind.

If you disagree, by all means feel free to discuss further be it the talk page or comments here, through blog or through the main page talk. --Raidarr (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC) |

This is an RfC that I have intended to make for a while, but I waited until the migration was over. I have decided to create a blocking policy in order to set some ground rules for user bans and hopefully prevent drama from happening, and to prevent abuse of power. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2022 (UTC) Edit: I would like to add that these do not necessarily apply to users who are repeatedly disruptive. This mostly applies to one-time offenses. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Blocks should only be used to prevent disruption. They should not be used:
 * 2) *As punishment
 * 3) *As revenge or retaliation
 * 4) *As a form of harassment
 * 5) *Any other reason that does not relate to preventing disruption.
 * 6) Blocks should not be infinite or global unless the user is a sockpuppet or vandalism-only account, or the user is repeatedly disruptive.
 * 7) Users should be given a warning for a first time offense. If this continues, they will be blocked for a short amount of time. This does not apply to sockpuppets or vandalism accounts. Users who continue to be disruptive may receive longer blocks.
 * 8) Block summaries should be straight to the point about why the user was blocked, and should not contain any unnecessary comments. Block summaries should also not be blank.
 * 9) Warnings and blocks should only be given to rule violations that are listed on the main page of the wiki.
 * 10) Users should be given talk page access to appeal their ban if necessary. Again, this does not apply to sockpuppets, vandalism accounts, or repeatedly disruptive users.

Support
}}
 * 1) As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) I do agree. The only things I would like to mention is that blocks are never "infinite", they are "indefinite", which is not exactly the same thing; it simply means the block will end at an unknown time and as a result will not expire on its own. If an administrator wants a user to stay blocked forever, then they should just block them indefinitely and never unblock them. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:05, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They pretty much are the same thing. Infinite blocks and indefinite blocks are both blocks that will never expire. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * i mean, by definition, "indefinite" means that it doesn't have an expiration time defined yet, while "infinite" means it's 100% defined to never end. first one has an undetermined end subject to change, the other is already defined to never end. though in practice both might be the same idk i find it dumb to block someone indefinitely and define it later, and mods always have the right to lift infinite blocks anyway via freedom of will or an appeal. Yonydesk (talk) 15:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * With certain exceptions, indefinite inherently carries the possibility of appeal or future review, a function I would prefer to maintain. Also note the primitive, yet present Dispute Policy, which will be pushed more strongly following an overhaul of the Qualitipedia rule structure.--Raidarr (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I really do think adding a blocking policy would really help a lot. MatthewThePrep (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) (this template is broken lmao) i indeed do think the current admins on the wikis need some sort of clear guide to do their blocks, with a balance of "educating" the offender and giving second opportunities to the offender if it's checked to be genuine. that said, i'd modify some parts of the proposal:
 * 3) * Blocks should only be used to prevent disruption. They should not be used:
 * 4) ** As punishment: i think restricting blocks from being used as a punishment for users that offend the rules allows them to go rampant again, unless you're using another definition for punishment. you mention later that warnings should be the first step to go (maybe talking with the user first), then after more offenses to consider a block. i approve of this more.
 * 5) ** As revenge or retaliation: i agree that personal grievances with users should not affect the warning/blocking process. admins and moderators should be objective in their approachs. fun fact: i kinda suffered from this once on the discord server once (and it didn't work).
 * 6) ** As a form of harassment: same as before.
 * 7) ** Any other reason that does not relate to preventing disruption: can't think of more scenarios rn :p
 * 8) * Blocks should not be infinite or global unless the user is a sockpuppet or vandalism-only account, or the user is repeatedly disruptive: agreed, with a chance of appeal for the latter after a reasonable amount of time has passed.
 * 9) * Users should be given a warning for a first time offense. If this continues, they will be blocked for a short amount of time. This does not apply to sockpuppets or vandalism accounts. Users who continue to be disruptive may receive longer blocks: agreed. the block/warning should be detailed enough and go the extra mile of attempting to make the user not repeat the same offense again. the block's time should be at the discretion of the moderator/admin, taking in account the offender's historial, and the offense's severity. for example, i think for a user with just one recent warning in their historial, causing an edit war, a block for one or two days suffices to give the offender a reasonable amount of time to cool down.
 * 10) * Block summaries should be straight to the point about why the user was blocked, and should not contain any unnecessary comments. Block summaries should also not be blank: yep. the summary is the most important part of the block IMO, as it lets the offender know why they're being blocked, and what steps (implicit or explicit) they should take to avoid repeating the offense again. that said, i've constantly seen other communities say stuff in their summaries such as "you broke Rule 3"; i disprove of this robotic approach for qualitipedia, and think the rule should be explained in detail in the summary.
 * 11) * Warnings and blocks should only be given to rule violations that are listed on the main page of the wiki: on one side, this could allow users to find loopholes in the rules. i'm neutral on this one: for me to agree, the rules should be extremely well done to not allow cracks.
 * 12) * Users should be given talk page access to appeal their ban if necessary. Again, this does not apply to sockpuppets, vandalism accounts, or repeatedly disruptive users: i'd make this more flexible. i do believe in revoking talk page access, but for more extreme cases like the expressed there. however, that revocation shouldn't be permanent: i think it can be lifted after a reasonable amount of time has passed, based on the offense, ranging from one month to maybe idk, 2 years (or never if the offense was way too severe). the time is given so the offender has enough time to think about their actions if they genuinely want to return. of course this ban lift would be added to their historial, making their future offenses more severe (running the risk of permanent user talk page revocation).
 * i think that's all i have to say on there, if you take my edits to the proposal then by all means i support it.
 * i also genuinely, and with no ill intent, invite the opposition to check their arguments again, reread the RfC, drop the "close this RfC" attitude, and reconsider their positions, as most of their concerns as already said are already adressed in the RfC. this man gets way more shit than he deserves. Yonydesk (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will take this into account. I am not going to add all of that to the proposal itself, but the extra comments you have added will be taken into consideration. Everyone is also complaining that this is "too nice" so I am trying to find a middle ground. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * i'd like to tell you that even with the original purposal, it wasn't "too nice to LTAs" as you implied reasonable measures to them, while at the same time not being that strong of a filter that it'd filter out genuine users or misunderstood offenders. Yonydesk (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

 * While I believe there should be a policy regarding blocking since blocks on the wikis tend to be inconsistent, this specific form of a policy seems way too generous towards troublesome users. I can see many troublesome users taking an unfair advantage and creating loopholes around these policies. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 23:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Blazikeye535: Users who are vandals, sockpuppeteers or repeatedly disruptive users are an exception to most of the rules in this policy, and other troublesome users deserve time to think about their actions. FatBurn0000 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Or at least, that's what I think. FatBurn0000 (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Absolutely not. This is purely disruptive material, especially for those long-term abusers who think they can go around global locks and local blocks. I'm sorry, but in about a few days or so, if I don't see any new activity, I'll be closing this as invalid right off the bat. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Long-term abusers are counted among "repeatedly disruptive accounts". Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know where you're coming from, but sometimes it's best to decide what the outcome is. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  per the above statements. This runs the risk of long-term abusers and repeat offenders being given more slack than they should receive. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Per the above, I do not approve of this because it gives a lot of second chances for almost every user, even ones that are acting incredibly problematic. This essentially removes the point of getting blocked to think about your actions, and can allow problematic users to be a nuisance for many times before they actually have a long term block. I recommend closing this Rfc soon. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  02:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) with a strong recommendation of immediately closing this request  This will be too kind to common abusers, users that are unrespectful and sockpuppeters. King Dice (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  I agree with other opposers, since it pretty much gives other users such as long-term abusers and those with problematic behavior a advantage. Dragonite (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To you, but all others using this rationale as well: how? --Raidarr (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  On one hand, this exists. It covers much of the idea here in broad. The problem is not the existence of standards on paper. It's that admins have not properly all been brought on the same page. This hinges on my ability to write a proper administrator's guide that I can throw out, that users can show to admins, and admins can show each other. The difficulty, after all, lies in putting things in a way they will actually get used. Otherwise I am not opposed to the spirit of this proposal, and I find it completely inappropriate that DarkMatterMan wishes to close it as invalid merely because he has a strong disagreement. Additionally, the concerns of the opposes are already almost completely addressed in the proposal itself. The proposal explicitly allows swift blocks against sockpuppets, vandals, and repeated disruption, which pretty much covers all of the LTA cases raised above. With the rewritten front page rules I intend to execute soon, they will be sufficiently broad that abuse will be difficult and corrections can be issued where needed. I have absolutely nothing against toning down the 'shoot first think later' behavior many admins have here, and if it's that part of the proposal that is the concern, I would sooner see those admins resign. Blocks are a heavy tool that shouldn't be thrown around like candy in the way the network is famous for using them. This is an issue and I will take steps to address it even if this proposal is rough in the language and requires interpretation to execute, the gist of which can just be built into the existing page on the subject anyway. --Raidarr (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)