Wikipedia talk:Blocks and bans

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Blocking logged in users in the case of simple vandalism?[change source]

This feature has been implemented on the English Wikipedia and some others. Currently, on Simple, only IPs can be blocked and a developer would have to be called to block someone with a user name.

Are there any objections to allowing logged in users to be blocked?

  • No
    • Angela
    • Menchi: Unless we expect logged-in vandals never to visit here. Which is just unrealistic.

'Following a vote for a week with no objections, this feature has been implemented.

Bans v. blocks[change source]

I don't know how other non-English Wikipedias handle the difference between a "ban" and a "block". At en, a ban is seen as something only Jimbo can do. A "block" is something a sysop can do, but they are only supposed to do it for "simple vandalism". Do we want to adopt this exact policy here? If so, do we need to distinguish between the two on this page? Angela 01:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like injecting our own meanings into regular words. I'm pretty sure there is no mentioning of "Jimbo" under ban in any dictionary. ;-p
How about making ban "big/permanent/serious/... X", and block "small/temp/... X", where X is the same word, not necessarily ban or block. It is straightforward this way. --Menchi (Talk) 01:36, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
As per the blocking and banning policies, a user who alienates and offends the community enough may eventually be blocked by an administrator... and no one is willing to unblock them. In such extreme cases, the user is considered to have been banned by the general community.. That could be useful... Archer7 | talk 19:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology[change source]

I am very sorry for my friend Dr195 who is not very nice for changing your web site but please let my back on to the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.247.194 (talkcontribs) 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock Zwobot[change source]

Hi,

please unblock my bot account User:Zwobot. I need it for interwiki updates. The account has been blocked infinitely over a year ago, on 24 July 2005, by Netoholic who is no longer an admin. --Head 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock Zwobot, but you should apply for bot status per Wikipedia:Bots as soon as possible, since Neto had blocked him for flooding the rc list. If he floods the rc list without authorization, he may need to be re-blocked. Blockinblox - talk 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

About the one-strike rule[change source]

(for posterity)
Basically the one-strike rule came about as a result of a lot of users who were/are banned on enwiki and were coming over to simplewiki and also telling others to come over. Often, these users caused the same problems here that saw them banned from enwiki. Based upon two things really, the one-strike rule was created. It is a product of this conversation and the fact that the blocking policy has always permitted an admin to block a user who is blocked on another WMF project if he wants to. It can be done on arrival, but often we decide to see if the person can change. So that policy and the discussion above brought about the one-strike rule. After than discussion various admins have used it on actual users. This has just led to the precedent being establish. EhJJ has, today, added it to the blocking policy page. fr33kman 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks fr33kman. This has come up many times over the past year, including in Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 65#Simple is not a refuge, where consensus seemed to be that admins should retain the right to consider each case individually, but that we as a project are generally going to be less welcoming of users who have clearly demonstrated a willingness to harm other projects and are continuing to do it here. Clearly, if someone has been adequately warned and gotten to the point of a large (usually indef) block, then there's no reason we should have to warn them again here and go through the same 4-step warning process. They should simply be blocked for continuing to do the same thing, despite receiving more than enough warning from the other project(s). Note: this applies to vandals from any project, but most come from enWP. EhJJTALK 01:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Proxies section[change source]

reads "If it is a Tor proxy, it should be blocked for a shorter about of time"

but should be "amount of time". Pablo X (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the correction, but an interesting first edit, eh? Exert 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User blocking user?[change source]

Is there a mechanism whereby an individual use can prevent another user from writing stuff on the first users profile/talk page? --IceHunter (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so far... --IceHunter (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Section heading needs to be changed[change source]

"Reciprocal bans" does not accurately describe what the section discusses. Both words are wrong: it's not "reciprocal," but an action taken while taking into account what has happened elsewhere. More importantly, the action here on Simple is not a ban, but a block. I would suggest the heading "Bans on other wikis" or something similar. -Peteforsyth (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually what happens is we match what they have on the other wiki. So if they are banned there we ban them here. In that way we are reciprocating the ban they already have at the other wiki. Adjusted the wording to make that more clear, it shouldn't have used the word block in the section. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I also did some cleanup, hopefully clarifying the situation; I briefly sketched the situation to provide the context. please copyedit further to improve readability.--Eptalon (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. In that case, I think you are using the word "ban" in a way that is out of step with how it is used elsewhere in Wikimedia. See meta:Banned user: "a ban is the result of a formal decision or substantial community consensus." The text prior to Djsasso's edit made sense to me; essentially, a block (technical measure) could be used here more liberally if a ban (community sanction) was in place at English Wikipedia. But I don't think there is any precedent for an individual on a Wikimedia project (apart, perhaps, from one of the founders) to determine unilaterally that another individual is banned. So I think this needs a bit more scrutiny; if it was just a problem with the header, as I originally understood, no big deal. But if the practice is as your edit to the text describes it, I think that reflects a fundamentally different use of the word than the Wikimedia world has used in the past.
(This is of particular relevance right now, as there is discussion of a global banning policy on Meta.) -Peteforsyth (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I reverted back to block. That's what we do. Administrators don't ban editors. Only the community can do that. How is a ban from an administrator going to work? Can appeals only be made to the banning administrator or to any administrator? Because the latter would be a block, not a ban. The other scenario, a ban from one administrator that then requires consensus from the whole community to overturn it, is completely disproportionate and breaks with common practice. Can another administrator overturn that decision just like any with any other administrative action? Because that would make it a block, not a ban.

I haven't dealt many one-strike blocks, but that's the arrangement that I've always dealt them under, and that's been the wording since the clause was added. To change it to allow administrators to ban editors is obviously going to require some logistical discussion regarding how they're appealed and overturned. A consensus on Simple talk would be nice also. Osiris (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of that part of the policy is that we have the option to "block" a known troublemaker from another wiki "on sight", without them doing much editing here. In practice, what is most often the case is that someone banned elsewhere comes to SimpleWP and edits. If their edits are unconstructive, they can be blocked/banned quite rapidly. As with any block, appeals go to the admin mailing list, so in theory, any admin can change the block. Bans are supported by the community, so they at least require some sort of on-wiki discussion. That is definitely not what is meant here.--Eptalon (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well really it is semantics. We match exactly what they have on the other wiki when the Administrator makes the ban/block. It does take the community to overturn what the admin does on the one-strike policy. To me that is a ban. But if you want to call it a block we can call it a block. Either way we are matching what the other wiki has and it takes the community to undo it. The whole point of this piece of policy is that it is breaking from normal use of blocks and bans. So you can't compare it to how things are usually done because it is meant to be different than how things are usually done. Bans take community involvement is true but in this case we are using the community involvement that lead to the ban on the original wiki as the community involvement needed for the ban, which is why we call it reciprocal. We are reciprocating the ban discussion they had. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  I have to disagree with that. The policy on reciprocal blocks/bans was originally formulated to act as a measure to prevent excessive disruption to the wiki. If we go on with the traditional definition of a ban on Wikimedia wikis, I would say that the community of EN/other wikis is not equivalent to the community over here, and would render the concept of a reciprocal ban invalid - a ban is a block (typically of a longer duration) endorsed by community consensus, but we don't exactly start a ban discussion every time an editor banned on another wiki comes over here, and neither do we allow ourselves to "inherit" the consensus of EN/other wikis, right? I think EhJJ sums up the spirit of the policy quite well (for that matter, it is somewhere above this page, but I shall quote him here anyway):

Clearly, if someone has been adequately warned and gotten to the point of a large (usually indef) block, then there's no reason we should have to warn them again here and go through the same 4-step warning process. They should simply be blocked for continuing to do the same thing, despite receiving more than enough warning from the other project(s)

— EhJJ, [2]
I also currently interpret the policy as one in which administrators are empowered to use the blocking reason "Banned on so-and-so wiki, and causing further disruption here" (without any attempt at dispute resolution), but anyone may question the block and have it overturned. Perhaps the nature of the target users usually results in no one attempting to question such blocks administrators make. --Chenzw  Talk  13:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I should note I have no problem with it being just a block. But any time one has been questioned in the past that I can remember (I may be wrong) it has ended up going to the entire community to decide to overturn it or keep it. To me that hints to either A> we are banning them originally or B> any reversal discussion of such a block becomes a ban discussion if the block ends up kept. But Chenzw is right, almost none have ever been challenged. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The result is the same (a disruptive user is stopped from editing), but the authority is very different. The avenues to getting banned and getting it reversed need to be the same. To ban someone from this site has to come from this community. And it has to come from the whole community, not just one admin. I can see why it probably hasn't come up before, and it might not come up at all. But if someone who was blocked, unilaterally, under one-strike later submits an appeal that hits all the right G-A-B notes and an administrator feels as though they've learned, they should be able to unblock the user, unilaterally – in the same method with which they were blocked. That's fair. If the appeal is faulty or too soon, an administrator should also be able to decline the unblock request, unilaterally, without getting the community involved.
I'm glad to know it's not just me whose interpreted it that way. If nobody has a problem with it staying that way, then great. Osiris (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I am of the belief that this section has been used inappropriately and does not do enough to Assume Good Faith. We are an independent community and it is odd that we have given up so much of our independence for the arbitrary standards and beliefs of others. The community has gone against this in the past, and I do not think anything dealing with other communities is truly wanted by Simple's community. A community wide RfC should be taken on if the section is even appropriate in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusing text---do you agree?[change source]

In the "evasion" section it says "If the block is indefinite, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all.". This might be just me, but that sounds like, "if the block has an expiry time, you're allowed to create a new account and evade it".

Perhaps it should be, "If the block is still outstanding, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form".

Do you agree? Computer Fizz (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Way, shape, or form" is redundant and not applicable (what is a "shape" of editing?). I think it would be better to remove the whole sentence, because the idea is covered by the first sentence in the paragraph. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reciprocal section: ban vs block[change source]

I know this was partially raised before but I propose to change the wording from "users who have been banned" to "users who have been blocked" (bold font is only to emphasise the difference). This is because we should differentiate a local editing block on another wiki from the community global ban process and the WMF global ban policy. Green Giant (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Change suggestion[change source]

I would suggest to the text from: <nowiki>== Evasion ==

Users who have been blocked are not allowed to change Wikipedia during their block, or otherwise attempt to avoid their block. This is known as block evasion. If the block is indefinite, they are not allowed to change Wikipedia at all. This applies to editing both as an anonymous or registered user; registered users who have been blocked may not logout to edit.

to:

Users who have been blocked are not allowed to change Wikipedia during their block, or otherwise attempt to avoid their block. This is known as block evasion. If the block is indefinite, they are not allowed to change Wikipedia at all. This applies to editing both as an anonymous or registered user; registered users who have been blocked may not logout to edit. Arthurfan828 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in putting a link to section within the section itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeffs[change source]

What about indefinite blocks/bans or longer ones? Gale5050 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC) They do occur. I need to know as I could easily be blocked/potentilly banned and locked today. Gale5050 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Since “short” means not long. I will guess only 2-6 months, but I’m not sure. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 17:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Tor[change source]

If open proxies are blocked for 3 years and Tor is shorter, how long? Is it 3 months, 1 year? 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:94 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit vs change[change source]

{{editsemiprotected}} Is edit really not Simpler English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.153.145 (talkcontribs) 21:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not simpler. Change is on the Basic English wordlists. Edit is not. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)