Wikinews talk:Blocking policy/Archive 1

Part that should be removed

The following line is not only vague, but gives admins unlimitted power to block whoever they can claim are "trouble-makers" or are "not contributing to our goals". This allows for blocking abuse.

Are trouble-makers who are not contributing to our goals.

I'm removing this. Raise objections if you have them. --MateoP 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've restored this section, though I feel it is unnecessarily broad. Do you have a suggested text which would indicate trolls, abusive users, and persons who do not contribute content yet who engage in endless arguments are disruptive and may be blocked (progressively) for acting to disrupt the community? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} ~

Trolls is a subjective term that could lead to abuse. If we can identify specific actions (such as vandalism, sock puppeting, etc.) then the problem of abuse will be avoided. I don't feel that users who engage in arguments should be blocked. As long as the argumentation is not abusive in form, then it is fine. --MateoP 01:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppeting is not always a problem. The use of a sock puppet in voting, or discussions, to artifically influence a decision is a problem, but using a sock puppet as a pseudonym - especially to prevent undue influence in an article's development - is not.

On the other hand, aggressive arguments which hurt the colleaguiality of the community are a major problem. They have long-term affects on the ability of memebers to collaborate, and without extremely good justification in the eyes of the community should result in a block. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 01:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

there are some inconsistencies & problems with this discussion.

vandalism & sock-puppetting for "nefarious" purposes invite blocks based on breaking policy, even without this troublemakers rule. sock-puppetting for "non-nefarious" purposes (arguably) has its uses, and on wikipedia, consensus was not to disallow it outright (my guess is, on other wiki projects too.) i don't see a compelling reason to change this in wikinews.

"aggressive arguments which hurt the colleaguiality of the community " might or might not be "a major problem" (wikipedia has loads of the former, but has it been the latter there?, if not, why is it such a big problem here?). further, this is an extremely subjective determination, the idea of an admin being able to block a user for "aggressively arguing" with him/her has no place in a wiki. there are many things that "have long-term affects on the ability of memebers to collaborate", for instance, tag&dash, will that too be made a blockable offence?

wikiquette, and the no personal attacks policy has plenty of ways to take care of abusive editors, including, in extreme cases, blocking.

further, there is already scope for blocking disruptive editors which has some safeguards against abuse of that power.

imo, there is no need for a further "block trouble-makers, abusive editors, argumentative no-contributors, scum, vermin and devil-worshippers" rule. the trouble-makers line should be removed, and blocks should be used only for the other listed violations of policy.

Doldrums 09:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your non-consensus removal, Doldrums, because I feel we need to be clear that disruptive behavior is blockable. I've expressed, above, a request for an alternative wording because I feel the current wording is not clear.

Furthermore, established policy is to be edited after consensus is gained on a talk page for a change, rather than the reverse. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 07:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

don't agree that the rule is established policy, it appears to have been added without discussion, much less consensus, and has remained contested since then. so, while the discussion on what the rule should look like take place, i'll be removing the current non-consensual & problematic form, lest it be inadvertantly "used" before being adopted by consensus.

further note that the blocking for disruption guidelines remain intact in the policy. Doldrums 07:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The sentence you are deleting is a summary of the disruption section of this policy. Please develop an alternative summary of this section. Please do not remove this summary without consensus. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Please gain consensus *before* editing the policy. Your suggested change to the policy is:

• Disrupt the normal functioning of wikinews.'

I personally have no problem with this text. Let's get some additional input, and in a day or two this might be ready to be put into the policy. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i'm not seeing a uniform application of the guideline to submit policy changes for review before making them. i find this practise questionable.

i should also point out that ur revert has left behind a "unconsensus-ed" rule behind. i request you to move all candidates formulations for the new rule, viz, "disruption" "troublesome editors" and "admin discretion" to talk page for review. Doldrums 08:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved back to the one which had been in place for many months. I agree that policy has, at times in the past, been edited directly and this has led to problems such as the one you are addressing. I will also move Opalus's edit here in a moment. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i don't think the troublemakers rule has been in place for months. it appears to have been added without discussion/consensus on Jan 2, 2006 and and has remained in contention from about 15 minutes later.

i have not found a similar rule in the wikipedia, wikiquote, wikibooks and wiktionary to support the contention that "This is the policy on most Wiki sites, but was not brought to Wikinews.". can amgine please specify exactly on which wiki sites this is policy and why he believes that this formulations should be treated differently (viz, kept in place without consensus) from other suggested formulations. Doldrums 09:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, attempt was only to reword the "trouble maker" phrase into more formal language based on what seemed its implicit assumptions, that disruption classified violation as trouble and that identification of disruption was in summary effectively according to the particular administrator's judgment formed based on community consensus judgments decided before and under potential of arbitration committee review with each user if there is evidence of improper classification, as in classification opposed to the conventions decided on by community consensus. Is this not the meaning of the former phrase used? Is there perhaps a more precise method to phrase the sentiment that the "trouble maker" rule embodies while providing some procedure for both its application against minor complaints and limitation to prevent abuse in cases where it might be? Opalus 09:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

<grin> I don't think any particular apology is needed, except from me to Doldrums in that I didn't see your edit had slipped in there. I understand what you intended, and there is indeed a previous discussion about exactly what you covered in your text (see below.) - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 09:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

---

To help solve this problem, here is a list of specific actions that should result in blocks. Please add to this list so that it can be used as a guide in rewriting parts of the policy. Try to keep comments to the above section so this area isn't cluttered.

• Sock-puppetry
• Vandalism
• Personal attacks
• Excessive pushing of POV
• Inappropraite username

blocking at admin discetion

a new blocking rule has been suggested and i've moved it to talk page for discussion. the rule, i think, has far-reaching implications, will require changes in other policies, and so should be thoroughly discusses before addition, as suggested by amgine above.

At the judgment of individual administrators subject to community conventions and review

some queries about the rule.

• what does this rule accomplish that cannot be done by the existing rules of blocking for vandalism, policy violation, and disruption?
• if blocks applied under this rule do not meet subsequent community consensus, will the admin be sanctioned? in what way?

This rule codifies an element of the WP blocking policy which was not brought to Wikinews. I was then, and remain, ambivalent about "blocking without basis in policy." I would not fight it this time if the community chooses to add it.

I believe the the last half of this element is redundant, but may be a useful reminder in a summary. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 08:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Progressive blocks

I made a couple of edits to the policy, which I'd be happy to discuss here if there's no agreement on them. Basically, based on the recent wheel wars, my observation is that it may be necessary to have clearer guidelines on what block lengths are appropriate, so I have proposed a simple model of progressive block ranges.

I would like to invite opinions on another possible change: Do we really want a blocked admin to still be allowed, by policy, to use their admin controls? It seems to me that when you are blocked, you are blocked; that the software still allows admins to push a few buttons does not mean that admins should really be allowed to continue blocking users, deleting pages, etc., when they are blocked. Given that the majority of active users on Wikinews are admins, this issue is quite relevant to us. I would suggest to make it clear that when you are blocked, you are expected to do nothing except maybe edit your own talk page or get in touch with other users (e-mail, mailing list, IRC, etc.) about the block.

I don't think it helps us if admins keep "punishing" each other even after they are blocked.--Eloquence 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the changes, but wonder how an admin would know if how many past infractions a particular user may have. It may simply be to err on the side of caution and ignorance, meaning if an admin does not know of any other infractions, then a block time would be the length of the first infraction. I suppose another admin who knew and could show past infractions would then do so and raise the block length appropriately.

I also agree that being a blocked admin should exclude all admin activity unless there's a very clear reason given for doing so. It's probably easier to get another admin to respond than to repond while blocked and then be questioned for responding. These blocks have distracted me a bit from my usual focus on Wikinews. Karen 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the blocked shalt not be deleting and blocking people. The scale thing I like. However for a first offense I find 24 hours long. Should we be keeping track of blocks of people who aare likely to do it again on WN:ALERT? Bawolff ☺☻ 04:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is still some admin discretion -- "up to" 24 hours... --Chiacomo ^(talk) 04:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Right, that was an oversight on my part - Deprifry added the required "up to".--Eloquence 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the infraction count part (apologies for forgetting an edit summary).--Eloquence 12:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted the changes made to the policy by a bold admin as I feel they were implemented without community discussion as well as being instruction creep. Furthermore, the changes remove flexibility from an admin's ability to respond to circumstances. Common sense grounded in day to day experiences on the site, rather than more rules to be interpreted/misinterpreted, should guide the use of blocking privileges. - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 20:26, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion and general support for the changes, see above. For you to decide one month later that there wasn't enough discussion is disingenuous at best. When a wiki has many admins as Wikinews does, allowing too much flexibility in admin actions means constant disagreement about whether a particular admin action was justified, ergo constant wheel wars (which was the whole motivation for the change to the blocking policy). Imagine a country that legalizes marijuana "in small amounts", while leaving it up to the cops to decide what "small amounts" are. Not imagine that each cop knows exactly what all the other cops are doing. Do you think there would be disagreements and public complaints about arbitrary enforcement? I think so. This is exactly the situation we're in.

Do others agree that the policy change should be restored?--Eloquence 22:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree with the revert. I was unable to reply for 2 weeks, as you were aware. The number of active admins is actually quite low on Wikinews. The number of wheel wars I am aware of are a total of 3, in a year and a half; a rather small quantity I'm sure you'll agree. As for your example, I live in a country which has exactly that policy in practice. Seems to be a rather stable place.

Now, in the month the policy change *was* in place, it was not followed in the majority of blocking events it covered. Policy is the codification of what is working on the site; it appears we're continuing to produce news despite ignoring this policy change. Give me a reason it should be restored? - Amgine | ^{talk en.WN} 22:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

"it was not followed in the majority of blocking events it covered." This is true. The policy is difficult to follow because, as noted by Karen, the blocking admin often doesn't know how many past blocks have been imposed. The only way to get around this is to keep a "Police record" type page for problem users, however this would, in my opinion, violate the principle of forgive and forget. It could be argued that the entire practise of progressively lengthening blocks is in conflict with this principle. I've not the slightest idea how to resolve this conflict. - Borofkin 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

special:log/block seems like a great police record to me (they do have police records sort of on 'pedia with the subpages of Vandalism in progress for WoW and like). I personally think that you should forgive and forget, but If a user is getting repeatedly blocked, especially over a relativly short time. (Yes I do notice when people get blocked repeatedly. For example, both mrm and neutralizer have been blocked in the last while quite a bit. These things rn't hard to miss), the length should be increased. As when people are blocked and do it again, they 1) know that they did something bad (or something someone considers bad) (thus the you can not edit part of the block) 2) the first block didn't work (they did it again). Therefor the block should be longer or an alternate solution to the issue should be sought. If someone did it about 6 months ago once, and did it again, then you forgive and forget IMO. therefor I support progressivly longer blocks, but nothing set in stone, just vauge guidelines. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added a brief note about progressive blocks now without any specific guidelines. I've also restored some other bits that were not contested above. Amgine, regarding my marijuana metaphor, my key point is that administrators constantly review what they are doing, so highly different standards tend to not work out very well. We have a "small quantities" possession rule in Germany as well, which is enforced differently regionally. If the policework was as unified, transparent and centralized as Wikinews admin work is, I predict this model would lead to problems and complaints, very similar to our "wheel wars". And I do not agree that three wheel wars are few, I think that's quite a lot for a relatively small site. Nevertheless, if the progressive model was too complex, we should of course try to adopt one which admins are more comfortable working with.--Eloquence 01:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing this policy

IMO, changes should not be considered as permenant until the community can agree on this policy. Please. Jason Safoutin 11:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course! Please help in directing more people towards this discussion.--Eloquence 12:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WN:3RR policy states blocks for up to 24 hours, what is listed here on blocking policy is inconsistent with that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks and blocking

I raised this on Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy, but it is possibly more appropriate for this page. In my opinion when a user violates policy, blocking should be used only as a last resort (with a couple of exceptions, such as 3RR). This includes personal attacks. If a user makes a personal attack, it should be patiently explained on their talk page why the edit was considered a personal attack, and why personal attacks are not acceptable. If the attacks continue, they should be warned that repeated personal attacks may result in a block, and if the user continues making personal attacks, then they should be blocked, as a last resort. Evidence of attempts to educate the user, and warn them, should be provided along with the block.

I'm interested to know what the rest of the community thinks of this approach. - Borofkin 02:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Borofkin. The blocking protocol now is heavily bent over for the abuse of arrogant admins who throw out big blocks to selective non-admins and then jump in to rescue each other from any kind of blocks at all. The current practice truly does resemble an old-fashioned and distasteful "good old boys" club from the 50's. It's kind of a perverted sideshow for an otherwise progressive project like Wikinews and I am quite astounded that young reporters have allowed such an obvious systemic injustice to slop around on this project's floor like a 500 pound slug. Neutralizer 02:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Borofkin, but also believe that if someone is blocked for personal attacks that the block should be double that of anything else. Personal attacks harm the community and drive people away - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 23:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial" ?

Has the page listed at the bottom (Wikinews:Controversial blocks) ever existed? 68.39.174.238 23:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No. FellowWikiNews (W) 21:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

the newbie change

if u believe that ur blocking does not come under the existing policy, u're free to discuss changes to the blocking policy. the change u've made, apparently with no discussion at all (certainly, i've not seen anybody agree that a change to BP, and this change in particular, is needed). the way this addition is currently worded sounded more like sour grapes to me than anything else. fwiw, i don't think this change is needed, if users are uncivil to newcomers making good faith edits without sufficient reason, and when they shld've known better, they can be blocked if required, under the disruption heading. this change, i say again, is not needed.  — Doldrums(talk) 11:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What makes you consider a 15-month-old user a newcomer? I reiterate, I'm newer to Wikinews than he is. Violating WN:E, wikistalking and failing to make any valuable contributions to Wikinews are perfect examples of trolling. The reason given for my block was "biting newbie", not "disruption". So, either the block reason or the blocking policy must be changed for the block to be valid. Also, policy states that "efforts to educate" must be made before the block is imposed-where exactly was I informed of this user being a "newbie"? Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 11:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

are u discussing the change to blocking policy or the reason for ur block? i have told u above that this change is not needed to explain the block u received. if u wish to discuss that block, take it to DR. if u have a reason for making this change, listing it here. (and take the change off the policy change till it finds some support). ur argument that BN was the reason listed on the edit summary, therefore it shld be in blocking policy is thin, i've blocked users with the edit-summary "v". u don't see "v" listed in the policy, do u? admins cannot give a 3 paragraph explanation for a block, they resort to shortcut explanation. if u want a clearer explanation for the block, or want to contest it, do so. don't change blocking policy as an alternative. that wld be dispurting wikinews to make a point. u have been here as an admin for several months now, i think, if u still need to be informed of 3RRs u violate, admin tool policies u violate, and how to check whether a user is a newbie, then u shld reconsider ur adminship. again, are u arguing over ur block (which u shld in DR) or explaining the reasons for ur change to the policy here?  — Doldrums(talk) 12:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat, year-old users are NOT newbies, except perhaps in your own view. You accuse me of violating Admin policies, while openly admitting that you block users for "v" (I am familiar with your SMS lingo) -how is a newcomer supposed to figure out what that means?. It was explained to me on WN:ALERT that the block was justified, the reason provided for the block was "biting newbie"-hence "biting newbies" must be made a blockable offence per WN:BP. Unless the rules are different for me? Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 12:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

if u want to discuss ur block, take it to DR. if u want to make a change to BP, explain why it is needed. "it was the edit summary for my block" is not a good enough reason.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not upto you to decide whether or not WN:BP should be changed. "Biting newbie" was the reason given for my block, hence WN:BP must be changed, unless a satisfactory reason is provided for not doing so. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 12:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

that's what i thought, and that's why i called it POINT. and that's why i ask you to revert the changes to the policy, and discuss it instead.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what all this talk of WN:POINT is about. The recent events have revealed that blocks must be enforced on users who bite "newbies". They were an eye-opener for the community. Why not make it official? Singling out users and blocking them without the support of policy reflects badly on the project. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 12:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC) if u think that recent events have pointed out a hole in the policy. pls bring it to the notice of the community, see what they have to say about it, and then make suitable changes to the policy. right now, the change is not worded like a change in policy, but like a complaint over what happened to u.  — Doldrums(talk) 12:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought the issue up at WN:ALERT, and the community (including you) agreed that the block was justified. If the block was justified, the reason must also be justified. Hence, "biting newbies" becomes a blockable offence. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 12:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

here're are some things in the Alert discussion u didn't consider. the cool down rationale for ur block, Brian's comment about ur previous behaviour. not everyone who bites a newbie is likely to be blocked, but someone who repeatedly has problems with newcomers over pov issues and then goes on to do what u did, issue a unwarranted vandal warning, called the user a troll and then repeatedly removed substantive comments, not PAs, from ur talk page, and went on to protect ur talk page just to prevent the user from holding a valid discussion with u over ur edits, is. no i don't know what a run-on sentence is.  — Doldrums(talk) 13:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Biting newbies" was the reason provided for my block. If the block is valid, the reason is also valid. I say again, year old users are not newbies, users who make 20 edits to this project and then get involved in disputes are trolls and I have the right to not talk to trolls who annoy me. Zeest^(Talk)_(Newpages) 13:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)