User:Ricken/SandboxPG/Blocking policy
| AmtWiki policies and guidelines |
|---|
| Policies List · Guidelines List |
Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing AmtWiki. Blocks may be applied to user accounts, to IP addresses, and to ranges of IP addresses, for either a definite or an indefinite time. Blocked users can continue to access AmtWiki, but cannot edit any page (including their own user pages), except (in most cases) their own user talk pages.
Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to AmtWiki, though they are not always used as a form of punishment. Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address
If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block on their talk page. Administrators can "unblock" a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate.
Contents
Purpose
Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Administrators should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening.
Blocks can be appealed. Requests to be unblocked are also decided in light of prevention and deterrence. A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early. Equally, a user who has previously returned to inappropriate conduct after other unblocks may find their unblock request declined for deterrence reasons, to underline the importance of change and unacceptability of the conduct.
Admin blocking usage
As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the admin noticeboard for peer review.
Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future.
Common rationales for blocks
The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks.
Protection
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the AmtWiki, its users, or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to:
- persistent personal attacks
- personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the site)
- actions placing users in danger, especially children
- disclosures of others' personal information (whether or not the information is accurate)
- an account appearing to have been compromised (as an emergency measure), i.e. there is some reason to believe the account is being used by someone other than the person who registered the account
Disruption
A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
- vandalism
- gross incivility
- harassment
- spamming
- edit warring
- gross breaching the policies or guidelines, especially the sock puppetry policy
- attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside AmtWiki processes, whether onsite or offsite
Evasion of blocks
See also AmtWiki:Sock puppetry
An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked.
When blocking may not be used
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace.
Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.
Blocking
Warnings
Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about AmtWiki policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes.
Note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.
Explanation of blocks
Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made with good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.
Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is often easier to explain the reason for a block at the time than it is to explain a block well after the event. If there are any specific recommendations or circumstances that a reviewing administrator would need to know, or that may help to avoid administrator disputes upon review of a block, the blocking administrator should consider including this information in the block notice.
Implementing blocks
The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider the severity of the behavior, and whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.
Indefinite blocks
An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion.
Indefinite does not mean infinite: an indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances. In particularly serious cases where no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community.
Most indefinite block are placed upon spam accounts made by "vandalbots", which only exist to post spam and distrupt the community, usually created and run by a script.
Blocking bots
Automated or semi-automated bots may occasionally not operate as intended for a variety of reasons. Bots may be blocked until the issue is resolved.
Bots that are unapproved, or usernames that violate the username policy due to a resemblance to a bot, are immediately and indefinitely blocked when discovered.
The edits of a bot are considered to be, by extension, the edits of the editor responsible for the bot. As a result, should a bot operator be blocked, any bot attributed to them may also be blocked for the same duration as that of the blocked editor.
Unblocking
Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake.
