Forum:Unblock system

With Wikia's "Email this User" feature a thing of the past, we need a new method of allowing blocked users to communicate with other editors and to request an unblock. Being the evil and ungrateful thief that I am, I decided to steal (ahem, borrow) Wikipedia's system of requesting unblocks. Here's how it works:


 * Whenever a user is blocked, they will be allowed to edit their talk page, especially for first offenses.
 * When an admin blocks a user, they will usually leave a "You are blocked" message on their talk page. TSW does that already, which is great.
 * The block message, in addition to informing the user why they were blocked, also provides options for the user to request an unblock.
 * If the blocked user decides that the block was either unjustified, unfair, or no longer necessary, they may request an unblock. On Wikipedia, this involves adding a template to their own talk page (which is still editable by the blocked user). The template they use is " ".
 * Adding this template adds the user talk page to a category - on Wikipedia this is Category:Requests for unblock - where administrators can find the unblock requests and react accordingly.
 * Any administrator may go over to review the block. This involves going through the reason the user gave, the blocked user's contributions, deleted contributions, and their logs (such as the edit filter log). They then decide whether they should unblock the user or not.
 * The admin who blocked the user is not permitted to decline the request (though they can accept it). Otherwise, any administrator is permitted to accept or decline the unblock request, and they must provide a reason.
 * If the user 1. Makes too many unconvincing requests, or 2. Is evidently abusing the privilege of being able to request unblock, they may have their talk page access revoked.

So that's basically the gist of the system. I would like to hear community input and opinion on this new system. Feel free to suggest any changes. The templates that could be used are being developed at my user sandboxes (Sandbox 2, 3, and 4). K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 15:59, March 26, 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
I'm in favor of implementing this. The only thing I'd stipulate is that it might be worth suggesting that an administrator try and consult with the original blocking administrator. I suggest this because the blocking admin may know of a particular reason for blocking that wouldn't be apparent to someone looking at it from an outside perspective. This would strictly be as a courtesy to the original blocker, however. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 18:16, March 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * Wrote a quick documentation on how to use the system here as well. Feel free to change anything you disagree with. K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 18:36, March 30, 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a question. Is this system applied to users who are temporarily blocked, permanently blocked, or both? It isn't quite common that a permanently blocked user requests for unblock due to their obvious unconstructive contributions (though User:ILoveSims5 might still have a chance, providing she doesn't ignore messages in her talk page and is able to comply). Regardless, I think this is a good system and could be a good substitution for the email feature.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  05:19, April 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * While I think it is a good system and a potential substitution for the email feature, I have no question that there are many blocked users out there that can't be trusted. Yes, there are some who might deserve another chance, but I'm not so sure about ILoveSims5 a.k.a. ImJustAPoorWayfaringStranger.


 * Also I think we should delete all the userpages of blocked users with inappropriate usernames. However if we were to delete the pages for those users, wouldn't that mean that we wouldn't know if they rejoined this wiki via sockpuppetry?


 * Whether or not Eminem Fan 007 deserves another chance remains to be seen. C.Syde65 (talk) 05:55, April 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem with User:ILoveSims5 is that she consistently ignored warnings and messages, and eventually created sockpuppets over and over. All she needed to do is to respond to her messages to see if she actually understood her situation. Blocked users may not necessary be untrustworthy. There may be dispute whether the user deserves a block or not, but it's not always for the reason of trust.


 * I don't think deleting userpages with an inappropriate username is necessary at all. Deleting the userpage is the same as blanking the page.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  06:47, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just thought it might clean things up a bit. C.Syde65 (talk) 06:50, April 5, 2014 (UTC) I think we should adopt some standard to handle the unblocking of currently indefinitely-blocked users. The proposal seems to suggest a way to handle future indefinite blocks, but we have a number of blocks already standing that may come up for reconsideration if the unblock system is implemented. There are many users on indefinite blocks and it doesn't seem rational to look at each case one-by-one. So I'd like to suggest this criteria to apply to previously-blocked users.
 * 1) The user has been blocked at least six months
 * 2) The user has made no attempts to evade a block or use sockpuppet accounts in at least six months
 * 3) The user was not indefinitely blocked because of an inappropriate username (A note on this - I've always operated under the idea that if a user is blocked solely because of a bad user name, they should be allowed to create a new account, as long as its username is okay).
 * 4) The user requesting an unblock isn't a sockpuppet - only the "original" account can be unblocked (unless the account requesting an unblock is a "legitimate" admin-approved sock)

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:34, April 5, 2014 (UTC)