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)


 * Amendment - It occurs to me now that the initial proposal isn't limited to indefinitely-blocked users, but to any blocked user. With that in mind, I'd like to make a change to the list I gave above:


 * The user has a block longer than one month
 * The user has not made any attempt to evade their block or use a sockpuppet account in at least three months
 * The user was not indefinitely blocked because of an inappropriate username
 * The user isn't a sockpuppet account.
 * The user was not blocked for being underage.

--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 21:40, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

I like that idea! :) C.Syde65 (talk) 21:55, April 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * I know I probably have no say here, 'cause I'm just a regular user with no other controls, but I just wanted to mention that I think the amendment is more than fair. Since it applies to everyone, regardless of what they did to be blocked. At least then the user knows what they need to do, to get unblocked. With this, it might decrease block evading sockpuppetry as well. WayfinderOwl (talk) 22:10, April 5, 2014 (UTC)


 * You do have say here. This is a community discussion, and the community makes the decisions and draws up consensus, not a small group of admins. Admins are equal to other users.


 * Same. I'm a bit touchy on the underage-user one though. There is the possibility that a mistake was made. Of course, if the user puts "HI I AM A 10-YEAR OLD GIRL" then they obviously aren't going to be permitted to request unblock - even if they're really a 30-year old man who's trolling (in that case, there's definitely no way we're letting them edit). I say that, unless they've explicitly declared that they're underaged somewhere, we should let them request unblock.


 * Also, while the Duck Test does a pretty good job of ratting out obvious sockpuppets, the only way we can 95% verify that two accounts are sockpuppets is to perform a CheckUser operation. Wikia Staff, Helpers, and VSTF have these rights, though I've heard that local admins may be granted Checkuser flags if sockpuppetry is a problem. K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 22:17, April 5, 2014 (UTC)
 * Users aren't blocked simply on suspicion. If an admin blocks a user for being underage or being a sock, they should be able to give some evidence to prove it. For example, I only block underage accounts when the user themselves adds their age to their user page, or when someone in chat screen-caps another user saying how old they are. If you ask me to provide proof of my suspicions, I can, and I won't block a user for being underage or being a sock without it. I think most other administrators operate this way when they issue blocks for sockpuppetry or being underage. I think limiting their ability to request an unblock makes sense given that there had to be proof in the first place that they were blocked for one of those reasons.


 * Also, as a quick aside, admins from TSW have requested CheckUser rights from Wikia Staff and have been turned down. I don't see this changing anytime soon. Feel free to request it if you want but don't be surprised when they say 'no'.--  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:46, April 5, 2014 (UTC)

Let's just assume that anybody who publicly states that they're under 13 should either be blocked for telling the truth or blocked for lying and wasting our time. The vast majority of the time, these blocks are only made if there's something to back it up. If a user has been blocked for being underage yet there's no proof whatsoever to back up the claim then they could probably be unblocked without it causing too much of a fuss.

I'd also like for the blocking admin to be able to decline unblock requests. I can see why it was suggested that they can't but I think we need to remember to maintain neutrality as much as possible when handling an unblock request and assume good faith on their part. This also helps if they have a reason for the block that's not clear to somebody else's perspective, as LiR stated above. Besides, if another admin wishes to question their judgement then they can always leave them a talk page message or talk to them on Chat/IRC about it.

Aside from what I've said above, I think this proposal could be effective and therefore I'm in support. 14:52, April 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * So far, this is looking pretty good. I've updated Sandbox5 with the new suggestions.


 * I was thinking a little bit about the "inappropriate username" one. On Wikipedia, accounts with evidently inappropriate names are indeffed ("Indefinitely Blocked") immediately, with autoblock disabled and account creation enabled. The user is usually provided the option to request a username change, though for new accounts they're usually encouraged to just create a new account instead of going through a fuss. Some wikis don't really care if they had an admin named "UR MILF", however, most "civilized" (sorry about the bias) wikis like ours simply can't collaborate with someone with such a username. If the account, say, was a brand new one with only a few edits on a few wikis, then its easy for us to just tell the user to create a new one. However, if they happened to make some substantial contributions to another wiki, they may not like having to abandon their old account, or have to constantly switch between using one account to edit on one wiki and another account to edit on this one. Should we allow unblock for accounts that has made, say, over 30 edits around Wikia? (I'm not even sure if Wikia has a global policy about inappropriate usernames. Even though a scenario like this will probably never happen, it's good to be prepared). K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 17:33, April 6, 2014 (UTC)


 * I feel silly for saying this, but we need some images for the templates. The one in Sandbox2 is kinda - meh, while the other templates don't have images at all. My non-existent image editing skills aren't going to impress anyone. Should the images be related to The Sims at all? K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:38, April 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate usernames are generally unacceptable, and since there's possibility that there are younger readers here, it's not best to let users with such name roam freely (yes, it's just a username, not article content, but still). I think newly created accounts with inappropriate usernames don't think wisely. Clearly no one wants to go around and be called [insert inappropriate word here] unless the user is provoking. I think that if the user is new, we should suggest them change their username.


 * I like LiR's idea. I just want to point out the second point. It seems that the condition is bound to a span of time (The user has not made any attempt to evade their block or use a sockpuppet account in at least three months). Does this mean that as soon as the user is caught making a sock, his/her right to request for unblock is revoked? And after 3 months of sock-free activity, the right is granted again? I guess I don't quite understand it. It's hard to keep track of how long a blocked user has done the time.


 * As for the image... I can't think of anything creative right now. Maybe we could go without any images, since the template is intended for us admins anyway? I have an icon of TS3 handcuffs if you want to, but it's an icon, not an image. But really, do you want handcuffs as the icon that represents unblock?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  15:01, April 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * The handcuffs could work on the block template. A pair of handcuffs with a key could work for the unblock templates. If it doesn't have to be Sims-related, I could go for a Google search, or try my hand at making something that doesn't look terrible. Or I could just steal from the Wikipedia unblock templates, but those look kinda bland (it's just a clock).


 * Keeping tabs on sockpuppet accounts is quite difficult, especially when nobody has Checkuser access. We might need a page where known sockpuppets may be recorded, say, The Sims Wiki:Known Sockpuppets, maybe? Once we can record sockpuppets, it should be easier to tell whether they've been trying to get around their block, and thus decide whether they should or shouldn't be permitted to request unblock.


 * Going without images could be a temporary solution until someone comes up with a way to spice up the template. I picked the Grim Reaper plea one because it fit in with the unblock template, but the unblock-declined or unblock-approved ones might be a bit harder to find. I could take some in-game pics of Sims begging Grimmy for their loved one's life. Should the images have a white background? If they do, then I'll need to practice my image-editing skills. I don't have photoshop, but I do have Paint.NET K6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 15:45, April 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * The way this is shaping up looks pretty good to me. I agree that if someone's only offense is an unacceptable username, they should be given a chance to re-register with an acceptable one, but not an indefinite number of them -- maybe a "three strikes" policy. Dharden (talk) 16:32, April 7, 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to Nikel's question about blocks being based on a span of time - what I proposed was only meant to apply to indefinite blocks that already exist. There are only a few accounts that are currently blocked that have had a sock within the past three months. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 17:43, April 7, 2014 (UTC)

With regards to the sockpuppet thing...I don't think it's wise to dedicate an entire page to them because in a sense, we're giving them the attention that they want. I'm from the school of thought that it is better to ban them and move on rather than proceeding to hold a memorial for them. If you think somebody is a sock then you'd obviously need somebody to compare to and as it goes, if it's highly likely then they can just be blocked while if there's something "not right", ask for a Checkuser. I know that keeping tabs on socks isn't the easiest task ever but unfortunately it kind of comes with being an admin. I'd recommend what is already stated in that only the puppeteer can request unblock.

As for inappropriate usernames, I'm okay with giving them a grace period to get their name changed. I feel the three strikes rule would be the best way to deal with unblock requests in general, as in "three bad requests and you're revoked". The three strikes rule goes for sockmasters too. 01:29, April 8, 2014 (UTC)

As consensus appears to be favourable, I've moved the templates out of my user sandboxes and into the template namespace (they're in Unblock, Unblock-declined, and Unblock-accepted). I'll try to get a decent image for the templates (all involving the Grim Reaper and the resurrection of Sims. Grimmy has no time for your whining and sniveling!). The templates might look f'ugly, but that's what I get for having virtually no experience in making templates. So, go nuts. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 00:34, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * If you'd like, I can play with the template design to make them look better. We don't really need an image on the template IMO. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 02:24, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * The current template design is good enough, IMO. It could still be improved maybe. IMO, using the grim reaper plea image to the template makes it a little... tacky.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  14:22, April 19, 2014 (UTC)
 * If I have time I might go and take some pictures that hopefully aren't nearly as shabby as the one in the template right now. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 14:34, April 19, 2014 (UTC)

I've created The Sims Wiki:Blocking which includes a section on unblocking. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 01:51, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * After a while of patiently working with Paint.NET, it seems that either 1. I have absolutely no clue what I'm doing, 2. I'm terrible at what I'm doing, or 3. Paint.NET's Magic Wand tool is borked. Since an image is not high in my list of priorities right now, I hid the code and now the template's ready for sale. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 21:51, April 29, 2014 (UTC)

Allowing the blocking administrator to respond to requests
After seeing this system in practice, I think it would be best to allow blocking administrators to respond to unblock requests. Having a rule in place prohibiting the blocking admin from denying the request in a way doesn't AGF on the part of the administrator, since it essentially assumes that the admin who issued the block will be biased against the user, even if they present a sufficient appeal. If there's some hesitation towards allowing admins to completely deny these blocks, maybe we can change it to allow the blocking admin to be allowed to deny unblock requests from users they've blocked, with the stipulation that other administrators are free to override that decision if they see fit (provided they give a reason for doing so). I think in many cases, the blocking admin is the most familiar with the circumstances surrounding the user's block so they're in the best position to consider the request and, if approving it, to issue additional warnings or restrictions on the unblocked user. In short, I don't think that the current system of voluntary consultation with the blocking administrator really goes far enough. --  LostInRiverview talk ~ blog 22:52, May 10, 2014 (UTC)