Forum:Policy for blocks and unblocks

Archived discussion

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page, other than for maintenance. If you wish to revisit this topic, please bring it up again in a new thread.

Forums: Index → Community discussions → Policy for blocks and unblocks | Post

Issue is resolved

This thread has remained dormant for a very long time. From what I can see, we have decided that a proper block policy would be beneficial for the wiki. We seem to have consensus on the fact that 1) The blocking administrator should not decline an unblock request for a user that they themselves have blocked; and 2) Administrators should attempt to consult other administrators, especially the blocking administrator, before unblocking a user.
If more clarification is desired, a new thread can be started, but I think we have some groundwork for a blocking policy. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:39, January 9, 2018 (UTC)

A couple days ago there was an incident on the wiki regarding a user being blocked. The blocked user stated that they were blocked unfairly and that there were/are numerous flaws in the wiki's system for blocking users, as well as in our unblock/appeal system. Shortly after that incident, I began to draft a preliminary block and unblock policy, which would more definitely spell out how blocks are to be issued, establish maximum allowed block lengths, formalize the appeal process and put in place potential safeguards against unnecessary blocks. I am not ready to present the draft publicly yet (though it's housed here on the wiki, so if you want to read it badly enough, you can find it), largely because I'm not sure that the policy in itself is necessary. That's why I'd like to start this conversation, regarding how other users and other administrators see our block/unblock system, and whether they see the need for establishing a formal policy to govern it.

Here's a little background information. This wiki has never had a formal block policy. Previous iterations of general policies stipulated minimum block length times, but these times were almost never followed, at least in the time that I've been on this wiki (which, since my wiki anniversary was two days ago, is seven years). Administrators have been given a very wide latitude in deciding whether or not to block, and for how long blocks should be issued. Over time, a couple general guidelines have evolved, such as the doctrine that unauthorized secondary accounts (otherwise, often erroneously, known as sock puppets) be blocked indefinitely, or the idea of "escalating blocks," where the same policy violation earns longer and longer blocks each time the violation occurs. While these guidelines are often followed, there is no rule mandating their use, and administrators are free to vastly exceed normal precedents when deciding whether to block.

It could be argued that a policy is not necessary, since administrators can communicate among themselves and reign in unnecessarily long or unfair blocks, or else apply or extend unnecessarily lenient blocks. Essentially, the idea behind this is that the administrators can come to an informal consensus (often without even needing to resort to discussion) regarding how long a user should be blocked, and that therefore specific rules or mandated block periods are unnecessary. The reality, however, does not match this description. The simple fact is, it is uncommon for one administrator to directly contradict the actions of another administrator. This is because all admins are equal in rank and right; all admins and bureaucrats hold the power to block and unblock, and all admins and bureaucrats can alter or remove blocks set by any other admin or bureaucrat. So one admin overriding the actions of another admin can be seen as disrespectful, or even hostile, since it can be seen as one admin asserting authority over another. This is especially the case when a bureaucrat is overruling the actions of a regular admin, or a more experienced admin overruling a newcomer. As a result, administrators walk on eggshells, avoiding confrontation or action, even if they personally disagree with actions taken against a user. Thus, users may be getting treated unfairly by admins acting in good faith, and then that unfairness is compounded by other admins failing or refusing to act for one reason or another.

Personally, I have disagreed with some blocks issued on the wiki in the past, as well as the attitude that has been taken towards some blocked users. My draft policy reflects my personal viewpoint (part of the reason I'm not ready to make it 100% public), my own wish list regarding how I believe blocks should be handled on the wiki. That's not to say that my viewpoint is the correct viewpoint or that other opinions aren't equally valid. However, when I am drafting a policy like this, my own viewpoint is my main guiding principle. Ultimately, however, I want us to all reach a point at which we're comfortable with our blocking system. I can say that I am not comfortable with it at the moment, but I may be in the minority in that viewpoint; I simply don't know. I could also be in a minority regarding my own opinions of current or past practices regarding blocking. This is why I'd like to start some sort of discussion here regarding what we see as positive aspects as well as flaws in the current system.

Though I've spoken at length about a couple significant issues I see, I'd like to boil down my main concerns into a few short points.

• Inconsistent block lengths between administrators - Since we don't have established block lengths, different admins tend to issue blocks for different lengths of time, even for similar policy violations.
• Lack of communication on long-term blocks - Short-term blocks for things like vandalism are pretty cut-and-dry and very rarely will require any sort of communication between admins. But long-term blocks are sometimes issued without a clear reason or based on evidence that not all admins have access to to scrutinize.
• Insistence on being "tough" on users who break policy - There is a mentality among some users that it's important to send a clear message to rule-breakers and that, once we have decided to issue an indefinite or long-term block, that we should be unwilling to later show leniency or allow users to have additional chances. Basically the concern I've noted is that to do so would demonstrate that policies do not necessarily need to be followed.
• Lack of controls on the appeal process - A single administrator, even the admin that issued the initial block, can deny a block appeal. The same administrator can deny multiple appeals by the same user. The same administrator can also choose to restrict a blocked user's access to their talk page, removing that user's ability to file an appeal.

I would like to see how others view the points I've laid out, as well as other views on the block/unblock system. As I said above, I cannot assume that my opinion is the only valid one; I am open to being convinced in any direction. I only ask that everyone keep an open mind and be willing to speak their minds as well. -- LiR ^{talk ? blog ? contribs} 04:34, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

When I proposed the unblock system that we have today, I had initially suggested that the blocking admin not be allowed to respond to the unblock request. I still stand by this because it makes sense: if someone requests an unblock, a second opinion is required, otherwise the blocking admin is free to just decline the request. The discussion thread (now archived) for the unblock system is here in case anyone else was wondering. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:10, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

I actually agree. I always thought that request shouldn't be handled by the blocking admin. I know that I don't block that often (which is another point that I think that LiR and I share in common), so that might be why I haven't had many unblock requests to blocks I've issued. While I can understand that since most of the time another admin probably wouldn't know the circumstance and probably won't "go against" a fellow admin/bureaucrat even if they are, it will at least make it so that others will be aware. This is my understanding that was the biggest complaint when this occurred previously. – Icemandeaf (talk) 13:15, August 22, 2016 (UTC)

If the blocking administrator shouldn't remain free to just decline the request, then they should at least have some way of voicing their opinions on whether they think the user in question should be unblocked or not, without directly declining the user's unblock request. But then I guess it's already covered, since it does say that neutral administrators are meant to discuss the user's block with the blocking administrator before they make a decision as to whether they accept or decline the request. If they decline the request, it makes sense for them to do it without consulting the blocking administrator, but if they're going to accept the unblock request then they should discuss the block with the blocking administrator, to make sure that they are fully aware of the situation behind the blocking administrator's reason for blocking the said user. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 04:39, August 23, 2016 (UTC)

What if the blocked user was blocked for being underage, or if they had an unacceptable username, and the "Prevent this user from editing their talk page while blocked" box was not ticked, and the user requested an unblock as a result? Shouldn't the blocking administrator be able to decline the request then? I mean if the user was blocked for being underage, and there's clear evidence that they still haven't reached the minimum age to register on Wikia, then there technically wouldn't be any reason to hesitate in declining the unblock request, as far as I can see at least. Similarly, if a user was blocked for having an unacceptable username, then there would be no reason to hesitate in declining their unblock request. I'm not saying that these should be definite exceptions to the "blocking administrator not being allowed to directly decline the user's unblock request" thing. I just thought that they were possible occurrences worth pointing out. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:24, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

In the case of an unacceptable username, there would be no reason for allowing a block appeal as long as the administrators collectively agreed that a username was unacceptable. However, it's important to make sure that in the event a user is blocked for having an improper username, they be allowed to re-register under a more appropriate name without penalty. As for underage users, it's possible that the user may have evidence as to their own age that the blocking administrator may have missed or mis-interpreted when issuing the initial block. Even in these cases though, for the simple sake of impartiality I think it would be best for the blocking admin to not respond to those unblock appeals. In absolute terms, there may be situations in which a blocking admin could respond to an unblock request, and act in a fair and impartial manner, but I still feel it is best to simply say that blocking admins in no circumstances should respond to those appeals, simply because the admin's own impartiality could be weakened or threatened without their conscious knowledge. At the same time, I believe in the case of a block appeal, no admin should lift a block (unless the reason for lifting the block is obvious) without consulting with the blocking admin as a minimum, and possibly with other admins on the Admin Portal Talk Page. -- LiR ^{talk · blog · contribs} 11:51, August 27, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems to be the best practice. When I was thinking about unacceptable usernames, I was only thinking about the ones that were outright inappropriate, and not the ones that were potentially inappropriate. But I guess you've made your point. What one user may consider to be blatantly inappropriate, another user may just consider to be questionable. So I just it makes sense that the blocking admins in no circumstances should respond to those appeals. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:59, August 28, 2016 (UTC)

With regards to blocking accounts with inappropriate usernames, Wikipedia allows users to request an unblock with the intention of filing a request to have their username changed when the block is lifted. This usually isn't available if the account in question was a vandalism-only account, but is a viable option if the user unknowingly violated the username policy and has made no inappropriate edits. Wikipedia also generally asks that admins hold off on the block button for an account with an inappropriate name until they edit. I don't think we can get such a system on The Sims Wiki, considering how distant the username change process is from the Wikia community compared to that on Wikipedia and ultimately Wikimedia, but I can see the "Wait until the user edits or does something before blocking" guideline being quite useful. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:54, August 29, 2016 (UTC)

To all users who like this idea of redoing the Sims wiki blocking and unblocking system I have to disagree. I personally see no problem with the current system that is on The Sims wiki and many procedures in my opinion where done accordingly and properly. As for requesting unblock I think it's not a good idea as users who were blocked for a reason could request unblock and if they do then they can cause more havoc on the wiki. Also I feel admins are mature and responsible enough to judge accordingly in there blocks and I don't feel they need a check up system to make sure they are doing there job properly as that diminishes there importance in the block. Not to mention I have not seen any bad incidents of misconduct by admins in the time I have been here. So unfortunately I have to not support this idea. Darytyg123123 ^(talk) 10:55, September 10, 2016 (UTC)

@Darytyg123123: To clarify, a user that requests unblock does not automatically get unblocked. Users are able to request unblock if they are permitted to edit their own talk page, and in the vast majority of cases most blocks will allow this. Once they place their request, an administrator must review the request and, if the accept it, will proceed with the unblock; if they don't the request is declined and no further action is taken. If they abuse the unblock request system their talk page access can simply be revoked. The reason why we allow blocked users to request an unblock is because administrators are not infallible. People make mistakes, and if we really treated our administrators as flawless deities then the community-nature of a wiki would disintegrate, as an administrator would then no longer become a member of the community, but someone who was above community standards; that's not how we run our wiki here. There is always the possibility that an administrator misjudged the block, or was missing a crucial piece of information that would've otherwise prevented the block. It also prevents the grossly incorrect stigma that blocked users are "banished members of the community" (they're not -- they may be on some wikis, but we are not like this). Just as administrators are not without error, so too is everyone else, and someone who has genuinely learned from their block can and should be given a second chance. Enforcing a "zero-tolerance" policy would give administrators more work and more frustration, and it will make our community feel less of a community and more of a quasi-extremist state. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:11, September 11, 2016 (UTC)

After consultation with Syde I have decided to minor agree with this system as it doesn't seem like a bad idea and will update the other one which is old. Darytyg123123 ^(talk) 10:23, September 13, 2016 (UTC)

Bump — Hoping to give this thread some attention, since I'm unsure whether we've reached a conclusion yet. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 23:35, October 25, 2016 (UTC)

Well proposals in this forum seem to take forever to come to fruition. I assume we have a consensus that the blocking administrator should not be allowed to accept or decline an unblock request for a block they themselves made? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:04, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether we have a consensus that the blocking administrator shouldn't be allowed to accept the unblock request. But we do seem to have a consensus that the blocking administrator shouldn't be allowed to decline the unblock request. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 00:08, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Well if the block is being questioned it never hurts to have a second opinion, regardless of the outcome. Administrators should police other administrators; no admin is an island. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 00:10, November 6, 2016 (UTC)