Forum:CT:Blocking policy revamp

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Blocking policy revamp

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was Support proposal. Imperators II^(Talk) 06:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Relevant discussion for reference: Forum:SH:Blocking policy revamp

Hello. I'm proposing a rewrite of the Blocking policy based on the contents of my user subpage here.

There has been some discussion about formal guidance for issuing warnings and standardised block lengths, but given that there doesn't seem to be any consensus yet I think it's good to go ahead with this update for now and add them after we've had separate discussions about them.

I have tried to address every proposed change in the summary below, which I recommend reading side-by-side with the revisions page between the current iteration and my proposal.

Summary of changes

Intro and "Usage"

Updated language to be inclusive of our Discussions forum, where blocked users are also prevented from making posts (e.g. "editing" -> "contributing")
Removed the rather NPA-violating implication that good faith users violating policy is "stupidity"; we don't need to mention Hanlon's razor when we've got assuming good faith
Emphasised that blocking is a last resort, and that the consequences of violating policy applies to all users
Expanded on the use of warnings before a block and gave a general guide to block lengths. Based on the global guidelines here, I figured it is better to detail the values behind the whole blocking business so that blocks don't get misused etc. in the long term. To that end, I've emphasised assuming good faith, helping newcomers, and being clear, as well as highlighting that warnings serve to educate users and the purpose of blocks is to protect users.

"Technical process"

Hopefully I've made this part as clear as possible. A lot of it is just to explain how exactly an admin could use sysop tools to block users in different ways.
Clarified that partial blocks exist, but they are not to be used given the general consensus in the relevant SH discussion.
Added an explainer on autoblocks, which are enabled by default, and the MediaWiki:Blockedtext error page.
Added a mention of the {{Blocked}} template, and that a blocked user could appeal their block or request further clarification on the reasoning.
There is no AbuseFilter for users removing external links (in fact, there's one for adding them), so substituted that with a real example of a filter being in place to stop new users from moving other users' userpages.
Expanded on how the AbuseFilter and the corresponding logs work
Mentioned that admins should check the abuse log regularly for false positives/content of disallowed edits.

"Ground for blocking"

Made it clear that blocks should only be issued for policy violations rather than being up to individual admins' discretion and Administrative autonomy (which has already been revised to address admin abuse). It would also bring us into line with Fandom's Wiki Rules and Blocking Policy (2022), which says blocks may only be issued for violations of written rules.
The non-exhaustive list of what you can be blocked for has been shortened—all policy violations fall under the point "disruption."
- Clarified that "disruption" means harming Wookieepedia and its community, not, for example, simply voicing differing opinions.
- I've kept Sockpuppetry as a separate point, however, because we often deal with blocked users who try to edit from another account. Same with proxy IPs.

"Rules"

Edited for concision and reordered for structure.
Removed restriction on users with global blocking rights on Fandom (e.g. Fandom staff) to obtain express consent from an admin before issuing a local block; since admins regularly work with Fandom staff to handle blocks, including reporting users to be globally blocked when necessary, I've clarified that blocking on Wookieepedia is the administration's responsibility, and that a user with a global block would be prevented from contributing to Wookieepedia.
Mentioned that partial blocks should not be used, per relevant SH discussion.
Added a snippet confirming that anyone who's blocked gets their voting eligibility revoked per WP:VEP.
Clarified our new Administrative autonomy policy on blocks.

"Requesting administrative intervention"

Created this new section to elaborate on ways a user could request admins to block another user (on the wiki itself, on Discussions' Ask A Mod A Question thread, or on Discord, with a relevant section on the privacy policy).
Also included is advice on making use of talk page template warnings and potential pitfalls (like violating WP:NPA when reporting a user).

"Reminders for administrators"

Removed this section as it is redundant to the intro and the "Usage" section's advice on properly using the tool, as well as the links provided in the "See also" section below.

"Appealing blocks" (replacing "I've been blocked. What do I do?")

Removed mention of IRC (retired feature) and Discord (server access is removed for blocked users) as avenues for appeals.
Removed hostile reference to the old Administrative autonomy policy and an irrelevant Fandom staff blog post on blocking.
Mentioned that users may appeal or ask for clarification on their blocks via admins' Message Walls on Community Central instead, which can be found on Wookieepedia:Administrators, per Forum:CT:Message Wall links on WP:A.
Mentioned that users blocked by the abuse filter may contact any member of the administration.
Mentioned Fandom's "I have been blocked" help page, their global Wiki Rules and Blocking Policy which applies to our blocking policies, and their Terms of Use.

"See also"

Created a list of useful links relevant to blocking on Wookieepedia and on Fandom.

Support proposal

That's all for now! This has been several months of work so I'm mighty glad to have this sorted (and thanks to everyone who have helped in the process!). OOM 224 (he/him) 12:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Very nice work on this! Supreme Emperor ^Holocomm 13:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Exceptional work, OOM! Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
01miki10 ^{Open comlink} 13:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Great work! Bonzane10 (holonet) 13:30, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Rsand 30 (talk) 17:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
—spookywilloww^talk 17:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Lewisr (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Rakhsh (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
NanoLuuke^{Cloning Facility} 06:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Imperators II^(Talk) 07:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Commander Code-8 ^{Hello There!} 12:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose proposal

Discuss

I'd like to see partial block usage weaved into the policy eventually. I think it can be very useful in specific situations. NBDani (they/them)^{Yeager's Repairs} 00:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)