Requests for Comment/Creating a blocking policy for all wikis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Consensus is against this RfC. If users are being blocked unfairly, which, among other things, includes blocking users to which they've never contributed. We have a policy that allows mainly for Steward intervention where local administrators are unwilling to constructively engage with a user who has made a legitimate request for reconsideration of their block, provided, of course, the user has not been repeatedly blocked for the same pattern of behaviour and has demonstrated, usually by stepping away from the wiki(s) in question, for a reasonable period of time that they've learned from their behaviour. In such cases, though, Stewards will typically engage with local wikis, advise them of the Code of Conduct, and request reconsideration of their local blocks. In nearly all cases in which I've been involved, this has been the case, even if sometimes one user will agree with the idea but then sit on enacting it for reasons unknown. Dmehus (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

---

I plan on creating a blocking policy for all wikis to follow. The reason for this will be explained in further detail after the terms of the policy are addressed, as they relate to one another. Here are the terms:

1. Blocks should be used only to prevent disruption. They should not be used as:
   • A method of punishment or ostracism
   • A form of revenge
   • A way of targeting a user
   • A form of harassment
   • Any other reason other than the prevention of disruption
2. Blocks should not be given to users who are already globally locked, or who have retired or are otherwise inactive.
3. Blocks should only be given in a violation of a specific written rule on the wiki.
4. Blocks should only be applied on the wiki or wikis where the incident occurred.
5. Blocks should not be applied on multiple wikis unless the user is clearly a disruption-only account or a sockpuppet.
6. If the user is not a disruption only account, they should not be indefinitely blocked for a first time offense. The first time a user violates a rule, they should be given a warning. If they violate the rule a second time, they may be temporarily blocked, with the length depending on the severity of their actions. Always assume good faith.
   • Talk pages should also be left open in case the user wishes to appeal their block.
7. Blocks should not be applied as a result of issues that have long passed and have since been resolved.
8. Block summaries should explain why the user was blocked. They should not have any additional comments added to them unless it explains the block. In addition, block summaries should not be blank.
9. Stewards and Global Sysops have the right to change or remove any block that violates these rules.

The reason I am proposing this is because I have seen multiple blocks applied on multiple different wikis that do not abide by the above rules, including myself. It seems as though blocks are often being misused. Block summaries are also a major problem as most block summaries I have seen do not explain why the user was blocked. This policy should help to prevent any future misuse of blocks. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. Strongest support As proposer. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Weak support Removing the term 3, 8 and 4 (because administrators have a position of whatever they want to block and there should be no rule for that) I'll try to give a space and vote support for this but being weak, even because, despite From being in good faith, this seems to be just so that the policy is change and you are unlocked from certain wikis, yet most of the rules won't change much. And I'm glad you dropped rule 2. What annoys, is being blocked doing nothing from certain wikis YellowFrogger (✉ Talk ✐ Edits) 01:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Weak support: This seems like a good idea, but the RfC as it is needs some changes. I made some suggestions on how to improve it. Tali64³ (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
   • The CVT should be the group enforcing this policy.
   • This policy should only go into effect when there are no active admins on that wiki.
   • Give user a warning for first-time vandalism. If vandalism continues, block in this order:
     • 2 weeks
     • 1 month
     • 3 months
     • 6 months
     • 1 year
     • infinite

Oppose

1. Strongest oppose I really don't like this idea, even if it is a good-faith request. Some wikis handle such things differently from others, and may have to have different kinds of blocking policies based on the content they contain. While blocking for no reason is an issue that needs to be resolved, some of these other reasons could possibly not apply to wikis that have different standards when it comes to contributing. Having a global policy could get quite messy overall as well, and if one was put in place, wikis that have different standards may have to painfully adjust to match the global policy. I am more so concerned about communities who don't even use the Meta as well. TigerBlazer (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
2. Oppose The wished actions below 4 is where it really goes downhill. I feel like it should rather be up to the local jurisdiction. Rather, you should speak to the users with admins, and if they don’t give you the response you’d wish, then go to the bureaucrats, and if that doesn’t work, go to stewards. If they don’t give you the response you want, drop the stick. -- Cheers, Bukkit ^{( Talk • All Contribs )} 00:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
3. Strong oppose A block is a block. There shouldn't be a policy to block blocking on wikis that block. _{i make bad jokes :D}
   What I mean is a wiki is seperate. The wiki admins should have the same rights to block their users as if the wiki was hosted on the wiki owner's server running mediawiki (not on a wikifarm).  AP📨  01:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
4. Strongest oppose Like I said earlier when I put down my abstain vote, this is utterly pointless. Thus, the real intention of this RfC was to make it so the blocks would work in his favor and not how the community does things. Bluba, I'm sorry, but my point still stands, going forward with this RfC. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
5. Oppose I'm very much not persuaded that there's a need for a 'global blocking policy' at this time. While Miraheze does have global policies that affect all wikis, such a policy in my opinion is not justified and wikis should be able to determine their own standards for blocking people. If global policies are being violated, that's a different issue that can be resolved by Stewards or Global Sysops if local administrators refuse to deal with users that are violating global policy. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
6. Oppose in sum from the conversation below, I'm not opposed to holding particular wikis accountable or the idea of a strong convention as far as responsible blocking. I also think that while wikis should have autonomy, the fact they're part of a collective is still relevant. That said, I'm more in line with Reception's argument and the principle of letting wikis manage themselves without throwing in a bulk of policies. I'm also not comfortable with a full-on request with multiple questionable pieces; note that it is not easy to simply amend them to fit when people have already started supporting one form. That is why (typically successful) RfCs tend to be pre-vetted for language, as Fatburn has reasonably done on the community noticeboard and especially if it is likely to receive the oppose volume that this one has. I'm also unsatisfied with this being a transparent attempt to use a global measure for a local issue when local options are not necessarily exhausted; personally I have taken steps to try and change that position for the local situation that this RfC is based on. --Raidarr (talk) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
7. Oppose i have the feeling this request really has no meaningful purpose, we already have certain policies and that is enough, each wiki has the right to its own Policies --Cocopuff2018 (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain What's the point of this anyway? Our goal is to educate, not punish. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC) Striked my vote and moved it to oppose. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

   I don't see what you mean by that. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

2.  Abstain I've been blocked strangely before, and this not only happens to me, but to a lot of users who are blocked without any contribution and this happens mostly on private wikis. I just didn't understand the "can't apply to users who are already globally blocked". A wiki administrator can block as much as he likes (and preferably on blocked global accounts, though it doesn't have to). This one and that one (that you say that a user should not be blocked if he has vandalized only once is not necessary for me. The site administrator who has control can block the user as much as he wants, mainly heavy vandalism.) For me, this will interfere with much and can even complicate things at times YellowFrogger (✉ Talk ✐ Edits) 20:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   I added that because it is unnecessary to block a user who is already globally locked. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   And I am not saying there is a limit to the number of times an administrator can block a user. In general this is outlining that blocks should be fair and should be for a clear and logical reason. The amount of blocks and length of blocks depends on the severity of the action. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   @Blubabluba9990: But isn't this likely rule a bit "unnecessary"? Locking a locked user globally doesn't disturb or annoy people at all (especially when the locked user has disturbed a wiki, or has been locked indefinitely). If he was globally locked it is likely that he did cross wiki vandalism and is even justified in getting him on the block list. The administrator has complete freedom. For me this proposal is even a little strange YellowFrogger (✉ Talk ✐ Edits) 21:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   Blubabluba9990 While I like your spirit of creating this RfC, I have a feeling you made this with the intention of getting yourself unblocked on the Qualitipedia wikis (which I wouldn't have a problem with). I mean, you did annoy others before, but that aside, this can be resolved locally, but I doubt the other admins would give you anymore chances, given your recent behavior from Qualitipedia Central from back in September. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   To answer YellowFroggy's concern, I simply meant that blocking users after they are already globally locked is redundant. And to answer DarkMatterMan4500's concern, this is not only my problem, this is a problem that happens on multiple wikis. You yourself are blocked on a few wikis where you did not appear to have done anything wrong. And September is September, that whole thing is done. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   I added an extra pointer to clarify that. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:13, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   I was even agreeing with this RfC when I saw these parts (because I don't like being blocked on wikis that don't have any contributions). Blocking blocked is redundant, but a rule for punishing people who do this isn't it? And this made for you to be unlocked from such a wiki? YellowFrogger (✉ Talk ✐ Edits) 21:17, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   That rule is less strict than the others. I can take that one out. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Blubabluba9990: Only problem is that Stewards and Global sysops can't keep an eye on nearly 5,000 wikis as of the time I'm writing this note here. I will just say that you should really refrain from annoying other users into unblocking you. When you annoy other users, it won't make them re-consider the blocks they've made against you. Just a thought. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   I wasn't annoying other users, I was simply appealing my blocks. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

   I saw on your CA that you are an editor of reception wikis, you are blocked in several of them including the ones you didn't contribute similar to the @MarioBobFan: case. I don't even know what happened because I don't edit therE YellowFrogger (✉ Talk ✐ Edits) 23:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment: Principally I do like the spirit of this more than I expected to. Much of this should be expected to take place already and reported if it is not. The largest things I would say are a) is part of the brand of Miraheze for wikis to take care of their own homes and frankly, I'm uncomfortable with 'feature creep' of policies even with good intentions and b) Point 6 hits too broadly for me to provide a support as the nature of the rule weighs heavily on what is appropriate to do when it is broken. This is also not cognizant of communities with unusual styles of management or are more private circles by design. In other words an assortment of good intentions, but feature incomplete even if it describes many conventions I would personally use and highly suggest wikis to locally employ. But the wikis that do not already should either a) change from within, rather than being told to as a strict policy and b) probably be avoided since the ones you cannot apply a to tend to be unsuccessful. I would also say a major catalyst of this proposal is personal events primarily including Qualitipedia, which is uniquely prone to violations of these conventions that few wikis otherwise do, and if they do they tend to have other systemic issues that require addressing anyways from a global perspective. --Raidarr (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC).

  I would change this specifically on Qualitipedia Meta, but I am blocked and unless this proposal passes, it is unlikely that I ever will be unblocked. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  In other words, this proposal is a proxy to resolve a local problem. Well, that problem's gone on for long enough already, so I'm going to take another approach there. This proposal can do what it wills. --Raidarr (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I would appreciate it if you made this exact same RfC on the local wikis. Unfortunately I can't since I am blocked. I would withdraw this but apparently RfC's can't be withdrawn. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  It would not be the same RfC, but it would be a similar approach. --Raidarr (talk) 21:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  As long as it is generally the same idea that is expressed in this RfC. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oh boy... Lots to unpack here. Realistically, there should probably be a separate proposal for each proposed rule. As a complete package, this proposal lacks a necessary degree of acuity and precision. Addressing these point by point:
  1. I can agree with this sentiment. That is the "wiki philosophy", after all. That said, this should not preclude wikis from banning (note that a ban is not a block, but a block *may* accompany a ban from a user access standpoint) a user from their project, or network of projects. Considering this, it may be more appropriate to allow the use of revoked permissions and revoking the edit permission in a banned user group. Under current technical circumstances, a block is the only way to ban a user from a project.
  2.  Question: Would this apply to blocks created after an account lock?

     Although it has already been stricken, all points are worth discussing. I would argue that beyond cases mentioned in my discussion of point 1, global accounts may be unexpectedly unlocked or users return suddenly from inactivity. This may give a user a chance to act unrestricted on a community they were previously disruptive.

  3. I think the problems with this likely speak for themselves. This has a wide impact on Miraheze projects; such a policy would effectively require that every community develop rules. This is a practice that not even Wikipedia follows.
  4. Support with the nuance of networking. Network bans or network blocks should possess the same legitimacy as that of a block on a single project.
  5. Contradicts 4. Cross-wiki abuse should be dealt with on the global level.
  6. Not much to comment here. In my personal opinion, indefinite blocks should only be available to global volunteers and staff, though this may not technically be possible. It would be somewhat similar to a bigdelete request. This would force projects to use blocks as anti-disruption measures, and not punishment. As for talk pages: meta is always available for off-wiki appeal and discussion.
  7. Would this not fall under the nice, respectful, and harassment clauses of the Code of Conduct?
  8. Documentation is great, but a bit ridiculous to enforce. If additional commentary in a block reason is genuinely harmful, the conflict should be mediated by a Steward or elevated to a Trust and Safety issue.
  9. Project autonomy is important, and allowing global volunteers to edit community sanctions without discussion is extremely harmful to that autonomy. I also think you fundamentally misunderstand the role of stewards if you believe they are empowered by some "Steward policy". Stewardship is the highest degree of Miraheze volunteerism because they are the only users empowered (by the community) to act in whatever capacity and to whatever degree the community requires. The only policy for Stewards is community trust.

Overall, I think this is an inspired proposal, even if a bit too ambitious and rooted in anecdotal conflict. I highly encourage you to rethink and refine, then reintroduce with some new ideas. Clean it up a bit, and you might very well have something solid. Some places to start: remove yourself from the perspective of being blocked. Try to view the scenario from the perspective of an onlooker. Now try viewing the situation from the perspective of the blocking admin. Now imagine trying to resolve conflict as a steward. Try to think about the way each of these policies would help or hinder each of these scenarios. If you continue to pursue this, then I wish you good luck! dross (t • c • g) 05:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, then my blocks on Qualitipedia actually violate the Code of Conduct. Also, this proposal was partially a proxy to resolve my situation on Qualitipedia since I am desperate at this point, and I need to get back. I did create this proposal with the intent of helping other wikis though. Also, every community should have rules. Admins shouldn't just be able to do whatever they want. Just because they enforce the rules does not mean that the rules do not apply to them. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:37, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If you truly believe that you have been or are being harassed by users on these wikis, it is time that you address your concern in an official avenue by seriously reporting this to ts@miraheze.org. If this is frivolous and just an attempt at getting unblocked by putting users on blast, you are risking becoming the harasser. It is highly encouraged that you communicate with the admins who blocked you, and ask what they would like of you, rather than imposing your own will. If that fails, ask a steward to help mediate and listen to any advice a steward is willing to give. It's time to back off. dross (t • c • g) 02:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

To answer this, I wouldn't say being "harassed" per se, but I have been targeted by MarioMario456 and DuchessTheSponge, who are now both retired. Also, I have tried to discuss this with admins, but all to no avail, and the last time I tried to talk with a steward about this everyone got angry. I am tired of fighting. I don't want to be doing this, but if the admins keep abusing their power, then I am running out of options. I have no means of communication with any of the Qualitipedia admins since none of them are active on Meta, and I am blocked on all of the wikis that the admins are active on. I don't want people to hate me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Then the bottom line is if admins and Stewards have refused to resolve the matter in your favor, you have exhausted all your options. A RfC was not the proper next avenue for this matter. At this point, this is frivolous. Nothing is going to change in your favor right now. Drop the stick. dross (t • c • g) 01:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This argument is not done though. This argument is not done until I get unblocked on Qualitipedia. I could try discussing this with Stewards again and try to get their advice, but unfortunately I do not have any means of contacting the admins. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: To address the elephant in the room, the reason I created this proposal is to ensure that admins do not get corrupted by power, which unfortunately seems to be somewhat common. Admins should not just be allowed to do whatever they want. Just because the admins enforce the rules does not give them immunity. That is why I am creating what is essentially a specific set of rules for admins. And okay, maybe my intentions were partially a proxy to get unblocked from Qualitipedia, but I am desperate at this point. I need to get back on Qualitipedia. It is the only online haven for free expression of opinions. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  That's not the point of Qualitipedia. The point is to describe why certain media are good or bad. TigerBlazer (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  It's both! The whole reason why Grust created Qualitipedia was because he was unable to complain about a game on TV Tropes, so he created a wiki. We are a place to describe why media is good or bad, and we are the only place that exists like that. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Also false. Many other sites are out there to explain why media is good or bad, such as aggregation and review sites, and allow community to express their opinions as well, with Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic being good examples. TigerBlazer (talk) 22:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

  Though this tangent is off topic to any successful progress of the proposal in spirit, I would think any site that allows you to review media on your own standards and offer an opinion ranging from YouTube with people famous for complaining (or praising) things with wildly varying accuracy, any site that aggregates reviews, anywhere really that you can discuss the merits of media (which is all over the internet by forum, chat and probably other wikis if you only look) can do the job just fine. A handful of quasi-objective wikis attempting to represent an aggregate view of other people's opinions when they're doing their job being the only place you can imagine where you can freely discuss or present your take on media as good or bad is completely bizarre to me. Please desist from this bafflingly narrow tangent. --Raidarr (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: I wish I could withdraw this. I regret making this proposal since it seems to have spiraled out of control and doesn't seem to be going anywhere productive. I feel like it would be best to bring this up to Stewards again to address this matter, since this goes deeper than just me. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 19:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section