SmashWiki talk:Blocking guidelines

Proposed addendum to the policy

Per my discussion with Shadowcrest, found here, and per us once again clashing about this on his RfB, I think it is necessary to attempt to reach a consensus and implement a policy regarding infinite blocks.

Of course, at present it is specified that the length of a block is at the discretion of the admin, which is the way it should be, but as Shadowcrest rightly points out, infinite blocks should be treated somewhat differently. My proposal is to add a section on infinite blocking, which I would have it read as such:

Infinite blocks

In the event of repeated policy violations, despite consistent warnings and with at least 2 prior blocks, an infinite ban can be administered. Infinite blocks may not be administered to users or IP addresses without a warning of an impending infinite ban, and at least two prior blocks of any length. This policy does not respect policies regarding infinite bans of proxy IP addresses and unacceptable user names.

These are the sole criteria for infinite blocking. No presumption about the motivations of the IP address or user will factor into the block, as it is exclusively the conduct displayed by the offender that is used to determine the length of the block. Once the criteria are met, the administrator is not obligated to administer an infinite block, but he/she may not until the criteria are met.

Discuss. Semicolon (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Support with slight rewording. I agree with the three "strikes" (two blocks and an infinite warning). But I think the part that says "This policy does not respect policies regarding infinite bans of proxy IP addresses and unacceptable user names" should read more like "This policy does not apply to infinite bans of proxy IP addresses or unacceptable user names". I also think there should be an {{infinitewarning}} template or something if this passes. Toomai Glittershine eXemplary Logic 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't add to this...

There should be a subpage mentioning how to block/unblock/change block settings for users/IP addresses/Ranges on this wiki. Also, it should mention some more things on where blocks are appropriate, and there should be a subpage mentioning when blocking should not be used e.g. Administrators should not block themselves (called enforcing a "holiday" on themselves) because this will have a negative effect. SmashPeter (talk) 09:07, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

This is not needed. There's already an administrator guide for new admins, creating a subpage to explaining how to block is redundant. And admins are expected to know when blocks are appropriate, creating a subpage for that is just plain unnecessary. We don't need policies dictating admins how to act, and if an admin does, they weren't a suitable choice for adminship to begin with. Your example about admins blocking themselves is also far fetched, if an admin wanted a "holiday", they could just leave. Omega Tyrant 09:54, 28 August 2011 (EDT)

Also, it should mention disruptiveness on the page. Just to pick one example, it is worth mentioning that re-incarnations of blocked disruptive users will be re-blocked if they continue being disruptive or edit in a way that suggests they will e.g. "YOU CAN'T BLOCK ME!!!!!" or even worse, "JOIN ME IN MY FIGHT TO DESTROY THE WIKI!!!!!!!!!!!!!" SmashPeter (talk) 10:35, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

For you to know, this policy really doesn't hold much weight, and admins handle blocks based on their own judgment. In fact, it was planned to be gotten rid of, but when Emmett left, it just stuck around. With that said, disruption is already a block reason used, and there's no point adding it to an essentially ignored policy. Omega Tyrant 10:45, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

Gonna be rewriting this

...to fit with how things are actually done around here, and I'd like to add "Apparent refusal to use reasonable communication skills" as a bannable offense. Discuss. Toomai Glittershine The Producer 08:28, 15 February 2012 (EST)

Can you explain what that means? Triple D Fighter (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2012 (EST)

A user using horrifically bad grammar/spelling that has no apparent effort put into it. Omega Tyrant 08:59, 15 February 2012 (EST)

As well as generally responding in an incoherent fashion that is confusing to understand, such as this guy. 216.11.189.3 09:04, 15 February 2012 (EST)

I put the potential rewrite here. Toomai Glittershine The Spark 14:02, 15 February 2012 (EST)

I approve of the rewrite, though I think this should become a guideline, rather than being a policy. Omega Tyrant 19:11, 15 February 2012 (EST)

^ It's up to an admin how long they wish to block a user for, so this is more of a guideline than a policy. Toast ltimatum 09:52, 16 February 2012 (EST)

April Fools' Day isn't a for a month and a half. – Emmett 13:15, 16 February 2012 (EST)

Yeah, I thought community consensus had determined that we don't need a blocking policy, as seen from the feedback I got for my previous proposal. Mr. Anontalk 19:00, 16 February 2012 (EST)

If this were changed from a policy to a guideline as suggested, then it would be less "admins should do this" and more "this is how things tend to happen". It would certainly be better than what's currently here. Toomai Glittershine The Celeritous 22:00, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I agree with ToastUltimatum. It should be up to the admin to decide how long to block grammatically challenged users. Mousehunter321 (talk · contributions) 22:05, 19 February 2012 (EST)

My proposal may have failed, but this is still a good idea. I support. Mr. Anontalk 22:57, 21 February 2012 (EST)

Support Let's get this thing done already. --Havoc48 >:D!!! 12:59, 22 February 2012 (EST)

I've decided to remove the blocks-for-asinine-communication from the list of common offenses, since it frankly isn't one. Other than that this will be implemented as a policy soon unless someone gives big negative input. Toomai Glittershine The Honcho 22:42, 28 February 2012 (EST)

Alrighty here it goes. Toomai Glittershine The Incomprehensible 08:54, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Appealing an infinite block

There has been at least one historical case where a permabanned user has successfully worked out of the basement and gone on to become a respectful contributor. I don't exactly want to encourage people to try this, but I feel that we might want to add a paragraph stating "it can be done, but you should probably wait until we've forgotten about you, you must demonstrate that you have since matured, and you'll be on a short leash for a while". Toomai Glittershine The Chilled 23:53, 11 July 2013 (EDT)

While I agree with the idea in principle, I don't think we should make a policy out of it. Such matters should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, not able to be encompassed by a policy. I also feel that adding the policy would encourage no matter how its worded and that's not something we need. DoctorPain99 00:50, 12 July 2013 (EDT)

This may sound like a nick-pick...

...but I personally think that there should be a mention about not saying things like "Don't make me have to block you again", "If you do X once more, I will permaban you", or even something like "Drop this now, or I'm going to extend your block". Like I said, it's kind of a nick-pick, as it rarely happens. But the way I see it, the admin is basically making a promise that for all they know, they won't end up following through with.

So an admin says that THEY are going to deliver the block, but let's say they're not there when it comes time to do so, and another admin does it for them, thus making their threat essentially pointless. That would be like me promising to start grilling the ribs before mom comes home, and forgetting to do it, forcing her to do it instead.

And as mentioned twice already, it's only a nick-pick, and I won't try to add this until these's a consensus. MeatBall104: PAWNCH!!! 18:44, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Oppose since it seems too nitpicky to matter. BRAWLS OF FURY 20:49, 29 January 2014 (EST)

It mostly shouldn't matter which admin makes a block. If an admin has made it public that another block is coming should bad behaviour continue, it is kind of their job to follow though, but it's not really a problem for another admin to have to do it. Toomai Glittershine The Hammer 22:40, 29 January 2014 (EST)

Proposal to add "bans" to SmashWiki

So, during my long stay at SmashWiki, I've come across a small handful of users who tend to edit certain pages often, but get a lot of flack over it (due to less-than-stellar edits, lack of knowledge of that category, etc.) which eventually leads to them being deemed disruptive and receiving even MORE flack. While the two users I have seen guilty of this are inactive as of now, I still think that it would be a good option to try and get this in, as for all we know, someone else could join right this instant and become an issue for the same reasons. Plus, there's absolutely nothing wrong with proposing changes to the Wiki to counter specific problems even if said problems aren't very prominent, or don't occur too often.

Anyways, I suggest that we implement "bans" on here. Basically, unlike a block, where the user is forbidden from editing anything, (except for their talk page if enabled) bans allow users to continue editing...except for the pages that they clearly should not be editing due to the disruption that they cause. When applying a ban, one basically selects the category that the user should not be permitted to edit for the set duration. You can also choose a number of random pages that aren't all in the same category to ban the user from, and can even ban them from one individual page if it's the main source of their disruptiveness without having to fully protect it and possibly disrupt the work of other editors; (especially useful for troublesome users who have it out for one specific page and not (so much) others). The way I see it is like the differing views in the "Probation vs. Block" debate that happened years ago. Blocking users for over-editing their userpages would be too harsh, as it prohibits the users from making any constructive edits that they may want to make, but probating them enables them to do this, but it just prevents them from editing the pages that lead to them getting in trouble...just like with banning them, except that these can be applied to almost any situation.

But it's not just restrictions from editing certain content. Bans can also be applied to users who share rivalries on the wiki. Basically, when this type of ban is applied, the user who is punished is not allowed to edit the userpage or talk page of the user that they are having frequent problems with, revert any edits made by that user, reply to them in discussions, or even mention their name anywhere on the wiki, (whether it be directly or indirectly). Now obviously, this type of ban should be used sparingly as it has the possibility of interfering with constructive behavior. That's basically the gist of it, and for an even better explanation than I could ever hope to provide, you can check here.

(And as a note to readers: Yes, I know that I would need to personally talk to Porple about implementing this, but I figured it would be better to get community consensus first without clogging his talk page). MeatBall104; La li lu le lo! 18:56, 27 January 2015 (EST)

How would this be any different from just telling a user to stop being disruptive, and blocking them if they refuse? Toomai Glittershine The Brazen 19:19, 27 January 2015 (EST)

Well, this method is meant for the type of disruption that stems from repeated editing to certain pages incorrectly or without the right knowledge. If they insist on continuing their subpar editing to said pages, then instead of blocking them for it, we can simply ban them from editing those certain pages for anywhere from 14 minutes (or whatever the minimum block time is) to indefinite, allowing them to continue with their less disruptive edits and contribute constructively to the Wiki. If this were any other type of offense, then yes, the method you just mentioned would be fine. I only mentioned the other types of bans (i.e. the one that forbids interaction between certain users, which admittedly I find somewhat stupid) just to show that this rule has more than one purpose that could come into play here, and those instances are certainly not the part that I'm pushing for here. The main thing I'm getting at is the part about constant editing of certain types of pages that the user shouldn't be editing due to lack of knowledge or whatever, (and somewhat, the part about using this tool as an alternative to protection, so that you can easily prevent counter-productive edit warring while still allowing the more constructive edits to that page to be made). As much as I don't like talking about others behind their backs, I guess I'll have to actually present an example now, and that would be Myth. Often times, he was called out for constantly editing Smasher pages despite not knowing enough about competitive Smash, and got blocked twice. In his case, had we implemented bans back then, we could have simply prevented him from editing those pages so he could still edit elsewhere (as to be honest, most of his non-Smasher edits were just fine if not exceptional).

In short, this is different because it allows users to still make their less disruptive edits while still preventing the cause of the disruption from happening. MeatBall104; La li lu le lo! 20:02, 27 January 2015 (EST)

You don't seem to get my point. If someone's making an article worse, we tell them to stop, and they don't, how is adding a layer of "you're banned, so seriously please choose to stop now" going to help? Toomai Glittershine Le Grand Fromage 22:06, 27 January 2015 (EST)

Hmm, well technically we're not telling them to "choose to stop", we're MAKING them stop. If it's just their edits to that ONE page that are causing the disruption, then that's the page we ban them from. Bans are simply a way to enforce our warnings to these users to stop editing pages that they clearly don't know what they're getting into when they edit them, though not as harsh as a full-on block. When banning them instead of blocking them, we're basically saying: "Look, you're welcome to contribute here, but your edits to X seem to be very disruptive and are getting reverted a lot. As such, either do the proper research before editing it again, or don't even touch that page at all. And if you refuse to comply, then you simply won't be allowed to edit it until you learn." In this case, we're FORCING them to stop, by not letting them make edits that cause disruption on the Wiki should they not listen to the warning, showing them that we mean business while still giving them leeway (in that the only thing they can't edit is the page that caused the disruption due to their edits to it, as opposed to a block, which restricts wiki-access in its entirety). In a way, it's basically a level of punishment between a warning and a block. If the user has common sense, they will learn from that mistake and minimize their disruptiveness. And if they don't? We'll simply dish out longer and longer bans for a while and THEN resort to blocks due to them now being considered a repeat offender.

I honestly don't think I can explain this any better than I already have without typing out large walls of meaningless text. But to try and answer that question: It'll help because it will teach the lesson to not edit pages that one clearly doesn't understand, without needing to use the block tool. Blocks may be one of the better ways of putting up with disobedient users in terms of other behaviors, but in terms of repeatedly editing pages that the user clearly doesn't know enough about, this is a slightly better option as it helps enforce the point to not edit the page without accurate knowledge, by preventing them from editing it for a set duration should they not listen to the initial warning. Most of the users who find themselves in this type of situation are of the good-faith variety, so simply taking away their access to that one page shouldn't lead to any more chaos. Simply put, the banning system is just meant to quickly put an end to this type of disruption so that the user can learn their lesson in a softer manner. MeatBall104; La li lu le lo! 23:54, 27 January 2015 (EST)

Despite your valiant efforts to prove that your system would be effective, you have yet to really provide an explanation as to why it is remotely necessary. If one was unable to convince a user to stop editing a certain page through word alone, I believe that it would be in the best interest of the community to continue trying to convince the offender in question to listen to reason. This is a far better pursuit than merely blocking the user from editing a certain page, as this pursuit shows how resilient the human spirit is, and how resilient we must be as well in order to convince the offender that what they are doing is simply not how things go here.

However, I have no regard for a knight who follows blindly. An offender who repeatedly pursues the path of poor editing in the manner that you have described, despite the virtuous efforts of those around him or her to convince the offender to repent, deserves to simply be blocked, instead of banned from editing a page. In short, the superior objective is to persuade a criminal that their felony is wrong. If they refuse to listen to the voice of reason, we should not attempt to give them additional hopes for redemption via other pages, as it would be better off for us to block them posthaste for being stubborn and irrational rather than continue to give them meaningless chances that ultimately result in nothing of value being done by either side. 108.194.146.62 00:23, 28 January 2015 (EST)

Can we please block IPs for an infinite amount of time now?

There's absolutely no reason why this shouldn't be done,right? --Penro 22:52, 11 November 2017 (EST)

The reason we don't do this except for in extreme cases is that IPs naturally change. The offender could abandon their IP (maybe even without even intending to) and someone else could "move into" it, meaning we have an innocent person blocked. It's a rare case but it does happen. Serpent King 22:54, 11 November 2017 (EST)

Welp, I'm dumb. Sorry. --Penro 22:55, 11 November 2017 (EST)