Wikipedia talk:Blocks and bans

Blocking logged in users in the case of simple vandalism?

This feature has been implemented on the English Wikipedia and some others. Currently, on Simple, only IPs can be blocked and a developer would have to be called to block someone with a user name.

Are there any objections to allowing logged in users to be blocked?

• No
  • Angela
  • Menchi: Unless we expect logged-in vandals never to visit here. Which is just unrealistic.

Following a vote for a week with no objections, this feature has been implemented.

Bans v. blocks

I don't know how other non-English Wikipedias handle the difference between a "ban" and a "block". At en, a ban is seen as something only Jimbo can do. A "block" is something a sysop can do, but they are only supposed to do it for "simple vandalism". Do we want to adopt this exact policy here? If so, do we need to distinguish between the two on this page? Angela 01:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It sounds like injecting our own meanings into regular words. I'm pretty sure there is no mentioning of "Jimbo" under ban in any dictionary. ;-p

How about making ban "big/permanent/serious/... X", and block "small/temp/... X", where X is the same word, not necessarily ban or block. It is straightforward this way. --Menchi (Talk) 01:36, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As per the blocking and banning policies, a user who alienates and offends the community enough may eventually be blocked by an administrator... and no one is willing to unblock them. In such extreme cases, the user is considered to have been banned by the general community.. That could be useful... _Archer7 | ^talk 19:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Apology

I am very sorry for my friend Dr195 who is not very nice for changing your web site but please let my back on to the team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.247.194 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please unblock Zwobot

Hi,

please unblock my bot account User:Zwobot. I need it for interwiki updates. The account has been blocked infinitely over a year ago, on 24 July 2005, by Netoholic who is no longer an admin. --Head 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll unblock Zwobot, but you should apply for bot status per Wikipedia:Bots as soon as possible, since Neto had blocked him for flooding the rc list. If he floods the rc list without authorization, he may need to be re-blocked. Blockinblox - talk 00:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Banned list

[1]

Are we going to have a banned list like on the English Wikipedia? Flayof (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Do we need one? EhJJ^TALK 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we can count our banned users on one hand. Bluegoblin7 ∞ 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

How many more banned users do we need to qualify for a banned list? Flayof (talk) 05:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No, we can just use the category to check. We don't have a few hundred banned users. Nifky? ∞ 05:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be very easy to track banned users considering there is only 2. So if we have 200 more banned users, then we would need the list. By then that happens, this project would really expand. Then we would need a leader like how the English Wikipedia has one. Flayof (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Even a category is overkill at this time with the number we have; in terms of active community, nearly everyone was around when the users were banned, and if they weren't then they've heard about it. A category is infinitely more useful than a list anyway, so we can keep the Cat. I don't see how having banned users makes our project expand, nor do I see why we have to have a leader, but that's going OT. What's said has been said, so let's close this now. Goblin 10:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

About the one-strike rule

(for posterity)
Basically the one-strike rule came about as a result of a lot of users who were/are banned on enwiki and were coming over to simplewiki and also telling others to come over. Often, these users caused the same problems here that saw them banned from enwiki. Based upon two things really, the one-strike rule was created. It is a product of this conversation and the fact that the blocking policy has always permitted an admin to block a user who is blocked on another WMF project if he wants to. It can be done on arrival, but often we decide to see if the person can change. So that policy and the discussion above brought about the one-strike rule. After than discussion various admins have used it on actual users. This has just led to the precedent being establish. EhJJ has, today, added it to the blocking policy page. fr33kman 00:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks fr33kman. This has come up many times over the past year, including in Wikipedia:Simple talk/Archive 65#Simple is not a refuge, where consensus seemed to be that admins should retain the right to consider each case individually, but that we as a project are generally going to be less welcoming of users who have clearly demonstrated a willingness to harm other projects and are continuing to do it here. Clearly, if someone has been adequately warned and gotten to the point of a large (usually indef) block, then there's no reason we should have to warn them again here and go through the same 4-step warning process. They should simply be blocked for continuing to do the same thing, despite receiving more than enough warning from the other project(s). Note: this applies to vandals from any project, but most come from enWP. EhJJ^TALK 01:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Proxies section

reads "If it is a Tor proxy, it should be blocked for a shorter about of time"

but should be "amount of time". Pablo X (talk) 01:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the correction, but an interesting first edit, eh? Exert 01:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User blocking user?

Is there a mechanism whereby an individual use can prevent another user from writing stuff on the first users profile/talk page? --IceHunter (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not so far... --IceHunter (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Section heading needs to be changed

"Reciprocal bans" does not accurately describe what the section discusses. Both words are wrong: it's not "reciprocal," but an action taken while taking into account what has happened elsewhere. More importantly, the action here on Simple is not a ban, but a block. I would suggest the heading "Bans on other wikis" or something similar. -Peteforsyth (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually what happens is we match what they have on the other wiki. So if they are banned there we ban them here. In that way we are reciprocating the ban they already have at the other wiki. Adjusted the wording to make that more clear, it shouldn't have used the word block in the section. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I also did some cleanup, hopefully clarifying the situation; I briefly sketched the situation to provide the context. please copyedit further to improve readability.--Eptalon (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. In that case, I think you are using the word "ban" in a way that is out of step with how it is used elsewhere in Wikimedia. See meta:Banned user: "a ban is the result of a formal decision or substantial community consensus." The text prior to Djsasso's edit made sense to me; essentially, a block (technical measure) could be used here more liberally if a ban (community sanction) was in place at English Wikipedia. But I don't think there is any precedent for an individual on a Wikimedia project (apart, perhaps, from one of the founders) to determine unilaterally that another individual is banned. So I think this needs a bit more scrutiny; if it was just a problem with the header, as I originally understood, no big deal. But if the practice is as your edit to the text describes it, I think that reflects a fundamentally different use of the word than the Wikimedia world has used in the past.

(This is of particular relevance right now, as there is discussion of a global banning policy on Meta.) -Peteforsyth (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I reverted back to block. That's what we do. Administrators don't ban editors. Only the community can do that. How is a ban from an administrator going to work? Can appeals only be made to the banning administrator or to any administrator? Because the latter would be a block, not a ban. The other scenario, a ban from one administrator that then requires consensus from the whole community to overturn it, is completely disproportionate and breaks with common practice. Can another administrator overturn that decision just like any with any other administrative action? Because that would make it a block, not a ban.

I haven't dealt many one-strike blocks, but that's the arrangement that I've always dealt them under, and that's been the wording since the clause was added. To change it to allow administrators to ban editors is obviously going to require some logistical discussion regarding how they're appealed and overturned. A consensus on Simple talk would be nice also. Osiris (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of that part of the policy is that we have the option to "block" a known troublemaker from another wiki "on sight", without them doing much editing here. In practice, what is most often the case is that someone banned elsewhere comes to SimpleWP and edits. If their edits are unconstructive, they can be blocked/banned quite rapidly. As with any block, appeals go to the admin mailing list, so in theory, any admin can change the block. Bans are supported by the community, so they at least require some sort of on-wiki discussion. That is definitely not what is meant here.--Eptalon (talk) 08:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well really it is semantics. We match exactly what they have on the other wiki when the Administrator makes the ban/block. It does take the community to overturn what the admin does on the one-strike policy. To me that is a ban. But if you want to call it a block we can call it a block. Either way we are matching what the other wiki has and it takes the community to undo it. The whole point of this piece of policy is that it is breaking from normal use of blocks and bans. So you can't compare it to how things are usually done because it is meant to be different than how things are usually done. Bans take community involvement is true but in this case we are using the community involvement that lead to the ban on the original wiki as the community involvement needed for the ban, which is why we call it reciprocal. We are reciprocating the ban discussion they had. -DJSasso (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

 (change conflict)  I have to disagree with that. The policy on reciprocal blocks/bans was originally formulated to act as a measure to prevent excessive disruption to the wiki. If we go on with the traditional definition of a ban on Wikimedia wikis, I would say that the community of EN/other wikis is not equivalent to the community over here, and would render the concept of a reciprocal ban invalid - a ban is a block (typically of a longer duration) endorsed by community consensus, but we don't exactly start a ban discussion every time an editor banned on another wiki comes over here, and neither do we allow ourselves to "inherit" the consensus of EN/other wikis, right? I think EhJJ sums up the spirit of the policy quite well (for that matter, it is somewhere above this page, but I shall quote him here anyway):

Clearly, if someone has been adequately warned and gotten to the point of a large (usually indef) block, then there's no reason we should have to warn them again here and go through the same 4-step warning process. They should simply be blocked for continuing to do the same thing, despite receiving more than enough warning from the other project(s)

— EhJJ, [2]

I also currently interpret the policy as one in which administrators are empowered to use the blocking reason "Banned on so-and-so wiki, and causing further disruption here" (without any attempt at dispute resolution), but anyone may question the block and have it overturned. Perhaps the nature of the target users usually results in no one attempting to question such blocks administrators make. --Chenzw  Talk  13:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I should note I have no problem with it being just a block. But any time one has been questioned in the past that I can remember (I may be wrong) it has ended up going to the entire community to decide to overturn it or keep it. To me that hints to either A> we are banning them originally or B> any reversal discussion of such a block becomes a ban discussion if the block ends up kept. But Chenzw is right, almost none have ever been challenged. -DJSasso (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The result is the same (a disruptive user is stopped from editing), but the authority is very different. The avenues to getting banned and getting it reversed need to be the same. To ban someone from this site has to come from this community. And it has to come from the whole community, not just one admin. I can see why it probably hasn't come up before, and it might not come up at all. But if someone who was blocked, unilaterally, under one-strike later submits an appeal that hits all the right G-A-B notes and an administrator feels as though they've learned, they should be able to unblock the user, unilaterally – in the same method with which they were blocked. That's fair. If the appeal is faulty or too soon, an administrator should also be able to decline the unblock request, unilaterally, without getting the community involved.

I'm glad to know it's not just me whose interpreted it that way. If nobody has a problem with it staying that way, then great. Osiris (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I am of the belief that this section has been used inappropriately and does not do enough to Assume Good Faith. We are an independent community and it is odd that we have given up so much of our independence for the arbitrary standards and beliefs of others. The community has gone against this in the past, and I do not think anything dealing with other communities is truly wanted by Simple's community. A community wide RfC should be taken on if the section is even appropriate in any manner. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Confusing text---do you agree?

In the "evasion" section it says "If the block is indefinite, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia at all.". This might be just me, but that sounds like, "if the block has an expiry time, you're allowed to create a new account and evade it".

Perhaps it should be, "If the block is still outstanding, they are not allowed to edit Wikipedia in any way, shape, or form".

Do you agree? Computer Fizz (talk) 00:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Way, shape, or form" is redundant and not applicable (what is a "shape" of editing?). I think it would be better to remove the whole sentence, because the idea is covered by the first sentence in the paragraph. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Reciprocal section: ban vs block

I know this was partially raised before but I propose to change the wording from "users who have been banned" to "users who have been blocked" (bold font is only to emphasise the difference). This is because we should differentiate a local editing block on another wiki from the community global ban process and the WMF global ban policy. Green Giant (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Change suggestion

I would suggest to the text from: <nowiki>== Evasion ==

See also: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Users who have been blocked are not allowed to change Wikipedia during their block, or otherwise attempt to avoid their block. This is known as block evasion. If the block is indefinite, they are not allowed to change Wikipedia at all. This applies to editing both as an anonymous or registered user; registered users who have been blocked may not logout to edit.

to:

See the main page: WP:EVASION

See also: Wikipedia:Sock puppetry

Users who have been blocked are not allowed to change Wikipedia during their block, or otherwise attempt to avoid their block. This is known as block evasion. If the block is indefinite, they are not allowed to change Wikipedia at all. This applies to editing both as an anonymous or registered user; registered users who have been blocked may not logout to edit. Arthurfan828 (talk) 17:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no point in putting a link to section within the section itself. -DJSasso (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Indeffs

What about indefinite blocks/bans or longer ones? Gale5050 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC) They do occur. I need to know as I could easily be blocked/potentilly banned and locked today. Gale5050 (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Since “short” means not long. I will guess only 2-6 months, but I’m not sure. Arthurfan828 - CHAT 17:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Tor

If open proxies are blocked for 3 years and Tor is shorter, how long? Is it 3 months, 1 year? 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:94 (talk) 17:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit vs change

{{editsemiprotected}} Is edit really not Simpler English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.153.145 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

It is not simpler. Change is on the Basic English wordlists. Edit is not. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Amendment to ONESTRIKE

• Currently, the rule states that users banned on another Wikimedia project can be blocked with less warning if they continue similar behaviour. My experience is that the de facto rule seems to be that it also applies to those blocked indefinitely on other projects, and I often see it being implemented this way. Therefore, I propose an amendment to the written rule that allows it to be applied to those blocked indefinitely on other projects, as well as banned users. Otherwise, many users may have legitimate objections to blocks applied to them. Thoughts? --IWI (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

  Agree - usually, users who are indef blocked on another project, can get blocked without much warning here. There should definitely be an amendment to the rule. --Belwine • 💬 • 📜 22:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Possible there is no problem with it.DJRC (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, if an admin takes an action against a user, even if said user can point to a policy that clearly and explicitly says that either the admin was not allowed to take said action (i.e., not allowed to block the user) or that the user was allowed to perform the action to which the admin was responding (i.e. "WP:DRESSCODE says yes I am allowed to wear a red shirt, so lift the block that you placed on me for wearing a red shirt"), the admin action is not reversed and in fact the sanctioned user is usually punished more. The easier of the two fixes, then, is for all written to tell the user in advance which actions users and admins are and are not allowed to perform. We don't want people wearing red shirts? WP:DRESSCODE has to say "no red shirts." If admins are already using ONESTRIKE against users who are merely blocked, then the text of ONESTRIKE should say that this is what may happen.

On En.Wiki, there was a rule in sanctions.user that said, literally, that no block given at AE could last more than one year. When I got indeffed at AE, it looked like the admins broke that rule just to be jerks. I looked into the matter, though, and it turned out that the rule had been interpreted as "AE blocks automatically become normal blocks after one year" going back several years. Finding this out was a profound relief to me. I believe the text of sanctions.user has since been updated to reflect this longstanding practice.

In my opinion, ONESTRIKE shouldn't apply to users who are merely blocked, but if it does apply to them, the policy has to say so or else our admins will look like jerks. Head off the drama. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• I don't think I have a problem with updating the wording. I'm pretty sure we've talked about this before but I'm unsure of when or where. Sounds reasonable enough to me though.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 03:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
• I do see that it often gets used poorly over the last couple years. It was originally intended to be just for banned/de facto banned users. Socks for example on en.wiki are rarely community banned but are considered de facto banned by socking. It comes down to the type of indefinite block. I would probably just leave it as is but don't have a strong opinion either way as it doesn't really change anything. Remember, admins have discretion on when and how long to block editors for, we technically don't even need to invoke onestrike to block someone in this method, the writing it down was originally always just intended as something to point users to in order to explain why they were blocked like they were. Any admin could just as easily point the thing they did here as the reason they were blocked. There is no rule for requiring multiple blocks to get to indefinite. -Djsasso (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Djsasso:, you are right, when I wrote one strike it was to inform users not given justification to admins. It was also designed to protect the project not punish users disliked for some reason and it was not meant to be a sword of Damacles hanging forever over a user's head for months and years being pulled out after years of good local behaviour simply because they were still banned somewhere else. fr33kman 15:42, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

• I have boldly implemented this, given that nobody was opposed and it had support. Of course, anyone is free to revert and discuss here. --IWI (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Burden of proof and due process in blocks?

I am concerned that average editors acting in good faith -who are not familiar with the extensive body of Wiki laws and do not have large amounts of time - do NOT in practice have due process in facing blocks. This is unjust and leads to administrative abuse of power. 2600:1002:B00F:3235:AC7A:4292:385B:1D1C (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Simple form to preempt, dispute and appeal blocks?

Most people do not have the time or energy to learn the extensive details of “Wiki law”. This makes it difficult for them to preempt, dispute or appeal an unjust block or an abuse of admin power.

There should be a simple Form sent to anyone who is being considered for a block. It should simply and without jargon state the charges, the evidence and the accuser. The default should be to assume the editor is innocent until proven guilty. They should be allowed to preempt, dispute or appeal any block or sanctions on the same simple form that automatically can get posted to the correct authorities and on a talk page so other neutral good faith editors / community members can contribute.

Making it difficult to contest a punishment like a block means that most average people have no effective remedy or due process. 2600:1002:B00F:3235:AC7A:4292:385B:1D1C (talk) 16:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

ONESTRIKE

I think we should amend this rule to expressly state that there should be a reasonable timeframe for its use. I have seen it used as a sword of Damacles swinging over a user's head for a long time just waiting to be used some long time after being warned. If a user is warned under the rule and then acts well for , let's say, six months then the rule should no longer apply to them. Thoughts? fr33kman 15:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Does this apply solely to those who join Simple English Wikipedia after being banned from another Wikimedia project, such as English Wikipedia, or does it also pertain to those who were editors here long ago, got blocked from English Wikipedia, and are still editing? DIVINE 15:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fr33kman Here you go - Special:Redirect/logid/2816650 - a user blocked for "one-strike" nine months after they started editing here, and two years after they were blocked on another Wikipedia. Batrachoseps (talk) 06:20, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

But I admit I don't know whether the user was "acting well". So maybe you think it should continue to be applied if the user was continuing to do the same things they got blocked for, over a longer period? Batrachoseps (talk) 06:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. For example, a person got blocked on En for sockpuppetry/CIR issues, they should not repeat it here. However, if they do vandalism here, they should be given warning etc, like a normal user, not immediately blocked. Exeption is severe cases Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 06:38, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but I consider vandalism to be more serious than CIR issues. MathXplore (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Considering the recent thread on AN, I realise it's going to be nearly impossible not to discuss Cyber.Eyes.2005's case in relation to the ONESTRIKE policy. I just want to point out that the problematic editing patterns might have begun as early as 1 Dec 2023 with the WP:SYNTH and en:WP:BATTLEGROUND issues. The back and forth on that article's talk page doesn't look good either. As I stated on AN, a lot of that editor's content additions come with cited sources, but may not explicitly support the claims made in our article. I would like to think this wiki is not in the habit of routinely scrutinising every single well-cited edit, but now that this issue has happened, there is going to be a substantial amount of time needed to review past edits and correct the problem. For this reason, there is a very strong possibility that Cyber.Eyes.2005's behavior that previously got them blocked on EN, started earlier than originally detected on this wiki.

And back to the issue at hand - one of the motivations behind ONESTRIKE is to address cases where blocked editors come here from other wikis, and persist in their previous behavior here, seemingly with the excuse that they are new to this wiki (and therefore apparently are not familiar with the rules here). I think rule-breaking here that is unrelated to an editor's original block on EN (or any other wiki) should either: fall outside of ONESTRIKE's scope, or be subjected to a very small timeframe (perhaps 2 months or even shorter). On the other hand, in cases where a blocked editor from somewhere else were to come here and repeat that same behavior here, I am not quite sure whether a time restriction is helpful here. I say this because a lot of the ONESTRIKE blocks could have also been independently applied as a ban here, since many ONESTRIKE cases are for major violations of policy. Chenzw  Talk  08:44, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with everything you've said. One strike was intended to be to be a warning not to repeat past behaviour here. To answer an earlier question, I do not think the rule should apply to an editor who has returned here after time spent away but it should include any user who is blocked elsewhere and has come here. It's basically a formal second chance but with conditions. fr33kman 14:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

ONESTRIKE 2

I think that we should include in this section that one strike is akin to an offer as well as a warning and that to block someone under the rule it should be involve, first, a warning that the person is being placed under the rule. As the person who originally wrote the rule that was certainly the intent. I have seen blocks placed using ONE STRIKE as the reason without any warning. I feel this is unfair. Thoughts? fr33kman 14:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I think I'm one of the users triggering this discussion. Thank you for explaining your original intent. I look forward to following the community's consensus and the new documentation. Do you remember why your intent was not included in the section? I think this may help us understand the background. MathXplore (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)