This has come up a number of times (as GWH says). We aim to avoid a "block
-> uncivil -> extend block -> more uncivil" cycle. As best I recall, the
point is that users who rant against the blocking admin for blocking them,
or against Wikipedia generally, or about the unfairness of the block, or
even mild threats ... if a good answer is simply "Sorry, but you'll have to
sit out the block" and that's likely to resolve it, then that's what should
be done.
If the attacks or language get to a point that it's untenable to allow that,
then one might lock the page to prevent them doing so with a message "sorry
but this kind of language isn't ok while blocked, your page has been locked
until the block ends. This protection will be removed if you confirm by
email you will refrain from such language in future, or you can appeal the
block by email to...". Such an approach may be better than extending the
block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked.
If they really do act up in a bad way then yes, an extension of block may
well be justified. For example, if the response to a block is outing,
threats, socking/disruption, serious defamation ("user X is a pedophile and
user Y supports murdering babies!") or they'd done the same a lot in the
past, then I'd have no hesitation extending the block. Then again in some
cases I'd just warn, then wait to see if they continue. usual admin
judgement applies and not all admins will draw their lines in the same
places.
Hope that helps. it's not a fixed view, but its some indication how I would
see it.
FT2
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Carcharoth <carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>wrote;wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred
Bauder<fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net> wrote:
I had
thought we'd formally policyized the "please leave blocked users
alone on their talk page and don't block them if they vent about the
block (short of making threats against people, etc)", but I can't find
anything on-wiki that has it in writing.
I know I've had discussions with people about it before and there was
a general admins consensus that it was a good thing - but it does not
appear to be written down in policy, guideline, or an Arbcom decision
I can find.
Am I missing something, or did we really never write it down?
If we did not, we probably should rectify that, and I'll SOFIXIT - but
I wanted to ping out to other experienced people first to see if
anyone could remember where it might be written that I just haven't
found yet.
Thanks!
It is written:
Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked. (Disable only for
users known to abuse own talk page.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Block/
and at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Setting_block_options
Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked if unchecked will
prevent the blocked user from editing their own talk page, including
requesting unblock. This option should not be unchecked by default;
editing of the user's talk page should only be disabled in the case of
continued abuse of the talk page.
That covers protecting user talk pages (either directly or preventing
the editor themselves from editing it), but what about people ranting
on talk pages *after* their block has expired. That would be "reblocks
due to venting about just-expired block". That might be more tricky.
Carcharoth
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l