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!
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!
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
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.
Fred
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@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
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@googlemail.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@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@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked"...
Better: *"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked." *
In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block.
At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say "you can't act that way here") should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too.
Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_t...
-Durova
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked"...
Better: *"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked." *
In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block.
At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say "you can't act that way here") should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The question being discussed there is:
"Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page, often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP pages where dialogue occurs. Please indicate views below."
That is different from the question here (which is a subset of that one), which is how to treat blocked, or recently blocked, users who are venting on their talk page at the injustice of being blocked.
I would add that in this context, the "hostile poster" is sometimes the blocking admin making inflammatory remarks, or other users arriving to comment where they should stay away (I've been guilty of the latter, sometimes). There may be no hostile intent, but the blocked user can sometimes see the posts to their user pages as hostile, especially if they have just been blocked and are angry about it.
Carcharoth
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_t...
-Durova
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked"...
Better: *"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked." *
In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block.
At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say "you can't act that way here") should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
The question being discussed there is:
"Should a user's own talk page be considered differently? There has been discussion in past as to whether a post on a user's talk page, often in reply to a hostile poster, should be treated more leniently than posting elsewhere on other discussion or WP pages where dialogue occurs. Please indicate views below."
That is different from the question here (which is a subset of that one), which is how to treat blocked, or recently blocked, users who are venting on their talk page at the injustice of being blocked.
I would add that in this context, the "hostile poster" is sometimes the blocking admin making inflammatory remarks, or other users arriving to comment where they should stay away (I've been guilty of the latter, sometimes). There may be no hostile intent, but the blocked user can sometimes see the posts to their user pages as hostile, especially if they have just been blocked and are angry about it.
Carcharoth
Even so great a personage as Larry Sanger got hostile if you posted anything too critical or argumentative on his talk page. Some people are just that way. Better not to fight human nature. (Also better to never give them the mop)
Fred
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Durovanadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Actually, a current poll is running 38-18 in favor of treating talk page incivility the same as incivility anywhere else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility/Poll#Should_a_user.27s_own_t...
-Durova
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 ft2.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up while blocked"...
Better: *"Such an approach may be better than extending the block, since it prevents them acting up and creating a spiral of increased problems for themselves while they are blocked." *
In simple terms, the aim is that users who would talk themselves out of a mild heated point into a major division and hardened stance, should not be pushed in the latter direction by punishing their ignorable anger at the block.
At the same time the preventative/deterrent purpose of the original block (intended to say "you can't act that way here") should equally be respected, and if their response is not so ignorable that should be respected too.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- http://durova.blogspot.com/ _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Actually, I was under the impression that our "policy" was essentially the opposite -- I certainly wouldn't tolerate a long rant about a block on a user's talk page. We tell blocked users to make their unblock requests succinct and neutral, and we disable the option to post to a talk page if the user continues to abuse their editing privileges, as Fred noted. In fact, countless MFDs have set a precedent that userspace isn't really to be used for rants or attacks of any sort.
- GlassCobra
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.comwrote:
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!
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l