WikiIndex:Blocking and banning policy: Difference between revisions
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) m (Leucosticte moved page WikiIndex:Blocking Policy to WikiIndex:Blocking and banning policy) |
Leucosticte (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Blocking Policy''' is as follows. | '''Blocking Policy''' is as follows. The words "block" and "ban" are used interchangeably, a block being a technical means of enforcing a ban. | ||
==Procedure== | ==Procedure== | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
===User's right to defend himself against accusations=== | ===User's right to defend himself against accusations=== | ||
It is | It is not allowed to block a user from editing his talk page or emailing, unless he has demonstrated clear abuse of those particular channels, against which he has been properly warned. Also, if there is a community portal thread concerning a blocked user, he must be afforded an opportunity to defend himself at that thread, with the understanding that he is not allowed to edit the rest of the wiki, unless he disrupts the thread. Angering other users with one's civil rebuttals of their arguments does not count as a form of disruption. | ||
===Informal dispute resolution=== | ===Informal dispute resolution=== | ||
Sometimes users find it helpful to invite the people with whom they have a dispute to talk it over via a private, off-wiki, synchronous communication method such as IRC. This allows for quicker resolution of any misunderstandings, and can help users feel like they are saving face by not publicly acquiescing to someone else's demands. Participation in this sort of informal dialog is strictly optional, however. | Sometimes users find it helpful to invite the people with whom they have a dispute to talk it over via a private, off-wiki, synchronous communication method such as IRC. This allows for quicker resolution of any misunderstandings, and can help users feel like they are saving face by not publicly acquiescing to someone else's demands. Participation in this sort of informal dialog is strictly optional, however. | ||
===Maximum penalties=== | |||
The maximum duration of any block is 6 months. Block evasion, by itself, is not grounds for extending the block. | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 16:18, 22 September 2014
Blocking Policy is as follows. The words "block" and "ban" are used interchangeably, a block being a technical means of enforcing a ban.
Procedure
Spambots can be blocked indefinitely and immediately, without warning. In all other cases, a warning should be issued. Obvious vandal-only accounts, whose activity consists only of, e.g., inserting gibberish characters, blanking pages without explanation, etc., can be blocked as well, although a warning should be issued first. IP blocks should be of limited duration. Block summaries should always state a reason for a block.
Issuing and overturning warnings
If a user has made a mix of good and bad contributions, then instead of blocking him immediately, a warning should be issued. Warnings are only binding if issued by a sysop. If the user disagrees with the warning, then he can (1) ask that sysop, and/or another sysop(s), to retract the warning and allow him to continue the behavior that he considers acceptable; and/or (2) take his case to the WikiIndex:Community portal and ask the community to overturn the warning. A decision of the community overrides any decision reached by sysop(s).
Blocking
If a user acts in defiance of a warning that has not been retracted or overturned, then any sysop can either issue a final warning or block the user. The decision on whether to warn or block, and on how long to block, should be based on the severity of the pattern of disruption that the user was demonstrating. If another sysop disagrees with the block or feels its duration is too long, he can unblock or reduce the duration.
If another sysop disagrees with this unblock or reduction of duration, he is not to unilaterally reblock or increase the duration, unless the user has engaged in new misbehavior for which he has been properly warned. A thread should instead be opened at the community portal to discuss the matter, and a reblock or increase of block duration may only be increased with community consensus.
Assessing blame
In determining how disruptive a user has been, the user should not be blamed for other users' disproportionate reactions to their behavior, such as taking great offense to a slight infraction of the rules of civility.
User's right to defend himself against accusations
It is not allowed to block a user from editing his talk page or emailing, unless he has demonstrated clear abuse of those particular channels, against which he has been properly warned. Also, if there is a community portal thread concerning a blocked user, he must be afforded an opportunity to defend himself at that thread, with the understanding that he is not allowed to edit the rest of the wiki, unless he disrupts the thread. Angering other users with one's civil rebuttals of their arguments does not count as a form of disruption.
Informal dispute resolution
Sometimes users find it helpful to invite the people with whom they have a dispute to talk it over via a private, off-wiki, synchronous communication method such as IRC. This allows for quicker resolution of any misunderstandings, and can help users feel like they are saving face by not publicly acquiescing to someone else's demands. Participation in this sort of informal dialog is strictly optional, however.
Maximum penalties
The maximum duration of any block is 6 months. Block evasion, by itself, is not grounds for extending the block.