Policy inquiry - slack for blocked users venting on their talk page

[George Herbert]

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@...

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> 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@...
>

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



_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Alex Sawczynec]

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@...>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!
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert@...
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud@...> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[FT2]

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@...>wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:34 AM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud@...> 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@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[FT2]

"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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Durova]

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_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F

-Durova

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@...> 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@...
> 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@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Carcharoth]

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, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> 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_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F
>
> -Durova
>
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@...> 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@...
>> 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@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

[Fred Bauder-2]

> 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, Durova<nadezhda.durova@...> 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_talk_page_be_considered_differently.3F
>>
>> -Durova
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:58 AM, FT2 <ft2.wiki@...> 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@...
>>> 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@...
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l@...
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>

_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@...
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l