Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

Unblocks of a global block

Reading the most recent admin newsletter, do we feel like current blocking policy covers the situations where we would unblock someone on enwiki who is blocked globally or do we need to hash out new language for it? I genuinely don't know how I would handle such a request which maybe reflects that this isn't the normal area I work or maybe reflects something that needs clarifying. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that. To be honest, I'm hard pressed to think of a situation where we'd want to locally unblock somebody who is globally blocked. Accounts don't get globally blocked without a good reason. RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Given how new global blocking is, I'm not sure I have a sense of what people will get globally blocked for and thus not sure how often enwiki might reach a different conclusion about it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

One thing I am sure about is that having two different features named "global block" and "global lock" is guaranteed to create confusion. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a plan to merge global locking into global blocking (though the name may still remain on-wiki) at T373388. Not planned for the short term though. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:32, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

One thing to note is that global blocking for accounts was developed so that there would be a way to prevent temporary accounts from editing on all wikis. If you lock a temporary account it just allows the user to get a new temporary account on their next edit. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course not for en.wp at this time, but I think about cases like Malnadach and Slowking as perhaps illustrative. There may be less difficult cases also, perhaps global blocks will come first for VOAs or other not-difficult cases instead of locks and they'll be able to appeal on particular projects. IznoPublic (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I just want to mention that we already locally unblock global IP blocks with existing policy. It's not common, and admittedly has a different flavour. Personally I think we should cross whatever bridge when it happens. And it should by default go in front of the community on a noticeboard (do we need to actually write that? I don't know). The only thing we shouldn't be doing (and I don't know how relevant that is here) is to undo an office action, but I think that's probably adequately documented under the office policy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I wonder what should happen with the "request glock" feature of WP:SPI? The SPI templates support flags for this, and User:GeneralNotability/spihelper.js (which I guess is orphaned at this point) has functionality to make the requests on meta. Should we switch that over to using gblock instead of glock, or expose both options? RoySmith (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Or maybe not orphaned after all! RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We will need to consider this for temporary accounts, as global blocks is the only method to prevent them editing cross-wiki (global locks don't work as I've mentioned above). Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with Zzuuzz that this should be handled on a case by case basis. However I would say that rather than by default go in front of the community on a noticeboard that local unblocks should only happen as a result of a consensus at a community noticeboard (I don't have a strong feeling about which board), and I do think it worth explicitly saying this. When there have been enough of both global blocks and local appeals of global blocks that we have a reasonable feel about why they get applied, what grounds people appeal them on and what the response to the appeals is, we can amend the policy to reflect what is and is not controversial in practice. To that end it might (or might not) be worth explicitly marking it as a temporary policy that will only apply to the first say 10 appeals with a mandatory discussion to keep, remove or amend at that point (such a discussion need not be more heavyweight than a "This seems to be working well, we'll mark it as permanent unless anybody objects in the next week" or "in practice these are uncontroversial, does anyone object to just replacing the policy with a note saying whether to accept, decline or discuss is an individual admin's discretion?"). Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Here's the thing. As Roy mentions above, global blocks are different than global locks. So I agree with what @Thryduulf and @Zzuuzz are saying about global locks - they need either community input or ArbCom concurrance. Global blocks are a whole different new thing and my gut tells me they should be handled more like a normal unblock - given that the user might have done nothing wrong on enwiki before being globally blocked even - than an unlock where sometimes they need community input but normally not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If it turns out some or all local appeals are uncontroversial then we can remove the consensus required provision when we know that, but until we do know who is getting blocked, who is appealing and what the community attitude to those appeals is, I'm not confident that individual admins will know enough to know what is and isn't going to be controversial, what is a reasonable grounds for appeal and what isn't. If some appeals are uncontroversial then consensus to unblock will develop quickly (I'm not proposing a quorum, minimum discussion length or anything like that) and nobody loses. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I think if we start with the highest cost option - everything must be community reviewed - it's unlikely we would ever go back to a lower cost option. I appreciate the work Izno and Roy are doing below in getting this onwiki so we don't have to talk hypothetically. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I put a request in the ear of a steward to move onwiki the discussion stewards are having about global blocks, so perhaps we won't have to just "come up with something" without considering the dimensions they'll be thinking about. :) That feels like the primary blocker to thinking about the problem. Izno (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I've also been interfacing with some steward ear today. From what I can tell, they're as unsure about all this as we are. RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Blocking IP addresses

I have come across an indefinite rangeblock which has not been cancelled although 16 years old. The range is 66.197.128.0/17. Can it be removed? 82.0.216.119 (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

That IP address belongs to Netflix. Nobody should be editing from there. I'm not seeing any reason to lift the block, would you mind elaborating why you think this is necessary? --Yamla (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

The IP is unable to reply, as it was used by WP:LTA/VXFC to evade their ban. Favonian (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

"Blocking policy" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Blocking policy has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 12 § Blocking policy until a consensus is reached. C F A 💬 20:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

RFC on users posting promotional content outside of mainspace

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Questions about TPA and UTRS notification following TPA removal

I have two policy questions, and two best practices question about blocking policy. This voablock (diff) of Robenceic (talk · contribs)^[no ping] and follow-up TPA removal (diff) by The Anome were perfectly appropriate, and I have no issues with them. It does prompt some questions in my mind regarding what policy has to say (if anything) about notifications of two types:

1. Does blocking policy require notification of talk page access removal?

I routinely see such notifications (thousands), but the expression "talk page access" does not occur anywhere at WP:Blocking policy. I think at the very least, such notification should be encouraged, if not required, if only to forestall wasting the time of good-faith third-party users who might follow up by offering their advice to a blocked user, not realizing they cannot respond. (Especially, but not only, if the blocked user managed to squeeze in a question or comment before TPA removal, not the case here however.)

2. Does blocking policy require notification of the UTRS unblock procedure after TPA removal? ("UTRS" also not mentioned on the policy page.)

One peculiarity of today's block is that in the transition from the initial block to TPA removal, the language explaining a standard unblock appeal was removed, which I get because they can't add an appeal to their page; but the WP:UTRS alternative was not added.

Which leads to my best practices questions:

3. When upping the restriction on a user from indef by adding TPA removal, is there a recommended method, such as replacing the entirety of the previous template with some other template that has the block notification but mentions UTRS instead of an on-page appeal, or alternatively to follow up the initial block template with another one notifying them about TPA removal?

4. Is TPA ever removed on a non-indefinite block? This would equate to saying, "Shut up and just wait it out", but I don't know if I've ever seen this. I have definitely seen a few cases of time-blocked editors being their own worst enemy while blocked for a relatively short time, and ending up indeffed before the block expired because they just couldn't stop digging. I wonder if there might be a subset of those where the editor might have been saved and later turned around into becoming a good editor, if they had just been gagged for a bit for their own good during their shock and reaction to the initial block, in order to prevent them from making things worse; maybe they would have been calmer after it expired. Wonder what admins think about temporary TPA removal, only when deemed of possible benefit to the user, to go along with a temporary block?

Maybe all of these questions are already answered somewhere. If that is the case, could someone please link them from Wikipedia:Blocking policy? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

1), 2), and 3) Editors find out these things when they try to edit. They're prominently presented with some version of MediaWiki:Blockedtext which contains all relevant information and links. If the block message transcludes a template then that will also be transcluded. Policy does already contain Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Explanation_of_blocks, which seems applicable. A block to revoke TPA is still a block. Confession: for most blatant VOAs, trolls and socks I rarely bother with additional notification. They get their notification through the block message (and they don't seem to have problems working out how to appeal). Also, have you come across Template:TPA revoked? It can be appended at the bottom of the page and they'll figure it out its relationship with previous messages. The Template:Uw-voablock used in your example also has a 'notalk=yes' parameter available (though obviously unused in this case). Most of these template details are really best left to procedural pages instead of policy pages, with the relevant policy parts being notification and explanation as already seen in the policy.

4) Yes, TPA can be removed for temp blocks. There is a bit of a timing issue since it has to go through off-wiki channels, with perhaps the original admin being consulted, combined with some negotiation about agreed behaviour. However it can be done, and is sometimes prudent for the reasons you mention, and it can be appealed (generally if they convincingly agree not to do what got their TPA revoked). For short blocks it's probably sometimes not worth pursuing an appeal, or actioned too late, but that's life. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I believe admins should drop a template when revoking TPA in most cases, but there may be times when it is within the usually allowed admin discretion to not do so. I have, on occasion, gone so far as to delete a user talk page because their username is so foul and their intent so obvious that a talk page seems like a waste of time. As zzuuzz says above, the blocked user will see the change if and when they try to edit.

Pulling TP from time-blocked editors is not common but is also perfectly within admin discretion if it seems warranted. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the blocked user clearly finds out they can't edit their talk page, when they try to. But I think Mathglot's question was (also) about other users; how do they know TPA has been pulled, if there is no notification of that, and should a notification therefore always be given? Or, put another way: is there ever a reason why such notification should not be given? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's always possible to argue that a vandal might reform if given the right template but I have seen several who get pleasure from the attention. They also laugh at the naive admin who thinks that adding a template to state the bleeding obvious was helpful. Adding a template takes admin effort and a total WP:DENY might be best in some circumstances. Anyone interested in a particular editor should look at their contributions. That instantly reveals their block status. Johnuniq (talk) 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Very much so. I sometimes attempt to engage with indeffed users that I think are worth the effort, either to advise them about their new, narrower Talk page remit (i.e., clarifications about their block, or to place an appeal), or if it looks hopeless, to advise them to try editing at Simple or a foreign Wikipedia for six months, as a way to build a positive track record that may help them in a later appeal at en-wiki. But I don't want to waste my time, either, if they cannot respond. (Or, I need to know that so I can tell them to respond from Simple, or wherever.) Certainly placing the TPA revocation helps me, as a possible third-party editor retention interventionist, therefore, I echo DG's question. And btw, thanks to all responders; I am learning and eagerly following, and hoping for more opinions. This is actually kind of fascinating. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd again refer you to the contributions link. It's hard to conceive that anyone could meaningfully engage with a user without looking at their contributions. The parameters for the block are included in the block notification (which is bright pink): 'cannot edit own talk page'. In this particular example, and really most others, there's also an additional block note saying something to the effect of 'TPA revoked for misusing the talk page'. I know admins learn how to quickly parse these things, but I think it's fair to say that it really is clear (and usually much easier to parse than a talk page full of templates), especially if you're looking with enough depth to engage them on reform. That said, and I say this as an admin who rarely uses talk page notifications, for any editor with a glimmer of redemption, a talk page message is usually added. I think the blocking policy does already establish this in principle, while still allowing us to not waste any effort on trolls and other irredeemable characters. Your example may fall under the category of 'anomalies' -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

There are a decent number of time-limited IP blocks that get TPA revoked, particularly for LTAs. That usually occurs at the time of the initial block.

Also, regarding the original block template, the blocked user can remove the message, and there's no need to replace it. So you may see a subsequent TPA revocation without a visible original block template. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 01:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to leave talk-page-revoked message as a tiny act of courtesy, but in this case the behavior was so egregious that it seemed pointless, as vandals like this are usually just here for the attention, and and further response to them is counterproductive; the user will find out when they attempt to post to the talk page, and that suffices. (By the way, it was good to learn about {{TPA revoked}}). — The Anome (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

By the time a situation progresses to the point of needing to revoke TPA, I'm really not worried about being courteous. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I indeffed a number of abusive socks over Xmas (see my talk page filter log) with tpa removed without blinking. RBI is the best response in these instances. — Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)