User talk:Nurg/Alternative user block procedure

Blocks for IP users

The block progression can be the same, except that the last step can't be indefinite. How long can it be? 3 months? 6 months, perhaps? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If we're still not blocking the IP's user talk page so that innocent collateral damage can enquire what's happening, then 6mo. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Food for thought at w:Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses#Guidelines. Nurg (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It comes down to a practical issue - will other, innocent users be affected? Discretion needs to be used. The various block periods can be seen as maximums - no IP user will complain if they are blocked for a shorter period than that allowed. An IP can be blocked indefinitely, but for practical reasons this will almost never be done. Nurg (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Progression of blocks

In the case of "problematic" editors that we might also want to educate and have stick around because they are also improving our travel guide, why do we want to block them?

Not to stop them editing, per se, but instead to fire warning shots across their bows. First one should be 1min (after clear and explanatory warnings of course) - but accompanied by a clear explanation of exactly what behaviour is going to warrant this block placed 30min (not more not less) before that first block is added to their record of delinquency.

Why the delay? To give them a chance to dialogue and reform before the slap round the chops.

Next warning shot? 5min.

Then 30min. Each increasing block comes with the same 30min delay to allow dialogue and an expression of contrition and reform.

Then 90min.

Then 8h.

Then 1 day.

Then 3 days.

Then 7 days. Each increasing block comes with the same 30min delay to allow dialogue and an expression of contrition and reform.

Then we give up and take them to the community ban procedure and nobody can justifiably moan here or elsewhere that they have been treated unfairly. Remember that we are not dealing with vandals here - we said right at the beginning that these were editors that made positive contributions and we might reasonably hope to reform and educate so it's worth having a little patience and giving a little guidance. --118.93nzp (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

There's not much context overleaf at present. For the context see Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Proposal: Revise policy on dealing with repeated unwanted edits. This proposed procedure comes in to play some way down the road. Nurg (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on your priorities. If you think we've got enough editors already, they're a dime a dozen and should concentrate on having a clear and well documented route for getting rid of the maximum number of new editors in the shortest possible time, then this draft should be very effective. If your emphasis is instead on reform and editor education then the more shallow escalation with much shorter blocking periods that I proposed above will still be efficacious, Nurg. --118.93nzp (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)--118.93nzp (talk) 10:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the education and documenting of problematic behaviour before the blocking starts is what most needs developing. But 1 min and 5 min blocks - I think that is way too fine. Nurg (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Overall evaluation

Hi, Nurg. You wanted comments on whether your proposal is on the right track. I think it is, and it's simpler than the other new block procedure proposal. It seems to me, the only remaining thing that needs to be decided on is what the longest period to block an IP will be. It might also be necessary to consider what to do if a person with a blocked registered account returns as several IPs or new registered users, because it could be a problem to go through the same blocking procedure with multiple socks. On the other hand, we aren't set up to investigate socks, and we surely can't presume socks based purely on posting style. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I generally agree with Ikan Kekek on this one. I have not compared the two proposals yet, but this looks reasonable. We must try to be fair and assume good faith, and good faith does not always mean someone we agree with. No disagreement more savage than between two people who both know they are right. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 10:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Ikan, I have now expanded the info about IPs and commented in the first thread on this page. Re multiple accounts/IPs, opinion was expressed at Proposal: Revise policy on dealing with repeated unwanted edits that this should be dealt with separately - it is covered by Wikivoyage:Checkuser which perhaps also needs review. Let's park that issue for now. Nurg (talk) 20:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Appeals and objections against blocks

Procedure for appeals and objections against blocks is outside the scope of this proposal, as it should apply regardless of whether this proposed process or the user ban nomination process is used. A separate proposal might use the following wording:

"A blocked user may use their own Talk page to appeal a block. If they do not receive a timely response on their Talk page, or in the rare case that they are blocked from editing their Talk page, they may email an administrator." Nurg (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)