Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy

Archives

until 2007/04

Officialized

Now Blocking policy is official. It is weird since we agreed on that already in the late 2005 (see /Archives/2007-04), though. Anyway, thank you for your all participation and interest! --Aphaia 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Need to revise?

In 2005 we seemed to agree on that we would treat IP equally either static or dynamic (see below), this agreement however seems not have reflected to the policy draft. Or once reflected, but later overridden unconciously.

I think the static/dynamic idea was well-intended (as imported from WP, I imagine), but there are at least two basic problems with it:

1. With 0-2 (est.) sysops watching for vandalism at any given time, we don't have the luxury of many eyeballs to make it easy for someone to spend time doing 2- or 3-transaction queries of hierarchial whois DBs to figure out which is which.

2. The old idea of determining static/dynamic IPs is seriously out-of-date anyway. Most DHCP-assigned IPs stay with customers for months or even years (I've had the same one since I started on WP back in 2003), and many, possibly even most "fixed" IPs are actually hiding NAT-based networks of dynamic IPs behind them. Therefore, blocking a dynamic IP for an extended time may be completely reasonable, and blocking a fixed IP fo a day can cut off an entire company, school, or other organization. And there's no way we can tell for sure which applies.

I support treating IPs uniformly unless and until someone complains, and even then trying to address the specific complaint before we worry about the larger implications. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I agree: I believe policies should be descriptive, not proscriptive, since consensus is mostly marked by actions. In that vain, Kalki and UDScott also agree with you by their actions -- and the four of us are responsible for over 90% of the IP blocks :) I will modify the policy to more accurately describe current practice soon, and wait a while before marking it as official policy to give everybody time to object. ~ MosheZadka (Talk) 04:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting information. I agree that we should treat IPs uniformly. iddo999 18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

In the current policy WQ:BP#Vandalsm says:

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikiquote. For dynamic IPs, such blocks should last 24 hours. For static IPs, such blocks should initially last 24 hours, but repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one month.

I confess I have never worried if a IP address is dynamic or static. I assume other my fellow sysops have done so. In our current practice, it is ordinary to put a three-days block or longer. I would therefore propose to reflect our current habit to the policy (since no one has groaned at our practice, we are okay to assume it acceptable), as following.

Sysops may, at their judgement, block IP addresses that vandalise Wikiquote. Such blocks should initially last 1 week or shorter; in most cases 24 hours duration is highly recommended. But Repeat violators may be blocked for a maximum of one year.

Since some sysops tend to put a week blocking, I rewrite the policy part reflecting the practice. If the community feel however it overreacting and prefer to go back to the first proposed initial set, 24 hours, I have no objection, since my own practice is "initially put 24 hours blocking or shorter". For "one year" extension, see the last month blocking on two IPs (cf. WQ:VP). --Aphaia 07:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree it needs to be changed, but I don't like the rough outlining... sysops should know how long they should block an IP already (ideally, before they become an admin). We really should treat them all as dynamic, except in cases of extreme vandalism, because IP address may change hands frequently (even static ones). I would not object to this change, but I would rather leave it up to the sysops individually. We should also check up on each other (like CUs), if I see someone block an IP for one year just for "vandalism", I would have to talk to them on their user talk page (unless there is a special reason they outlined in their sum, like "CU block" and it came with a further explanation on AN or VP). Cbrown1023 talk

Viewpoint on block lengths

Realising I have been acting against policy with some blocks here I thought I ought to apologise and outline my views (policies?!) on the subject. Across wikis I do have a lot more experience than when I started but would appreciate others views. These refer only to initial blocks that are acceptable to me.

1. Indefinite blocks. Only and always given to highly disruptive named users. Page move, obscenity, attack accounts would be the main issue. Additionally such accounts should always be CU'd (the main use of it IMO) as there will frequently be a history or an open proxy revealed. A question here might be accounts that are blocked elsewhere that then create an account here. On en Books I have both blocked such accounts on sight, watched then warned then blocked on behaviour and also merely watched - it is the behaviour that matters to me.

2. One year and greater blocks. IPs only that are open proxies. En wp blocks these indefinitely, given the changing nature of the internet I now see this as incorrect. En books some block for 2 or 5 years depending on the admin. Personally I see 1 year as reasonable and use this "policy" across wikis.

3. 3/6 month blocks. IPs only. Any initial block of this length would only be placed if there is substantial cross wiki evidence of disruption or vandalism. The sources I use would be internet blacklists, other wikis block logs and searching the CU log. It would be unusual to place a block of this length initially (a month would be more normal for me) but would depend on the evidence.

4. In passing I always block spambots (www/index type pages creators) or those who insert large numbers of spam links for a week on the first offence and a month on the second. Frankly it is quicker than placing tags and still gives a lasting history. If I found the same IP placing links or creating pages across wikis in one "attack" I might go for a longer initial block.

I see almost all other blocks as being incremental based on behaviour and the admin's view. However I might look at en wp to see if an IP that is vandalising is on a long block there in which case a starter block of 24 hours say seems a little pointless - they know what they are doing.

I'm sure I've missed something but I hope others will look at this and criticise or support (or both). Thanks for your time --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up, Herby. Please give a look to the mailing list thread about blocking too, there you may find input from other editors, specially CU investigation related blocking and also blocking referring to the known behavior on the other projects.

As for open proxies. From my experience on Japanese Wikipedia, sometimes even one year is too long. Open proxies are shifting and most of proxies move to other websites, or they were unfortunate zombie machines and later fixed. Currently the average duration for open proxies on Japanese Wikipedia is 6 months.

So my conclusions for initial block duration are not so different from yours --- 24 hours for most cases, but if it is too much obvious disruptions or known as a hardened soul either on this project already or on the other projects, blocking for months are okay. I agree with you on the reference to their action is useful, but on the other hand I think it still okay, to put 24 hour blocking without reviewing their actions on the other projects. So the comparison with Wikipedia edits (for example) could be an option but must not a must. Anyway we all aware that IP addresses and people behind those are not necessarily identical. Also, if they are just going mad and normally behave on a good faith, even 24 hour blocking might be too long, specially without precedent warning. Cheers, --Aphaia 12:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Draft for new revision

See Wikiquote:Blocking policy/Draft and feel free to edit. I tried to corporate the suggestions on the above, but I may have missed some important elements. Comments will be also welcome. Thanks! --Aphaia 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For the convenience, I moved Cbrown1023's comments to the draft talk. --Aphaia 13:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the talk page of the draft - thanks (Herby)

As stated on Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy/Draft, the policy is officially revised with endorsements from the community members. Further information of the new revisions is found at Wikiquote talk:Blocking policy/Draft. Thank you for your attention and feedback until today :) --Aphaia 07:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Nutshell

Shouldn't this page be in a nutshell? The one in Wikipedia is in a nutshell. How come this isn't? StevenMario 18:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

@StevenMario: What is a nutshell? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

English Wikiquote blocking policy regarding socks

Please join the discussion English Wikiquote blocking policy regarding socks. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Official policy

Since it is a official policy of the Wikiquote, I think it is wrong to have this sentence on the page: "For situations not described here, Wikipedia policy may be applied loosely, based on Wikiquote community consensus, until Wikiquote establishes its own blocking policy." We can write something like: "For situations not described here, Wikipedia policy may be applied loosely, based on Wikiquote community consensus, until Wikiquote developes/completes its own blocking policy." Sura Shukurlu (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)