Commons talk:Blocking policy

Report all blocking?

Should all blocking be reported at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard? I would say this is better, since then other admins could review the block. / Fred Chess 13:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We've had fifty blocks or unblocks in the last eighteen days [1]. That would be a lot of traffic for AN. I'm not really against the idea of reporting each one, but I'm not sure I see the value in it, as I doubt very few will get any extra attention. Jkelly 16:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

ACK. Not necessary unless it's likely to be contentious. pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably easier to stay updated by looking at the block log or the List of blocked IP addresses and usernames. As pfctdayelise says, if it's likely to be contentious, a notice might be a good idea, but just for checking up on what others are doing, the log is better since it's guaranteed to be complete and accurate. Cnyborg 22:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

• Put {{Blocked User}} on the user page of indefinitely blocked users.
  • There should also be a comment for users who have been blocked for a shorter time. I created Template:Blocked, before redirecting it to the other one. It would otherwise look like this [2] (a Spanish version is also available).
• Blocks of people adding {{Speedy delete}} tags. This should perhaps be added.

Fred Chess 11:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

non-cooperation

There should definetly be a blocking policy added for users who are immune to advise and are disruptive in their activities, such as deletion of articles or categories, etc. See this RFC for example [3] Gryffindor 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea, i suggest adding "disruptive behaviour, such as refusing to talk, edit warring, revert warring and harassment other users" as a block reason. -- Bryan (talk to me) 17:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Usernames

A section should be added to this policy for usernames. With the advent of SUL, let's not fall into the same pit that en:wp did, I suggest that we not restrict to just the ASCII alphabet. Also I think a rather permissive policy is best, unless it is a clear attack in a major language, let it go. Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Might have been inspired by a posting of mine! I think some guidance would be useful (& I spend some time on RC so see them quite quickly). The obviously obscene/racist/offensive I guess are clear but it would be good to know what others think --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Recommended block times?

I just removed this: "Suggested block lengths:

• 1st time: 1 day/3 days
• 2nd time: 3 days/1 week
• 3rd time: 1 week/1 month
• 4th time: indefinite"

...as it is not representative of what we actually do, and could confuse users. If we need something like this, we should discuss it further. Jkelly 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To me it also relates to the nature of the offense (Vandalism being my specialist subject!). Playful vandalism (1st time) really may only need a 2 hour block to ensure they realise such things are possible. Repeated blanking/abusive language may lead me to block for longer and possibly very quickly. However I also look at the Wikipedia record most of the time these days - we seem to receive the attention of those with long blocks on WP and I tend to up the block based on that record (I do the same on Wikibooks). I also keep an eye on vandalism reports on Meta.

I suggest it is very hard to be at all precise on this (& almost every admin will have somewhat differing views) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure, blocks should be placed according to the faith and severity of the misuse of the user, and I think that every admin can determine that for themselves. -- Bryan (talk to me) 18:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy change

I think we should possibly change our policy when it comes to the blocking part. Some admins tend to give an indef block at first time, I disagree with any admins doing that unless it's a severe case where the user really have uploaded a lot of copyvios & any other kind of block doesn't stop them. I think we should possibly show this in the block policy to determinate how long a user should be block, as Common sense isn't always working for all admins. --Kanonkas_(talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Short blocks make no sense on Commons.

Short blocks are a tradition from Wikipedia, where they serve as a punishment.

On Commons, someone upload copyvios in batches can be of two sorts:

• someone who does not know copyright laws -- typically because he does not understand how seriously we take it
• someone being deliberately disruptive.

The tactics of short, increasing blocks culminating in a ban is clearly a waste of time on the second sort: he could be banned from the start if we could detect him. On the second sort, I contend that it is counter-productive: the user might not notice the first block if he does not come on the site for over 24 hours; or he might see the block as a temporary nuisance and not think further of it.

I have been using an entirely different tactics of blocking indefinitely when dialog cannot be undertaken with a copyvio uploader, even as a first block. It is not a ban, but a truly indefinite block -- a block for which the duration is not explicitly set. I also put a template on the user's talk page explaining him why he is being blocked, and offering automatic unblocking if the user writes that he has read and accepted our policy; I also offer assistance, and point to the page that lists admins by language.

The advantages of this approach is no time is wasted on "vandals", and that ill-informed users will always understand how serious the matter is. It is far more efficient than the iterative method, because the block is used as a safety for the user (preventing him from doing something harmful) rather than a punishment. Whether the user comes back 6 hours later or 5 days later, he will see the block, and be unblocked immediately after reading the documentation. This is much more flexible and better adapted to educating newcomers than the hard "24-hour, 48-hours, ..." system. Rama (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Block log

I came to a job interview. It went very well, and I was about to be offered a job. Then hiring supervisor asked: "What is your hobby?" "I like taking pictures and uploading them to Commons." - I said. The supervisor asked me to show few of my images. I logged in to commons, hit "My contributions " and... The supervisor said: "Let's see your block log". I was refused employment. OK it never happened, but it could have. When a person gets traffic ticket, his records are erased in 3 years, and very few people could see them. If a person gets blocked on Commons everybody could see it.If a blocked user sees his own block log, it is like a constant reminder, if the whole world see it, it is like a constant punishment. I'm not talking about myself here. I'll live with this, but IMO it might be a good idea to make block logs available to Commons administrators only. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting

Kanonkas has proposed to rewrite this page. The general meaning will be retained, but wording and structure will be altered to clarify the policy and improve the readability. Anyone is free to chip in. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats

Making legal threats is explicitly defined as grounds for indefinite blocking on several Wikimedia projects – most notably on English Wikipedia. Meta also makes reference to this in meta:Banned user. However, it seems to be poorly documented here on Commons. I'm proposing an addition to Commons:Blocking policy. Under the Use heading, add the following point:

• Legal threats. Users are encouraged to attempt to resolve disputes on Commons. If that fails, we cannot prevent anyone from taking legal action. However, if a user takes legal action or threatens to do so, they are prohibited from editing Commons (including their own talk page) until the legal matter has been resolved. This is to ensure that only proper legal channels are used and to avoid exacerbating the dispute.

I'm hoping that's enough and that we can do without a special guideline or policy. Your thoughts? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A copyright owner must not be blocked just because he is announcing legal action. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It would depend how it was phrased for me. "Legal threats" should probably be dealt with off wiki anyway. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can see a plausible scenario where a copyright holder participating in Commons cannot use Commons' procedures to resolve a copyright problem but instead finds it necessary to take legal action whilst still having a need to edit here. Perhaps you could elaborate? Keep in mind that copyright problems are no less likely here than on English Wikipedia, and they make no exceptions for copyright-related legal threats in en:WP:NLT. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I can. If a DR ends as keep because it has a PD-art, because we think it is de minimis, because we think it is PD-ineligible etc. In that case it is not unlikely that "the copyright holder" does not agree and would like to take a trial to see if a judge agrees that Commons can host the file. If they inform us in a nice way do you think we should always block? --MGA73 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. And let me add that I am here with my own name, so I am more likely to have to deal with this than anonymous Joe. And in fact I have received a letter in the mail with legal threats. But I would not regard threats with legal action as a reason to block. Maybe I would feel different if I lived in the US, where it is more likely to get costly. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should. I think en:WP:NLT explains the reasons quite well. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This suggestion is probably related to the discussion here here. Personally I think we should block users that is disruptive. Not just ordinary users but also administrators. Legal threats could be one of the things we chould block for. I do not mind that that is added to page to illustrate what could be blocked for.

If someone is talking about legal assistance in a case it could simply just mean that the user wants some legal expert to help prove that a photo is not a copyvio. It seems that it is also accepted that users get upset and say/write things that they should not have done without getting blocked. So I do not think that all talk about legal assistance should result in a block. It depends... --MGA73 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was because of that discussion that I found that we seem to have no explicit statement to discourage legal threats. I've tried not to focus on a single instance when writing the proposal, though, and it's not intended to have any impact on this particular case. Seeking legal advice is different from taking or threatening legal action; I think that's pretty clear. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not just transwiki WP:NLT? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alex, although I think it should be a universal Wikimedia policy, but we should include it in our policy too, so users be aware about it, the policy is pretty clear on enwiki, perhaps as Mattbuck suggested we could copy from enwiki.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I support adding NLT either explicitly or by reference to WP:NLT. Most of the major sister projects have NLT policies. Providing links may be helpful to those who are not fluent in English. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel a bit uneasy here. Obviously we should block troublemakers, and spurious legal threats is one way people have made trouble. But I've also seen this policy misapplied, e.g. I've seen cases where a user said "I'm going to do this awful and unlawful thing to you!" and someone replied with "If you do that I will be calling the police or hauling your butt into court!", only to be bludgeoned by someone with the WP:NLT. Thats stupid. The purpose of a no legal threat policy is to prevent trouble makers from intimidating people in the project with spurious threats, not to prevent people from presenting the reasonable defense against other kinds of spurious threats. I would rather say that coercive behavior is prohibited in general than to focus on "legal threats", except for the fact that we use coercive behavior all the time ("if you don't stop doing X you will be blocked") and I don't quite know how to separate the permissible and non-permissable coersion with simple language. --Gmaxwell (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC) .

• When a person uses the phrase "my lawyer...." these are a clear threat to which a user cannot reasonibly respond, any such threats(legal, physical, or phsycological) where a person cant reasonibly respond or be protected within the community should be result in a block as harassment. Where a person implies that other users could be subject to such actions these people should be indefinitely blocked until the Commons community can be satisifed that the person is no longer theatening Users. IMHO it should also carry a no repeat clause, do it once well ok you were upset you've calmed down, do it twice bye-bye. Gnangarra 04:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• • Of course, if they withdraw the threat and make it clear that they won't continue the behavior they should be unblocked. But "two strikes you're out" is silly and overall legalistic. You're out when no one who can unblock you believes that you will stop or that you're not more valuable than the trouble you cause. No other standard will actually work, regardless of what the rule says. --Gmaxwell (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that we need to draw a distinction between

• a threat of having a lawyer issue a takedown notice to Commons or of suing WMF to force the takedown of an image and
• a threat of suing an individual editor or Admin for any reason.

Although I hope we don't see too many of the first, it is possible to disagree about an image. I have seen DR closures where if I were the copyright holder and I cared enough, I might have taken action. The second, however, is pure intimidation and can be scary, particularly for those of us who are not anonymous. Since all of us work within the framework of community consensus, there is never a single individual who might appropriately be the target of a lawsuit. Therefore, I advocate promptly blocking anyone who issued such a threat. As a limited check against abuse, I would add to the policy that the block could not be imposed by the person threatened.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are always individual persons responsible. That is primarily the uploader. The Foundation has made that very clear, it accepts no responsibility. Blocking and cutting communication might very well increase the risk for the uploader of getting sued. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:52, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I am opposed to the adoption of this. Trolling, harassment or intimidation should be dealt appropiately; but blocking users that issue valid legal claims only scalates the problem and the liability for the project and the blocking person. --Marco Aurelio (disputatio) 21:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No, legal threats should be dealt with by lawyers. We can comment on copyright issues, but once someone actually issues a proper legal threat, rather than just a "hi, this is my image and is not used with my permission", it is for the WMF to deal with, and further comments here may be prejudicial. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"it is for the WMF to deal with" - no, with the notable exception of DMCA takedowns, it's not for the WMF to deal with, because they're not responsible for the content. Also, what is a "proper" legal threat? Rd232 (talk) 21:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Perhaps we should also make it more clear that personal attacks is also a reason to block users (and admins). At the moment we have "Harassment" but I think that harassment is something that goes over several edits. I think that comments like "moron", "freak" etc. should also be a valid reason to block users. --MGA73 (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - always been a reason for me. plus anything racist, sexist, religious etc. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes that too. Good examples. --MGA73 (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would say that both personal attacks and harassment are instances of "gross incivility," as English Wikipedia calls it, and I think that this is what we should target. This also includes attacks which are not personal, such as statements which are sexist, racist, ethnically prejudiced and other sweeping attacks. "Everyone here is a freak and a moron" is only marginally less damaging to a collaborative atmosphere than "(some user) is a freak and a moron."

Blocking of admins is a separate question, and should not be emphasised more or less for any particular blocking reason. I agree, however, that we should have information on blocking of administrators. This should include an assertion that the standards should not be different for administrators, an explanation of how an administrator should act if blocked and the importance of avoiding wheel wars, and a discussion of the impact on the ability to continue as an administrator. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is the blocking of an admin "separate"? They are only users. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

By saying that it's a separate question, I meant that it is a separate question from whether or not we should have a point about personal attacks or similar. The reasons we may need to have additional information about blocking of administrators are that there are sometimes perceived doubts about whether or not administrators are actually regarded as regular users, that administrators are technically able to unblock themselves, and that there may be uncertainties about whether one or more blocks in and of itself indicates that a user is unsuitable as an administrator. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just my opinion

They are regular users

For me they should have a higher standard of behaviour than "ordinary" users. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh - and unblocking themselves should mean immediate de-sysop. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This whole NPA craze leads to nowhere. It may work in an environment of peers, within a single culture, but commons is even more diverse than the main wikipedia. The recent Cecil case may be borderline - I suspect that some may be actually offended by those words (adressed to someone else, not themselves). Yet others will be offended by a fart two blocks away or an all-caps response. I've heard that some will even object to being called "racist" (believe it or not). There's just too many personal likes and dislikes in the equation, you can't suit everyone. NVO (talk) 10:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@LX: Currently "gross incivility" is not on the list so if that is a better way of saying it than "personal attacks" it is fine with me (but perhaps with the addition “for example personal attacks, harassment etc.”). As long as we agree that we should not accept such behavior.

@NVO: Yes it is possible that some may be not offended but I think that we should not conclude that we should therefore allow any behavior. Instead it would be better if we agreed that personal attacks are not ok because they may offend some or most users. That does not mean that we should be over sensitive and yell "personal attack!" every time we disagree on something. I'm sure that most users will be able to judge if it is ok to say "you fucking moron" or "stupid pedophile" or whatever. --MGA73 (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

en:WP:PA is even more widely disseminated among the major sister projects than NLT. "Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I support including PA either explicitly or by reference. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Absolutely. 99of9 (talk) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
•  Support --High Contrast (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

•  Comment I have drafted language to the effect of what I perceive as the consensus above and have edited the policy accordingly.[4] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
•  Oppose far too wide-ranging, I reverted, because of phrases like "may be blocked for a slur". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  If you think slurs are an acceptable form of addressing others, you are probably not the right person to be shaping Commons policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  Was that a slur? The proposed widening of reasons for blocking would lead to totally arbitrary decisions. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  No, that was an objective observation. You are habitually offensive to other Commons participants, and you should not be editing Commons policies in order to protect yourself. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

  Siegmund proposes that "criticism of the intelligence, genetics, moral character, etc., of an editor" should be grounds for blocking. Well, several admins make a habit of criticizing the morals of uploaders, where I would assume errors made in good faith. And yes, I will admit that I have uttered criticism of the intelligence of admins but only in cases where I would call that "objective observation". But with admins applying these blocks, the measures will be completely arbitrary, and never would an admin be blocked for calling an uploader a liar or a thief. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Again, a user who thinks it's okay to call fellow contributors "thick" and "ass" is not qualified to shape our policies on civility. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  More slurs against moral character and intelligence by LX. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

  Q.E.D. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Username Policy

Shouldn't the inappropriate usernames point be removed from the "Common reasons to block" section? It's kind of misleading, since I filed a username block request and then was told that the policy was still only a proposal and blocks were therefore not being made on that basis. Regards, MacMed (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There are cases where a username would clearly be inappropriate and should be blocked based on that - but that's going to need common sense from the admin at the moment. I've just delinked the proposed username policy to avoid creating the confusion that it is a proper guideline/policy... Mike Peel (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I linked it back up again before seeing this post -- thinking that that was only a minor edit. Although it is only proposed policy, it has had no significant changes in two and a half years and is de facto policy. Since we say that we will block inappropriate usernames, I think we should link to our best discussion of what that means.      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Open proxies

I just noticed that this policy contains no provision for blocking open proxies. Such blocks are accepted as standard practice. The typical duration is one year. The reason for not going with indefinite is to allow for IP address reassignments, fixing of loopholes, etc. See meta:No open proxies for the Wikimedia-wide policy. Specific block settings seem to vary, so it would be good if we could agree on some standard principles and spell them out. —LX (talk, contribs) 14:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No reason not to make this explicit. One year duration seems good to me. Perhaps you might propose words to this effect. With no objection, it may be added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse various folk do various things. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Socks?

I don't see any mention of blocking sockpuppets here. Obviously we do it fairly routinely. Most socks are vandals, copyright violators, block evaders or other problems that are listed here, but we also block socks that simply use two or more usernames to cast multiple votes or generally mislead. As I understand the rule, a sock may be blocked on sight if it is used to "mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction" (from Sock puppetry).

While such actions probably won't result in an immediate indefinite blocking, they are certainly reasons that we block accounts.

     Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

en.wp has an entire, lengthy policy for it: en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. We could at least mention it as an issue (bearing in mind there are legitimate uses of multiple accounts too - en:Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Legitimate_uses). The nutshell summary of the en.wp policy might work as a basis:

The general rule is one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, or disrupt; to create the illusion of greater support for a position; to stir up controversy; or to circumvent a block, ban, or sanction. Do not ask your friends to create accounts to support you. Do not revive old unused accounts and use them as different users, or use another person's account.

Well, I guess you already quoted the key bit :) Rd232 (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)