Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Partial blocks: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,659,989 edits
Removing expired RFC template.
Closed as consensus to enable
Line 1:
<!-- WP:PB may later point to the policy (or policy section) itself, so it is currently not advertised as a shortcut to this RfC -->
{{shortcut|WP:PARBLOCK2019}}
[[File:MediaWiki's Special-Block interface, taken February 21, 2019.png|thumb|Screenshot of the new [[Special:Block]] interface with partial blocks enabled]]
Line 13:
 
===Should partial blocks be enabled on the English Wikipedia?===
If needed, a follow-up RfC could be held to determine whether restrictions should be imposed on the use of partial blocks beyond those which the [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocking policy]] already imposes on blocks.
 
Line 48 ⟶ 49:
#'''Support''' the concept. However, there needs to be a policy backing up the tool before it is enabled. -- [[User:Dolotta|Dolotta]] ([[User talk:Dolotta|talk]]) 15:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
#'''Support''' adds useful and potentially less disruptive options. Flexibility and options are almost always good things. Reading the opposes, I don't think serious problems are likely - and if issues were to arise we can alter policy on it or simply decide not to use it. There is little inherent threat in something we can decline to use. The worst case is it would be a worthwhile failed experiment, and we just stop using it and leisurely ask for it to be disabled. [[User:Alsee|Alsee]] ([[User talk:Alsee|talk]]) 17:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
#'''Support''' the idea definitely makes sense for people who are causing disruption on a single page or a group of pages, e.g. edit warring on one article or breaching a topic ban on some page. As long as the disruption is limited there's no particular reason to prevent them editing the rest of the encyclopedia as well. '''''[[User:Hut 8.5|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</span>]]''''' 17:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Seems like a pretty nice and awesome idea, considering that full block is sometimes not really necessary for some cases. Partial blocks should probably be a new way to go. [[User:Nnadigoodluck|'''<span style="color:green">NNADI</span><span style="color:black">GOOD</span><span style="color:green">LUCK</span>''']] ''([[User talk:Nnadigoodluck|<span style="color:green">Talk</span>]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Nnadigoodluck|<span style="color:black">Contribs</span>]])'' 17:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
#'''Support''' <del>trial period</del> <ins>per {{u|Beeblebrox}}</ins> with a follow-up RfC to determine the scope of the best way to apply it. [[User:OhKayeSierra|OhKayeSierra]] ([[User talk:OhKayeSierra|talk]]) 20:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Line 85 ⟶ 86:
 
==== Oppose ====
#I can think of no use case where partial blocks would not create more disruption than they are attempting to block. The most common argument for them is edit warring, but here that's unlikely to be the case: we currently are very generous on edit waring, and almost always unblock automatically the first time, that's unlikely to happen here, and if anything I think arguing on the talk page while unable to actually edit is just likely to make people more angry.{{pb}}Let's talk about the real problems, however: this is a massive expansion of the scope of administrator power in a way that can only backfire and destabilize the project. Currently, except in very defined circumstances, administrators cannot impose sanctions on individual editors and otherwise, they need to establish justification for a block. That would go away here. While this is billed as a less intrusive means of preventing disruption, what it instead is is a way to expand the scope of the limited mandate of admins far beyond what discretionary sanctions are. That is not healthy for the project, and is a reason to oppose in itself.{{pb}}Even if it were limited to DS areas, using it as a technical means to enforce discretionary sanctions would lead to wikilawyering and extreme drama in an area that needs no more. Topic ban enforcement this way would be a nightmare, and we do not need it.{{pb}}Finally, there's the elephant in the room: en.wiki already has a culture that privileges long-term disruption and where sanctions against people with friends are next to impossible. This would make that worse.  Blocks would be infinitely contested under the principle that the admin should have used a lesser option, and Wikilawyering will abound.{{pb}}Ultimately, all my points above come down to this: either someone is disruptive enough to be blocked, or they shouldn't be blocked. Anything else should be enforced via social means such as limited bans. A trial or second RfC are not solutions, because those are just ways to win support for something that could not pass on its own and that will not be reversed if implemented, regardless of how miserable a failure it is. We have the means to do that already. We don't need to create more disruption by allowing this unneeded bad idea on en.wiki. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 05:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
#:{{re|TonyBallioni}} We can discuss this more at length somewhere else, but I do want to address just a single one of those concerns. Currently, the way we deal with an [[WP:Unblockables|unblockable]] is to apply a time-limited block on the account. People are going to likely wikilawyer over whether a less severe measure was a possibility regardless if partials blocks are a possibility (get rid of timelimited blocks and people will somehow argue that a twenty-second warning would have sufficed). I would say that, in a vacuum, an indef partial block targeted to certain problem areas is much more productive than a temporary time-limited block because it will have lasting staying power.<br />To your other points, I shall not dispute them since it's something admins would be able to more effectively discuss. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 14:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
#I do not feel they would be useful or effective, and will likely lead to angry discussion. With good reason, if you ask me.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 06:18, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Line 116 ⟶ 117:
#: Moved to oppose {{strike|I subscribe to Barkeep49's conditions. TonyBallioni's oppose explains my reservations well. The main positive I see is that partial blocks would help [[meatball:LimitDamage]] where the problems are specific: good faith but disruptive template editing, or unproductive comments in project space for example. However, I would like a trial period because I can see partial blocks ironically leading to more damage: people rarely take blocks well, and that frustration may lead to [[WP:POINTy]] disruption in areas the user can still edit. If we were to have a trial period, I would want to see that partial blocks do not correlate with full blocks. I would also prefer that they not be used as the default method of enforcing topic bans. [[User:Wugapodes|Wug·]][[User talk:Wugapodes|a·po·des]]​ 18:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)}}
#I support the general idea on the grounds of Mz7's proposed case where IPs, or IP ranges, could be blocked from editing particular articles while allowing constructive contribs in other areas from other users of the IPs. I'm not sure about the other cases - I'm struggling to imagine another situation where we would be motivated not to block an inveterate edit warrior who refused to reform in the face of community approbation - but in any case, the RfC on defining usage should precede the RfC for switching on the tool.[[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#294;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#42c;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 23:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 
===Should partial blocks be enabled on the English Wikipedia for a trial period?===
At the end of the trial period, new partial blocks are placed under moratorium and a RfC should be held to conclusively determine the permanent usage of partial blocks (or an extension of the trial period). The follow-up RfC will also determine a partial blocking policy, if one has not been formed via consensus till then.
 
Line 156 ⟶ 159:
====Neutral (trial)====
:<s>You're right that if it fails majorly, then we don't need to wait out the trial, however automatic ends/moratoria are helpful because otherwise you need consensus to ''end'' it - it shifts the "burden of proof". [[User:Nosebagbear|Nosebagbear]] ([[User talk:Nosebagbear|talk]]) 17:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)</s>
 
===Should partial blocks be used to enforce editing restrictions?===
Consensus here will be a part of the new partial blocking policy.
 
Line 200 ⟶ 205:
:If someone has already been topic banned and is making threats to violate that ban unless they are blocked, then I would agree. But not if they are just vowing to correct an alleged mistake on the topic at some point in the future. We hope that the dispute will resolve in the future, ideally alleviating the need for the topic ban, and we hope that happens before the hot-headed carry out their threats. If it is a new dispute without a topic ban in place, the admin should not assume that vowing to correct an alleged mistake will occur sooner than the dispute at the root of an agreement to abide by a voluntary restrictions has been resolved. I would prefer to give people making statements in the heat of an argument the benefit of the doubt that they will come to an amicable resolution with the other disputants before excluding them entirely. What are the costs and benefits? The costs are slight, and the benefits, psychologically, could be relatively enormous. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 00:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
::As I said, I agree it shouldn't be assumed that editors will follow through on their statements, but I think the context should be considered, which includes past behaviour and the tenor of the statement. I don't think a block should necessarily be automatic even for credible statements, either, but I think it should be given consideration. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 03:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 
===Should partial blocks be limited to community consensus only?===
The alternative here is ''community consensus '''and''' administrator discretion''. Consensus here will be a part of the new partial blocking policy.
 
Line 229 ⟶ 236:
# Asking the community should not be required, but the community should certainly be able to overturn any such restrictions, and partially-blocked editors will be able to request such review whether on wiki or off. In the degenerate case where admins and the community disagree, the admins (the admin community, technically) has the authority; as should serve to prevent astroturfed filibustering from vetoing to preserve walled gardens such as homeopathy-related articles. [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 23:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
#: Community consensus supersedes in all cases, as is the case in normal blocks, as will be the case for partial blocks, don't see a particular distinction here. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 21:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
 
===Should partial blocks be applied to IP addresses only?===
The alternative here is ''registered editors '''and''' IP addresses''. Consensus here will be a part of the new partial blocking policy.
 
Line 262 ⟶ 271:
 
====Neutral (IP addresses)====
 
===Can partial blocks be used for [[WP:BLOCKPOL#Conditional unblock|conditional unblocks]] against a full block?===
Consensus here will be a part of the new partial blocking policy.
 
Line 297 ⟶ 309:
 
====Neutral (conditional unblocks)====
 
== Possible use cases ==
Line 375 ⟶ 389:
::::{{re|davidwr}} I added all the additional questions as the main reason for opposition then was not having a pre-formed policy (as opposed to now, it is also more of "we don't need it!"). It made no sense for the RfC to go on for a full 30-days and then have another RfC for 30 days to guide policy, something which had a probability of not happening should there have been enough opposition. The consensus here means that partial blocking has a mild accordance in policy with normal site-wide blocking, making things much easier instead of making BOLD consensus reads or having a second RfC to build new policy from scratch, since now we have our barebones. --<span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',Geneva,sans-serif">[[User:QEDK|qedk]] ([[User talk:QEDK|t]] <span style="color:#fac">桜</span> [[Special:Contributions/QEDK|c]])</span> 15:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
:[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Duration]] says there is no time limit. A "raw count" (Wikipedia is NOT a vote!) would seem to indicate that it's clear consensus has been reached or will not be reached for each issue. On the other hand, the fact that there are recent replies suggests that the discussion has '''not''' "run its course" so further time should be allowed. '''In any case, the closer should carefully read all comments''' since some of the "supports" are conditional and various supporters' conditions ''might'' mean there is only a consensus for a limited version of the stated proposal or if the conditions are mutually exclusive, there ''might'' not be a consensus at all yet. I say this NOT having read the comments yet. We are getting very close to 30 days and I just made my comments yesterday, so there's no harm in waiting to 30 days. The first actual support/oppose [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Partial_blocks&diff=930398568&oldid=930398544 was made on 05:45, 12 December 2019]. [[User:davidwr|davidwr]]/<small><small>([[User_talk:davidwr|talk]])/([[Special:Contributions/Davidwr|contribs]])</small></small> 15:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Partial_blocks"