Guild Wars Wiki talk:Blocking

Archive

---

Archive 1

A minimalistic blocking guideline

I think one of the reasons all previous attempts to implement blocking policies and guidelines have failed is because they are too complicated. This time, I'm proposing a minimalisting blocking guideline which can be amended incrementally after it has been implemented. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you need to outline exactly what you are hoping to achieve, because like with your fan-based content proposal, I'm not sure I'm seeing what you want. If you create policies and guidelines for things that are swimming along fine it kind of just bogs everything done. Policies lose effectiveness when there are a million of them because no one can read them all. As far as I can gather there are two things in the policy proposal:

1. Blocking summaries need to be improved in some way to make blocking reasons clearer. If this was your goal, I don't think the current wording meets it.
2. You don't like infinite blocks, or any block duration over a year, and want to limit these. Would you care to expand upon why? Misery 20:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that removing the sysops ability to permaban is ridiculous. They should retain the ability to end situations without taking extra time of an arbcomm. We entrust sysops with the tools they are given and the reasons they use them. When we feel that the tools have been used wrong we start an RfR. Drogo Boffin 21:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"I think one of the reasons all previous attempts to implement blocking policies and guidelines have failed is because they are too complicated" I completely disagree. They all failed because we didn't need them. The way we block people is fine. GWW isn't wikipedia, we don't need thousands of policies and guidelines (All unnecessary bureaucracy at a wiki of this size). We don't need to have a blocking policy, by-the-book blocking, nor do we need the book. People troll/vandalize, they get blocked. Block expires, asshole does it again, they get blocked for longer. The cycle repeats until a Sysop feels that he's had it and perma's the issue away. This approach, simple and primitive as it may seem, works rather well on a wiki of this size. We're small enough to drive things by group consensus, there is no need to muck that up with more guidelines.

On a final note, I get the notion that you whipped this proposal up to reinforce your position as a sysop during the RFA. Please tell me that's not true. NuVII 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

He's been working on this in various incarnations for a while, it died down for a while and I guess he felt it was time to try a new approach. I suspect this is actually one of the things he has been doing that Auron doesn't like and is referring to when he talks about the "multiple things", but that is more a discussion for his RfA than here. Misery 21:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Pretty much agree with Nuke (though not with his final note). I don't think the one-year restriction reflects consensus, considering people didn't agree with undoing permabans on accounts such as Moo Kitty and Wafflez. Blocks exceeding a year are quite rare, but on occasions they are needed - this, for some reason, puts a blanket "no" on them, ignoring the many factors that go into consideration of long term blocks and individual user behaviour (i.e. it's all a grey area that a guideline can't successfully or appropriately attempt to regulate). -- pling 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I agree with Nuclear. Sysops are already weak enough as it is, allowing trolls to be here for months beyond what they should be allowed to stay. Permanently blocking users is a good thing for the wiki that should be done more often, and the discretion to do so is part of what the community gives to a sysop when he/she is chosen. We don't need a policy to tell sysops to not permaban people, because permabans are good; and we don't need a policy to tell sysops how long to ban people, because sysops have their own discretion. Erasculio 21:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If users are being bæd, ban them. If sysop is being bæd, demote them. If bureaucrat is being bæd, call Linsey. That's the basic summary of what a block policy ought to be. Anything more than that is just silly, since admins have discretion anyway. –Jette 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm against even a minimalistic structure. The only basis we need is discretion, and thats up to the sysops. Anything else is just asking for politically-correct drama. -- Wandering Traveler 03:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem being is that as it stands though, admins do not review one another's blocks, even when asked. This is because this area is so vague and we are all scared that if we do, it's going to cause drama. For example see when wyn overturned another sysops block, See when I overturned another sysops block and see now when Gordon overturned a block. Each time it has been met with undue drama and gnashing of teeth.

I'm not saying I agree with Gordon's block review page as I do think it was drama inducing, but I also think that as it stands their is no true way to review a persons ban without causing drama and this should not be the case. People keep on qouting that all that is needed is our discretionary powers and that we are trusted to use them and if that were so, I would agree with many of the points above, unfortunately that is not the case.

Our discretionary powers of review are indeed hindered by the very views we've seen put forward here. The consensus seems to be that we do not ban by consensus as we are trusted by the community to go ahead and ban where needed and that is fair and sound reasoning and something I strongly agree with. However the same people then say if a sysop wishes to review a ban then they must reach consensus first, this is innately tempering the ability of indivdiual sysop discretion and as such I think does need a more formalised approach. Please note I am not saying that I don't think this should be the case, as I do think a sysop should reach a consenus with other sysops before overturning a ban, but if that is to be the case then we should stop bandying about the term "sysop discretionary powers" in this instance and acknowledge that review is done by committee (one can not have it both ways) and as such needs some formal model to help make it operate in a less drama inducing manner.

So what is it to be? Complete trust in sysop discretionary powers, including both the powers to place and review a ban without consultation? Or is it we trust sysops to ban using their discretionary powers but review via committee and as such are in need of some model to help ease this process?

If it's the first choice, then Gordon should just go ahead and take off the blocks he wishes too as part of his sysop powers and we should all shut up as hes a sysop just excericing the powers gave to him within the confines of what we entrusted him with. (not something I would agree with personally)

If its the second choice, then Gordon was right to raise this policy change and we should be working towards some kind of consensus open a formal model of review, as thus far alot of the above reasoning has been contradictory. -- Salome 03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall my review of Uchicha Lena's block causing massive drama. I contacted both bureaucrats, the blocking sysop and a few other sysops that were around, discussed the case with them, gathered evidence and reached a decision. Astoundingly it was the same decision as reached by Gordon's convoluted block review process. The system works, but was not used in any case you mention that caused drama. That being said, I do not have a problem with the concept of a more transparent framework for block reviews, but it should not stray outside the current system of contacting the blocking sysop (if practical, this can be skipped if for example the sysop is away for 2 weeks for a 1 week ban), discussing it with other sysops/bureaucrats and reaching some kind of consensus. Salome already knows that I feel if the review process lasts longer than the block duration, then the review should not be rushed, if the block expires before the review is finished, the problem is already solved. As an aside, I'd still like Gordon to answer the questions I posed above. Misery 12:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I wanted to add that I strongly believe a review should not occur without a request from the banned user in question. Misery 12:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"admins do not review one another's blocks, even when asked" - that's simply not true. I remember multiple occasions where other sysop asked me about what I think about a block, either after, or even before with asking if the block really should be applied and with what duration etc. And even when I see a block, I usually quickly look why the block was done (if it isn't obvious), and in case I don't understand the situation, I simply ask. poke | talk 15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Salome, remember me talking to you about one of Igor's blocks, which we sorted out rather well and quickly? -- pling 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Pling that did go smoothly and I do not debate the need for consensus before a review can be finalised. As I conceded in my discussion on the BC page. However I do not think one can say "sysop descretion" is all we need and then at the same time say that in review, consensus is needed. The latter negates the former clearly. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a bad approach to take, I do think sysops need the power to ban immediately without the agreement of others and I also think its an completely fair that when blocks are reviewed, it is a case of review by committee, however if we accept that, then one must accept that when it comes to the power to review/remove blocks, sysop discretion is not what we use here and thus a more transparent model of review is to a degree justified.

Perhaps I should however change my original wording and say reviews are done rarely and this is in part due to sysops not wanting to create drama, see the surrounding issue's with the festooned twinklepixie account, Wyn clearly felt strongly about this at the time but didn't review the issue due to a desire not to create drama with the other sysops. (she says this herself over on Gordon's page) When I said I reviewed a block recently due to the user's request, another sysop said "So what, we get those all the time", that hardly shouts that every sysop reviews every case that they are asked too or gives the user the benefit of the doubt in doing so. (again as said before, I do concede that reviews can only be fair if done by committee and consensus, as one sysop can not place their opinion above that of another sysop as we are all equal parties, I am not putting forward the idea that we should begin reviewing each other's blocks by ourselves as that was my mistake before and I accept it was a mistake).

I still disagree with misery on the issue of "if a ban expires while reviewing, the problem has sorted itself out", as honestly I don't think that is the case, a user has a right to review and decision while the ban is in place, being told after the ban has expired that the ban was unfairly long, is a token gesture at best and a slap in the face at worst, but then Mis knows my stance on these issues already. I do however agree with misery that no review should take place without review being asked for, it creates an unnecessary workload in instances where the users themselves seem to either not be bothered or think the ban is fair.

Also to Miz, in regards to your review of Lena's account, I am sure that did not cause any drama as your decision was to maintain the block. (which I agree with wholeheartedly), however see the festooned twinklepixie discussion where you decided an overturning of the ban was warranted, much drama ensued there. Maintaining the status qou does not cause drama, however deciding to adapt the block normally does.

I'm not sure I completely agree with this proposal either, however I would say that I am strongly in favour of increased transparency in issues of review, as at the moment our process of review lacks that. -- Salome 17:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In addendum I would like to add, that I personally feel that nearly all of the bans imposed by the sysop team are fair. I reread what I wrote and it sounded like I was implying great travesty's of justice happen everyday on the wiki, that simply is not the case. The sysop team is a group of people who dedicate their time here because they care and if anything we tend to be somewhat reticent in imposing bans, even when they are justified, often giving people 4th and 5th chances to mend their ways before banning. Much of what I am debating above is only the idea of greater transparency in review leading to less drama and clearer administration to the wiki users at large. It is not an attack at anyone, least of all anyone within the sysop team. -- Salome 18:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"However I do not think one can say "sysop descretion" is all we need and then at the same time say that in review, consensus is needed." - well, if we just did as everybody wants, based on discretion, I could see (un)block wars on RecentChanges. Sysop discretion applies, as long as a sysop is able to decide on it alone. When a different sysop thinks an action was unjustified, that sysop should discuss with the first one and reach consensus (yes, consensus not always needs to involve everybody). And if someone asks for a public review on a wiki page, then yes, consensus should be the ultimate base for decisions, not one's sysop discretion - especially if that goes against the consensus direction visible in that discussion. poke | talk 18:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I said something very similar in my wall of text above. ;) (about 3 times, god i repeat myself alot in my walls of text. I must learn to be more concise) -- Salome 18:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Festooned Twinklepixie caused drama because Auron and I were both trolling, at least a certain percentage. If you look over how I handled it I was being fairly confrontational. Misery 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most of the blocks in the history of this wiki have been fair and reasonable, however I also think that, in order to avoid drama, it's also important to appear fair and reasonable. I believe that the way in which the Uchiha Lena situation was handled appeared extremely unfair. First, a case was brought against Uchiha Lena for personal attacks against White Wasabi, Gaile Grey and Wafflez, then a sysop blocked both the Uchiha Lena and Wafflez account, admitting that he didn't know if Wafflez was a sockpuppet or not, then the other two bureacrats decided to reject the arbitration request, declaring it the responsibility of the sysops and implicitly endorsing the permaban without any formal review. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I entirely disagree. They themselves caused drama, and when they were justly blocked for it, they bitched and moaned ("they" being a pronoun in doubt). The entire situation was within the jurisdiction of sysops, because banning disruptive assholes is the jurisdiction of sysops. Don't make that issue to be more complicated than it is. NuVII 16:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

On another note, I find this to be total bull, though I can't quite put my finger on it: "in order to avoid drama, it's also important to appear fair and reasonable". NuVII 16:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I've seen many in this discussion speak regarding admin discretion, so I will try not to repeat as much as possible. On to permabans. The only user accounts I have ever believed should receive such action are disruptive sockpuppets. The original account of them should receive a fitting block, but not permanent. Any other block should fit the violation and at the blocking admin's discretion. If any admin does not have the sense to provide reasonably fair blocks (I am talking about a an blatant overage), they should not be in the position, period.

I am surprised though that this type of guideline would even be thought of as needed. We all know that the community supports and accepts admins because they have proven themselves and are trusted to use the sysop tools responsibly. For some reason to me, this guideline seems to suggest that one (or more) admin(s) isn't trusting towards the others in their abilities to act fairly and properly. This feeling is only reinforced from the way of going about reviewing past blocks, trying shorten their durations, or unblock them. That is most likely not the original intention, but it is my opinion when I read it and the discussion surrounding it. — Gares 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NuclearVII, here's a hypothetical extreme example of how creating the appearance of unfairness could be problematic. What if, instead of putting actual block rationales in their block summaries, such as "vandalism" or "trolling", all the sysops decided it would be fun to use nothing but quotes from internet memes in their summaries? Do you think this practice would generate drama my making the sysops look like immature jerks? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 12:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's frightening close to how block summaries on PvX work. The sysops there do look like immature jerks, but it doesn't actually generate any drama at all. People generally know when they deserved a block and why. I have occasionally seen people inquiring as to why someone else got banned, but that's mostly white knighting. In my experience a first time rule breaker will always appeal a ban, I've had bans appealed when someone called someone else "an autistic nigger", I believe he was trying to argue that the conditional he used meant the person might not be an autistic nigger and therefore it might not be a breach of NPA. Hardened trolls generally don't appeal because they know when they deserved it, exception being if they are trying to troll the appeal system. There is also of course the 1% of appeals that are legitimate. Misery 12:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

On GWW, yes, some people might have a problem with that. It seems to work fine on some other wikis, though, such as PvX (see above), GuildWiki, and Conservapedia, to name a few. Vili 点 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

1 year vs. Permanent

Asking as someone with not a lot of familiarity with wikis, are users that are banned really waiting around for a year and coming back, or is a one year ban functionally the same as a perma-ban? -- FreedomBound 00:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No he is proposing this so the sysops cannot permaban. He wants all permabans to go through bcrats via arbcomm. Which would take way too long. Drogo Boffin 01:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The intent was to restrict discretionary sysop permabans to obvious throwaway accounts (vandalbots, troll sockpuppets etc.). I just rewrote the line to cover all throwaway accounts used primarily for abuse. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I only know of one user who came back after a long, long block. Yes, a one-year ban is functionally the same as a permaban. Vili 点 03:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Raptors didn't really come back. All he did was say "Hi, oh Entropy, have your name back" followed by a slow fade.... Misery 12:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

A formal block appeal process

Block duration guidelines seem unpopular, and there seems to be general consensus that blocks should be upheld, shortened or lifted based on sysop consensus. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Were you going somewhere with this? Vili 点 07:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A block appeal process draft is currently located at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Projects/Block appeals. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)