New Partial block model policy

[Poetlister]

There is now a model policy for this new power. It "is an example of a policy that can be customized for use on local language wikis, and is not a global policy".

Meta

[Eric Corbett]

Not humiliating enough for the administrators' liking I suspect, but I stopped reading at "Partial block, like full site block, is a tool to protect the wiki". Yeah, right.

[Randy from Boise]

There is now a model policy for this new power. It "is an example of a policy that can be customized for use on local language wikis, and is not a global policy".

Meta

This is actually pretty important, if it works: a tool for making real topic bans.

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

There is now a model policy for this new power. It "is an example of a policy that can be customized for use on local language wikis, and is not a global policy".

Meta

This is actually pretty important, if it works: a tool for making real topic bans.

RfB

A better tool would be one that stopped administrators making any kind of block.

[Osborne]

There is now a model policy for this new power. It "is an example of a policy that can be customized for use on local language wikis, and is not a global policy".

Meta

This is actually pretty important, if it works: a tool for making real topic bans.

Indeed.
Partial blocks are necessary to constrain (sanction) the occasional slip-ups of beneficial editors (eg. on a page where they edit-war or pov-push), in cases where a site-wide block is unnecessarily punishing.
The lack of partial blocks is a major reason why admins do their best to avoid sanctioning established editors, thereby creating the caste of "unblockables" and a community culture where preferential treatment is so prominent.

[Eric Corbett]

The lack of partial blocks is a major reason why admins do their best to avoid sanctioning established editors, thereby creating the caste of "unblockables" and a community culture where preferential treatment is so prominent.

This "unblockable" meme is complete tosh. How many "unblockables" can you name who haven't been blocked?

[Pudeo]

"work environment"

Error. I would not relate editing Wikipedia with any work environment, whether physical or virtual.

[Midsize Jake]

This "unblockable" meme is complete tosh. How many "unblockables" can you name who haven't been blocked?

As I suspect you're aware, in actual WP practice the term refers more (if not exclusively) to users who have been blocked, even just for short periods, only to have those blocks reversed almost immediately by admins of the Bishonen/Geogre/Floquenbeam variety. Except that in the past year or so, those blocks haven't been reversed (the most obvious examples being Mr. Cassianto and yourself).

By that interpretation, the "partial blocks" feature could theoretically be used as a way to keep such people on-side, and away from those horrible criticism sites where they say nasty things about the poor innocent Wikipedians.

[Poetlister]

There are people who surely should have had blocks but yet have a clean block log. But of course they're nearly all admins themselves.

[Eric Corbett]

This "unblockable" meme is complete tosh. How many "unblockables" can you name who haven't been blocked?

As I suspect you're aware, in actual WP practice the term refers more (if not exclusively) to users who have been blocked, even just for short periods, only to have those blocks reversed almost immediately by admins of the Bishonen/Geogre/Floquenbeam variety. Except that in the past year or so, those blocks haven't been reversed (the most obvious examples being Mr. Cassianto and yourself).

By that interpretation, the "partial blocks" feature could theoretically be used as a way to keep such people on-side, and away from those horrible criticism sites where they say nasty things about the poor innocent Wikipedians.

That doesn't equate to "unblockable", no matter how much you squirm.

[Eric Corbett]

There are people who surely should have had blocks but yet have a clean block log. But of course they're nearly all admins themselves.

The only real "unblockables" are the administrators.

[Midsize Jake]

That doesn't equate to "unblockable", no matter how much you squirm.

"Effectively Un-full-duration-blockable" just doesn't have the same ring to it, I guess.

[Osborne]

The only real "unblockables" are the administrators.

I most certainly implied admins in "unblockables", even though Bbrox's definition somehow ignores them, overlooking the fact that they are a major part of that population...
In defense of that definition: in this context the more technically proper terms for admins would be "unaccountable" and "unsanctionable", as the necessary response to administrator tool/power abuse is not blocking, but instead constraining the actions they can do, or in repeated/extreme cases by removing their tools entirely.

[Vigilant]

The lack of partial blocks is a major reason why admins do their best to avoid sanctioning established editors, thereby creating the caste of "unblockables" and a community culture where preferential treatment is so prominent.

This "unblockable" meme is complete tosh. How many "unblockables" can you name who haven't been blocked?

They're like Nixon.
Everything is fine until it's not.

[turnedworm]

That doesn't equate to "unblockable", no matter how much you squirm.

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that words in "Wiki-politics" mean the same as words in real life. This is patently untrue, especially for words starting with WP: and written in ALL CAPS

Arbitrators don't arbitrate. Administrators barely administrate. "COMPETENCE" has no relation to competence, NOTHERE means "annoys too many people" and we all know how insane the wiki understanding of CIVILITY is.

Unblockable in Wikipedia means someone who is significantly ingrained into Wikipedia, such that people struggle to see the encyclopedia without them. Generally, that means administrators, but also many of the top content contributors fit that bill.

[Midsize Jake]

Unblockable in Wikipedia means someone who is significantly ingrained into Wikipedia, such that people struggle to see the encyclopedia without them.

I dunno... I'd actually tend to go more with Mr. Beeblebrox's definition (if not my own), if only because lots of WP users seem to have absolutely no problem at all envisioning the site without them.

[Eric Corbett]

Unblockable in Wikipedia means someone who is significantly ingrained into Wikipedia, such that people struggle to see the encyclopedia without them.

I dunno... I'd actually tend to go more with Mr. Beeblebrox's definition (if not my own), if only because lots of WP users seem to have absolutely no problem at all envisioning the site without them.

My thoughts exactly.

[Poetlister]

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that words in "Wiki-politics" mean the same as words in real life. This is patently untrue, especially for words starting with WP: and written in ALL CAPS

Arbitrators don't arbitrate. Administrators barely administrate. "COMPETENCE" has no relation to competence, NOTHERE means "annoys too many people" and we all know how insane the wiki understanding of CIVILITY is.

It's good to have official confirmation of the fact that Wikispeak is not the same as English, especially regarding the word "civility"! Maybe we need a WP with the articles written in Wikispeak.

[turnedworm]

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that words in "Wiki-politics" mean the same as words in real life. This is patently untrue, especially for words starting with WP: and written in ALL CAPS

Arbitrators don't arbitrate. Administrators barely administrate. "COMPETENCE" has no relation to competence, NOTHERE means "annoys too many people" and we all know how insane the wiki understanding of CIVILITY is.

It's good to have official confirmation of the fact that Wikispeak is not the same as English, especially regarding the word "civility"! Maybe we need a WP with the articles written in Wikispeak.

I've long pointed out contradictions between Wiki-speak and reality. In fact, I think I wrote an essay on it... Ah yes, here it is - Pretty sure it's been mentioned here before.

[Randy from Boise]

I've long pointed out contradictions between Wiki-speak and reality. In fact, I think I wrote an essay on it... Ah yes, here it is - Pretty sure it's been mentioned here before.

In communication with me Edwin Black expressed particular offense at the Wikispeak definition of "Spamming," which he thought was borderline libelous and had no rational connection to inserting links to one's own work.

RfB

[Osborne]

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that words in "Wiki-politics" mean the same as words in real life. This is patently untrue, especially for words starting with WP: and written in ALL CAPS

Arbitrators don't arbitrate. Administrators barely administrate. "COMPETENCE" has no relation to competence, NOTHERE means "annoys too many people" and we all know how insane the wiki understanding of CIVILITY is.

It's good to have official confirmation of the fact that Wikispeak is not the same as English, especially regarding the word "civility"! Maybe we need a WP with the articles written in Wikispeak.

I've long pointed out contradictions between Wiki-speak and reality. In fact, I think I wrote an essay on it... Ah yes, here it is - Pretty sure it's been mentioned here before.

Would be nice to see the missing definitions of WP:NOTHERE (T-H-L), WP:BOOMERANG (T-H-L), WP:ATTACK (T-H-L) (in context of reports, not blp), WP:BLUDGEON (T-H-L), WP:CONSENSUS (T-H-L), WP:!VOTE (T-H-L), etc...

[Poetlister]

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that words in "Wiki-politics" mean the same as words in real life. This is patently untrue, especially for words starting with WP: and written in ALL CAPS

Arbitrators don't arbitrate. Administrators barely administrate. "COMPETENCE" has no relation to competence, NOTHERE means "annoys too many people" and we all know how insane the wiki understanding of CIVILITY is.

It's good to have official confirmation of the fact that Wikispeak is not the same as English, especially regarding the word "civility"! Maybe we need a WP with the articles written in Wikispeak.

I've long pointed out contradictions between Wiki-speak and reality. In fact, I think I wrote an essay on it... Ah yes, here it is - Pretty sure it's been mentioned here before.

Thanks. I note the definition ""Vandalism" is defined as any edit which intentionally harms the encyclopedia. In other words, it encompasses malicious blanking of pages, replacing names with obscenities and writing the words "JohnBoy is Ghey" across the top of an article." I have seen it also used to mean inserting deliberately false or misleading information, which of course also intentionally harms the encyclopedia, but isnt vandalism in the normal meaning of the word.

[Zoloft]

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that words in "Wiki-politics" mean the same as words in real life. This is patently untrue, especially for words starting with WP: and written in ALL CAPS

Arbitrators don't arbitrate. Administrators barely administrate. "COMPETENCE" has no relation to competence, NOTHERE means "annoys too many people" and we all know how insane the wiki understanding of CIVILITY is.

It's good to have official confirmation of the fact that Wikispeak is not the same as English, especially regarding the word "civility"! Maybe we need a WP with the articles written in Wikispeak.

I've long pointed out contradictions between Wiki-speak and reality. In fact, I think I wrote an essay on it... Ah yes, here it is - Pretty sure it's been mentioned here before.

Thanks. I note the definition ""Vandalism" is defined as any edit which intentionally harms the encyclopedia. In other words, it encompasses malicious blanking of pages, replacing names with obscenities and writing the words "JohnBoy is Ghey" across the top of an article." I have seen it also used to mean inserting deliberately false or misleading information, which of course also intentionally harms the encyclopedia, but isnt vandalism in the normal meaning of the word.

'Vandalism' in Wikispeak often means 'reverting my contributions.'

[Eric Corbett]

'Vandalism' in Wikispeak often means 'reverting my contributions.'

Here's a good example of the sort of mindless vandalism that administrators carry out every day, without sanction.

link

[Poetlister]

'Vandalism' in Wikispeak often means 'reverting my contributions.'

Here's a good example of the sort of mindless vandalism that administrators carry out every day, without sanction.

link

He reverted two significant additions, which may have supplied useful information, and two corrections of typos, which were certainly good edits.

[Osborne]

'Vandalism' in Wikispeak often means 'reverting my contributions.'

Here's a good example of the sort of mindless vandalism that administrators carry out every day, without sanction.

link

No SPI? How did they catch it?

[Osborne]

Mz7 started the RfC for enabling partial blocks on enwiki.

TonyBallioni wasted no time before sharing his distrust towards administrators that they could use this tool appropriately.

[Partial blocks] is a way to expand the scope of the limited mandate of admins far beyond what discretionary sanctions are.

So the ability to indef an editor site-wide is a limited mandate and blocking just on a few articles is an expansion of it? Makes sense /sarc.

Topic bans actually couldn't be enforced via this since category blocks are not under discussion

Topic bans CAN be enforced by listing the articles deemed to be part of a particular topic. If there are many articles in a topic... hope someone else will do the blocking.
Category blocks are not implemented yet, so that's not an option.

[category blocks would] likely be opposed since it would effectively give non-admins the right to block just by adding a category.
I'd have to find the thread, but at one point I believe even the WMF team working on this said that it would not be useful for topic ban enforcement for a variety of reasons.

Editors could extend a block by adding an article to a blocked category. Extending a block is a restriction, but not comparable to the significance of blocking. That's a gross misinterpretation.
If an editor would add a category to an article - that does not belong to said category -, to restrict the editing of another category-blocked editor, that would be gaming the system, thus sanctionable. That kind of abuse would be marginal. Opposing category-blocks with this speculative reasoning would throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[Osborne]

And it continues.

Yes, because giving admins the unmitigated ability to ban people from pages without any practical means of review is somehow a good thing... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

An unblock request is not practical enough?
I don't understand him. He was a very reasonable person a few months ago. Is his account compromised? Did Jechochman gain control of it? This nonsense sounds like that.
Not to say that he implies an admin cannot indef an editor site-wide "without any practical means of review". Evidence shows that high-ranking admins can and do.

[rhindle]

A good partial block would be block people from editing wikipedia space for a while. Basically a "shut up and edit" decree.

[Poetlister]

A good partial block would be block people from editing wikipedia space for a while. Basically a "shut up and edit" decree.

Indeed, we can probably identify a few people whose permanent block on Wikipedia space would significantly improve matters. But we must not reduce Drama God.

[el84]

And it continues.

Yes, because giving admins the unmitigated ability to ban people from pages without any practical means of review is somehow a good thing... TonyBallioni (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

An unblock request is not practical enough?
I don't understand him. He was a very reasonable person a few months ago. Is his account compromised? Did Jechochman gain control of it? This nonsense sounds like that.
Not to say that he implies an admin cannot indef an editor site-wide "without any practical means of review". Evidence shows that high-ranking admins can and do.

He bans/blocks people all the time. What's the difference?

[eagle]

To me, the magic words are "model policy." I raised the need for using model policies rather than a binding uniform policy in terms of the standards of conduct (a topic that is much debated in the 2030 Strategic Review.)

Once the idea of "model policy" has been accepted, much of the argument in the 2030 Strategic Review (and in Framgate) falls apart. Judging by the post-it note photographs from the "harmonization sprint" in Tunis, the uniform standard of conduct is still alive, so please be mindful of this "leap in logic"/"power grab".

[Osborne]

The two last projects, English wp and Commons has also established consensus on enabling partial blocks. The previous pattern of about 2/3 support or a bit more can be exhibited on these projects as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ial_blocks
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Comm ... ng_Comment

[Ritchie333]

I proposed this feature ages ago. Ironically, the case study I would have used it for is something like this : "Sandstein, you site-wide blocked Eric Corbett for a month when he was only berating a user for edit warring and adding unsourced content on Donner Party. What was wrong with just blocking him on that? Stop it."

(And doubly ironically, longtime editor Johnbod (T-C-L) has just fallen foul of the Sandsteinhammer yesterday for saying "what the fuck" once).

[Eric Corbett]

I proposed this feature ages ago. Ironically, the case study I would have used it for is something like this : "Sandstein, you site-wide blocked Eric Corbett for a month when he was only berating a user for edit warring and adding unsourced content on Donner Party. What was wrong with just blocking him on that? Stop it."

(And doubly ironically, longtime editor Johnbod (T-C-L) has just fallen foul of the Sandsteinhammer yesterday for saying "what the fuck" once).

Sandstein has been completely out of control for some time now.

[Osborne]

(And doubly ironically, longtime editor Johnbod (T-C-L) has just fallen foul of the Sandsteinhammer yesterday for saying "what the fuck" once).

Only "Fuck you" was deemed acceptable by a recent ruling. He should have known better... /sarc.
Is Sandstein the next non-voluntary guest at ArbCom?

23:26, 13 January 2020 RexxS talk contribs unblocked Johnbod talk contribs (Poses no danger to the wiki.)
20:11, 13 January 2020 Sandstein talk contribs blocked Johnbod talk contribs with an expiration time of 24 hours (account creation blocked) (Personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... tus_throne)

That's just a one day block though. No one will mind it.

EDIT: Closer review. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... tus_throne

Because your conduct was substantially more disruptive than Evrik's, I'm blocking you for 24 hours or until you commit not to conduct yourself uncivilly towards others (in which case any admin will unblock you on request). That should be all, I think. Sandstein 20:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's an appropriate approach to calm down emotions. In my opinion, blocks should be used exactly in this manner.

[Ritchie333]

I'm surprised to see TonyBallioni's opposition to this, and the proclamation that he has turned the feature off. If he gets dragged to ANI because multiple editors think a sitewide block was excessive over a partial one, he'll be in trouble.

[Eric Corbett]

I'm surprised to see TonyBallioni's opposition to this, and the proclamation that he has turned the feature off. If he gets dragged to ANI because multiple editors think a sitewide block was excessive over a partial one, he'll be in trouble.

By "in trouble" you presumably mean a very mild slap on the wrist?

[Osborne]

I'm surprised to see TonyBallioni's opposition to this, and the proclamation that he has turned the feature off. If he gets dragged to ANI because multiple editors think a sitewide block was excessive over a partial one, he'll be in trouble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Anti ... ial_blocks
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?di ... out_script

The lack of partial blocks is a major reason for the existence of the class of unblockables and the use of blocks as a threat to sway discussions and opinions. The opposition to the overwhelming community consensus to use partial blocks highlights some administrators who don't seem to understand that blocks serve to protect the encyclopedia from damage, not to punish editors. In fact, the latter is a policy violation, albeit often practiced. Who prefer that practice, now has an option to remove partial blocks from their tool interface.

Is there a way to tell the community more loudly that "If I have a problem with an editor, I will assume bad faith and block them from the entire project."? Worth mentioning that includes the boards where said editor would have a chance to appeal (unblock requests are not). This is probably a significant motivation behind TonyBallioni's opposition to partial blocks, as he routinely rejects and suppresses appeals from blocked editors and other helpful editors, who don't think that editor's block is fully justified or necessary.

[Eric Corbett]

Can you give just one example of a member of your "class of unblockables" who doesn't have a block log?

[Osborne]

Can you give just one example of a member of your "class of unblockables" who doesn't have a block log?

offtopic, PMd

[Midsize Jake]

Can you give just one example of a member of your "class of unblockables" who doesn't have a block log?

offtopic, PMd

And we've been over it already, on this same page of this same thread.

[Eric Corbett]

Can you give just one example of a member of your "class of unblockables" who doesn't have a block log?

offtopic, PMd

And we've been over it already, on this same page of this same thread.

The answer is "No" then, so why keep banging on with this unblockables myth?

[Ryuichi]

Can you give just one example of a member of your "class of unblockables" who doesn't have a block log?

TonyBallioni (T-C-L) ?

And, to be fair, it's more a matter of whether they stay blocked for a significant period.

[Eric Corbett]

Can you give just one example of a member of your "class of unblockables" who doesn't have a block log?

TonyBallioni (T-C-L) ?

And, to be fair, it's more a matter of whether they stay blocked for a significant period.

I think it goes without saying that administrators make up the vast bulk of these mythical "unblockables". And as it's so difficult to get rid of them, what WP is in far more need of is a mechanism to restrict administrators from using certain tools, such as blocking in Sandstein's case.

[Midsize Jake]

The answer is "No" then, so why keep banging on with this unblockables myth?

You're looking at this bass-ackwards, Mr. Corbett...

How else would we know these people are "unblockable" unless someone tries to block them? And don't tell us that all blocks placed on established users are "discussed" first to obtain "consensus" on them — that's obviously not true. And like I already said, they're not going to start using the term "effectively un-full-duration-blockable" just to be nice, or less nice as the case may be.

Anyway, don't worry folks, if he keeps up with this line of argument I'll split the thread, at the very least.

[Zoloft]

I prefer the term ‘WikiZombies’ anyway.

[Poetlister]

And as it's so difficult to get rid of them, what WP is in far more need of is a mechanism to restrict administrators from using certain tools, such as blocking in Sandstein's case.

What we need is to split up admin powers, so some people only have block/unblock, others have article protection or ability to bestow rollback and so on. Each needs a separate RfA. This would give hat collectors the chance to get six hats while acquiring full admin rights instead of only one hat, and those who treat Wikipedia as a spectator sport the opportunity to see far more RfAs.

[Eric Corbett]

Anyway, don't worry folks, if he keeps up with this line of argument I'll split the thread, at the very least.

You ought to know by now that there is absolutely no point in attempting to threaten me with anything, it just doesn't work.

[Osborne]

Eric: could you do your middle-finger flinging in a thread where it's not off-topic, please? Preferably PM? This forum is not for the purpose to satisfy your need for attention.

What we need is to split up admin powers, so some people only have block/unblock, others have article protection or ability to bestow rollback and so on. Each needs a separate RfA. This would give hat collectors the chance to get six hats while acquiring full admin rights instead of only one hat, and those who treat Wikipedia as a spectator sport the opportunity to see far more RfAs.

That would be a start. Also, decision making on the dramaboards should require some previous training in mediation or arbitration. The WMF could put to actual use those donations by funding such trainings.