Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block/Archive 1

China

IN China, the government has blocked us from accessing Wikipedia. When I go onto an anonymous surfing program, Wikipedia doesn't permit me to edit any articles. :( ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Probably because the IP used by the anonymizer was used at one time by a vandal. -Dandaman32 20:50, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

User Name: dvdhws1939. : I find myself blocked and can not understand why. I have made 2 contributions in the past week (they were my first) and both have been accepted. 1. A minor change to the entry for Dick White. 2. A new entry regarding Dick Forsman the ornathologist. I found myself blocked when I attempted to add a minor detail to information about my home town. Why? 15:05 21/08/2006

User Name: Rosser1954. can anyone out there tell me why I have been blocked? How do I find out the reason - nothing comes to mind or fits with your list of reasons for blocking. How does one contact the LOcal Administrator?

As I have stated on your talk page, your user account is not blocked. If it were, you would not be able to post here. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

user name Mikefreeman. I have been blocked for attempting to correct a vandalised article on the Ben Dover page. Some has deleted the truth that the persons appearing in Truth or Dare [made by myself]are Lyndsay Honey and paula Meadows. The block said that I have vandalised the page under the name of Ganeesh or whatever! I don't know how this person could represent me or use my IP address. How do I get unblocked? Mike Freeman http://eroticartist.co.uk

Question on being blocked

Dear Sirs,

My name is Edward Lynch. I am originally from the United States and currently living in Taiwan. I have just moved into a new apartment where the internet connection is under the landlord's name and has been active during the tenure of at least two of the previous tennants. I have recently found that I have been blocked by an administrator who goes by the handle of Golden Wattle. I attempted to email this administrator but have found that I am unable to inquire as to why I have been blocked because I have been blocked. I am aware that the online community in Taiwan has a poor reputation and that perhaps many users of this same ISP have behaved badly in the past. I have never posted or edited anything on Wikipedia before. The reason for blocking me that was displayed -- "vandalism -- has been warned before" -- clearly does not apply to me. I would appreciate it very much if I could contact any pertinant administrator directly to settle this issue. My email address is tedwlynch@hotmail.com. Thank you.203.79.253.1 16:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge to blocking policy

This shouldn't be merged, it should be discussed at WP:BP, this information was recently created - not moved from a policy page. Therefore, it is not policy yet, even if the information on it is consistant with policy - if that makes sense. Fresheneesz 03:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm afraid it does not. Codifying current practice is a valid way (and arguably, the best way) to create policy. And why shouldn't it be merged, btw? >Radiant< 15:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The only valid way to create policy is through consensus. And this page shouldn't be merged without it. Fresheneesz 20:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• One thing that you seem not to understand is that the common outcome of a common process does equate to consensus. >Radiant< 20:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

But the view of a minority on what that outcome is, is not neccessarily consensus - and i'd feel much better if this information were proposed on the talk page of WP:BP before it is added. Fresheneesz 21:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. >Radiant< 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who obviously wants to merge it - so YOU fix it. However, since you suggest it, i'll not be lazy, and oblige to put a small note on BP's page. Fresheneesz 00:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• This is not a minority view - this is the way things work (see lists of blocked people, and related cats and newsfeeds). Asserting that things aren't consensual because they might not have been discussed as much as you like isn't very helpful. Do you have any objection to the substance of this policy? >Radiant< 16:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

m, not really. Sorry, i'm being a jerk. Fresheneesz 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I posted my comments here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 03:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree with proposed merge. Two more focussed pages may be better than one longer one, especially as they cover different ground to a user (how blocks work vs. how to appeal one). Blocked users probably want a short simple guide to how to "appeal a block" without having to read the whole of blocking policy, given their state. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • FT, please check your timestamps? This thread is about a year old :) >Radiant< 12:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the merge template in the article. I think we can all agree that the discussion has run its course, or as much of a course it is going to run. It's been "active" for well over a year now. --ElKevbo 05:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

New user

i just got onto my wikipedia and i tried to create a new article but as soon as i had done so i found my self with a warning over vandalism.The next day i turned on my p.c i logged on and found that i had been given a final warning during the night,the warning stated that i had vandalised agian and is threatining to block me!

• (moved to WP:ANI; this page explains how to appeal a block but is not in itself a forum for doing so). >Radiant< 08:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for unblock

Tomananda is unfairly blocked. He exhausted his 3 reverts on this page but he did not violate the 3RR rule. I contacted the admin that blocked him the following is his response. What is more fair is that Olaf Stephanos who had just as many reverts on that page was not blocked. Please unblock Tomananda. --Yueyuen 20:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement to 3 reverts. Edit warring is prohibited. Also, the threshhold for information on Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability; Wikipedia is not the place to reveal "the truth" except through reliable sources. Please also read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. —Centrx→talk • 07:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment: the threshold is not just Verifiability but also Neutral Point of View, which should be attained by due discussion and consensus (in case of dispute). A good article is not just a list of facts, no matter how well documented they are. --Sugaar 10:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for unblock

I am new to wikipedia (psalms 52:10 and I blocked myself by accident, i was trying to block someone who deleted information about me and wrote hateful things —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalms51:10 (talk • contribs)

You're not blocked (if you were, you wouldn't be able to post on this page), and the username Psalms 52:10 (talk · contribs) does not seem to exist. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 01:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite of last 2 sections

I have rewritten the text of the section "What happens next", in a way that I hope is better styled.

I have not changed anything that is not absolutely clearly both practice and current policy, just the style and wording, and clarified a few aspects and points that are current but were not explained or covered. For example, i have indicated that admins will not usually override each others actions, since this is wheel warring, which wasn't stated before, so blocked users and others know where they stand if the admin doesn't like the appeal.

I also added a section "Abuse of the unblocking process". The aim is twofold -- to discuss the process, what abuse of it means, and what will happen. And also to encourage good conduct, by making very clear, we don't want to block people, and good behavior when blocked helps that to happen. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it wrong to speak the truth on wikipeadia, i have decided never to use this site full of falsitudes again. Truth tellers are blocked, you need to suck up especially in the biography section, where is freedom of speech? unblock- accidently blocked myself, someone was writing mean things about me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psalms51:10 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Reformation in Blocking Policy @ Wikipedia

As I have stated over and over again, I believe that punitive blocks are necessary to keep the vandals from damaging Wikipedia. By punitively blocking users, they, in turn, cannot damage Wikipedia any longer thus covering both topics (punitive/preventative). You can think up any criteria to fit this new reform if it is accepted. Please review once again. Redsox04 16:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please make a concrete proposal rather than a vague suggestion. >Radiant< 09:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Radiant!, and also add that there seems confusion between punitive and protective:

Protective == "doing whatever is needed to reasonably prevent damage to the wiki". Roughly speaking, as an editor more and more becomes visible as a bad actor, the block deemed suitable to protect the project increases, potentially to an indef block/site ban.

Punitive == "punishing them for actions regardless of whether or not this will actually help the project". Roughly speaking, punishing for past actions.

Hope this helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

AOL

The page says that AOL could be blocked but the help page for AOL indicates it's a non-issue currently. However, you can't remove the AOL info that's there 'cause it also appears to apply to non-AOL ISP's. I don't know enough to modify it, but it should be adjusted so it's clear for Comcast or school IPs. Is the following more acceptable?

Do you use an ISP or web accelerator that involves shared IPs? Common examples include AOL, Comcast, StarHub, schools, colleges, or Google Web Accelerator. If so, you may have been affected by collateral damage. If you are using AOL Comcast (or any ISP listed above), please see our advice to AOL ISP users. If you are using Google Web Accelerator (or any other web accelerator that uses shared IPs), please disable it for this site by following these instructions.

However, the AOL help page that is currently linked says it's inactive/historical. Does a new guide need to be written, one that discusses non-AOL ISP's? Has a similar solution been reached for them as well? WLU 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Emailing administrator? Not always possible.

The section on appealing a block incorrectly states that you may e-mail an administrator to discuss your block. However, this is false, as all administrators do not have e-mail enabled. This section should be changed so as not to further frustrate already irritated contributors.[1]

If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add ...

New wording:

If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may attempt to contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature both you and the blocking administrator must have a valid email address registered in user preferences. If you are able to contact the blocking administrator via email, and the administrator is willing to discuss the issue with you, but you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block.

This is important because the instructions require you to contact the blocking administrator via email first before you gain the right to appeal--yet not all blocking administrators have email enabled. So if you're blocked by an administrator who does not have e-mail enabled, you don't have the right of appeal, you merely must ride out your block for the full length of time.

KP

Sockpuppetry

I was thinking that the section under the "How to request an unblock", should mention that users should not create a alternate account to file the unblock:

Start by finding out when your block will expire. Go to my contributions and follow the Block log link at the top of the page. If there are no blocks listed, or the latest one has already expired, then you have been autoblocked. Please follow the instructions listed in the section (on AutoBlocking) below. If you do not wish to wait for your block to expire, you may contact the blocking administrator via email to resolve the problem that led to the block. To use this feature you must have a valid email address registered in your user preferences. If, after discussing the matter with them, or if you cannot contact them, and you still believe your block is unfair, you may appeal the block by requesting that another administrator review your block. To do so, add {{unblock|your reason here}} to the bottom of your user talk page (which you can edit while blocked, unless it is protected) to request unblocking. Please be aware that abuse of this template will result in protection of that page. Also, please note, you should not create a second account to file this unblock request.

So I was thinking of updating it to this. Any suggestions? VivioFateFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 00:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Proxy IP Blocking

I'm relatively new to wikipedia, and I have only just joined. I had to do so because when I went to make a minor edit in wording in an article I was blocked. This was due to the fact that I am connected through iprimus (Primus Telecom), which uses a proxy server. While I agree to blocking a proxy due to consistent vandalism being issued by it's users, I wish to request that the policy on blocking be changed so that members of a proxy can still register on wikipedia. It is completely unfair to prevent them all from registering, when, once registered, they can be individually blocked. I understand that they can then make multiple accounts and undermine the system, but isn't blocking them to prevent that against the whole idea of wikipedia? Besides that, if they know how, they can simply bypass the proxy in their browser. Ultimately I would like to request that the policy be altered to stop the prevention of proxy users creating an account, or that at least the relevant instructions on how to bypass the proxy, and a list of affected ISP's be added to a relevant area. I myself had to navigate to an historical page on the problems with blocking AOL users to determine what I needed to do in order to register...

--KeeperoftheWatch (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Note: This is a duplicate of this post on ANI. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock email

Is there a reason the unblock email unblock-en-l at lists.wikimedia.org isn't stated more clearly on the page, on the block template, or on the Wikipedia:Contact us/blocked page? It seems unnecessarily hard to find. Took me a good half hour starting at a standard block template and navigating pages. MBisanz ^talk 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

AOL User advice

The main page that it links to for AOL users is considered no longer relevant. Shouldn't this article be updated to reflect whatever circumstance caused the other page to be deprecated? 71.255.66.62 (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with connexion

Hi! I Have some problem to connect at Wikipedia. I can't acces to wikipedia. I'don't know the reason. I say to french admistrator, because i edit lot of in wikipedia french language. Please resolve this problem.I must change my computer ton acces to wikipidia. Excuse me but my english is basic. Thank'you.--Great11 (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so complicated sometimes its frustrating!!

I am someone who wants to appeal a block....SO I click help....and I click the section that goes to unblocking....which takes me to a new page that offers great info on the step by step process and emailing and blah blah blah blah blah all that stuff....and yet....there is no easy access way to dispute or email. I mean its like each thing takes you to a new catagory!.....I mean i come to this section and it has catagories on what to do about being blocked and now i have to go back to my blocked page. I mean where is that? Why cant wikipedia just be like other websites and offer simple links when it comes to contacting people? Each thing is like long long pages of so much info and sometimes u keep jumping from one page to another, when you can just do what other websites do...which is....have a contact section. And then have the emails, or phone numbers, or addresses, or whatever, or anykind of contact info wikipedia whats to put up. And then all a user has to do is just click it. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Got it. User:ARYAN818 is unblocked (block reason: "Aryan" was raising red flags; this user was primarily editing topics related to India, Sanskrit, Hindu, etc - where Aryan is legitimate). Anywho, this IP has been extremely frustrated, so I'll check up from time to time. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Request to unblock another editor

User:Jeremy Bolwell has been blocked by User:Tivedshambo for violation of WP:overlinking. The discussion is here. Although Jeremy Bolwell - who is a prolific editor and valued contributor to articles - has been guilty of overlinking and other stylistic transgressions in the past (a point raised by me and others on several occasions - see his talk page), he has now agreed to abide by guidelines, and punishment by a temporary block seems extremely harsh for what is, in essence, a difference over the interpretation of a stylistic guideline. Can someone please look at it with a view to overturning Tivedshambo's decision? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The decision to block Jeremy was not a decision I took lightly. I had hoped that it would not come to this, but Jeremy was warned, by another admin as well as myself [2], that he would be blocked if he persisted in overlinking. This is in accordance with Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption - persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive. Although I believe that Jeremy is acting in good faith, he persisted in making edits like [3], in which, while adding some good links, he also continued to add unneccesary links. I took the decision that another warning would not make any improvement, since he seems to think (incorrectly) I'm bullying him, so I took the decision to make a temporary block. I've also suggested that he looks at other ways he can improve Wikipedia when his block expires, rather than merely linking words, and have stated I will unblock him if he agrees to this. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 21:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"I will unblock him if he agrees to [do what I want]" sounds pretty close to bullying to me - or at least over-interpretation of an admin's proper role. Any cursory examination of Jeremy Bolwell's record would reveal that his contributions to articles (while sometimes misguided) have been far greater than simply adding square brackets to words. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As this is not the place to appeal blocks (see top of page), I'll copy this discussion into WP:AN. —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 22:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guys, this discussion really really ought to be taking place at WP:AN, very few people watch this page, and it doesn't provide a wide input into the issue if it stays on some random policy talk page. MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Still learning! Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Common templates and responses

I took the liberty of placing the two tables in a collapse box to aid in the readability / usability of the page. Please feel free to modify/replace/remove it if necessary. Cheers —Travis^talk 03:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Third-party requests

Is it possible for a third, disinterested party to ask for a review of a block that they believe to have been unjustified, or can only the blocked user request such a review?  --Lambiam 14:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Unblock mailing list

The unblock mailing list should be identified here, no? Jehochman ^Talk 17:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

question about autoblock unblock requests

I want to make sure I am handling this correctly. I've recently declined two unblock requests from registered users who were blocked directly. Both were asking on the registered users page for their ip addresses to be unblocked. I assumed that if there was an actual separate user on the ip addresses, they could ask themselves, and that the users making the requests were only asking for autoblocks to be lifted and therefore should be declined. Right? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes per WP:SILENCE. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a standard response for "you have been blocked directly..." in Template:Unblock-auto, which I assume these users were using. If they have been blocked directly they should address that block first. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Category discussion

This page might get a new policy category; the discussion is at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to a guideline

This page was marked as policy from the start back in 2006, but it is really a guideline. There is no policy in it, though it refers to other policies. So I propose to mark it as guideline. Cenarium (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This reads like guideline rather than a policy (with even a FAQ section!) It's purpose is explanatory and suggestive, one does not need to abide by the policy in order to be unblocked, and abiding by the policy does not guarantee that an editor be unblocked. Most of our policies are much more objective than this, and blocking/unblocking admins would still need to follow WP:BLOCK which is and should remain policy. ThemFromSpace 01:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No objections.  Sandstein  07:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed it; this seems straightforward. If anyone has any issue with the change, feel free to revert. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 08:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think "guideline" doesn't quite fit either. I think we need a "process" category; things like how to actually list of AfD, this page, and others that just tell how to go about something. — Coren ^(talk) 14:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, though I think it would need a bit of discussion. Perhaps you should raise it at the Village Pump. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 15:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is already {{infopage}} and Category:Wikipedia information pages. WP:GAB is so tagged.  Sandstein  16:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. That works for me. — Coren ^(talk) 16:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Other Users

Can users besides the Blocked request unblocks?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainCookie (talk • contribs) 19:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is actually a policy dealing with this, but the only reason I can even think of for doing that would be to assist someone who is too dense to manage their own unblock request, which I have seen a few times. I think if it were done for any other reason most admins would decline the request and note that the user should ask for themselves. If a user can't articulate a reason that they should be unblocked, they probably lack the minimum level of competence required to edit Wikipedia anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, "too dense" is probably too strong a statement. Remember that many were blocked on their first few edits and may not even be familiar with our talk page conventions, let alone use of templates. It's not hard, but it may be overwhelming to a newbie— especially one who is not very computer-fluent. That being said, I don't remember having seen this before so it must not be a frequent occurrence and may not be worth writing policy over it. — Coren ^(talk) 11:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Ban-bot error

{{unblock|maths error}} One ban-bot has made an error because he did not allowed me two review articles for errror correction. Bot made no refference to further proove vandalize such acts to my behalf. I guess I could say your dish is best served cold.Paul188.25.55.102 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Later Edit:I dissaprove discrepancy in wikipedia policy to fuck article by each other article, thaw to lead me out not to work. Please move to helpdesk if read it.

Arbcom vs Unblock Requests Mailing List....

Before being referred to Arbcom, is it worth mentioning that if the user has had talk page access revoked, they can appeal to the unblock requests mailing list?

Personally, I feel that the chain of appeals should be:

If talk page access is available:

Talk page unblock requests -> Mailing list -> ArbCom

If talk page access is revoked:

Mailing list -> ArbCom

The page mentions that ArbCom is the last resort, but doesn't mention the mailing list!

Regards, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that as long as there is a good chance a single administrator may unblock the user if convinced, they should be referred to the unblock mailing list. However, if the user has approached / is approaching a community ban (i.e unlikely a single administrator is willing to unblock or community consensus is that the user should remain blocked), they should be referred to ArbCom. But yes, the unblock mailing list should IMO be mentioned. HeyMid (contribs) 19:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Where may information be found about the unblock mailing list presently, please? --Bsherr (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The mailing list can be contacted via unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org, but to have access to that, you need to be an admin, as only admins can unblock an editor. I might add a mention of that to the page tomorrow if I get a chance PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A Finnish block

In the http://fi.wikipedia.org an administrator has given an excessive block for the large number of IP's for one of the biggest cities of the country for a month.

Administrator Otrfan, block 143.51.236.0/24 and #256843 . Could anyone able to speak Finnish deliver a note to the Finnish Wikipedia administrators of this kind of practise to be taken into a larger consideration?

Thank you in advance! 143.51.236.213 (talk) 12:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This is English Wikipedia, we don't control the happenings of Finnish Wikipedia. Why don't you ask there? Zakhalesh (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing, based on his IP and the IP address of the block, that he can't contact them via the wiki, because his city has been, well, blocked. However, there may be email addresses that would work. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, here you go. Try the Finnish OTRS email address, send a note to info-fi@wikimedia.org -- Good luck! I suspect that if you have any fluency with Finnish whatsoever (I do not) that it'll be quicker for you to explain the problem there directly. --joe decker^{talk to me} 23:32, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Pararubbas

I am User:Pararubbas, I apologize for removing links and refs. Look when I first started I made mistakes and I didn't know how to edit really well. My sincere apolgises go out to bothering people, please can you not block my edits as I will not remove refs or links as I have learnt from my mistakes.

Please can you take my considerations on board and unblock me. My username is User:Pararubbas. I will not vandalize pages. I just want to edit them correctly on how they should. I will not remove links or references or statements which are incorrect. My aim is to update pages and improve them as well as start new pages in which don't exist and that I have the information to start a page. Please can you unblock one of my usernames which is Alexgreene87 as I don't remeber my paasword details to the Pararubbas account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.127.248 (talk) 16:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have been on this case, as User:Satori Son and User:NuclearWarfare (both admins) for years now. The user has asked me if it was possible to let him create a new account, as he does not remember the details to User:Pararubbas, and User:Alexgreene87 (his latest, one of 70+ socks) has been blocked. I have advised him to wait for the return of Satori (although i have now messaged Nuclear about the latest developments too) and not open a new account, but i leave it in the capable hands of this board.

Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Third party request for unblock

A third party may request the review of a block at the Administrators' noticeboard.

What other ways can a third party request an unblock ? I'm not out to do so (already done) however, I noticed there is no guidance for this rare circumstance and would like the processes available to be outlined as briefly as possible.

I would expect talking to the blocking admin should be added, any others ? Penyulap ☏ 00:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the change, as I'm not sure this is necessary (WP:CREEP) or even appropriate. If the blocked user does not make an unblock request, this means that they do not want to be unblocked. So there is no reason why another user would need to request this on their behalf, or (in legal terms) would have standing to do so. Making unwanted unblock requests for others on frothy public fora would generate needless drama and waste the time of the people involved.  Sandstein  05:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Being blocked can be emotionally charged, some editors may take offence at a block, and if the block is unreasonably harsh or inappropriate it can be especially emotional. The blocked party may not wish to appeal because they feel unwelcome. Appeals of high profile editors who have been blocked are common. Regardless of this, there is no documentation, anywhere, on how to ask for a block that you have seen and feel is unjust to be reviewed. I have looked, exhaustively, and find no guidance for editors who think logically to find this information. Guessing is not an option as it leads to giving up, hurting the project through editors lost through incorrect blocking and demoralising editors who see those blocks and are helpless to do anything. Giving the bare minimal guidance to stop this unnecessary loss of editors is needed.

A current case illustrates a number of these points, including the emotional effect, the editor has not asked for an appeal, and shows that using the most obvious method to request an unblock, that is, using an unblock template, is not appropriate. Whilst no decision has yet been made, other third party appeals have been made before. It is an obvious glaring omission that the policy page, the guideline page, and the template and its documentation make no mention whatsoever on third party unblocks and this leaves logical methodical editors with no solution, or simply illogical ones. The idea that everything should simply be obvious to everyone is at odds with why these pages exist. A bare minimum of guidance is the bare minimum required. The question I would ask is, is AN the appropriate direction to send editors ? Do they need further guidance, and if so, where ? Should a collapse box be used with all avenues and steps to be taken ? Penyulap ☏ 06:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Certainly I hate creep, being a mighty big rebel and unashamed groupie of IAR, that said, the barest minimum, minimum, needs to be provisioned to provide a route, even if it is not the best one, for logically ordered users, and typical editors, to follow. At least if they end up at AN someone can assist further, and the page can be improved through study of those regular, if infrequent, arrivals.

I would be all for making the link unobtrusive, one link on the page is a sufficient minimum regardless of it's prominence, so if there is any reason whatever to override the simple TOC ordering of the insertion I'm all ears and agreeing in this regard. Penyulap ☏ 16:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Please don't add that again, Penyulap; when you have already been reverted once, and nobody has agreed with your post, this isn't IAR, it is pushing your own point of view. Posting on this page and then doing what you want does not equal a talk page discussion or the obtaining of consensus. I would also put forward that what you are trying to add is incorrect. Risker (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I do often have a bit of a problem seeming too forward or too bold, and that often hurts the genuine cause I am trying to assist with. I'm not trying to push a pov, sorry if it seems that way, I am wanting to offer genuine assistance to a real problem that I can see. I do sincerely want assistance, and would like to know what you mean by incorrect, and will do my best not to appear as though I'm trying to cause any argument, I don't want that at all. If you could examine the problem as best you can, familiarising yourself with this talkpage discussion and this rather new essay by Pesky it may assist. Penyulap ☏ 18:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

All kinds of brilliant ideas get discussed on Jimbo's page, but that is never a substitute for discussion on the policy's talk page, and editors who try to change policy based on a "Jimbo page discussion" are normally reverted. If you would like to change this policy, discuss it here. If you get positive response, and develop a consensus, then the change can be made. Risker (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

well that's cool, I'm patient and shall wait as long as it takes for an editor who wants to discuss the content to come along. Penyulap ☏ 18:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually this is what happens now anyway. Blocks get undone on the basis of discussions on AN/I (or other places) so there's no reason that it should not be in the WP page, unless we want it not to be descriptive. Rich Farmbrough, 09:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC).

Discussion at \VPP

There is a discussion at WP:VPP#Should wikipedia policy recognise its own imperfection. about whether a sentence should be removed from this guideline. Dmcq (talk) 13:40, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

new template for users blocked for edit warring

All to often when users, even fairly experienced ones, are blocked for edit warring they respond by claiming they were acting in WPs best interest. They pften cite some previous consensus, a desire to preserve NPOV, or some other policy that they (wrongly) believed shielded them being blocked. Since this is such a regular occurence I have crafted a template to reply to such statements at Template:ewblock. Modifications are welcome but please not that I deliberately did not put a box or any shading behind it in the interest of not making it look like all the warnings and block notices they will almost certainly already have on their talk page by the time it is appropriate to add this one. The goal is to give them a brief, friendly review of what edit warring is and why we block for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I've only just seen this - it's very good, thanks. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

IP accounts?

I'm surprised not to see any unblock requests from IP accounts that have been blocked. Is this not a possibility? If not, how can an IP account appeal a block? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Same way as everyone else, {{unblock}}. There aren't that many IP addresses which are blocked where it isn't obvious vandalism (so generally the vandal either gives up, changes IPs, or requests an account at WP:ACC). Those that do request unblock are few and far between enough that you have the look at the category at the right time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy/RFC

One of the issues raised in this RFC regards how soft blocks for username issues are handled when appealed, so it would be good to hear from users who review such requests. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

44 years for an unblock request

...that is what the template is showing for Savvyjack23's request in Category:Requests for unblock. Error in rendering or is there a fix?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comments: c: link prefix for Wikimedia Commons

There is a cross-wiki discussion in progress as to whether c: should be enabled globally as an interwiki prefix for links to the Wikimedia Commons. If the proposal gains consensus this will require the deletion or renaming of several pages on the English WIkipedia whose titles begin with "C:", including one or more redirects to this page. Please take a moment to participate in the discussion.
There is also a related discussion on the English Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 16#C:ATT to which you are invited to contribute.
Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Proxy server

If you are using a proxy server such as ZenMate or Hola Better Internet, you will be blocked from editing while you have it switched on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimala (talk • contribs) 14:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Weird cats from userspace

I have no idea how my admin toolbox page wound up in "requests for unblock." All I can think of is that some link or instruction in the toolbox set that off, as I can't figure out how or why that happened. Very weird. Obviously, I am not blocked. - CorbieV^☊☼ 20:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Appealing block w/o email address when talk page use is also blocked

Why hasn't WP come up with a way for people to appeal their block without having to use their email address, in cases where the user is also blocked from the talk page? 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is your account currently blocked? You may be able to log into IRC and be able to convince an admin to restore talk page access. This however dependent on the reason and type of block.McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no user account. I also am not currently blocked, but as an unregistered editor the issue comes up occasionally. 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So why won't you provide an example of this? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't apply to you, but I think blocked registered editors whose email privileges haven't been revoked can create a throwaway email address at pick-your-email-provider, log into Wikipedia, register that email address, then appeal the block using that email address. Non-logged-in editors who are blocked can create an account and edit away, or create an account and create an email address then appeal the IP-block through that email address. Obviously, non-logged-in editors without an existing account will be out of luck if they happen to be using an IP address that is "blocked/account creation blocked" or if they are using an IP address that is globally blocked. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would rather not create an account, Wikipedia is supposed to be "anyone can edit". 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 (talk) 06:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The only option may be to change your IP address - i.e. go to a coffee shop or use a cell-phone instead of land-line internet or vice-versa - then appeal the block of the blocked IP address. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

range blocks

Hutchison 3G (23 million users) has been blocked by Mike V & TOR (also millions of users) has been blocked by Vituzzu
These blocks strike me as overzealous & pointless.
I am a user of both. Hutchison3G is my ISP but they too have ridiculous & arbitrary blocks so I default to using TOR. Does this suggest that I am a danger to Wikipedia? What about Chinese? Egyptians? Eritreans? Saudi Arabians? With so many blocks & spies on the internet nowadays many people are having to subvert the system just to get normal service.
You seem to be gradually blocking every NAT & proxy in the world. There are not enough IPv4 addresses for everyone to have their own so most people's addresses will not be their own with many issued by DHCP. All of these systems can & do swap IP addresses between users so you cannot state who is with which address. Whichever system a user is trapped behind you are not going to have legal access to a street address so there is no reasonable point to blocking any of them.
Alanthehat (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't answer your general question as it applies to all editors affected by the block on Hutchison, but Wikipedia:IP block exemption may be the best way to offer you relief. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Mediawiki editing is based on IP addresses, and without a new technology that isn't likely to change, so that's what we block when we need to block something due to abuse from it. TorBlock has been installed for several years now, following continuous and overwhelming abuse from it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Since you didn't seem to ask either of the admins on their talk pages or notify them that you were calling their decisions into public scrutiny, I think it would be polite to let Mike V and Vituzzu in on the discussion. Tor isn't going to be unblocked. Please read Wikipedia:Advice to users using Tor.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the IP address that I've blocked, it's anon only so users are more than welcome to edit with an account or request one through the account creation process. As for proxies, we are permitted to block them due to abuse. If you are experiencing blocks from using TOR/proxies, I'd encourage you to disable them while on Wikipedia. If there is a highly exceptional reason as to why you need to edit through TOR/proxies, please email the functionary team with an explanation and we will evaluate your request for an IP block exemption. Mike V • Talk 19:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

In short: people really needing using tor, VPNs, or even more obscure stuffs are given the relevent means to use them. --Vituzzu (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RFU Stats

Just some stats on the average load here: User:SQL/RFUStats SQL^{Query me!} 03:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I've replaced this with a more reliable / accurate program on toolforge: https://tools.wmflabs.org/aivanalysis/rfu.php SQL^{Query me!} 06:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

UTRS appeals from users for whom I see no block

How can this be? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, you don't have to be blocked, technically, to post at UTRS. Could be mistakes, could be autoblocks? Could be trolling. I don't hang out much at UTRS but I'm pretty sure there's a summary close option for "user is not blocked". Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I also have ones come up for unregistered accounts. Lavalizard101 (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

RfC about appealing a block and Wikipedia "standard offer"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should Wikipedia:Standard offer be elevated to officially supplement block/ban appeals? John Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Background: standard offer

Standard offer is cited so often in block/ban discussions[4] that I literally believed it was already a community sanctioned offer. Since guidelines are meant to reflect what we do, and block/ban appeals have, in practice, already subsumed the counsel of "standard offer", it falls incumbent on the Community that we adequately vet the essay at core unto consensus for using it as a supplement of the guideline itself.

Proposal: standard offer

This RfC proposes that Wikipedia:Standard offer should become an informational "explanatory supplement" of Wikipedia:Appealing a block. Kindly apportion your voice, for or against the proposal, and thread indented replies in the "survey" section below. Append general comments and topics of broad consideration in the "discussion" section below it. Thank you.

Survey: standard offer

• Support - as proposed.--John Cline (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the standard offer is not automatic, but is a simple procedure that we usually give people. Making this more than an essay will further the false impression that if you wait 6 months you are automatically unblocked. It is fine as an essay. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  Except by the lamest read could one come to believe the standard offer implies anything like an automatic unblock/ban. I've never seen it discussed from such a notion; if you have, please give a link because I would like to see.--John Cline (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, per TonyBallioni. Appeals on blocks and bans are enough; there's no need for additional supplementation through which individuals may receive a false impression of their block/ban status. — Javert2113 (talk; please ping me in your reply on this page) 17:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose the page is nice to explain what we mean when we offer it, but granting it any sort of official sanction would imply that it is a right of any user to invoke it: it is not. --Jayron32 17:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  To invoke wp:so is to say: I have faithfully adhered my block/ban for six months. Please, therefore, hear my earnest request to be unblocked. Why would this be seen as a problem?--John Cline (talk) 18:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  That is not a problem, but to have an expectation that "I only have to serve a six month block, then I can expect to be unblocked" is the attitude I'd like to avoid. --Jayron32 17:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support with caveats - WP:SO is not a "mere" essay, because the current situation in day-to-day practice applies it often. It does have serious community backing. That said, in order to promote this, some serious changes on the emphasis of the page would be required. One common reason for declining a SO request is that we're not totally convinced that the blocked user groks exactly what the did wrong. Making the determination on whether the user really understands is a tough judgement call that could be squashed by comments like "WP:SO is a guideline, give them their second chance" if this were to pass, and that's not a good thing. SO is a fine metric for when an appeal should be heard, but misses a significant amount of nuance for when an appeal should be accepted. Tazerdadog (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:SO is a guideline, give them their second chance Maybe, but it would be a guideline that says "This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card, and administrators are not forced to unblock you". --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, things like that would need to be emphasized further within the page in the (unlikely) event that this proposal passes. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:21, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:TonyBallioni and User:Jayron32. I think it's best as it is, and we shouldn't strengthen its status to any more than that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't think this is required, and could lead to confusion. While I don't think that it reads that the Standard Offer means an automatic/likely unblock at 6 months, I fear a lot of needless heat-and-no-light whining from blocked users who either genuinely think that it does, or are twisting it. Richard⁰⁶¹² 18:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose was gonna support, then I read TonyBallioni's oppose.( and Jayron's)-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

  SO is something we need to offer on a case-by-case basis.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:16, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - doing this would make every indef blocked editor to expect the SO by right, which is not (and should not be) the case. The SO, if offered to specific editors on, as Dlohcierekim says above me, a case-by-case basis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Making SO policy would bind the hands of administrators in dealing with blocked editors for a couple of reasons. 1. As others have said, blocked editors would point to it as a policy that should be enforced. Even if it is something that can only be offered, I would foresee this being wikilawyered to death. 2. Blocked editors would view it as a box ticking exercise. "Look, I've been blocked but I've done everything in WP:SO so you need to unblock me." Again, something that can This could be be lawyered to death. Leave it as a guideline an essay, as something that could be offered on a case by case basis per Dlohcierekim. Blackmane (talk) 00:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The page currently is an essay, not a guideline. And this rfc is to make it a supplement not a policy.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Striking my first statement, I've evidently misread the proposal. Blackmane (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Blackmane. --Terra ^(talk) 04:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support elevating the essay to guideline, or explanatory supplement to the banning policy. Though I agree with TonyBallioni, in my experience the standard offer is normally expected to be offered to any banned editor unless explicitly revoked, not the other way around, and on principle I endorse the anyone-can-edit ideal that any banned editor may see the error of their ways and reform. But the concern about editors misreading the [essay] as though every blocked editor is automatically entitled to be unblocked on the six month anniversary is absolutely valid. I've seen it happen probably dozens of times, not just at SPI, that a community banned editor assumes because someone told them to "take the standard offer" that that meant they were absolutely and unconditionally allowed to start editing again after six months, as though the standard offer was some sort of maximum sentence, so they made a new account and did just that. That's not what it is, of course, and the essay probably needs some updating to make that clear before it graduates, but I support doing so. Also, "lame" is an ableist slur when you use it to refer to something substandard, when you could have just said mistaken or incompetent. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

  To the extent it is seen as an ableism, I apologize; I had meant more of a political context, and strong disapproval. I've stricken it, nevertheless, for the former.--John Cline (talk) 07:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose based on recent precedent at WP:AN, marking the page as deprecated would be more accurate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

  @Power~enwiki: What precedent? Vanjagenije (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per User:Ivanvector. Jschnur (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Visible underscores in the Status column on Category:Requests for unblock

Will you please replace the visible underscores in "AWAITING_REVIEWER", "AWAITING_USER", etc. in the Status column on Category:Requests for unblock and consider using normal case and full sentences? The existing data does not look good.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2018

Wrong IP disabled. Please remove. --2003:CB:2BC4:2493:2CDE:5105:F35E:C17 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC) 2003:CB:2BC4:2493:2CDE:5105:F35E:C17 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: An edit request will not help you request an unblock. Please read WP:Guide to appealing blocks and follow the instructions there. If you're still having trouble, please place {{admin help}} on your own talk page (click "Talk" at the very top of the page) with information on what you're having trouble with, and an administrator will come and assist you. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Downtime

Due to T204565, there will be some required downtime between Dec 4th - Dec 18th. This is an early notice. The database will be locked and the interface will be shut down during this time. A more exact date will be coming in the future, but I will also cross-post when I have that date solidified. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 01:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This will be tomorrow, the 15th sometime between 20h00 UTC and 05h00 UTC on the 16th. The whole time is not likely to be required, it just is for flexibility with my schedule. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

mediawiki

won't let me log in to prevent hijacking.-- Deepfriedokra 14:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Common questions click-to-view

Why are the answers to common questions all hidden behind funny little "[show] Click 'show' to view" boxes? They're all a couple of paragraphs at most. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:10, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

{{unblock}}: Creating an "idletimestamp" parameter

See Template talk:Unblock#Creating an "idletimestamp" parameter. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Stale unblocks

Comes there a time when we carry these over to WP:AN? Whenever I look at one of them, I'm undecided. I guess other people are too. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 18:28, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, GZWDer, Yamla, Voice of Clam, and ProcrastinatingReader: Hi all. Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 September 6#Template:Decline stale, I am commencing this local discussion. Although not documented in this guideline, there has been a practice among some users to close unblock requests as stale after two weeks. GZWDer incorporated it into Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#What happens when you request unblock, though apparently disapprovingly (see TfD supra), and Template:Decline stale has been created to carry it out. I'm personally of the opinion that it is inconsiderate to the requestors to close requests without a disposition on the merits, and that unblock requests should remain open until answered on the merits. However, if there is a consensus to close unblock requests as stale, this guideline should be updated, and then I think we should also answer the obvious question of what the next step should be for the requestor (which, coincidentally, happens to be Deepfriedokra's question above). --Bsherr (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it is a bigger problem to leave unblock requests open for (literally) months, which I think is the natural consequence of removing decline-stale. Indeed, that's what used to happen. Yes, unquestioningly, it's better to close an unblock request with specific guidance. But, if a request has been open for, say, a month, I simply don't know why nobody else decided to act on it. I want to be clear, my position here is weakly held. My goal is to ensure unblock requests don't just sit in limbo for weeks or months. The solution can be decline-stale, but it can certainly be something else. In the absence of another new alternative, I favour decline-stale over leaving unblock requests open indefinitely (and, historically, often for weeks or months). But, I very much encourage people to think up new, better alternatives. And, Bsherr, thanks very much for the ping! --Yamla (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

For block appeals without unanswered open question: I instead think stale unblocks should be accepted by default, as unblocks are cheap. For banned users (such as this one, the default should **always** be bring the unblock request for community review. If there are unanswered open question, it can be closed with an agreement of reopen after answer.--GZWDer (talk) 22:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting, the idea of a default unblock. On the one hand, I'm thinking we would regard the administrator who does the default unblock as owning that action, and if there are no open questions, would it really be that difficult to make a merits-based decision? On the other hand, it might be accurate to consider an unblock request outstanding for a fixed length of time to be "unopposed", not so unlike other timed discussion processes we have here. --Bsherr (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

What I've seen with stale declines-- and this 2 weeks thing just formalises it-- is the user must then formulate another unblock request that is likely as ineffectual as the last. I believe-- and I doubt we'll gain consensus on this-- that a stale unblock should instead be carried to WP:AN for discussion by the community, and not archived without a decision. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla to a point, and confirm the months problem, but think a better solution is to just carry 'em to WP:AN. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Thinking critically about it, does moving the discussion to WP:AN move the ball forward and, if so, why? Community discussion can take place on the user talk page too, right? Is it just about the publicity of the forum? If so, would a notice of and link to stale requests suffice? Or a category with a counter at that page? --Bsherr (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(For not banned users) I do not support bringing to AN - unless this will explicitly not result in community ban.--GZWDer (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Options

Looking at the above, it seems that three options are available:

1. Continue the option of adding {{decline stale}} after two weeks of inactivity
2. Enforce taking stale RFUs to WP:AN
3. Unblock stale RFUs by default, at least in certain circumstances.

Is this worth raising an RFC about? — O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The 4th option is to leave unblock requests open. I think an RfC is in order. --Bsherr (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

The admin notes here say "Administrators also must not review any requests or lift any block marked checkuserblock." Where does policy say non-checkuser admins may not decline unblock requests of such blocks? It doesn't seem a necessary restriction. It certainly doesn't bother me when I mark a checkuser block and another admin declines an unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 03:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

• Where did that come from. No that needs to be changed. I don't address CU blocks myself for the most part, but that's not what I remember the policy saying. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Third-party block appeals

Wikipedia:Appealing a block#Appeals by third party, boldly added in July 2019 by GZWDer, reads:

Appeals by third party

Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block. No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user. However, if you are not under a active block but you have questions about blocks of other user, you are free to discuss the block with the blocking admin. (If you are blocked, you should appeal your block first; see WP:NOTTHEM.)

I boldly removed it today and was reverted by Sandstein, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.

My objection is that this section does not accurately document existing consensus and practice, because the "no third-party appeals" rule is not actually observed by the community, as evidenced by the number of third-party appeals that are considered, as compared to the small number of third-party appeals that are denied because they are third-party appeals.

Since July 2019 when this section was added, here are third-party appeals I found that were considered by the community at AN:

1. Aug 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Block review request
2. Aug 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Review of El C's block of Koavf
3. Jul 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive322#SashiRolls ban review
4. May 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#"Happy as a pig in muck"
5. May 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive320#Unblock request: GargAvinash/Kumargargavinash
6. Apr 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive319#Hijiri88
7. Feb 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive317#Standard offer : TheGracefulSlick
8. Nov 2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive315#Harsh block by Berean Hunter
9. Sep 2019: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive313#Community-ban appeal

In some of these appeals, some participants argued that third-party appeals are not allowed (sometimes even linking to this page); nevertheless, the community considered these appeals, in some cases overturning the blocks at issue.

Over the same time period (since July 2019), I've only found one third-party block appeal that was not considered, from Feb 2020: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive318#Review of User:SnøhettaAS block please.

A couple notes: (1) The section doesn't strictly define "appeals by third party", but I'm defining it as "initiated by someone other than the blocked user or blocking admin", which I hope is a definition everyone will agree with. (2) I may have missed some threads in either category; please feel free to link to others if they're out there.

In light of what actually happens with third-party block appeals at AN (they are usually considered, even over opposition), I think the statements Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block. No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user. are inaccurate, and the whole section should be removed. (Alternatively, if there is consensus for the rule, then we should enforce the rule at AN.) Thoughts? TIA, Lev!vich 21:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. In my view, the provision should remain in the guideline.

That the community has chosen to disregard its own guideline on occasion (some of the examples above are bans, not blocks) is unremarkable and not a sufficient reason for changing the guideline. We choose to disregard guidelines all the time, e.g. at AfD, where some articles are kept despite not having enough sources per WP:GNG, because local consensus deems the topic important enough for an article. That's not a reason for getting rid of the notion of notability altogether, because it works and is accepted in the great majority of cases. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. So it is here also.

There are good reasons for this rule. Most importantly, per WP:GAB, we expect a blocked user to convince us that they understand what got them blocked and that they won't do it again. They don't have a chance to do that if somebody else requests an unblock for them. A third-party unblock request thereby steers the unblock discussion in the wrong direction - away from how likely we think it is that the problematic conduct will reoccur, and into the direction of either a popularity contest between the blocked user and whoever they may have been in conflict with, or the blocking admin; or it reframes the discussion as "does the punishment fit the crime? was the block too long?" This is at odds with our ethos that blocks are preventative, not punitive. A third-party unblock request encourages participants to discuss blocks in terms of wikipolitics, punishments, popularity and power, and not in terms of whether the block was ever or is still needed to prevent damage to the project. To discuss that, we need the participation of the blocked editor, and without it, we can't usefully discuss blocks at all in my view. Sandstein 09:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Those are good reasons for the rule, and in fact I don't object to the rule itself. What I object to is saying that we have a rule when we do not, in practice, actually follow the rule. I don't think it's a case of choosing to disregard the guideline "on occasion". AFAICS, if it's not 10 out of 11 9 out of 10 times (because of bans v. blocks), it's at least 4 out of 5 times. So we consider 80-90% of third party block appeals. What we do in practice is the opposite of "Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block." If we consider 80%+ of appeals, we shouldn't say "No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user." Simply because it's not true, regardless of what's wrong, right, or best. Our PAGs are descriptive, not aspirational (meaning they say what happens, not what we want to happen or think should happen, but what actually happens), and I think this section is inaccurate, even if the rule is a good idea in theory. Nevertheless I may be the only editor with this opinion :-) Thanks for sharing your thoughts, S. Lev!vich 16:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Sandstein, not to put you on the spot, but you did point out the guideline in the two most recent discussions, and there were opposing views, which I won't say prevailed, because the discussions weren't about the guideline itself, but, as Levivich points out, the guideline was at least disregarded. For anyone here to answer, what should we make of those opposing views (to try to summarize them: whether the definition of an appeal is narrower than a discussion about a block, and whether WP:ADMINACCT supports review of blocks regardless of whether the blocked user appeals? And would this series of discussions better reflect consensus than the guideline as currently written? --Bsherr (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• Since the contentious guideline was added without consensus and demonstrably contravenes the well-established practice of allowing reasonable third-party appeals to proceed unhindered, I have removed it from the page. User:Sandstein, the guideline's only advocate as far as I can see, is free to propose it for inclusion via the usual means. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• I have reverted this removal. The presence of the rule is the status quo; consensus would be needed to change it. Nobody in the above discussion opposes the rule. Sandstein 09:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  There were well-founded objections to the guideline as written. I don't think restoring it with no changes made to address these objections was particularly helpful but let's put that behind us. I have proposed two alternate versions of the guideline below and would welcome your feedback. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sandstein, there was never any consensus for the inclusion of this rule and the person who added it even wrote feel free to revert in the edit summary. This is not a legitimate rule, nor is it consistently followed as Levivich and Iaritmioawp have observed. In practice, it really just depends on whether the community wants to discuss a specific block. If they do, this 'policy' ain't stopping anything. When the disputed section was unilaterally added to this policy last year, you didn't revert it and require the editor who added it to get talk page consensus, so your double standard here is downright alarming. You have provide several rationales for why you like this rule. So open an RfC and put your rationales there. But consensus isn't suddenly unnecessary just because you happen to like this policy, so remove it for now and put it to the will of the community. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Utterly, totally, and steadfastly against removing that. Wot Sandstein sed. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • But DFO, you've participated in three of the listed third-party block appeals. [5] [6] [7] Are you sure you're steadfastly against it? :-) Lev!vich 19:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• The proposed change is not desirable. A guideline ("a generally accepted standard ... occasional exceptions may apply") does not need to cover all possibilities in precise legal language. Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with the above that it should stay in. The examples above are actually pretty unique in that they are the exceptions to the rule. It’s next to impossible to document all the times we don’t do something or it isn’t considered. Equivalent to proving a negative. It was added and stayed as it enjoys community consensus and correctly documents practice as it existed at the time and exists now. We can make exceptions to the rule, as always, but it doesn’t mean the rule is out of step or that it was improper to add it. It’s survived a year because it was non-controversial and is the norm. Keep it there. It is also perfectly acceptable and normal to make non-controversial changes, like this one, to a policy or guideline in a way that reflects practice, as this does. An RfC or talk page discussion isn’t needed for everything. Implicit consensus via lack of reversion over a sustained period of time remains the primary determiner of what consensus is on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposal: alternate wording

Based on the above comments, there seems to be agreement that the guideline should be kept in some form. The problem with it, as currently written, is that it doesn't reflect the well-established practice of allowing a third party to initiate a block review. This omission has been the cause of unnecessary confusion for a while now (example) and needs to be dealt with. I'd like to propose two alternate wordings for your consideration.

• Version 1 An attempt to preserve as much of the current text as possible while addressing the concerns.

A block may only be appealed by the blocked editor. However, editors in good standing are free to raise concerns regarding any block with the blocking admin or request a block review at the Administrators' noticeboard. Another user's block should never be used as a rationale in your own unblock request, see WP:NOTTHEM.

• Version 2 A complete rewrite; twice as long as version 1 but more in line with the tone of the rest of the page.

Blocked users are expected to appeal their own blocks, but blocking administrators can be held accountable for their actions by any editor in good standing who comes across a questionable block. If you have concerns regarding a block placed on an account or an IP address that you do not control, you must always discuss them with the blocking admin first. Should they fail to address your concerns adequately, you are then free to raise the issue at the Administrators' Noticeboard.

• Personally, I'm partial towards version 2. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree with both. We can and should require users to appeal their own blocks, as discussed above. Admin accountability has nothing to do with blocks, but applies to all admin actions, and should therefore not be discussed here. Sandstein 18:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    @Sandstein: what do you think about: #3 adding before the existing language, "Subject to WP:IAR ...", or #4 adding some language describing the difference between a "third part block appeal" and an admin-accountability "third party block review". (My view is that either #3 or #4 would explain the discrepancy between what the guideline says and the ANI threads listed above.) Lev!vich 19:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Levivich, I disagree with these as well. As to #3, everything is subject to IAR, which is why we don't need to mention it everywhere, see WP:CREEP. As to #4, the place where admin accountability happens with respect to blocks is a block review, which is very a simple matter: under normal circumstances, a single other admin who disagrees with the block can overturn it. But a block review cannot usefully take place without the participation of the blocked user, because it is their response to the block that indicates to the reviewer(s) whether the block was or is still needed. Prohibiting third-party block reviews is therefore not a barrier to proper admin accountability, but in some respects a requirement for it. Sandstein 19:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    I strongly disagree with your claim that it is the blocked editor's response that determines whether the block was needed. Such a premise assumes that all blocks are valid and that the onus should always be placed upon the blocked editor to say the right things before they can be unblocked. In reality, our admin core has a tendency to overanalyze the tone of block requests. We completely ignore the context that surrounds the block and forced the blocked user to accept full responsibility and do a bit of groveling before we'll allow them to resume their volunteer work. Unsurprisingly, blocked editors are in no frame of mind to comply with these expectations and they either sit out their block in disgust or blow off steam and lose their talk page access, possibly getting their block extended in the process. The value of third-party appeals is that they allow an editor who is less emotionally invested in the situation to present relevant context for the review of the wider community. It is not always necessary for the blocked editor to participate in such a discussion. The prohibition of third-party block reviews is unambiguously a barrier to admin accountability because it greatly reduces the likelihood that any block, good or bad, will be scrutinized. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

    Of course we should require users to appeal their own blocks; both version 1 and version 2 cover that in the very first sentence. However, we should also acknowledge the simple fact that there is a difference between a block appeal, which is typically posted on the blocked user's talk page or submitted via UTRS and can only be accepted or rejected by an admin, and a block review which is essentially an opinion poll that gets initiated when there are legitimate concerns that a block was issued inappropriately. I'm rather surprised that I need to explain this. Also, your statement that "[a]dmin accountability has nothing to do with blocks, but applies to all admin actions" is self-contradictory since blocks are admin actions. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Iaritmioawp, I mean that admin accountability is not something that is particular to blocks, but applies to all admin actions including blocks, which is why the block appeal guideline is not the place to regulate it. Sandstein 19:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    Also, our policy does not provide for a "block review" in the sense of an "opinion poll" or a community discussion. The decision to unblock, as to block, is an individual admin decision, as the blocking policy explains: "An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted." See WP:BP#Unblocking. Sandstein 19:49, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

    "The policy doesn't provide" and yet block reviews happen on a regular basis. Sounds to me like a case of policy failing to keep up with the wishes of the community. You're probably right that more changes are needed than just an update to the third-party appeal guideline but it's as good a place to start as any. The reviews clearly are a thing, regardless of what is and what isn't provided by what policy. It's just a fact of life on Wikipedia and it makes no sense to argue otherwise because it's plain for everyone to see. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I think the second is better, and agree that the wording should be changed to harmonize with actual practice. Lev!vich 19:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
  • We should simply remove the section in question. It never had consensus and the person who added it explicitly wrote feel free to revert in the edit summary. There are two things to consider here. 1) This section is out of step with actual practice. 2) This section was imposed unilaterally with no formal community discussion. The only reason it is still there is because an admin keeps putting it back because we supposedly need consensus to remove it even though we didn't need consensus to add it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
• This is a end run against the established consensus. WP:ADMINACCT already covers this when it is such a huge deal that community review is needed without an appeal (which is rare.) What this amounts to is a loophole to the well-established practice that we only accept third-party appeals in extraordinary circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  A circumstance that happens every month or two can hardly be called "extraordinary", and the individual circumstances of the actual third-party appeals listed above are not by and large extraordinary. I can see what's extraordinary about the one currently pending at AN, and also #3 listed above, but I don't see anything extraordinary about the other eight on the list. Lev!vich 05:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) It is if in the same period hundreds of appeals are made; thousands of blocks are made; and appeals with wide participation are also turned down citing the norm that we do not ordinarily consider these. Citing examples of things happening when the norm is we don’t do it is a good rhetorical device that’s meant to be hard to rebut: you can’t show nothing happening even if that’s usually the case. The fact that these are so rare considering the volume of unblocks and appeals says a lot, and you currently have a third party appeal with the majority saying it’s their view without citing this guideline directly. We can make exceptions, but guidelines exist to document norms, and this is the norm. Also, having read through those you cite, many of them aren’t appeals and several actually punt it back to the user making a request. I closed one of those (#5), which I read as a question from an admin how to deal with socking. #9 and #8 were extraordinary because of the outsized personalities involved. #7 TGS had appealed multiple times and was directly talking to Ritchie, and those appeals had been carried over so it’s hardly really 3rd party. Of the ones listed, 1&2 are really the only ones where I’d say it was unambiguously third party and favourable to unblocking/lowering the block. That’s hardly a normal occurrence, even among the examples you cite. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Ah, no third-party block appeals unless the editor has an outsized personality, then we can IAR. This is what bothers me about having a rule that some do not follow: it's not about IARing in extraordinary circumstances, it's about IARing for extraordinary users. Or, I guess, the viewpoint is that an extraordinary user being blocked is an extraordinary circumstance. But I'm more of an "all pigs are equal" editor. Anyway, I think I'd prefer to differentiate between "reviews" and "appeals" as I mentioned elsewhere. Lev!vich 06:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, in most volunteer charitable groups actions involving people who have been integral to that group tend to get heightened scrutiny. Wikipedia isn’t a government; we’re allowed to take into account the whole of a situation, and that includes the people involved and the totality of their contributions to the project. As I said, this is already covered under admin accountability, there’s no need to connect it to appeals, and language encouraging sending more “reviews” to AN by friends of blocked users is hardly a good thing for Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  And who gets to decide which editors among us "have been integral" and which have not? Administrators who patrol AN? Like I said, I'm an "all pigs are equal" editor. I don't mind having the rule if it's enforced equally for all editors. And I don't mind not having the rule if we don't want to enforce it. But what I very much mind is having a rule and then having a select few ignore it for editors they view as "integral". I think that's a very corrosive practice, it divides us into classes, into "haves" and "have-nots", or as we like to say, "unblockables" (maybe we should call them "third-party-unblockables"?) and the rest of us. And not for nothing, but in most volunteer charitable groups, the same rules apply equally to all volunteers. Most organizations don't have an IAR rule. Lev!vich 06:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  The overwhelming majority of volunteer groups have no rules and are governed on an ad hoc basis with general behavioural norms: that’s the same standard as Wikipedia. The community decides what it wants to consider. In most cases, indeed in most of the ones above, it decided not to unblock on a third-party appeal. If there was evidence of frequent success, that’d be one thing. There isn’t. There’s also evidence of explicit support (again see ongoing thread), and implicit support (most cases don’t happen this way.) That’s enough for a guideline. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  The explicit support in the ongoing thread that you mention primarily stems from admins who have also expressed their opposition to third-party appeals in this thread. That hardly seems representative of the will of the community. As for your claim of implicit support, I find that argument unpersuasive. Nobody is saying that third-party appeals ought to happen all the time. But they do happen on occasion, and the rarity of these appeals is hardly evidence that we should prohibit them. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  A third party appeal being considered is not the same thing as a third party appeal being successful. The current one at AN is an example of a third party appeal being considered. It is not an example of a third party appeal not being considered (if it were, it'd be closed already). We only have one example of a third party appeal not being considered in the past year. That's why the current language, "Appeals of blocks may be made only by the editor under a currently active block. No appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user.", are two inaccurate statements. It is indisputable that some appeals will be considered without requests by the blocked user. We're doing it right now. Lev!vich 08:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  TonyBallioni, where, pray tell, is the evidence that this policy is supported by an established consensus? Please show us a sampling of the dozens of threads in which third-party appeals are turned away. If this really is the norm, examples should be easy to find. Right now, all I see is an editor adding it unilaterally with an oblique reference to unspecified previous threads and an admin edit-warring to keep it in place. Also, how in the world does a proposal to change this "policy" constitute an end-run? Levi is actually following the established procedure for changing policy. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Theres an active thread an active thread at AN currently supporting that stance as do most of the examples cited above. I’m not going to dig through AN to find the threads closed with people siting this either in the close or the discussion, if Levivich’s list is as exhaustive as he claims, it’s proof enough—the community is not receptive to these and an appeal is seen as a requirement from many. This isn’t a policy; it’s a guideline, and it exists to document our norms. It went unchallenged for over a year because it is the norm. That’s been challenged and we’re now discussing it, but based on the current thread at AN, the hundreds of unblock requests a month, and the thousands of blocks a month, a smattering of requests, most of which are not successful and multiple requesting or suggesting an appeal from the are hardly evidence that this is normal. If anything they prove the opposite point. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

  Nobody is saying that third-party appeals are normal. What we are saying is that when someone files a third-party appeal, the appeal is normally considered regardless of what this policy page happens to say. Rather than speculating on how the community feels about this issue, we should revert the policy page to the status quo that preceded the unilateral addition and then raise the matter to the community. What would we have to lose? If the community agrees with you, the policy will be reinstated and those of us who objected to it will bow to the will of the community. But if the community does not endorse this policy, we certainly don't want to have it on the books, do we? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 07:08, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Like several others here I'm against the proposed changes. Our standard practice is that users must appeal their own blocks; a handful of incidences of admin actions being reviewed and (maybe?) overturned does not point to a structural problem with the policy, indeed it shows that things are working the way they're supposed to. We require the blocked user to initiate appeals so that reviewers (admins, the community, whoever) can determine whether the block is necessary to prevent disruption, i.e. does the user recognize their disruptive behaviour that led to the block so that they won't continue, or should different sanctions be imposed so that they can try editing something else constructively, or can the user offer more information to demonstrate that the block is improper on the face of it; but we also require them to initiate appeals because maybe they don't want to appeal: disputes that result in editors being blocked can be traumatic, and maybe they just want to be done with it and not be dragged back into the drama by a well-meaning third party. Entertaining third-party appeals doesn't improve anything for Wikipedia (and IAR is being quoted badly out of context here), it only leads to unblocks becoming a popularity contest, and more "unblockables" who can get away with anything because they have loud friends. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• oppose per Ivanvector and others. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
• This was discussed in September at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Who can initiate a block review? and in August at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Review of El C's block of Koavf. I suggest that having the discussion on the blocking policy page or the village pump policy page is better than this one, which is a supporting page for the blocking policy. As I said there, since sanctioned editors are the ones directly affected by the imposed sanction, they should retain control over when and how an appeal is made. It's fine if they agree to someone else making an appeal, but their right to craft their own appeal shouldn't be pre-empted by others. (I agree there is a fuzzy area regarding other parties requesting a general review of how a situation was handled overall.) isaacl (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

  Isaacl, it wouldn't matter where this discussion was held. The admin core tends to do a good job of killing proposals that would give greater control to the general community. In this case, the real problem is that the change was added without consensus and then Sandstein edit-warred without consequence in order to keep the consensus-devoid change in place. This was a sham from start to finish and it completely flies in the face of how consensus was supposed to work. I'm tempted to remove the consensus-devoid section in dispute and report Sandstein to ANEW after he inevitably mashes the revert button once again, but I know perfectly well that he has more power than I have. On Wikipedia, being right matters a lot less than being a long-term admin. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  At a minimum, it would have been helpful if a pointer to the discussion had been placed both on blocking policy discussion page and the policy village pump. I think allowing third parties to appeal a sanction takes away control from sanctioned parties to manage their own appeal. isaacl (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

  Your argument against third-party appeals is a fair point that, as far as I recall, wasn't raised by any of the admins who supported the end-run around consensus being challenged in this thread. I support third-party appeals because I think we should have more avenues for challenging bad blocks, and it is precisely for the sake of reducing accountability that the admin core would shoot down this proposal even if was more widely advertised. Not that we should need a proposal to give us permission to uphold the basic principle of consensus, but that's another story. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

  I don't like assuming that the community knows what's best for the person who was sanctioned. Even those with the best of intentions can, through say clumsy or intemperate comments, or inaccurate statements, make things worse. The editor who has to face the consequences of the appeal should play a role in how the appeal is made. isaacl (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

UTRS bans

If someone has lost talk page access and then UTRS due to misuse, abuse, or many fruitless appeals, or through multiple sockpuppet abuse, what should there next stop be? Can we add ArbCom here for those who have exhausted other venues? Should we go to the community before permanently banning from UTRS? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)