Wiktionary talk:Blocking policy

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Initial comments[edit]

I noticed that the beginnings of the blocking policy were written over six months ago with no discussion. I thougth I would begin the discussion. As an English Wikipedia admin, I would suggest modeling the Wikipedia:Blocking policy on English WP. I like how the WP lays out when blocks are appropraite. As a Wiktionarian, I really like how Wiktionary has decided not to give admins recommendations on length of blocks. Experienced admins will know what length is appropriate for a particular situation. At this point, I think Wiktionary would benefit from having a more liberal blocking policy. It does not need to be a structured as the one on EN.

I realize that I do not have a lot of Wiktionary experience. I mostly copyedit or watch the vandalism channel on IRC. However, I am trying to make a move to Wiktionary. As an WP admin, I think the Blocking and other admin policies are a great way for me to meet others on the site. If anyone has questions for me, you are welcome to leave a message on my talk page or find me in IRC. I am often in #wiktionary-en-vandalism, #wikipedia-en-vandalism, and #wiktionary. -- Psy guy 02:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad usernames?[edit]

Are we supposed to automatically perma-block users such as User:(chubbstar) for starting their usernames with punctuation? --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this punctuation? I don't think anything is, but one thing I know is that this page needs a good deal of revamping. —Vildricianus 20:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
There are quite a number of existing editors whose account names do not follow the guidelines specified on the account creation page (or at least the more extensive guidelines linked to on wikimedia.) The blocking guideline states that the user must willfully disregard these, but I went back and checked, and while the information is there, it's sidebarred and thus potentially easy to overlook (except for the red-text prohibition against email addresses.) BTW, the linked wikimedia page indicates that as of the last release, email address format names are prohibited by the software anyway, so that warning may be redundant.
That said, other than the inconvenience factor, I don't really see the harm in usernames that don't masquerade as something they're not. The "invalid account names" policy, as stated, would mean that someone with e.g. a Greek or Cyrillic character in their name should be blocked on sight. If that's so, those names should be screened during the account creation process, rather than using a reactive blocking policy. --Jeffqyzt 17:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up: with the software changes in the second half of this year, it became painfully obvious that such usernames are undesirable across all WMF pages. Most of the usernames discussed above are impossible to create now. --Connel MacKenzie 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking policy for spam?[edit]

Copied from Beer parlour to remind me/others of it

Did we (the English Wiktionary) ever come up with a recommendation for block-duration for spammers? I'd like to see either an infinite block or a one year block for first offense, but that would be conditional on doing an ISP check though ARIN (or similar.) In the situation where it is an ISP, how long is appropriate? One month? Three months? 2 hours?

It is quite hard to tell if an ISP dynamic address is really dynamic or not. I know US cable companies (e.g. *.rr.com, *.comcast.net/com) and DSL (*.*bell.com, *.sbc.*, etc) tend to be semi-static, changing only once or twice a year. Dial up ISPs obviously give a different IP address with each connection.

Getting spam indicates a compromised/hax0r3d host - and as such indicates a significantly long block is warranted. Does anyone know of a reliable way of determining if an ISP connection is a dail up? I know that many ISPs use a DNS naming convention of "ppp-nnn-nnn-nnn-nnn.ISP.tld" for their (point to point protocol) dailup pools, but that hardly seems reliable.

--Connel MacKenzie T C 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

Lol, I do like the vague casual style of writing on this page. --Dangherous 17:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reading it again, just now, I'm happy with the tone also. It does seem strangely appropriate. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not going to revamp it. It suits en:wikt very well. —Vildricianus 19:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving letters[edit]

Note: the "block letters sent" will be moved to a new page: Wiktionary:Abuse reports ( = WT:ABUSE). — Vildricianus 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Wiktionary talk:Abuse reports for the sections that were below this one. — Vildricianus 09:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity ambiguous[edit]

The definition of serial stupidity as a reason for a block should be clarified. It's excessively vague right now.RJFJR 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are guidelines not rules. The vagueness allows scope for discretion. Jonathan Webley 15:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it becomes policy, it would indeed become "the rules." Since the intent of this review is to make sure this document provides the proper guidance when an admin is inclined to (or wondering whether to) block a user/IP, one can assume that the admin is sanity checking their own discretion by consulting this page. Perhaps some examples would be in order? My take, on reading this, is that an editor exihibiting "pure stupidity" (as opposed to one of the other undesirable characteristics mentioned) is one that creates multiple entries or repeated edits to the same entry that (possibly unintentionally) violate WT:CFI, WT:ELE, or are just plain ungrammatical or wrong. Perhaps a somewhat clarified statement of this policy, maybe with the admonition that "you'll know it when you see it," is in order? --Jeffqyzt 17:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Examples sound good, but I don't think vagueness is in itself a bad idea for policy pages. Presumably, if we didn't trust administrators to use their discretion in this manner, we wouldn't have made them administrators in th efirst place. And if we don't trust them, making a policy page overly explicit (and therefore loophole-ridden) won't really fix that issue. Dmcdevit 02:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harshness[edit]

The proposed duration of the blocks seems excessively harsh to me. (Just an opinion, but we should have some discussion of how harsh to be.) RJFJR 13:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I like to think that I can always learn new things. But to me, the proposed block durations seem too forgiving. We don't have over a thousand sysops lurking recentchanges, so having repeated short duration blocks doesn't work nearly as well over here on Wiktionary. Am I misinterpreting some major concept? --Connel MacKenzie 18:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify:[edit]

The first sentence of this blocking policy reads "Blocking is the second to last line of defense". But I have yet to see anything that comes before this second to last line of defense. Am I right to assume that there are only two lines of defense here? ZJH 16:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change[edit]

I would like to propose the addition of a sentence to this, something along the lines of "an attempt should be made to educate the user before a block is used". Thoughts? ZJH 17:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

requesting a bot for manual of style enforcement.[edit]

moved to Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#requesting_a_bot_for_manual_of_style_enforcement.

Rewrite[edit]

According to our current Beer Parlor discussion, this could do with a rewrite. I agree, furthermore this isn't an official policy so there's no need for a vote; just like any other page, if you don't like my edits, revert or remove them. I'll leave this message a few hours so there's a chance of a reply before I start editing. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Blocking policy/new - would be nice if you could integrate the two. (The point behind the layout of /new is that the stuff in the box will require a vote to change, the stuff outside of the box won't. You absolutely must obey the box, and you are strongly recommended to obey the rest of the page.) Conrad.Irwin 13:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

probably not worthwhile blocking...[edit]

Is there need to block this IP adress, or IP adresses with a similar pattern of edits? When they edit 3 times a year, and make a mess of the spaces? It seems to me unnecessary. --Volants 15:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For such a block to be useful, it would have to be very long-term, and we simply don't block IP addresses for long periods (because there's no way to know how long the IP address will continue to correspond to the same person). So no, not worthwhile. —RuakhTALK 15:47, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another useful block is one-second, with a useful blocking summary, just to put future patrollers on notice that this address makes bad edits.​—msh210℠ 17:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I object, but — how would that be useful? I only notice past blocks when I go to block a user (since it shows the block log at the bottom of the page). Is there somewhere earlier-noticeable that the UI presents that information? Or are there admins that explicitly go and check a user's block log while patrolling, even if they're not considering blocking the user? —RuakhTALK 17:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am such an admin. That is, specifically, if someone vandalises, I warn him instead of blocking, with exceptions depending on circumstances. One such exception is if he's been blocked before.​—msh210℠ 15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking?[edit]

Is there no way to request unblocking on this project? I don't see Template:unblock request or anything mentioned in this project page about unblocking. Killiondude 06:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could be wrong, but I think you can still send e-mail to other users while blocked from editing, so you could contact the blocking administrator or another. Equinox ◑ 10:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for blocking[edit]

I don't think the current insults rise to the level of a ban for such a generally productive editor, but the recent comments of user Metaknowledge have been excessively personal and insulting.

(a) I notice that this page has no link or see also for a space where vandals or harassing users might be reported for discussion or admin notice. It should be included somewhere.
(b) Where is such a place? Are there lesser penalties or warning templates to employ when someone simply gets overheated in argument? (Kindly inform me at my talk page.) LlywelynII (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would be kind of exciting to have a desysop vote, but I don't really feel like it right now. (Well, I haven't actually insulted you, even though you called me a prat and our policies moronic. But clearly you feel insulted for some reason.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here (where you also repeatedly edited the formatting of my talk page) and here, along with here where you misleadingly edited my discussion post.
Fwiw, I did answer your question but you haven't answered mine, and I didn't call your policies moronic: I pointedly explained that the policies are individually well-intentioned but taken together produce a counterproductive result in this instance. LlywelynII (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so you called the work produced by our policies moronic? C'mon, nobody's going around insulting people except you. I didn't edit your post, contrary to your claims, although the repeated edit conflicts might've made it seem that way. (But I don't find your claim that I'm a "strange person" to be offensive. That one's true. Otherwise I would have long ago given up on trying to reason with you :) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
=)
(But, yeah, that's one again and, yeah, ya did [although WikiTiki's edits made it look worse than it was].)
Anyway, at some point, include the info on this page and meantime (since, yeah, it is moronic to have to write [[example|ēxāmplē]] and {{template|example|ēxāmplē}} every single time a Latin word shows up instead of simply using redirects that should exist anyway to make [[ēxāmplē]] and {{template|ēxāmplē}} work) let's get back to making this place work better and flow better. LlywelynII (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Says Infinite?[edit]

Why does the block length say infinite and not indefinite? Indefinite means "until no longer needed", but infinite means forever. Why? UpsandDowns1234 (🗨) 17:51, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We use them synonymously here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFM discussion: December 2015–May 2017[edit]

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

Suggestion: move Wiktionary:Blocking policy -> Wiktionary:Blocking.

Reason: "policy" is redundant. We could have Wiktionary:Entry layout policy as well, and maybe Wiktionary:Policy for criteria for inclusion. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 20:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; furthermore the page contains some non-policy information. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
N Not done Ipadguy (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reopened now that the above-mentioned vote is over. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
::N Not done again. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Edit request - How to appeal[edit]

It is requested that an edit be made to this fully protected English Wiktionary policy page

The current policy page does not provide any guidance whatsoever on how to appeal blocks. I spent 15 minutes trying to find out how a user blocked on English Wiktionary can even appeal just so I could advise them on how to proceed (they tried to use English Wikipedia's UTRS). Since {{Template:unblock}} and Category:Requests for unblock exist as the mechanism through which English Wiktionary blocks are appealed, this needs to be mentioned within the Blocking Policy page. Of course if the actual procedure for appealing a block is different and I just haven't found the right info, feel free to incorporate whatever reflects common practice instead. I propose something like this but of course you can chose to word it however you like:

Blocked users can request unblocking by posting a filled-out {{Template:unblock}} on their own user talk page. As part of an unblock request, uninvolved editors may discuss the block, and the blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block, or provide further information. Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked themselves.
Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the Beer parlour is recommended.

Hopefully this "advice from an outsider" of the enwikt community is not too unwelcome. Just trying to help. :D Salvidrim! (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that adding information on how to appeal a block would be useful here. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess: was it the swearword vandal (the one behind e.g. this)?
Wiktionarians rarely have to block anyone except for obvious disruption (although there have been a few notable wheel wars...), and other admins patrolling RecentChanges and other logs tend to notice blocks, and blocked users' comments on their talk page, if any are inappropriate. Still, it can't hurt to have a suggested procedure; thank you both for your comments and suggested wording. (It's basically what is de facto done now, athough perhaps another Wiktionary admin will want to trim it to just say users should appeal on their talk page, without involving a fancy template.) - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whatever works for you guys. Any guidance is better than the current complete lack of, even if it is has to be "There are no appeals" if that how you guys run your ship. :) Salvidrim! (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gender neutral language[edit]

An edit request: in the following sentence, "he" should be changed to "they": 

  Such an account can be blocked if its principal ignores a single request to desist or explanation of what he is doing wrong.

- Sdkb (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I tweaked it a bit to just say "[its/that] user" instead of "principal" (which was excessively high-level vocabulary, IMO) and "he". - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of YouTube on Wiktionary[edit]

I am trying to provide a sample of a pronunciation of important I found on YouTube, but when I do I get the following warning:

The text you wanted to publish was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to a forbidden external site. The following text is what triggered our spam filter: youtu.be

I can see why this would be blocked on Wikipedia, but an audio platform like YouTube is critical for discussing pronunciation issues on Wiktionary and I think this policy has probably been mistakenly appropriated from Wikipedia. You can see people using workarounds to use YouTube, but I feel like the policy should just be adapted to accept audio based platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, other podcasting platforms even Netflix (not sure if deep linking is supported on Netflix). --Zaurus (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That filter only applies to newer users, it is intended to reduce spam posting. Most users are able to post links to YouTube and elsewhere. - TheDaveRoss 18:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, youtube.com isn't blocked, youtu.be is. Even without making an account you can link to YouTube, as long as you answer a CAPTCHA. For example: [1]. 70.172.194.25 18:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what is blocking?[edit]

It is not even explained in the first section, what blocking is. This should be done. By someone else, as I am not allowed. --Utonsal (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary_talk:Blocking_policy&oldid=72213819"