Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Archive 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Attack sites

I think it's right to block editors who link to attacks on other editors, but DennyColt's essay is written a bit too broadly. We all know what sort of thing we mean, and I'd agree wholeheartedly that anyone linking to Wikipedia Review's many attacks on editors here should expect to be blocked swiftly for doing so (and I've expressed the view that we could and maybe should ban anyone who contributes to it). However, a website that links to Wikipedia Review could be described as "facilitating" or "encouraging" Wikipedia Review, and an overzealous admin could use the policy here to block someone for linking to that website. I think this needs some more thought anyway, because "attacking" someone is a very broad concept. I've "attacked" a few people here who thoroughly deserved it in my view, but I've never defamed anyone or made the sort of vicious remark that defaces Wikipedia Review. I'd also be concerned that we do not write very loose policy in this area that can be used to ban just about anyone who says anything about anybody offwiki or comments on someone's saying something. It can very easily be read as intending to have a chilling effect on criticisms of Wikipedia or its editors. I recognise that it can be very difficult to draw the line between a valid criticism of an editor and nasty shit, but making linking out to too wide an area of criticism is not a good idea in my view. Grace Note 06:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree, and I also think that the idea that simply mentioning the name of a site, without a hot link, constitutes a "link" and is a form of "promotion" of a site is way over the top. When we discuss such a site for legitimate purposes, we must be able to say what we are talkign about. Even blogs are citeable as sources about themselves, so when we discuss WR or any other "attack site" per se, we must be able to name it, and indeed to provide enough info that editors who want to verify claims can do so. DES (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
There is no 'legitimate' purpose that would justify providing a link to an attack or harassment site. If a site contains material that attacks, attempts to 'out', or otherwise targets and harasses Wikipedia editors, linking to it, either 'hot' or 'cold' (I fail to see a distinction) promotes that site and provides it a vehicle to spread its malicious content. Therefore the editor who posts the link is effectively aiding and abetting the the attacks and harassment, clearly a blockable offense. Crum375 00:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the links that I had to restore was a cite to an "if I were running Wikipedia" message on the Unspeakable Forum. So as to legitimacy of purpose, the evidence is already against you.

When the next NYT article comes along, giving a name to an administrator here, are you going to block it as an attack site? It would be stupid to do so, since they would most likely "retaliate" by reporting on such an attempt to shut them up. And of course, the NYT is very important to Wikipedia as a source, and it would not do, both in terms of credibility and in terms of sheer power, to fight them on those grounds. But since the Unspeakable Forum is supposedly so unimportant, censoring them out would be no loss-- but then, if they were so unimportant, censoring them out wouldn't be necessary.

That's why this is coming off as the Arbitration CabalTM trying to suppress dissent. I don't agree that exposure of identities over there constitutes "harassment" anyway, but as it stands it's happening as part of their larger thesis that administrators are taking advantage of their anonymity to abuse power here. It is therefore reasonable to expect that they are going to try to expose the identity of those who act here against them. I see no real injury happening here that isn't the result of taking actions as administrators (or in one case, apparently, as an administrator surrogate) that attract their attention as critics. If you are afraid of being revealed, then you shouldn't be doing anything anonymously that as a real person you would have to answer for.

I'm not going to argue this on the basis of what you are or are not empowered to do, except for the sneaky-looking end run of WP:BADSITES appearing as an essay and then immediately being used as if it were a guideline or policy. What I'm trying to get across is that this is folly: carrying it out is only going to improve their position at the expense of your own reputation. And I also think that you need thicker skins. Comments as to the badness or even apparent malice of your acts aren't harassment. Mangoe 04:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry i cannot agree with a statement this absolute and sweeping, and i do not think this has anythign like a policy consensus behind it. To link to a page is one thing. To mention a site by name is not the same thing. Many such mentions might well be attempts to promote the site, or to aid in the attacks. But if the site has an article, or is othewise beign discussed as a site, themn naming it cannot be considered promoting it to the extent of being a blockable offfense. The result must depend on the detailed circumstances, not on this kind of "black is black adn white is white and never th twain shall meet" rationale. DES (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
As I noted above, such sites are generally not acceptable as sources, so 'having an article' there would not be justify mentioning it, as we could not use it as a source. To 'otherwise discuss it as a site' would not make sense if it's not usable as a source. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in rumors and speculations about editors, or to otherwise help external sites bent on harming the project and/or its editors. Such behavior is clearly disruptive and must be stopped. Crum375 01:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, i must have been unclear. By having an article I meant when wikipedia has an article about the "attack site" or in which actions on the "attack site" are an essential part of the article (such as Essjay controversy). Such sites are celarly valid sources about themselves or about actiosn that took place on thsoe sites. By "otherwise being discussed as a site" I mean when actions that take place on the site are relvant to actiosn on wikipedia, not simply to an exchange of gossip. For example, when content posted to an attack site is relevant in an arbcom case, or an RFC. Or when an attack site raises a possibly valid criticism of wikipedia itself (as WR has done on occasion) the issue may not be able to be fruitfully discussed without at least mentioning the site where it was raised. There are other possible situations.
I have put a pointer to this debate on the pump, and i hope for more eyes here. DES (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of attack sites is redundant

Guys, we're barking up the wrong tree by focusing on particular sites and what sites are "bad" and what sites are "good", when the issue is one of behaviour and what an editor is doing.

We don't need a special paragraph for "attack sites". Making a personal attack that puts someone in danger is blockable behaviour. Posting personal details is blockable behaviour. Making persistent personal attacks is blockable behaviour. Just look at what someone is doing by linking to a particular site. Is it probable that they are doing it for one of those blockable reasons mentioned above (or any other of the blockable behaviours)? If so, then they get blocked.

Going into great detail about these things not only creates redundancy and inconsistency, it invites people to Wikilawyer and argue that what they did wasn't within the letter of the policy, distracting everyone from what is important, the purpose of the policy, which is to prevent people from engaging in certain types of behaviour. --bainer (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

The same can be said about the arbcom decision that was the basis of the sentence or two we're discussing. Why not just toss that out too?--Mantanmoreland 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That was an application of policy to particular circumstances. I don't think we need to mention every ArbCom decision related to the blocking policy on this page. --bainer (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with you that posting information about a site that harasses, attacks or attempts to 'out' Wikipedia editors is tantamount to actually taking these actions, and is hence a blockable offense. However, it seems to me, based on comments I have read here and elsewhere, that some people mistakenly think that merely providing a link (hot or cold) to an attack site is somehow acceptable. I believe the policy must make it abundantly clear, as did ArbCom in its ruling, that posting a link to an attack site is in fact promoting that site and its attacks, and is therefore considered an attack by itself. Crum375 14:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that posting personal details and making persistent personal attacks is blockable behaviour. Some are arguing that merely mentioning the name of a site that has been deemed an "attack site" is blockable, or at least that the name can be deleted and that reinserting it is blockable. We should not have an index expurgatorius on wikipedia, not an "Attourny General's list" os suspect organizations. We are suppsoed to be about the sum of knowledge, adn i find the idea that even mentioning the name of a site is forbidden to be so completely agaisnt that core principle that I can in no way accept it. DES (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In the 'sum of knowledge' we specifically exclude purported personal details, attacks and harassment. Crum375 15:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And to be clear, i am not arguing for posting any of that, nor even for links calculated to publicize any of that on other sites, nor for links or mentions whose only plausible purpose is to publicize such info. But the mere mention of the name of a site which includes such content should not be off limits when and only when there is a legitimate reason to mention it. For example, in the Essjay controversy one of these "attack sites" and its operator had a significant role in the notable events. In other cases, participation in an attack site has been cited as evidence of lack of good faith or of bias in wikipedia editing. In other cases, there have been actual articles on WP about sites which are, at least arguably, "attack sites". In these and similar cases, it may be needed or at least proper to conduct discussions on wikipedia in which such sites will be referred to. i don't think that really constitutes a "cold link", but if it does, in such cases, any policy against linking should be trumped by other considerations. I am willing to concede that any reference to such a site should be treated with suspicion, but not that it should be barred without question, regardless of the circumstances. That is what has been proposed, at least by some, as the effect of this policy. The policy needs to be limited so that it takes the relevant circumstances into account. That is all that I am saying. I am not proposing a freeforall for libelers and harassers. DES (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that common sense is always important when deciding on blocks. Crum375 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Crum375, my point was that any behaviour that amounts to making a personal attack that puts someone in danger, making personal details available or making persistent personal attacks is blockable behaviour. Why should we invite wikilawyering by identifying particular instances of such behaviour? The current version already constricts the definition of "attack sites" to sites which publish personal info. What about sites which make personal attacks that put someone in danger? Obviously that's intended but the wording unnecessarily complicates the point.
The issue at play is that we want to make clear that linking to external sites can attract a block if it amounts to blockable behaviour. Surely this is the case for other blocking reasons and not just this one (eg, linking to an external site that makes legal threats on a Wikipedia user). Wouldn't it be a better approach to have a section making clear that, in this policy, linking to something may constitute blockable behaviour just as much as putting that something on wiki? --bainer (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Re your comment, about "sites which make personal attacks that put someone in danger." (by which I assume you mean, other than the ones addressed by this policy) Wouldn't that result in blocking of legitimate websites? Let's say the New York Times or Wall Street Journal publishes an editorial attacking Wikipedia editors. No way that could be ignored in, say the Criticism of Wikipedia article. The aim of this policy is to prohibit linking to a tiny number of sites that are clearly defined. The aim is limited. What you're suggesting seems much broader and would seem to be more troublesome from the standpoint of the criticism that has been raised. --Mantanmoreland 13:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that the policy focuses (and ought to focus) on behaviours which are not acceptable (eg, making personal attacks, or performing vandalism) and not particular actions, which may or may not constitute an unacceptable behaviour depending on the circumstances. As in, we don't say that you can be blocked for doing X, we say that you can be blocked for doing X in order to achieve Y, or for the purpose of Y, and so on. The recent addition about linking attack sites is an attempt to prohibit actions, and not behaviours.
I quite simply have two points to make:
  1. The paragraph about linking to certain sites is redundant, since we already prohibit all of the behaviours which are unacceptable instances of the action (linking to make personal attacks, to publish personal information, etc), and thus we already implicitly permit all of the behaviours that are acceptable (eg. using sites as an article reference, like you mention);
  2. By explicitly identifying the action (linking to external sites) and tying it only to one particular behaviour (publishing personal information) the recent addition unnecessarily limits the operation of the policy. What I suggested above is that linking to an external site that contains a legal threat against a Wikipedia user, for example, is surely blockable behaviour just as posting the legal threat on-wiki is. We shouldn't be tying actions to particular behaviours; if we want to mention external linking in the policy, it should be mentioned as a type of action which can constitute any of the unacceptable behaviours in the right circumstances.
Is this clear now? --bainer (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

BADSITES

I've removed the line that was edited to make it reflect WP:BADSITES - someone else can put back whatever was there before this tendentious editing began. Regardless of what one thinks of the proposal itself, editing live policy pages to gain an edge in passing a new policy is, well... just not cool. --Random832 02:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This addition in the "Personal attacks that place users in danger" subsection lacks consensus. 4.250.168.230 06:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever is done, I request that the section regarding off-wikipedia activities in WP:NPA is in sync with what is written here. Andries 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warrings

I've protected the page due to edit warring. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 15:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm thinking it might be a good idea for people to step back a little from this. I can't work out what's going on, but we suddenly have forest fires about attack sites breaking out everywhere, with an RfAr, a request for clarification, an RfC suggested, people posting links provocatively, insulting each other, a policy proposal, and now a policy protected. Perhaps we should just carry on doing what we were doing before, which was basically just using common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I completely agree with that. Common sense and prior policy adequately covers what these changes were trying to proscribe.--Academy Leader 18:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This may help to answer some questions. —AldeBaer user:Kncyu38 18:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blocks for Conflict of interest-only accounts

→ See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive84#Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts?

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Shall we expand principle of indef blocking vandalism-only accounts and nuke COI-only accounts? it has been proposed that accounts that appear to exist for the sole purpose of promoting some person or company be indef-blocked after a single warning. I think this is a policy change, but I support such a change. Note Brad Patrick's statement on the increase in corporate promotional spam [1]. I therefore propose the following addition to the blocking policy:

  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any admin may block the account indefinitely.

I hope that this proposal gains consensus promptly. DES (talk) 16:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, we need this. We can hardly keep up with Conflict of interest/Noticeboard because many of these single-purpose-COI accounts will fight endlessly to protect their spam articles. If we can nuke them in fewer steps, that may turn the tide. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This has my strong support, obviously, since I'm the editor who opened the WP:AN thread. My reasons are posted there. DurovaCharge! 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It would seem that such accounts are fundamentally incompatibly with our mission of building an encyclopedia. We already nuke COI-only articles, with good reason. My only quibble is that the wording is too legalistic. >Radiant< 16:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I've been involved (on a local level) with drafting actual ordinances; I perhaps tend to write that way when drafting policies or rules. If you want to suggest improved wording, feel free. DES (talk) 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above, and would add or service to the list. Obviously someone can then say 'what about the promotion of an idea' (e.g. political, religious) - I personally would support even that, but I suspect there may be more resistance there. Crum375 16:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with "service". i think 'Idea" or "memme" is already covered under our methods for dealing with POV pushing and Neutral point of view violations. DES (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have revised the wording above to include "service". DES (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Hell yes. We seriously need to crack down on vanispamcruftisers. As for the religious services, yes - I have seen church vanity before (like this). It'll also give us a way to nuke "Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day" only accounts. MER-C 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong, strong support. To quote BradPatrick: "This scourge is a serious waste of time and energy." — Athænara ✉ 06:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Kill the spammers. We've need stronger measures against vanity/promotion for a while now. Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I have strong reservations about having "a person" on the list, as the subject of an article has certain privileges under Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons as well as certain legal rights. As for companies, products, and services, could we add the words "for profit", so as to only include situations where the conflict of interest is most likely monetary in nature, and exclude things that are most likely neutral point of view disputes. "For profit" applying to the companies, products, and services, not the editors, as even if we are going to block them we should still give them the benefit of the doubt. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC), 17:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have seen single purpose accounts devoted to creating promotional pages for non-profit or charitable groups. I don't see why they should be treated any differently. they can often be particularly tenacious. Note that even if a person is blocked that person can still object to content on a page about him or her via email -- there is at least one notorious case in point on wikipedia. DES (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, this is an improvement. Regarding legitimate concerns raised by Armedblowfish, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons still applies including "reverting someone who is trying to remove libel about themselves is a horribly stupid thing to do", also from Wikipedia:Blocking policy "established users with significant constructive edits should not be indefinitely blocked except when there is a community ban" remains policy. However, spammers that aren't removing libel and haven't made constructive edits can now be indefinitely blocked. Addhoc 13:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal and think any clarification or strengthening of the ability to block spammers is good. That said, I would be more comfortable if there were some sort of quantifiable aspect to the proposal, perhaps something analogous to Three revert rule. As it now stands, I could see someone spamming once, being warned, spamming a second time, and being permanently blocked for two edits. This seems a bit extreme - for comparison, 3RR requires 4 edits and a warning for what is typically an initial 24 hour block. Wikipedia has a fairly steep learning curve and I think that needs to be taken into account. Perhaps at least two spam edits and a warning, followed by more spam for a permanent block (and no or very few other constructive edits). If I am reading this wrong, please forgive my misunderstanding. Ruhrfisch 20:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This proposal is a good idea, I fully support it, Wikipedia has nothing to gain from such accounts. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal is overly broad

I'm quite uncomfortable with the proposal as described; it is overly broad, goes beyond that which it attempts to address and has the potential to be interpreted in all sorts of ways that are not necessarily intended by the editors supporting it here.

Everyone agrees that spamming is inappropriate. Why not simply explicitly identify spamming (which by now has a pretty good broadly accepted definition) as one of the disruptive behaviours which are blockable? I certainly share Brad's point of view that corporate promotion and astroturfing are a significant concern. My concern is that an addition phrased like this will be used for unintended purposes, by unscrupulous editors as a weapon in edit wars or as a method for biting newbies, or by well-meaning literalists.

I fully support any changes which are addressed at stamping out particular unacceptable behaviours (such as spamming), but I cannot support changes which are based on systems of labelling editors as good or bad because they are much more likely to be abused. --bainer (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an indication of how this could be rephrased - for example possibly specifying the admin should be uninvolved. Also, in your opinion, should the statement also remind the reader of WP:BLP and WP:BITE policies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Addhoc (talk • contribs) 14:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
My concern is not necessarily with admins, I would be more worried about editors in general engaged in content disputes using this kind of thing to intimidate each other. I think problems like this arise any time that something tries to label people as "bad" as opposed to their behaviour. Quite simply, we could add "adding spam links" to the examples of what constitutes disruption, to emphasise that this is already unacceptable behaviour. The task would be to more precisely identify which behaviours we are talking about here which are unacceptable; clearly spamming is one, but there are others which we would need to develop some sort of definition of. --bainer (talk) 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with what bainer is saying. Perhaps we could just say, "Users who do nothing but continually spam articles which clearly do not have defamatory problems may be warned and, if the spamming persists, blocked indefinitely. It is better form for someone not involved in the dispute to do the warning, in case there are defamatory problems that the editor involved is unaware of." — Armed Blowfish (mail) 16:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Before offering or lining up behind an alternate version that would gut the proposal, I very strongly recommend a week at WP:COIN or WP:SSP to get firsthand experience about how serious this problem really is. This goes far beyond mere spam. DurovaCharge! 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, I fully accept that you have cleared backlogs at WP:COIN + WP:SSP and many others (including me) haven't. Also, I appreciate that in Wikipedia "spam" usually refers to adding links, instead of creating articles. Personally, I am supporting the proposal on the basis of trusting the editors involved and hoping the wording is going to be clarified in due course. However, in my humble opinion, bainer is representing entirely reasonable concerns.
Also, the current proposal appears to be a stand alone paragraph and I'm not sure how it would be included. The blocking policy is structured with a list of disruption types that at minimum would just include conflict of interest and guide to blocking times that would presumably be along the lines of "Conflict of interest — Blocks should generally not be used against isolated incidents in relation to conflicts of interest. Dynamic IPs: up to 31 hours. Range blocks: about 15 minutes, then 1-3 hours, and 31 at most, to avoid collateral damage. User accounts with persistent violations may be blocked indefinitely." Addhoc 19:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I would insert it as a separate sub-section under "disruptition" parallel to and just after the "1.2.1 Biographies of living persons" section. This would become 1.2.2 DES (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned spam because it's an obvious, well-defined and clearly unacceptable behaviour which is part of many COI violations. There are many other behaviours which are part of this and naturally they should all be identified and mentioned in the policy to remind people that they are unacceptable. But no amount of time at WP:COIN will convince me that a policy that is based on labelling people as bad, as opposed to their behaviours, is a good idea. --bainer (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
This policy would say that people who engage in aprticualr behavior are to be blocked. We all ready do that with persistant vanfals, with abusive sockpuppeters, with block evaders, and various other categories. This is no different, IMO. DES (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Durova, policies intended for dealing with editors more concerned with things like having fun causing trouble or promoting something for-profit, rather than improving the encyclopaedia, often end up being used in content disputes, where everyone is interested in improving the encyclopaedia, even if they have radically different ideas on how to go about it. In short, WP:COIN is not the only places where conflict of interest and suspected sockpuppet concerns come up. Having editors with partisan or religious interests in an article is a normal part of content disputes, and our Neutral Point of View policy is designed such that people with such interests, on opposing sides of a debate, should theoretically be able to work together towards something they can all agree on. In such a situation, a accusations of conflicts of interest are likely to make it harder for the editors to work together, and blocks could result in unbalance in the dispute.
Besides, given that we should comment on content/contributions, not editors/intent, it is better to focus on negative promotional (promotional being distinct from biased) edits themselves, rather than an editors purposes for making them.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 23:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
At the administrators' noticeboard where I first proposed this, I offered two specific examples of accounts that deserved to be indef blocked on sight. In my opinion the current language of this policy is sufficient for that purpose. Would the editors who oppose the proposed language change support the interpretation that would allow me to take action against these single purpose abusive accounts? DurovaCharge! 03:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Links? It would help if I could see the situations you are referring to. Hey, if the Conflict of Interest rule doesn't apply, and they are being highly disruptive, you can just block them for that. So it wouldn't be so terrible if the rule were a bit loose.
But it is still important that effort be made that a Conflict of Interest blocking rule does not apply in things which are really just neutral point of view disputes. Accusations conflicts of interests can make such disputes hard to resolve - blocks can make them impossible. Neutrality requires people from all sides of the dispute - if one side of the dispute is blocked for a conflict of interest, neutrality cannot be attained. Hence, making the rule too tight could have a serious impact on controversial articles.
— Armed Blowfish (mail) 04:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Implement change to allow COI blocks?

Mosat of the editors comemtnign here seem to support this, although not all do. Do we haev a rough consensus to implement the above proposed wording? How about a slightly more gradual version, such as:

  • Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest, shall be warned that such edits are against wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week. If such edits persist after the block, the account may be blocekd indefinitely. A legitimate content dispute shall not be considered as a reason for such blocks.

Is there consensus for the above? DES (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Support - do you want to add WP:SPAM as well as WP:COI? (support either way) Ruhrfisch 12:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to adding "or the anti-spam guideline" if people wish, but policy already covers blocks for spammers, I thought. DES (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a most needed addition, I look forward to it being enforceable. I support this very good idea as it is worded above. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 17:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • This has been discussed for a full week here, and before that on ANI and elsewhere. I see at least 10 editors who have posted in support of this here, and only two who seem to oopose. I also find the arguments agaisnt (that it might be misued in a content war, and that it labels editors rather than edits) to be unpersuasive. I am going to add the wording above. If people think this needs further discussion, say so, and feel free to revert the change on the policy page if you feel that there is not consensus for this, and we'll discuss further. DES (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose the words "in apparent violation of Conflict of interest". This encourages assumption of bad faith. Please change to "whether or not in violation of Conflict of interest" or don't mention COI at all. Thanks, Armed Blowfish (mail) 18:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I respectfully disagree, AGF says "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", so one would not have to assume bad faith. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Are we saying that advertising is evidence that a person has a conflict of interest? I can think of other explanations... besides, we don't need to assume that they have a conflict of interest. Just block them for the advertising part and don't speculate on why they were advertising. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong support either to the proposed language or to my proposed interpretation of the existing language. It's counterproductive to treat COI-only accounts the same as every other new account, when so many of them clearly exist for no other purpose than self-promotion. Too few editors track this kind of abuse to halt it. It only encourages exploitation to slow the productivity of the diligent Wikipedians who work toward keeping the site honest. Strongly recommend the opposing voices obtain firsthand experience to see how blatant and serious the actual problem is. DurovaCharge! 20:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is far too prescriptive. Where did these "shalls" come from? If someone is engaging in inappropriate editing, talk to him, warn him and give him a disruption block if he persists. There is no need to put another bloody silly clause into the policy. --Tony Sidaway 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Policy pages should be, to some extent, prescriptive. That is the difference between a policy and a custom. But if you don't like the wording, propose a better one. This proposal arouse because such accounts have been problems, but noting in the blocking policy clearly permits blocks in such situations. IMO simply giving a 'disruption" block for anything that an admin feels is not productive is a poor idea. DES (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • My proposed alternative wording is "". We don't need this silly thing. --Tony Sidaway 22:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • No objection - given the conflict of interest policy allows for blocking, making the (necessary?) addition to the disruption section in the blocking policy didn't require any discussion. The wording being offered is legalistic and, per Tony, overly prescriptive. However, if the wording is added, in due course, hopefully we can rephrase. Addhoc 20:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • The wording has already been added, as was mentioned above (unless it has since been reverted, i didn't check). But it can always be removed or rephrased given a consensus. DES (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Supported in the AN discussion, and I support it now. Spammers aren't here to make constructive contributions, and they're never intending to. They don't see "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", they see "The free advertisement that you can write yourself!". As to the above concerns with "for-profit", actually, the corporate spammers often give up as soon as they're caught. (Though not always.) It's the ones that will start in with "But it's for a good cause!" "But how can this be an ad? I'm writing it about an open-source program!" and the like, that are often the most tendentious. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Look. does anybody agree with me that this silly 'bold thing has gotten quite ridiculous? It isn't the fact that you think something that is important, or the strength with which you feel it. To reach consensus we have to discuss stuff, but summarising your opinion in a single bolded word or phrase actually signals "I've made my mind up, don't try to discuss this with me, let's just line up and vote." Which is about as sure a way of killing consensus as can be imagined. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed revised draft

Based on the concerns raised above, and some of my own, I propose the following narrower draft:

Accounts that are used for the sole or primary purpose of repeatedly advertising, promoting, or spamming for a particular company, product, service, or individual in violation of the Conflict of Interest policy may be blocked where necessary. Except in truly extreme cases, such accounts should first be warned that the edits are viewed as problematic and the user requested to consult Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest before continuing to edit. Where blatant violations of the policy continue after such warning, a block may be imposed (generally not more than one week for the first such block, except in extreme circumstances). Where a block or warning is evaded through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, the subsequent accounts should be blocked without further warnings.
Please note that blocking for conflict of interest accounts is reserved for serious situations such as those involving spamming or self-promotion on multiple articles. Such blocks should not be routinely invoked simply because an individual is editing in good faith an article about himself or herself or a company with which the individual is affiliated, even though such edits might better be avoided. They especially should not be invoked, except as a last resort, in situations where an individual is attempting in good faith to bring an article into compliance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In such cases, the editor should be advised of the appropriate means for addressing contested BLP matters.
Comments invited. Newyorkbrad 20:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, much better. Addhoc 20:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph is good, but first paragraph is in one way worse than the other version. Advertising, promoting, and spamming can happen even when a user does not have a conflict of interest. Delete the first "in violation of the Conflict of Interest policy". And before requesting that they consult the COI policy, try asking them why they are advertising - there could be another reason. If it's not confirmed COI, try pointing them to an advertising policy, or, if there is none, WP:NPOV or WP:EL. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:SPAM is the advertising policy, plus the "blatent ad" section of WP:CSD. DES (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would request that "in violation of the" be returened to "in apperent violation of the", because except in the rare case where an editor explicitly states that s/he is an owner, employee, or the like, it requires mind-reading across the net to prove a violation of COI. Thare was a suggestion above that "or in violation of WP:SPAM" be added. IIRC no one objected to this, but not enough people commetned on it at all to IMO establish consensus. Should that be added too? DES (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Oh, I didn't say, except for the "apparent violation" issue, i am fine with this revised draft. DES (talk) 21:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
      • "Apparent violation" is better than "in violation", but it still asks the admin to make an assumption about the user's intent. "Whether or not in violation" would be better. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
        • "in violation of WP:SPAM" would be even better, to completely avoid guessing at the user's motivation. Thanks for the link, DES. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 21:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Part of the argumetn here is that some promotional COI edits are, taken on there own, borderline as to whether they are spam or not. so how abiut we cite both. see below. DES (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
  • proposed further revised draft:
Accounts that are used for the sole or primary purpose of repeatedly advertising, promoting, or spamming for a particular company, product, service, or individual in apparent violation of the Conflict of Interest policy, or the anti-spam guideline may be blocked where necessary. Except in truly extreme cases, such accounts should first be warned that the edits are viewed as problematic and the user requested to consult Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest or Wikipedia:Spam before continuing to edit. Where blatant violations of this policy continue after such warning, a block may be imposed (generally not more than one week for the first such block, except in extreme circumstances). Where a block or warning is evaded through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, the subsequent accounts should be blocked without further warnings. If blatent violations resume after the block has expired, a longer block may be imposed.
Please note that blocking for conflict of interest accounts is reserved for serious situations such as those involving spamming or self-promotion on multiple articles. Such blocks should not be routinely invoked simply because an individual is editing in good faith a single article about himself or herself or a company with which the individual is affiliated, even though such edits might better be avoided. They especially should not be invoked, except as a last resort, in situations where an individual is attempting in good faith to bring an article into compliance with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In such cases, the editor should be advised of the appropriate means for addressing contested BLP matters.
Comments invited. DES (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Okay. However, in the long run, I would prefer to expand WP:SPAM such that WP:COI is nothing but advice for people with conflicts of interests. — Armed Blowfish (mail) 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Again I suggest that we don't need this silly bloody thing. If someone is editing disruptively, they can be blocked. --Tony Sidaway 22:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I think I'd also prefer to keep it simple and have COI blocks subsumed under blocks for disruptive editing. COI isn't in itself a reason to block; it's only if it becomes disruptive that it is, in which case it's the disruption provision that kicks in. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with that. The question is whether it's useful to pin down "disruptive" a bit more with regard to this particular type of editing. Not sure either way. Newyorkbrad 01:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Very strong oppose. This is a wordy and legalistic way of reinforcing exactly the dilemma that the undermanned WP:COIN and WP:SSP volunteers have been striving to overcome. When a user edits for nine months toward no other purpose than personal self-promotion, then declares an intention to violate WP:MEAT, the account deserves to be nuked. When another user edits toward no other purpose than astroturfing this institution of higher learning whose only independent source identified it as a one room campus, the account deserves to be nuked. Anyone who supports this proposed language should consider himself or herself ethically obligated to follow through at those boards after the weeklong blocks on those accounts expire. DurovaCharge! 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Please listen to Durova. Though I've *not* been following this debate closely, I'm one of the undermanned volunteers at WP:COIN. I'd appreciate any change in the blocking policy that would give more effective turnaround on reasonable block requests for persistent COI violators. A thing that makes conflict of interest rules uncomfortable for us to enforce is that COI is 'ad hominem' by its very nature. That goes against our usual preference of judging the edit, rather than the editor. If you don't want to make *any* ad hominem judgments, then abolish WP:COI. EdJohnston 19:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Durova on this matter. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Note, I initally supported stronger wording. It was clear that wasn't going to get consensus. The above is stronger than what we have now, and is at least a step in the right direction. The alternative at the moment seems to be no change at all. 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Note that it says "Where a block or warning is evaded through the use of sockpuppets or meatpuppets, the subsequent accounts should be blocked without further warnings", this means that in your example, the account can be nuked. DES (talk) 20:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No one has responded to my renewal of my original proposal, which is that the community endorse an interpretation of current policy language so that sysops may handle severe types of single-purpose accounts as sophisticated vandalism and indef block pretty much on sight (after a single warning). When a user makes no significant contributions to this website other than to violate WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:SOCK, that user simply has no business being here. The effect of entrenching the current proposed language in policy would be significantly worse than no action at all because it would codify a futile solution and empower the abusers to wikilawyer against the small group of volunteers who strive to protect this site against that exploitation. DurovaCharge! 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal

Folks, we need to wrap this up because the trolls are overrunning WP:COIN while we debate this. How about:

  • Upon thorough investigation, accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in violation of conflict of interest, shall should be warned that such edits are against wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any admin may block the account indefinitely.

This version tightens up the requirements from the original proposal. Hopefully this will be sufficient for those who could not support the earlier version. Jehochman Talk 02:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea, should it also apply to religious ideologies too? The editor determined to undermine Evolution for religious reasons or another who wants to keep what they see as "negative" information about a religion off Wikipedia seem just as disruptive to me. (I support the proposal whether religion is included or not though.) Anynobody 03:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I think 'religious ideologies' strays a bit, but I'd agree with you, that would certainly shut down the anti-cult, anti-CoS, and pro-CoS editors unless they are editing off-topic articles and avoid the spa label. Lsi john 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
At least, from what Anynobody wrote, I'm assuming we are not restricting it to pro-editors. Presumably anti-editors should also be pro-scribed from pushing COI pov. Lsi john 03:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The WP:COI guideline didn't mention anything about negative POV COIs the last time I looked, but I assumed the principles applied to anyone editing under a COI whether positive or negative toward a subject. Since the idea is to minimize disruption, I'd say any editor pushing positive or negative views about a subject they have a COI with should be treated equally. (The edit histories of both editor types are easy enough to track since they spend all their time doing one thing.) Anynobody 03:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Any thoroughly pro- or anti- POV editor is a troublesome factor; they are sometimes shoehorned into the definition of single-purpose accounts, but I think it's naive to assume that anti- editors are any less of a problem (keep in mind all the shitstorms that fly about political matters, those folks are both pro-1 and anti-2!). -- nae'blis 16:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The idea is good, but please don't use legalistic language such as "shall be warned". >Radiant< 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Noted. Jehochman Talk 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on the discussion, here is a suggestion for wording this:
Upon investigation, accounts that exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting or disparaging a person, company, product, service, or religion in violation of conflict of interest, should be warned that such edits are not what Wikipedia exists for. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any admin may block the account indefinitely.
I removed thorough because it means different things to different people, and thorough investigations shouldn't be necessary to find WP:COI accounts. I also removed the reference to policy since WP:COI is actually a guideline, and people tend to mix these terms up enough as it is. Anynobody 22:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
After investigation, accounts that are determined to exist for the sole, or primary, purpose of promoting or disparaging a person, company, product, service, or religion, and in violation of conflict of interest, should be warned that such edits are inappropriate for Wikipedia. If, after the warning, such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any admin may place an indefinite block on the account.
Grammar, punctuation. Lsi john 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as the adjustments preserve the fundamentals of Jehochman's proposed compromise, this has my very strong support. The small band of editors who've been tending the backlogged WP:COIN really need this policy update. As someone who's worked in a lot of complex investigations, I can affirm that editors who come to this site for the sole purpose of vanity spam or corporate spam are essentially vandals and should be treated as such. With near unanimity, the ones who aren't responsive to warnings are only here to manipulate and exploit. Anyone who doubts that summary is welcome to spend a week at WP:COIN or WP:SSP. DurovaCharge! 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere else on the page do I see a prescription for the length of a block. While COI is an important topic, there are many of offenses that are no less serious than this. I see no reason to spell out the length of a block here. Can someone please give me a rational explanation why the text at Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Duration of blocks does not apply or is somehow insufficient for this one category of blocks? If the answer is that all such accounts should be indef blocked as soon as possible, perhaps this should be discussed at WP:BAN instead of WP:BLOCK. --After Midnight 0001 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The existing wording, "blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive are typically of indefinite duration;" would serve nicely if we could expand that to say what disruptive means. "blocks on types of user accounts considered disruptive, such as spam-only and coi-only accounts, are typically of indefinite duration;"
If somebody has come to Wikipedia and overwhelmingly makes disruptive edits, that person needs to get one warning, and then be shown the door as soon as possible if they continue. We need to distinguish between users making innocent mistakes, who deserve a second chance, and serious, purposeful campaigns to manipulate Wikipedia for commercial or ideological purposes. If our judgment of a user is wrong, they can always appeal the indef block and explain why they are not a disruptive type of account. Many of these investigations are complex, so uninvolved admins should not be reverse indef blocks without a careful review of the facts. Some of these trolls can act charming or innocent to beguile an admin. Jehochman Talk 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like some changes should be made at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. --After Midnight 0001 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is in pretty good shape. The problem is a disconnect between what these policies say, and the many admins who will reverse an indef block because a disruptive editor posts a sob story unblock request. "That admin (drop in name) is so mean - he blocked me indefinitely when I've never been blocked before - boo hoo!" It can take a lot of work to investigate and uncover a disruptive editor. We have no incentive to invest the time if admins will reverse indef blocks without discussing them. We should presume that an indef block is only given when there's a damn good reason. We should discuss the matter at WP:CSN first if we want to consider lifting such a block. Jehochman Talk 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jehochman about Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. This proposal covers a more extreme situation than that guideline because disruptive editors may make some useful contributions to Wikipedia. We're talking about pure complex vandalism here. DurovaCharge! 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
So purely complex that the first block applied to the account must be an indef? Isn't it better to show a short block for the first offense and then follow that with an indef or a ban? --After Midnight 0001 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
A short block isn't helpful. You might take a look at User:Anacapa for a particularly egregious example of a troll who engages in a campaign of vandalism. This fellow was indef blocked for making a legal threat after he was brought to WP:CSN, and then community banned. He had no prior blocks. When an account exists only for adding a steady stream of spammy, COI, or POV-pushing edits to Wikipedia, has been sufficiently warned, but persists anyhow, our existing rule is to block that user indefinitely. Such users aren't members of our community. Those here only to troll, vandalize and POV push should be excluded indefinitely, until they make a sincere effort to reform themselves. We can always reverse an indef block if, for instance, the user agrees to join WP:ADOPT. Indef is not the same as forever.
I am concerned that you have misunderstood this discussion. None of us have suggested banning or indef blocking for the first offense. Every troll is going to get warnings before being indef blocked. Blocking is preventative. If somebody has made many bad edits, and is acting in apparent bad faith, we should block them indefinitely. There is absolutely no rational basis to think that the bad faith will go away after 24 hours or 3 days. This is not at all the same situation as when a generally productive editor who gets overwrought about a particular issue and needs to cool down for a while. Jehochman Talk 13:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This thread demonstrates how seriously underprioritized and undermanned the complex investigations area is. To the best of my knowledge, support for this proposed change is unanimous among the editors who do this volunteer work with any regularity. Nearly all of the objections have come from people who don't volunteer in this area and - if I may phrase the matter this way - simply can't imagine the problem could really be as blatant and severe as it is. Shortly before I started this discussion I had dealt with one user whose entire contribution history was to first write an article about himself, then after it was deleted for non-notability he edited purely for the purpose of adding his name to articles and adding links to his personal website to articles. When I left him a polite COI caution, asking him to improve articles about stories he had covered as a journalist instead of just promoting himself, he e-mailed me an extremely cynical message that I had committed a form vs. function fallacy, basically announcing that he planned to use meatpuppets to promote himself and had no intention whatsoever of productive encyclopedic contribution. My interpretation here is that this is basically vandalism and I asked the community's support in treating it as such. So if you've got doubts about this, please redirect the time spent debating theory on this page into sampling the backlog at WP:COIN. If you spend a week there and still don't think this change is needed, I won't quarrel. All I ask is that you put this to the test and see for yourself whether us Wikisleuths are right or wrong. DurovaCharge! 15:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I am not implying that the user isn't warned. I am just suggesting that the blocks escalate. Perhaps the issue is that the first block is not made early enough and that by the time someone gets around to making the first block, patience has been exhausted. Maybe there would be a way to make the first block happen while the situation is still salvageable. But, perhaps not. At any rate, I can see from reading between the lines that you are trying to politely tell me that I don't really know what I'm talking about, and unfortunately I am so far behind on other tasks right now that I am unable to take you up on your "offer" to spend a week at COIN; so I'll just move on from here and not comment on this issue again. Note that I'm not going away to sulk and I'm not looking for any response, I just think that it is probably best if I disengage here. --After Midnight 0001 16:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't mean to seem surly. Posted apology to user's talk page. DurovaCharge! 06:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Which, for the record, was accepted :) --After Midnight 0001 19:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)