User:Nurg/Alternative user block procedure

Intro to draft

This is Nurg's draft of a procedure for dealing with editors who, on the one hand, make positive contributions, and on the other hand, repeatedly make problematic contributions or behave in a disruptive way. Clear-cut cases of disruptive editing have been dealt with by the Wikivoyage:User ban nominations process. However a mix of positive and problematic contributions has proven more difficult to resolve by a reluctance to go straight to a user ban nomination.

This is an alternative to Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Re-framed proposal, on which it is based. It would be inserted into the Wikivoyage:How to handle unwanted edits#Last resorts section, just before the "User ban" subsection.

Dealing with evasion of blocks by the use of multiple accounts or IP addresses is outside the scope of this proposal, as it is covered by Wikivoyage:Checkuser (which perhaps needs review). Procedure for appeals and objections against blocks is also outside the scope of this proposal, as it should apply regardless of whether this whole process or the user ban nomination process is used.

Comments are welcome; please add them to the Talk page. Do comment if you think any of this is on the wrong track. While this page remains in my userspace, I am keeping the editing rights to myself. If we agree to move it out of my userspace later, then the usual community editing rights will apply to it. If you think Wikivoyage talk:How to handle unwanted edits#Re-framed proposal is better, continue to work on that; feel free to copy anything from here. – Nurg

Escalating user blocks

This procedure is an alternative to going straight to a user ban using the Wikivoyage:User ban nominations process (for which, see the following "User ban" section). It may be used, for example, in the case of editors who, on the one hand, make positive contributions, and on the other hand, repeatedly make problematic contributions or behave in a disruptive way. It consists of a series of steps: educating and counseling the user; documenting unwanted edits and giving a formal warning; blocking the user for increasingly longer periods; finally, applying a user ban (indefinite block).

The first step in dealing with editors who make a mix of positive and negative contributions is to give them positive feedback on their constructive edits, to educate them about the community's policies and norms, and try to persuade them to edit constructively and cooperatively within those norms. If they continue to make problematic edits, the second step is to point out the specific edits (with links to the edits if they are not obvious), and to describe why they are problematic.

Types of unwanted edits include:

• Repeated breaches of written policies.
• Repeatedly making edits that the user has been told go against community consensus.
• Repeated spamming, touting, or inserting false information.
• Repeated edit warring.
• Repeated attacks on or harassment of other editors.

If the editor continues with unwanted edits, the third step is to give a warning on their user Talk page using this wording:

• One or more of your recent edits ... (provide link to edit/s and describe what is wrong with them).
• You have previously been told that ... (provide links and describe earlier advice that edits were not acceptable).
• If you make edits of this nature again you may be blocked from editing without further notice, as per How to handle unwanted edits#Last resorts.

Sign the warning using four tildes (~).

[Possibly a template could be developed to use for this.]

If the editor continues with unwanted edits after the warning was given, an administrator can block their account or IP address from editing, initially for up to three days. If the unwanted editing resumes after the block ends, a second administrator may apply a longer block. This process can continue with increasingly long blocks as follows:

1. Three day block. The aim is to turn a problem editor into a non-problem editor. For a very active problem editor, a three day block might be all it takes for them to realise the community is serious and to change their ways.
2. Two week block. We are still hoping the editor will reform.
3. Three month block. Redemption is not looking likely, and we need a real break from the disruption and distraction. But redemption is not impossible. For IP addresses (rather than user accounts) consider a shorter block since addresses may be re-assigned or have different users.
4. Indefinite block for user accounts. IP addresses should almost never be blocked indefinitely.

In the sequence of blocks, no one administrator should make consecutive blocks. In general, a user should not be blocked from editing their own user Talk page. They should only be blocked from editing it if they use it for unwanted edits of an egregious nature.

IP addresses should be blocked only for as long as they are likely to remain assigned to the same person. We don't want to block other people trying to use the address. Block periods should be shorter than above if there is a real risk that other people will be blocked. It is better to block an IP address for a shorter period and then reimpose another shorter block without notice if problem editing resumes after the earlier block expires. Difficulties around blocking IP addresses are generic to wikis and Wikipedia has useful information on its Blocking IP addresses page.