Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Archive/Blockbox (information on relevant policies to blocked users)

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Blockbox (information on relevant policies to blocked users)

NoN Proposes social/community change rather than a technical feature

  • Problem: Well, coming from a currently (as of writing this on August 19th, 2017) blocked user I can tell you one thing, the blocking experience is very user unfriendly, if you are not familiar with WikiJargon or have sufficient knowledge of all the rules and guidelines (which I have familiarised myself with now) this can be a troubling ordeal, especially since you might not know your options. One of such options (on English Wikipedia at least) would be the UTRS, if your talk page access has been revoked and you have no idea what to do.

Maybe you think that what you did was appropriate, well the list on the “Blockbox” could precisely show what options you have as well.

  • Who would benefit: Well, most importantly the readers, and of course blocked users. This would also largely save the time of administrators for (1) not having to explain the reasons for their blocks after it has been applied as the policies are directly linked, (2) have an informative guide to all the necessary information, and (3) make it more likely that the appealing people are more informed on WikiPolicies, how to appeal blocks and how to avoid any re-blocking.
  • Proposed solution: Well, Wikimedia projects are all educational, so why not educate those who have been blocked on why they have been blocked? In those United States of America many police 👮🏻 officers read people their rights upon arrest, this could also familiarise those who genuinely have a wish to be helpful to educate the readers and utilisers of Wikimedia projects to return and learn what they did wrong.

Remember, trolls and vandals probably won’t file an unblock request, in most cases they will evade and troll some more, but those who are genuinely interested in learning from their mistakes and willing to contribute positively should be given a chance, even if they’ve been unfriendly I would say “be friendly to unfriendly people and they might return the favour”, in fact I would probably advocate a model of “talk first, block later” but to apply that community wide would be unrealistic, allowing blocked people to be properly educated on their disruptions and their options might even work to prevent a repetition of the behaviours that lead to their blocks in the first place.

I thought of an idea that could basically serve as “the Miranda rights of Wikipedia” (or “the Blockbox”) where after a user or IP gets blocked by an admin (so not rangeblocks or autoblocks but direct blocks) a bot will automatically leave this message on their talk page (even if the talk page was previously deleted). This could start off on English wikipedia and then if it turns out to be successful could be “exported” to other wikis.

It appears that you have been blocked.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks.

* If you are currently unable to access your talk page you may request an unblock via the Unblock Ticket Request System or the #wikipedia-en-unblockconnect chat channel.
* Checkuser and Oversight blocks may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee.
* If you were blocked by Jimbo Wales then you may appeal directly to him and/or the Arbitration Committee.
* If this is a Sockpuppet then you should confess your main account (or IP) now so you may receive a reduced penalty.
* If you have been blocked for a username violation then you can simply create or request a new account or request to be renamed here or at #wikimedia-renameconnect, if however the username was made in bad faith then first request a rename and then you may appeal the block; further reading Wikipedia:Changing username.
* If you have been blocked for adding promotional material or spam then please read about our policy on this and our external links policy before requesting an unblock.
** If you continue to violate this policy then the next time the duration of your block will increase. If you believe the link(s) you added aren't spam then you may request for it to be removed from the blacklist.
* If your options are currently still unclear then please read the more technical how to appeal a block.

Notes: As of currently the standard offer is 6 months but maybe if a user confesses this could be reduced to 3 months or something in that direction, this would give sockpuppeteers more of an incentive to co-operate.

The above are all the blocking criteria I am currently aware of, this is just a suggestion and open to improvement.

Personally I envision this box/template to be red or orange or a combination thereof but I am not familiar enough with the parameters to adjust this.

Maybe a sad Wikitan in prison clothes could be used as the image. 🤔

Note that all links 🔗 function as if they are in the English Wikipedia and may not function here on Meta.

For this task a new bot called the “Mirandabot” will be programmed, on a more humourous note it could tag every edit with “You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you in an appeal of WikiOrder”, this bot solely exists to deliver the above template and may not perform any other tasks.

IMPORTANT NEED FEEDBACK: Maybe a note for living people who were trying to remove unsourced slanderous material from pages about themselves to be directed to the right outlets, this will almost certainly prevent many WMF office actions. But then again I’m not a barrister, works?

Also note that this is to prevent further disruptions and to familiarise blocked persons with the guidelines and policies that apply to Wikipedia, as of now those willing to come back to contribute positively are faced with a wall of silence and not all rules and guidelines are properly linked to each other, I believe that creating such a system can be instrumental in preventing many disruptions, sure trolls will troll not every blocked person is a vandal and we should not assume as such.

Honestly I thought that this idea could also “grandfather in” users blocked prior to its launch, however that might require a “MirandaBotOld” or might it simply delay the newly blocked members of the community, however I think that time should be no issue and that all standing blocks should also be grandfathered in.

The goal of this project is to ultimately reduce the number of disruptions and increase the numbers of willing good faith contributors, if we would approach everyone with a friendly message showing them their available options and inform them to properly read the guidelines they did wrong I strongly believe that the amount of continued disruptions to the project shall decrease, even if there are current flaws and yes the system is open to abuse (angry trolls might vandalise the IRC channels) I think that it will do more good than harm.

  • More comments: Additionally there should be a newly established “Sockfession booth” where Sockpuppeteers (such as myself) may have the option to confess and receive less penalties, however the system may only be used once and repeated violators of WP:SOCK will then be “punished” the same way as those who didn't confess (your “once sock shot” if you will).

Other names for the Sockfession booth could be “Wikipedia costums” (as in border costums), “Multiple Account Disorder Therapy Group” (for those who share my sense of humour, to those that don't get it it’s named after the multiple personality disorder), or “Drawer checkings” (get it…. Because they’re socks… I’ll let myself out).

  • Phabricator tickets:

Community discussion[edit]

Hi Donald Trung: The Wishlist Survey is looking for proposals that the Community Tech product team could work on. What you're proposing here is a social/community change, rather than a technical feature. I'm archiving this proposal. Thanks for participating in the survey. -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Wishlist_Survey_2017/Archive/Blockbox_(information_on_relevant_policies_to_blocked_users)&oldid=18510557"