Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Blocking policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

This is not the page to report problems to administrators
or request blocks.

This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia blocking policy itself.

Report incidents such as block evasion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Report violations of the three-revert rule at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
Report active, persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Report violations of arbitration remedies at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

See WP:PROPOSAL for Wikipedia's procedural policy on the creation of new guidelines and policies. See how to contribute to Wikipedia guidance for recommendations regarding the creation and updating of policy and guideline pages.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

RFC on users posting promotional content outside of mainspace

See Wikipedia:Blocking policy/RFC on promotional activity. El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 21:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this RfC has now been closed without any of the 3 proposals being adopted. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Link On Page

Got here on a wiki walk, I noticed a bad link, but since I don't have editing permissions on this page I can't fix it.

Under "Unacceptable Unblocking"

When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy. Arbitration enforcement blocks may be appealed using the special appeal provisions.

"Special appeal provisions" is a bad link. The correct link is (as far as I can tell):

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Ban appeals

Piningforpines (talk) 01:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, when you see an error on a page you cannot edit you'll generally get a quicker response if you make a edit request. However, in this case I've not made the change as while I agree the current target is wrong I'm not sure that the target you suggest is the right one - and I've not been able to immediately find an alternative that I think definitely is right, so it needs more eyes. The reason it's wrong is due to the change from discretionary sanctions to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, so I'll leave a note on the talk page there to hopefully attract someone knowledgeable. Thryduulf (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the link (FWIW, this info is also in the contentious topic procedures). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking someone who commands or suggests another take action

A user who directly performs an action that violates Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or any Wikimedia project's policies and guidelines (such as Meta-Wiki's), is blockable as a principal. By this reasoning, any user (or person in general) who advises, commands, comforts, counsels, or suggests another disrupt Wikipedia in some way would also be blockable as a principal. However, we also have a provision for meatpuppetry.

Suppose, for example, Example1 commanded Example2 to vandalize encyclopedia articles and harass other users. Consequently, an administrator would block Example2 for vandalism and harassment. Example2 would then note in the unblock request that they were commanded by another user to vandalize and harass.

1. In this example, would the administrator block Example1 for the violations (vandalism and harassment) as if that user had done them directly, or would the administrator block Example1 for meatpuppetry?
2. If Example1 did not have an account on the English Wikipedia, would an administrator ask a steward on Meta-Wiki to globally lock the account?

Unless the meatpuppetry provision in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry covers this topic, I think we need a provision for users who command or suggest other users disrupt Wikipedia in the blocking policy. I considered writing about these users in the policy, but it is a good idea for me to discuss here first. Z. Patterson (talk) 04:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question first, global locks and blocks are intended for cross-wiki disruption. I doubt anyone would request a global action, or that stewards would take action, without a global problem. Answering the first question, it sounds to me like the hypothetical actions of User:Example1 might be considered to be disruptive. Disruption, as defined by this policy (and probably also the stewards), has a broad definition. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 07:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzuuzz: I understand. Thank you. Z. Patterson (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deployment of Multiblocks on this wiki on June 2-4

Hello all! We want to introduce you a new feature called Multiblocks, #14 wish in Community Wishlist Survey 2023, that was also supported widely by your community. Please see the relative announcement on the administrators' noticeboard. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]