Wikipedia talk:Block on demand

I am in favour of this -- if only because it seems that some people do not shun away from serious disruption only to have themselves blocked, rather than taking responsibility for themselves of how much time they want to spend here. The technical side could be addressed with standard summaries ("block on demand"), that could be filtered out from the blocklist, optionally. The real problem would be autoblocks of IP addresses associated with requested blocks. That's a problem we have with vandalism blocks already, but we would need to establish how big the impact of this would be. I don't know how "intelligent" the autoblocker is. dab (ᛏ) 08:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shame we can't turn off the autoblocker for individual blocks. Incidentally, I'm having fun already imagining the vandalism at WP:RFB. JRM · Talk 10:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why one would want one's account blocked for taking a vacation? If one does not login for a week, that would be easier. Radiant_* 13:29, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- I would say Wikipedia is at least as powerful as pornography addiction, and it is becoming as widespread. It's like crack cocaine for the mind. 205.217.105.2 16:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, we already have a Wikipediholic support group. I don't know any developer who would even consider working on this, when there are so many more important things they could be doing. -- Netoholic @ 15:40, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Huh? Why would developers have anything to do with this? This is all within the range of standard admin abilities. In fact, we could just allow such notices to be posted on the Administrator's Noticeboard, or some other page linked to from Wikipedia:Requests for sysop attention. No developers needed here. JRM · Talk 15:41, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Blocking users leads to auto-blocks of the IP's that account recently used, sometimes unintentionally blocking legitimate users. A developer would need to fix the code to block by account only (still an open bugzilla:1294 on this). Also, to avoid flooding the block log with these voluntary blocks, we'd need some sort of filter. People should just learn some self-control. -- Netoholic @ 15:59, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Re autoblock: yes, that might need a technical enhancement—or just knowledgeable admins exercising care, as they do now. Re flooding: I honestly don't believe this feature would see so much use that you'd have trouble making sense of the block log, and likewise don't think a filter is needed. Re self-control: that is a viable implementation too. I know that I don't need this feature. JRM · Talk 16:12, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

The autoblock problems would also be caused by those who provoke blocks on purpose, and then login on another computer with the banned account. This problem does not apply to blocked IP addresses, of course. Some of these vandals, I have to think that they must be intentionally provoking a block. User:Featured Article Thrasher, for instance. Why else would anyone use a name so highly visible to watchlisters and RC patrollers? 205.217.105.2 16:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In theory: I like it. In actuality: get a life, people. If you need other people to prevent you from doing something on the Net, you've got deeper problems than Wikipedia can help you with. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it helps stop people vandalizing to force a block, I like it. But we still have the problems of autoblocks remaining and if they really want to, the blocked people could edit anonymously from another machine... Addicts will find a way if they need to edit... Mgm|^(talk) 07:25, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Some thoughts

When people vandalize to provoke a block, is it because they want to enforce a Wikibreak or because getting someone to block them is a way of getting a reaction from an admin? Rule Number One of troll psychology is that people troll to get attention. When vandals show up on WP:VIP and block logs, I'm sure a lot of them crave the attention they get from that, especially those who make themselves obvious to the RC patrollers (provocative usernames, etc.). Looking through the block list, you'll find more than a few user names like "I dare you to block me" and "FuckTheSysops!!!!!". What other goal could that have besides provoking a block, with all the personal attention that entails? I'd guess 99% of people who deliberately provoke blocks do it for attention, not because they want an enforced Wikibreak.

Nonetheless, there are no doubt a few who vandalize so they can have an enforced Wikibreak, and a process like Block On Demand would put a stop to that. Unfortunately, I don't think Block On Demand would be workable unless we find a way to turn off the autoblock in some cases. The way it stands now, a requested block could cause a lot of collateral damage, especially if the user is on a proxy or edits from dynamic IPs. Even worse, a malicious user who knows something about how MediaWiki works could request a block to conduct a Denial of Service attack on Wikipedia by blocking hir ISP's other users from editing.

Overall, while this is a good idea in theory, it wouldn't work out unless and until MediaWiki allows blocks without an IP autoblock. It would cause too much collateral damage and invite a small but dangerous avenue of abuse, all to solve a problem that just isn't severe enough to warrant such drastic actions. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 08:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Strike the second Pro

The second bullet under "Pro" reads "The frequent attempts by admins to block themselves suggests that there may a significant number of users who would like to have enforced wiki-vacations." This proposed policy would have no effect as far as enforcing an admin wiki-vacation. Admins can unblock themselves at any time. The only thing keeping a blocked admin from editing is integrity (and the threat of community backlash). I can't see anyone telling an admin they couldn't return to fight vandals simply because "You said you wanted to remain blocked for two more weeks." SWAdair | Talk 10:10, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

HELLO HELLo HEllo Hello hello.....

I see this proposal has been dead for over 7 years now and I would like to revisit the idea. I've read the pros and cons of it and had a thought. What if instead of "block"ing the user upon their request, the admin instead edited the users common.js and added the wikibreak-enforcer script for them. Wouldn't this in essence have the same effect for 97% of users and requests? A script could be created for admins to be able to visit any of the user's pages and click the dropdown and select "EnforceWB" or something. Good idea? I look forward to input from admins and others here! Technical 13 (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015: page revived from its slumber

I think it's a good idea to have a page for this, SD0001, and the page name is fine, but I don't see that it needs to be proposed as a policy. It's already mentioned in the blocking policy, and there has been a category for it since 2010, so today it's a fact that we are allowed to block on demand. I would rather see this page as an "information page" or "help page". Bishonen | talk 15:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Until now, the page contained the {{historical}} tag, which I removed. As per your comment, I have added the {{Information page}} tag. SD0001 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is already allowed under blocking policy and I also think it's a good idea to have this as an information/help page on the subject, because no such thing exists. Swarm ^X 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block log is horribly full from bot blocks already, If someone wants a self block I usually just like a talk message. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's necessary or helpful that admins "sign" the page; the linked category already lists the admins who are willing to do this. Adding a second place just means two places to maintain instead of one. 28bytes (talk) 03:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a preliminary stab at 3 things:
- Converting from a description of a failed proposal to an informational page, as suggested by Bishonen above.
- Removing some unreasonable pro- and con- arguments. The pro arguements looked like they were written by those against, and the con arguments by those in favor. It's fine if people think there's a place for those, but then they should be actual serious rationales.
- Per 28bytes above, I've removed the hidden text suggesting people sign up. That seems like an over-complication

All of these were just normal bold edits; my feeling won't be hurt if one or more of them are reverted. Thanks for resurrecting this page, SD0001. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of problem seems to have arisen because of my use of the word "sign". By signing on the page, the admins are not signing any proposal or policy agreement as we do in real life. Such lists can be found at WP:RRN and WP:AMDB. I was merely carrying on the trend from there. Such a list is useful because:

It provides a place for admins to leave a one-liner describing the type of requests they will not entertain. This help to avoid unwanted requests, and at the same time makes it easy for those seeking blocks.
Admins can even provide a link to their own requirements page, which some admins have (like this, this and this).
Such a list looks beautiful!

On the other hand, the category provides just the admin's name and is much less useful than this list. Someone should just start the list off. SD0001 (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the hidden comment inviting people to sign up. I'm not sure how I feel, I'll meditate on it for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose this being a list as opposed to a category. Lists very quickly become outdated for these kinds of things and are very hard to maintain. Categories are much simpler to maintain, and I would prefer any list to be populated by a category. Please remove the invitation for people to sign up on the list and instead have it encourage them to add the category to their userpage directly or I'll happily create a topicon/userbox if that is preferred for some. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, our first bolded vote.

T13 (and 28bytes too) do have a point, though. If you look through WP:AMDB, for example, there are quite a few people who aren't admins anymore, and quite a few who don't appear to be very active. A category is more likely to be maintained, because it is something on the user's own page. I oppose a topicon/userbox on principle, though. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally care if it is placed as a raw cat on the page, a topicon, or a userbox. They all have the same end result and it should be each admin's own preference. I won't waste my time creating a topicon/userbox unless it is requested though. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am planning to request a self-block myself in the very near future. It was because of that I came across this page in the first place. SD0001 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The page is shrinking. Concise is king!

Thank you for cutting out a lot of stuff, Floquenbeam, and making the page simpler to understand. I've removed the rest of it. Well, not quite, but I've slashed the historical stuff because I thought it was merely confusing for people seeking information about how to proceed. ("The proposal was rejected? Isn't it allowed after all?") Feel free to revert if you disagree. Bishonen | talk 00:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Aw, I was considering adding a history section to many policy/guideline pages, explaining how we got to where we are today. Well, not actually considering doing it, but considering how cool it would be if someone else did the work and then I could read it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom or Jimbo can theoretically lift self-requested blocks

With current blocking policy, it's technically possible for users to get the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales to lift their self-requested block, if neither the blocking administrator nor other admins (usually) will lift the block on request. Should we publicize this fact, or should we keep it a secret like it is now? Gparyani (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]