Guild Wars Wiki talk:Appealing a block

Approved. This is the de facto policy/guideline already, so should be non-controversial. —Tanaric 17:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

Pling suggested that the guideline should also discuss how to proceed if an unblocked/uninvolved user disagrees with a block. I suppose the procedure would be similar to that for a blocked user- contact sysops, etc- but of course there are differences that need to be fleshed out. Any ideas? elix Omni 18:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think it needs a new section, just change this sentence "A user wishing to have his block reviewed may choose to contact any member or members of the administrative team that he desires, including the sysop who enacted his block." to "A user wishing to have a block reviewed may choose to contact any member or members of the administrative team, including the sysop who enacted the block." I think that would make it sufficiently clear that not only the blocked user can contest a given block. One thing I would consider changing is the last sentence in that section, it seems kind of patronizing. Not sure on wording. -- FreedomBound 18:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is a bit patronizing, but since the wiki userbase ranges from ages 12 and up, I thought it might help to draw a clear line. I think it also serves a purpose in discouraging a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" mentality. I wouldn't be averse to changing or removing it, though. elix Omni 00:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

On blocks and waiting

Anybody can contest whatever they want. The sysop team is not obligated to respond or consider those requests. Something like the following:

"Even though sysops do their best, erroneous blocks sometimes happen. Please assume good faith on behalf of the sysop, especially when their actions involve you. A quick note on the blocking sysop's talk page after your block is expired often has a much better result than a block appeal. Blocks are not generally considered punitive and there is no stigma for having been blocked in your history -- most of our current sysops have been blocked at one point or another!"

—Tanaric 18:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you wanted that section to go (or what you wanted it to replace), but you should add, "some have even blocked themselves". -- FreedomBound 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You mean, because lying makes it look better? From a total of 24 sysops (a quick count so i may have missed some):

• 8 have been blocked
• 4 of those were tests
• 1 was a sysop blocking himself by mistake
• 1 was a joke 1-sec block
• 1 was a mistake reverted in less than a minute.
• 1 was a discretionary action.

Blocks on this wiki in particular "are" considerated punitive most of the time, since hardly anyone is blocked preemptively, but after having been told several times to "hush" already. And also, having a blocking historial has come up several times on discussions, specially when dealing with RfAs and simmilar.

In resume, such statement shouldn't really appear on the guideline that way.--Fighterdoken 18:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So in the spirit of wiki, fix my mistakes rather than accuse me of lying. —Tanaric 19:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of this wiki, just GWW:AGF and at the same time, wiki-lawyer it and say that it could include blocks on other wikis. -- FreedomBound 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of this wiki... better just don't. Please note that i am saying (or trying to, we know i fail at times) that such statement would be a lie if it were to be included.

Since i also have issues with "complaining after the user had to comply with the block" and the way AGF keeps getting used for everything lately (it's the new NPA), i would rater exclude such paragraph as a whole from the guideline. --Fighterdoken 20:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the nasty turn this section has taken, but Tanaric's original suggestion does seem out of touch with reality. I also don't really approve of the "take one for the team" mentality of complying with a block that is perceived as erroneous for the sake of not bothering anyone, ie creating a bit of drama (drama, disruption, and passive aggressive are the three biggest empty buzzwords circulating the wiki right now by the way). On GuildWiki we have a policy called You Are Valuable to prevent such would-be martyrs. elix Omni 09:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Uh, the only sentence of mine that's erroneous or out of touch is the last one. Fighterdoken is correct in that I overstated some things. So remove it from the suggestion. Don't immediately revert, fix mistakes and edit suggestions. Is this not how wikis are built?

I am well aware of the GuildWiki's you are valuable policy. I wrote it. I never once used the terms drama, disruption, or passive aggressive, nor did I say "take one for the team" or not to bother someone. In fact, I believe I specifically mention taking it to the blocking sysop's talk page if you feel the block was in error, which means I'm specifically advocating that users "bother" someone in this case -- because I believe such a user should bother somebody because that user is valuable.

Additionally, I do not understand the claim by Fighterdoken that assume good faith is being "used" for something in this context. Policies (and articles in general) should crosslink whenever possible to increase exposure and to give as much relevant information as possible. I don't understand how saying "Don't assume sysops are abusing their power to pursue a vendetta against you personally" is at all controversial.

And finally, the only way a user can request a block review on-wiki is to wait for his block to expire. This has nothing to do with my paragraph above, so I don't understand why you brought it up like it was relevant, Fighterdoken. A user that is currently blocked has only off-wiki recourse available to him by the nature of the tech we're using.

—Tanaric 23:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would consider discouraging users from protesting blocks in favor of leaving a note after it's expired to be encouraging a mentality of unconditional acceptance. Not to mention that it also leads to "Man, I'm gonna flame him SO hard when my block expires." A block should be used to think of what not to do in the future, not to write a 20,000 character post about why it was wrong. I also fail to see how leaving a note after the block could possibly achieve a better result than requesting a block review, or in fact any result at all. elix Omni 23:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree -- the lack of block appeal instructions for the entire history of the wiki discourages users from protesting blocks, and we have not seen a preponderance of cases like the one you describe. In fact, the question of how to appeal a block only rarely comes up, and it's usually in those cases where the user was actually blocked inappropriately, and is usually resolved via a polite email exchange. I'd argue that creating these instructions is going to cause many/most blocked users to appeal, and the response in most cases will be to uphold the block. So, yes, my goal is to discourage users from protesting blocks, because I expect that discouragement to only affect those were actually blocked in error or those users who are well-tempered enough to take it in stride. I believe a culture of constant second-guessing of the sysop team on every action will damage the wiki in the long run, and I'll do what I can to minimize it to the cases where it's actually helpful.

This is where having a trusted role with the resolve and authority to oversee sysops is helpful, but we did not establish that role here.

re: Leaving a note, that's perhaps poor wording -- does "starting a conversation" make it any better?

—Tanaric 23:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) This response has been a long time in coming, and somewhat forgotten until Jon linked to this guideline on Pling's talk page. I apologize for that. I can see where you're coming from, Tanaric, but I do feel that the guideline as it is discourages frivolous or even well-meant-but-unnecessary appeals. The entire section on determining action wouldn't be included if the guideline was simply meant to open a conduit for blocked users to complain. Furthermore, I think you underestimate how often users already complain when they're blocked, particularly when the block was entirely justified. If this guideline does not discourage such protests, it will at least change the headlines of their e-mails from "Why the hell did you block me you stupid asshole" to "Block appeal."

I also have to say that I'm confused about your statements of

"my goal is to discourage users from protesting blocks, because I expect that discouragement to only affect those were actually blocked in error or those users who are well-tempered enough to take it in stride."

and

"I'll do what I can to minimize it to the cases where it's actually helpful."

They seem to be either contradictory or entirely exclusive to me. The first one says "I don't want people to appeal blocks when they should," and the second one says "I don't want people to appeal blocks when they shouldn't." I agree with the second one, of course, but unless I'm misinterpreting, you basically want the guideline to say "Don't appeal blocks, you ignorant savage. Sysops are smarter than you and always right." That is the exact opposite of my intent. elix Omni 04:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have added to the "Determining action" section the lines "Keep in mind, however, that users are never obligated to appeal a block. Waiting out an erroneous block and discussing it afterward is by no means discouraged." I feel that it represents Tanaric's concerns without making the guideline an anti-guideline. Objections, etc? elix Omni 21:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

What about unusually long blocks?

The "determining an action" setting does not currently cover situations in which a block is clearly warrented, but the appropriteness of the block duration is in dispute. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good point. I think it can be difficult for users to gauge what an appropriate block duration would be, particularly since sysops often have their own style, as it were, for determining block length. Some sysops use the MediaWiki standard durations, others prefer to customize the length. Some sysops practice duration escalation for repeat offenders, while others prefer to "let the punishment fit the crime." I do not think users should be discouraged from protesting what they believe to be an unfair block length, but it is important they take into consideration the above factors. How should that be summarized in the guideline, though? elix Omni 09:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that was already implied, especially given the very last sentence (he may modify the block duration...). Or was that meant to reduce the block to "time served"? The whole thing is referring to reviews in general, not "removals", so I don't really think it's necessary to change anything. -- FreedomBound 13:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gordon and Felix are referring, more than likely, to the questions asked in the Determining Action section, as all the questions revolve around the block itself and not the duration, such as, "Do I feel this is a fair amount of time to be blocked?" However, a question just doesn't fit as Felix is correct that sysops' blocking styles tend to vary from sysop to sysop. I think any sort of question added to the list regarding duration would be in conflict with discretion.

How about something like this:

"Thus, if a user truly believes that he has done no wrong, not enough wrong to warrant a block, or that the block duration is questionably long, then he may choose to pursue a block appeal."

I do see one potential thing wrong with putting something like that in. That a majority of blocked users might use a statement such as that to dispute almost every ban time limit. Granted, it may not be an extreme hassle as a sysop just has to deny the case, but it's best to raise the concern. — Gares 15:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be useful to list out some general punishment guidelines (fits the crime, escalating, etc.)? --JonTheMon 15:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That would be more suited to the sysop guide. -- FreedomBound 16:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i see the "Determining Action" section more like a introduction to the purpose of the guideline than a set of rules about the same. The next section, on the other hand, points out that "a user wishing to have his block reviewed...", meaning that the user can not only ask for the block to be removed, but for his lenght to be modified (for better or worse).

Maybe just clarifying it a bit on that section instead?--Fighterdoken 20:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ummm...

a few things first i dont like this question ""Does the community in general consider my actions to be block-worthy even if I personally do not?" the answer to this could always be yes. and secondly i think it should read "with or without warning, with out warning only happens in extreme cases or when its blatantly deserved." because i know i have been a victim of a no warning block that was unneeded. a warning would have done the same thing as a block in that case. and lastly i think that the appeal processes should be with someone who wasn't involved. also i think a record should be kept of said appeal processes that has all chat and e-mail logs just for reference.- Zesbeer 00:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong with the community clause. If the community considers one's actions block-worthy, one probably deserves that block, right? Also, it's a fact that sysops may exercise discretion and block people without warning, the current wording simply states that fact, so I don't see what's wrong with it. If you really want to change how blocking works you should discuss it on Guild Wars Wiki talk:Blocking, not here. — Why 00:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

[1]

Not really sure that part is needed, "may choose to pursue a block appeal" is pretty clear imo. From a purely style POV, I dislike the repeated "however". --Xeeron 23:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I added those lines in response to Tanaric's concern (see above) that this policy will open a floodgate for whiners. It is redundant, yes, but I think it can't do any harm to spell out. elix Omni 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate, though for style reasons I don't like the double negative "is by no means discouraged.". I understand the objection to flatly stating that block appeals are discouraged, but there's got to be a better way to express this weaker form. —Tanaric 02:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving to accepted

Since it's been a few months now, and the only opponent of the guideline in its current state has resumed his wiki-hiatus, I would like to move this guideline proposal to accepted (and steal the shortcut of GWW:BLOCK). If anyone has suggestions, complaints, or criticisms, please voice them in the next week. elix Omni 19:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will take the complete lack of response as tacit approval, seeing as it's been several months and this proposal was on GWW:RFC for a while. elix Omni 08:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)