This page documents an English Wikipedia policy. It describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus.

Shortcuts WP:BP WP:BLOCK WP:BLOCKPOL

This page in a nutshell: User accounts and IP addresses may be blocked from editing to protect Wikipedia from disruption.

Enforcement policies
Administrators Banning policy Blocking policy Protection policy
v t e

Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks may be applied to user accounts, to IP addresses, and to IP address ranges, for either a definite or an indefinite time, to all or a subset of pages. Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page they are blocked from (including, if appropriate, their own user pages). In most cases, a site-wide blocked user will only be able to edit their own user talk page.

Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see § Requesting blocks).

If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Administrators can unblock a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate.

Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban.

Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Blocking is one of the most powerful tools that are entrusted to administrators, who should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening and are required to be able to justify any block that they issue.

In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate. In this situation, if an ongoing or serious concern persists, several dispute resolution processes exist to allow discussion and possible sanction of a user.

Blocks can be appealed (see § Unblocking). Requests to be unblocked are also decided in light of prevention and deterrence. A user may be unblocked earlier if the user agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or if the situation was temporary and has now ended. Likewise, a user who has previously returned to inappropriate conduct after other unblocks may find their unblock request declined for deterrence reasons, to emphasize the importance of change and unacceptability of the conduct.

Blocks should not be punitive

Blocks should not be used:

1. to retaliate;
2. to disparage;
3. to punish; or
4. if there is no current conduct issue of concern.

Blocks should be preventative

Blocks should be used to:

1. prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
2. deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and
3. encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.

Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.

The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks.

As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review.

Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers).

Protection

A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users, or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to:

• persistent or severe personal attacks;
• personal, professional, or legal threats (including outside the Wikipedia site);
• actions placing users in danger;
• actions that may compromise the safety of children, in accordance with Wikipedia:Child protection;
• disclosures of others' personal information (whether or not the information is accurate);
• persistent copyright violations;
• persistent posts of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons; or
• an account appearing to have been compromised (as an emergency measure), i.e. there is some reason to believe the account is being used by someone other than the person who registered the account.

When blocking in response to personal information disclosures or actions that place users in danger, consider notifying the Arbitration Committee by e-mail (arbcom-enwikimedia.org) about the disclosure or danger, as well as contacting someone with oversight permissions to request deletion of the material in question.

Disruption

A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:

• vandalism;
• gross incivility;
• harassment;
• spamming;
• deliberately tripping the edit filter
• breaching the policies or guidelines, especially sock puppetry;
• attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.

Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site.

Disruption-only

Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:

• Accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism.
• Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.
• Accounts with inappropriate usernames.
• Public accounts (where the password is publicly available or shared with a large group).
• Bots operating without approval or outside their approval, or that appear to be malfunctioning.

Open or anonymous proxies

Open or anonymous proxies may be blocked on sight.

Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP address is likely to be reassigned, or the open proxy is likely to be closed. Many Tor proxies, in particular, are "exit nodes" for only a short time; in general, these proxies should not be blocked indefinitely without consideration. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses for further details.

There is also a Wikipedia project, the WikiProject on open proxies, which seeks to identify and block open proxy servers.

Enforcing bans

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent.

Blocks may be imposed as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based on the particulars of the ban. Bans that apply to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not partial—may be backed up by a sitewide block, which is usually set to apply for the period of the ban. Other bans may be enforced with a partial block.

"Not here to build an encyclopedia"

This often-used blocking rationale is described at Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia § Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.

An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked.

Edits by and on behalf of banned and blocked editors

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons.

Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. If the edits by the good faith editors are substantial, G5 no longer applies.

Since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned or blocked user. Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme can be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright.

Proxying

Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked editor in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating. See the policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.

Administrator conflicts and involvement

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace.

Cool-down blocks

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, if an angry user is also being disruptive, the user can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

Recording in the block log

Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating.

Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired. (If it has not, the message may be recorded in the unblocking reason.)

Against the blocking administrator

A blocked administrator can block the blocking administrator, but should only do so in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear and immediate need, such as in the case of a compromised account. Use of the block tool to further a dispute or retaliate against the original blocking administrator is not allowed. If in doubt, report the issue on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents.

Disruptive behavior can be reported, and blocks requested at a specialized venue such as Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or, if appropriate, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block. Administrators are never obliged to place a block, and are free to investigate the situation for themselves. Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation. See also § Explanation of blocks.

Dealing with off-wiki block requests

Administrators who use Wikipedia-related IRC channels and Discord are reminded that, while these channels have legitimate purposes, discussing an issue on IRC or Discord necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC or Discord from the discussion (and excludes all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in an admin-only channel such as #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution. Consensus about blocks or other subjects should not be formed off-wiki.

As the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly discouraged, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g. ongoing vandalism or serious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC or Discord to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard.

Self-requested blocks

Sometimes, people request that their account be blocked, for example to enforce a wikibreak. There is a category of administrators who will consider such requests. As an alternative to requesting a self-block, users may use the Wikibreak Enforcer, a user script that can prevent a user from logging in.

Preliminary: education and warnings

• Some of the key precepts of this section may be explained using {{Before blocking}}.

Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than by administrators only.

However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.

Explanation of blocks

Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.

Notifying the blocked user

Administrators must supply a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is usually easier to explain the reason for a block at the time it is applied than afterwards.

When implementing a block, a number of pro forma block reasons are available in a drop-down menu; other or additional reasons can also be added. Users can be notified of blocks and block reasons using a number of convenient template messages—see Category:User block templates and Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace § Blocks.

Other important information

If there are any specific recommendations or circumstances that a reviewing administrator would need to know, or that may help to avoid administrator disputes upon review of a block, the blocking administrator should consider including this information in the block notice. For example:

• When there is information or evidence that may not be obvious, may not be fully appreciated, or may otherwise be relevant.
• Prior endorsement that if any administrator wishes to unblock, or there is consensus for it, they may without consulting the blocking administrator.
• Suggested conditions for an unblock.

Confidential evidence

If the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a Checkuser, or an Oversighter (as applicable) for action. These editors serve as functionaries; they are qualified and trusted to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Wikipedia, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (e.g. revisions or log details that are redacted, and deleted pages).

Administrators who are also Checkusers or Oversighters may block users based on non-public information either revealed through the checkuser function page, or revisions and log details that have been suppressed ("oversighted"). These administrators may also make blocks based on off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry and undeclared paid editing submitted through the email addresses below. This evidence is inaccessible to administrators. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as a Checkuser or Oversighter, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to review by other members of the functionary team, and direct review by the Arbitration Committee.

• Contact details: individual Checkusers and Oversighters are listed on the relevant pages. Private evidence involving undisclosed paid editing may be sent to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Other matters requiring Checkuser attention may be sent to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org.

Implementing blocks

Technical instructions on how to block and unblock, and information on the blocking interface, are available at mw:Help:Blocking users. The following is advice specifically related to blocking and unblocking on Wikipedia.

IP address blocks

In addition to the further advice, there are special considerations to take into account when blocking IP addresses. IP address blocks can affect many users, and IP addresses can change. Users intending to block an IP address should at a minimum check for usage of that address, and consider duration carefully. IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely. You should notify the Wikimedia Foundation if the IP is related to a sensitive organization or a government agency.

Collateral damage

A block of a range of IP addresses may unintentionally affect other users in that range. Before blocking an IP range, especially for a significant time, you should check for other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block:

• unregistered users – Range Contributions – X!'s tools
• registered users – ask a user with checkuser access to check.

If any are found, an IP block exemption ensures they will not be affected.

Duration of blocks

The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption are to reduce administrative burden; they are made under the presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider:

• the severity of the behavior;
• whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.

Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address.

While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards:

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Blocks
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---