ESB:Convention/Policy reviews - Blocking policy/voting

	Convention Archive The following convention discussion has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page. Date Resolved: December 26, 2017 Result: Passed; policies revised and moved to provisional bylaws.

Instructions

This page is the voting stage of this discussion: "Policy reviews - Blocking policy."

With all concerns from the concern stage of this discussion having been resolved and taken into account, the proposal located in the "Proposal" section above has been created and moved to voting. To join the voting, you simply use buttons located in the "Voting" section of this page and fill the resulting page.

Have a happy voting!

Proposal

I am proposing the following:

• Bylaws article on blocking to be places as Article XI: Blocking
• One line to add to "Article V: Administrator Duties"

Bylaws article on Blocking

• A. General

• 1. Administrators are privileged with the power to block other users and are expected to have good judgment when it comes to using this tool. (moved to admin duties article)

• B.A. Procedures

• 1. Administrators that find a user violating any of the policies must revert any changes and must If a user is violating any rule, administrators must resolve the problem and politely notify the user of their wrongdoing by giving one (1) warning on their message wall.
• 2. If a user breaks two (2) different rules, that counts as one (1) warning for each rule. A user must that breaks the same rule two (2) times twice merits a block. before being blocked.
• 3. If a warned user continues to break the same rule within twenty-four (24) hours without acknowledging the warning, the administrator should try to contact that user again.
• 4. If the warned user continues to break the same rule for twenty-four (24) hours after the administrator have tried to contact them again, the user will be blocked for a maximum of fourteen (14) days.
• 5. Any user who continues to violate the rule for which they were blocked within seven (7) days after their initial block ends will receive further penalties, depending on the rule(s) violated and the severity of the offense at the discretion of the administration.
• 6. The preceding clauses (1 through 5, above) are the blocking policy and must be followed, except for the clauses outlined in section C, "Exceptions," below. (this is pointless)

• C.B. Exceptions

• 1. Any user who makes any contributionscommits offenses that are very serious to the point in which they harm the wiki or threaten a user, they may be blocked immediately for any given amount of time at the discretion of the blocking administrator.
• 2. Any user who spams, vandalizes, harasses, or threatens as their first editcontribution or interaction may automatically be blocked without warning. If they continue to spam and/or vandalize violate such rules after their block, they shall be given an infinite block. They reserve the right to appeal a block, per the "appealing a block" section below. (moved to block appeal section)
• 3. This clause outlines items that are not block-worthy, and such are deemed "unfair." Users that misuse spelling and/or grammar, unintentionally use improper formatting, and/or make an accidental edit shall not be blocked.

• a. Anyone who misspells a word or misuses grammar shall not be blocked.
• b. Anyone who begins a page without proper formatting shall not be blocked.
• c. Anyone who makes an accidental edit shall not be blocked.

• D.C. Blocking the user (revised September 19, 2015)

• 1. When an administrator blocks a user, they must use the {{Blocked}} template on their message wall to notify that they have been blocked. This gives the blocked user a chance to find out they have been blocked and they can be easily linked to the policies as well as read the instructions to appeal a block.
• 2. Administrators must leave the user's message wall open in order for the blocked user to make an appeal case.
• 3. If a blocked user abuses their wall privileges by spamming, threatening, or harassing other users, before making an appeal case, they have forfeited their chance to make an appeal and can have their wall privileges removed until the end of their block.
• 4. If a user makes an appeal case, it must be posted to ESB:Block reviews and discussed there. (moved below)
• 4. A bureaucrat may unblock the user if they deem it an unfair block. If any other bureaucrat is in disagreement, the bureaucrat disputing the block must start a block review.

• E.D. Appealing a block

• 1. Any user who is blocked or banned mayreserves the right to an appeal (at ESB:Block reviews) to have the block or ban removed if they deem it unfair. If any bureaucrat deems it unfair, they may unblock the user. (this part moved to #4 above and clarified further)
• 2. The appeal will be in the form of a discussion that will follow the discussion policies and last seven (7) days, except for the following:

• a. Users will only support or oppose the original block; neutral votes will not count.
• b. A block review requires 70% opposing the block to overturn the block.
• c. For blocks less than seven (7) days, the appeal discussion will last half the amount of time of the block.

• 3. The appeal discussion will be posted to ESB:Block reviews. (incorporated into D1)
• 4. 3. If the appeal fails, the block will not be reverted.
• 5. 4. If a banned user fails an appeal, they must wait six (6) months before creating another appeal.
• 6. 5. If a block review receives unanimous opposition (having neutrals do not count as unanimous oppose) with no neutral votes and a majority of administrators do not support unblocking the user after three (3) days, then the block review will be marked as closed.

• F.E. Block disputes

• 1. A block dispute occurs when any other user not including the blocked user oppose the administrator's actions in blocking a user.
• 2. All blocking disputes should be handled between the conflicting parties. If the conflicting parties resolve the dispute, the dispute is over.
• 3. If neither party agrees to a compromise, the any user opposing the block must post to the start a block review (at ESB:Block reviews) and follow the procedures.
• 4. A block must be overturned or changed if it receives 70% support or more.
• 5. Any blocking dispute involving an administrator may be considered an abuse of power and should be dealt with in the following manner.

• a. If the blocking administrator is in the wrong following a block review, a majority (more than 50%) of all uninvolved bureaucrats must decide how to deal with the administrator.
• b. If it is decided by the bureaucrats that the administrator needs a suspension from their adminship, the suspension shall last no longer than seven (7) days.
• c. If the administrator receives a second suspension for misuse of the the blocking tool within six (6) months, a discussion shall be created to decided if they should keep their status as an administrator. a user rights review shall be created.

• G.F. Blocking administrators (revised October 3, 2015)

• 1. Blocking another administrator is strictly prohibited, as administrators are expected to follow all the rules. (this is covered in #1 below for administrator duties)
• 2. All administrators are supposed to resolve disputes with each other through discussion and not blocking.
• 3. Any administrator who blocks another administrator will be suspended from all roles (administrator, assistant, rollback, chat moderator, discussion moderator) for thirty (30) days without warning.
• 4. After the thirty (30) day suspension, a majority of bureaucrats must support whether or not that administrator can continue as administrator or demoted to assistant.
• 5. Any exception to the rules, including an appeal from the suspended administrator, will be implemented by a vote of a majority of bureaucrats.

Bylaws article on Administrator Duties

• 1. Administrators are privileged with the power to block other users and are expected to have good judgment when it comes to using this tool. (moved from blocking policy)

This voting stage ends Monday, December 25, 2017 at 8:35 p.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 01:33, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

Voting

Choose your input: Support • Neutral • Oppose • Comment

• Support - — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 01:36, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Makes sense. (Contact • Contrib) 02:04, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

• Support - No issues. Qwertyxp2000 II (talk | contribs) 02:06, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - "who" refers to a person, while "that" refers to an object. it was correct before. ѕqυι∂∂ℓєωαя∂ ^{❮мεssαgε ωαℓℓ ● cσηтяιвυтισηs ● ε∂ιтcσυηт❯ 02:12, December 19, 2017 (UTC)}

• Fixed. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 03:15, December 19, 2017 (UTC)
• thank you. ѕqυι∂∂ℓєωαя∂ ^{❮мεssαgε ωαℓℓ ● cσηтяιвυтισηs ● ε∂ιтcσυηт❯ 03:23, December 19, 2017 (UTC)}

• Support - •кσσℓкιттү <мεssαgε ωαℓℓ> (=^ ◡ ^=)• 03:19, December 19, 2017 (UTC)

• Support - ѕqυι∂∂ℓєωαя∂ ^{❮мεssαgε ωαℓℓ ● cσηтяιвυтισηs ● ε∂ιтcσυηт❯ 03:23, December 19, 2017 (UTC)}

• Support - EmpressYzma

• Support -  Figmeister ^(W•C•E)  20:49, December 19, 2017 (UTC) 

• Support - Ɔ • W • blɿoWɘʜTxoЯɘƨɘɘʜƆ 04:38, December 20, 2017 (UTC)

• Support - 

• Support -  Nicko756 ^{(M•C•E) Sign!}  02:57, December 21, 2017 (UTC)