Commons talk:Blocking policy: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
ArchiverBot (talk | contribs) m Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 90 days) to Commons talk:Blocking policy/Archive 1 |
|||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
On 23:19, 25 March 2020, one of our admins undid a CheckUser block, one of his rationale being that {{teal|Unblock requests for blocks marked with <code>{{tl|checkuserblock}}</code> '''will''' be reviewed by a checkuser.}} says that it is not required ''de jure'' for a CheckUser block to be reviewed by a checkuser, because of the word '''will'''. Despite this however, it seems ''de facto'' that CheckUser blocks should only be undone by checkusers themselves. I think we should prevent this from happening again, therefore I propose to change "will" to "must". [[User talk:pandakekok9|<span style="color:orange">'''''panda'''''</span>]][[User:pandakekok9|'''''<span style="color:orange">kekok</span>''''']][[Special:Contributions/pandakekok9|<span style="color:orange">'''''9'''''</span>]] 03:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC) |
On 23:19, 25 March 2020, one of our admins undid a CheckUser block, one of his rationale being that {{teal|Unblock requests for blocks marked with <code>{{tl|checkuserblock}}</code> '''will''' be reviewed by a checkuser.}} says that it is not required ''de jure'' for a CheckUser block to be reviewed by a checkuser, because of the word '''will'''. Despite this however, it seems ''de facto'' that CheckUser blocks should only be undone by checkusers themselves. I think we should prevent this from happening again, therefore I propose to change "will" to "must". [[User talk:pandakekok9|<span style="color:orange">'''''panda'''''</span>]][[User:pandakekok9|'''''<span style="color:orange">kekok</span>''''']][[Special:Contributions/pandakekok9|<span style="color:orange">'''''9'''''</span>]] 03:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC) |
||
: To be honest, I'm somehow confused. The reason why CheckUsers should review CU blocks is that they have access to the same level of data their fellow CheckUsers do, and so they can decide whether the CU block was justified or not. But there are two unblock requests for CU blocks: 1) the blocked user claims that they have not created a sock account, and that there has been a mistake in the CU process. 2) The blocked user accepts that they had one or more socks/alternative accounts (they accept the result of CheckUser), but they request unblock because they think the block itself is unjustified, even if they have socked. I think there is a big difference between these two: the first one must be reviewed by a CheckUser; it's actually double checking the first CheckUser's action. The second one, however, is a rather administrative decision. In the first case, the CheckUser action is controversial. In the second case, the administrative action, the block, is challenged. The CheckUser tool can reveal many things (it's not only limited to IPs), but it doesn't say if you need to block a user because they have created one or more sockpuppets or not. It's like when a CheckUser checks two or more accounts, confirms that they are sockpuppets, but doesn't block them (e.g. asks administrators to take action). The blocking administrator doesn't necessarily have access to CheckUser data, they just decide if the use of alternative account(s) was in line with the policy or not. [[User:Ahmad252|Ahmad]]<sup>[[User talk:Ahmad252|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]</sup> 23:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 23:06, 26 March 2020
Request for comment: Partial block
A request for comment relative to the blocking policy has been opened, please see Commons:Requests for comment/Partial blocks. ~riley (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Rewording the CheckUser block part
On 23:19, 25 March 2020, one of our admins undid a CheckUser block, one of his rationale being that Unblock requests for blocks marked with {{Checkuserblock}} will be reviewed by a checkuser. says that it is not required de jure for a CheckUser block to be reviewed by a checkuser, because of the word will. Despite this however, it seems de facto that CheckUser blocks should only be undone by checkusers themselves. I think we should prevent this from happening again, therefore I propose to change "will" to "must". pandakekok9 03:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm somehow confused. The reason why CheckUsers should review CU blocks is that they have access to the same level of data their fellow CheckUsers do, and so they can decide whether the CU block was justified or not. But there are two unblock requests for CU blocks: 1) the blocked user claims that they have not created a sock account, and that there has been a mistake in the CU process. 2) The blocked user accepts that they had one or more socks/alternative accounts (they accept the result of CheckUser), but they request unblock because they think the block itself is unjustified, even if they have socked. I think there is a big difference between these two: the first one must be reviewed by a CheckUser; it's actually double checking the first CheckUser's action. The second one, however, is a rather administrative decision. In the first case, the CheckUser action is controversial. In the second case, the administrative action, the block, is challenged. The CheckUser tool can reveal many things (it's not only limited to IPs), but it doesn't say if you need to block a user because they have created one or more sockpuppets or not. It's like when a CheckUser checks two or more accounts, confirms that they are sockpuppets, but doesn't block them (e.g. asks administrators to take action). The blocking administrator doesn't necessarily have access to CheckUser data, they just decide if the use of alternative account(s) was in line with the policy or not. Ahmadtalk 23:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)