Wikidata talk:Blocking policy

Is there any requirements how easily we can block users/ip's? I think that if user makes one vandalism/test edit, we should not block the user. Use common sense would be good rule. At least in the Finnish Wikipedia we don't block if user vandalizes once or twice, but usually after the third time. --Stryn (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what the vandalism is, in my opinion. Is it a test edit or juvenile vandalism, or is it defacing userpages or items of living people at mass speed with pictures of genitalia? Those cases should be handled differently. --Rschen7754 11:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure it depends which type of vandalism. Mostly I started this discussion because User:124.182.7.114 was blocked. User made a one vandalism item. And another thing: User:31.215.200.21 was blocked (in this case I understand why), but over 2 hours after vandalism edits. --Stryn (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

In this case I just used common sense of dewiki, where vandals, especially those who create nonsense pages, are blocked quite easily. IMHO it is not necessary to exactly define the number of unconstructive edits needed for blocking. See also English Wikipedia's vandalism policy: "Vandalism is prohibited. While editors are encouraged to warn and educate vandals, warnings are by no means necessary for an administrator to block." Regards --Iste (D) 11:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to move that line into the Project page. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Extension

Two recent threads on WD:AN (Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard#User:GPUBot and Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2014/01#Admin help needed!) have brought up two scenarios where this guideline does not allow blocking users: Other than Wikidata:Bots ("In the case of any damage caused by a bot, [...] Depending on the scale of the damage, an administrator may block the bot"), this guideline does not allow blocking bots as long as it's not acting plainly abusive. And this guideline does not allow blocking users on their own request. I think the following points should be added as bullets in the "Administrators may block user accounts or IP addresses:" section (please note that in the latter case this was disputed in the linked discussion). What do you think?

1. Bot accounts that cause damage can be blocked until the issue is solved.
2. Users may be blocked on their own request. They have to be unblocked if they request so (and there's no other reason to keep up the block).

--YMS (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd be OK with the first being added. While I'm OK with it, I think more discussion is needed before adding the second. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Imho the first can be added without a huge discussion because this is already common practice. The second point however needs some thoughts first though I do not see any reason against it. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 15:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Preventative vs Punative

They should NOT be punative, despite making it seem like it should be, right? Gale5050 (talk) 17:57, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Right. Blocks are preventive and not punitive. --CentralTime301 (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Bots

So if the MAIN user account is indeffed, then the BOT is blocked too. But why? 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:7A 18:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)