Wikipedia:Zero tolerance

What is zero tolerance behavior

In practical terms, Zero Tolerance behavior simply refers to certain types of editing that are viewed by the community as so beyond the pale, or gravely disruptive, that they may justify an immediate block without warning. Often this practice has not been spelled out in detail in policy or guidelines but has nonetheless become de facto accepted practice supported by years of generally unchallenged precedent. In all cases administrators should exercise restraint where practicable, and carefully consider the circumstances including possible mitigating or extenuating facts before imposing any block, much less a zero tolerance one. Even with naked vandalism, in all but the rarest of cases some form of warning is desirable. All of which said, WP:BEFOREBLOCK clearly states that in cases of obviously bad faith behavior, warnings are not required and an immediate block is within the discretion of administrators.

A list of zero tolerance activities

The following is a list of some of the more common types of behavior that can get an editor blocked without warning.

• Threats of harm to self or others This may be the most obvious zero tolerance offense. Anyone threatening to injure them-self or someone else is almost certain to be blocked on the spot unless it is crystal clear that the post was in jest. And even then, a word of caution would likely be in order.
• Legal threats Any posts that clearly articulate a legal threat against any editor, the community or the Wikimedia Foundation are likely to end with a fast block. In cases where there may be mitigating or extenuating circumstances the blocks are often lifted upon retraction of the threat.
• Illegal activity Engaging in, or soliciting/promoting on behalf of activities that are obviously and gravely illegal, especially in the United States, can result in a zero tolerance block. To be clear, we are not talking about running a stop sign or drag racing. Think promotion of terrorism or child pornography.
• Porn image vandalism This is almost always going to get the perpetrating editor an instant block.
• Use of slurs and epithets We are not going to write out a list of no no words. Anyone who is an administrator presumably has the requisite judgement to look at a word and know whether or not it is one that can have no other purpose than to insult or degrade a person or group on the basis of their nationality, race/ethnicity, religious beliefs, gender or gender preference. Likewise there are certain symbols that racists and trolls sometimes use that can also be understood as a de-facto slur.
• Trolling See WP:NOTHERE. Beyond which most trolls have either been indeffed or repeatedly blocked as IPs. See below.
• Socking and or IP block evasion Do we need to expound on this?

Duration of blocks

Generally this falls under the heading of administrator discretion. Due to the serious nature of zero tolerance disruptive editing, indefinite blocks are not uncommon, even in the case of a first block. With IPs it is not unusual to impose a block of longer than usual duration in the case of first offenders. As an example; when dealing with porn image vandalism the author of this essay rarely blocks IPs for less than a month.

Summary

There are a handful of behaviors that the community regards as so disruptive that an immediate no warning block is accepted, and in some cases may even be expected. With the exception of socking and block evasion, these activities are happily rare. Admins should exercise restraint where such is possible and carefully consider the background for a full understanding of the situation before imposing any block much less one without warning.