Wikipedia talk:Unblocks are cheap

re

• they can be given additional feedback for minor issues or blocked again for major ones.

once you HAVE a block log, then ALL issues are "major". IJS. — Ched :  ?  21:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Demands for apologies and groveling

Is an experienced editor in the habit of demanding an apology or a grovel as an unblock condition? If there is a pattern of such demands, the problem should be addressed by telling the demander that they are out of line and unhelpful. ANI should have a culture where such is apparent, and although I haven't followed every drama thread, I thought it was pretty free of such demands.

For an unblock, a user has to show that they understand what the problem was, and give a good indication that they are going to avoid repeating a similar problem. The user does not have to agree that the block was "right" and they were "wrong"—they just have to agree that there are certain procedures, and editors will be blocked if enough disruption occurs.

Unblocks might be cheap for the problem user. However, they can spit in the face of the good editors who have lost large amounts of time dealing with the problem. In that sense, unblocks can be very expensive. Johnuniq (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, like almost everything else, what some might see as "ensuring they understand and won't repeat the behavior" others might see as "demanding groveling." NE Ent 13:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how unblocking can be a spit in the face? NE Ent 13:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Some admins. can get very WP:OWNerish about their "authortah" and actions. Personally I never felt that way, and was always glad to see someone resolve a block, even if I had been the one to place it. Those folks that start jumping up and down screaming WP:WHEEL were always an enigma to me; I guess they felt like someone was defying them ... idk. — Ched :  ?  18:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Individual cases usually need individual consideration, and a response appropriate for one blocked user may be different from what be appropriate with another blocked user. My concern is for the large number of cases where an editor is eventually blocked after wasting enormous amounts of time for good editors, and where there is no indication that the editor has any intention to avoid the problematic topic or behavior. In cases like that, saying "unblocks are cheap" is ignoring wikireality—the unblocked user is almost certain to waste even more time for the good editors who work in the topic, and who need to comply with AGF and 3RR every day over and over, without end. An unblock would be fine if the unblocking admin stated that they are happy to respond to requests on their talk to review the case if needed, and would be willing to reblock or topic ban without requiring the usual "yes you did, no I didn't" circus at ANI. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Counterpoint

I'm not trying to be obnoxious, but a more complete title for this essay might be: "Unblocks are cheap for people who hang out at AN/I proposing unblocks." For people who edit in the trenches, unblocks are often not cheap at all. It's incredibly difficult to deal with even the most blatant agenda-driven editing or misuse of sources on this site. Inevitably, when these sorts of disruptive editors are blocked, someone proposes unblocking them using some variation of "unblocks are cheap".

The problem is that someone actually has to deal with the disruptive editor after the unblock. It's sort of disrespectful to the people who are actually impacted by the unblock to dismiss the subject with: "well, if they misbehave again, they'll be blocked again." Maybe. But in the meantime, they'll do more damage, drain more patience and goodwill, and contribute to the burnout of the ever-dwindling number of clueful editors here. Besides which, there's no guarantee that they will be re-blocked if they misbehave; that's actually very dependent on the luck of the draw in terms of attracting administrative attention. Trust me - I've been on both the editorial and the administrative side of such situations.

In one case, an editor with a long-term, well-documented history of tendentious and agenda-driven editing on a particular hot-button issue (abortion) continually dodged long-term sanction because, every time they were proposed, the ultimate decision was along the lines of "unblocks are cheap" and "if he keeps it up he'll be re-blocked". After a period of years - years - of inappropriate editing on the topic, he was topic-banned by ArbCom. But during that time he did a lot of damage to the community of editors who work on that topic, and directly drove off at least two very talented, clueful, thoughtful voices of reason in the subject area. Those clueful editors he drove off haven't been replaced - they're just gone, and it's that much harder to make any progress at covering abortion-related topics in a serious, neutral, encyclopedic way in their absence. That's not cheap. MastCell ^Talk 16:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and my comments in the section above are of a similar nature. The slogan unblocks are cheap is not useful because each case (where a particular editor might be unblocked) needs to be evaluated on its merits: what encyclopedic value has arisen in the past from the editor? what damage have they caused? what is the likely outcome of an unblock? has an admin undertaken to monitor the situation so a reblock can be provided without another fistful of drama? Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The context of the essay is a couple Wikipedians I respect expressed dissatisfaction with the tone of rope, in that rope seems to imply we want the unblocked editor to misbehave after unblocking. It is not intended as "get out of jail free" card or saying that anytime someone suggests unblocking it should be done; the phrasing "When there is genuine disagreement" is meant to convey this. I understand there are significant issues out in the context space and I don't think this essay is significant to those issues one way or the other. There are two major problems I'm aware of:

• Civility. Previously essayed at User:NE Ent/Notes on civility
• Our verifiability policy is a joke. It says I can just do delete unreferenced crap but I wouldn't last very long per "consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." So now we have unreferenced crap in articles with four and five year old tags documenting that it's crap.

I'm not thrilled with "unblocks are cheap" either, but I honestly couldn't come up with anything better. It's in the WP space so I don't own it; if there's any way(s) to improve the wording or move it to a better title, please do so. Obviously it would'nt be appropripiate to change the major theme, but writing a counter essay and linking this one to it would certainly be appropriate. NE Ent 22:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Coming kind of late to the party here, but as the original and primary author of ROPE I'd like to clarify that the idea is not that we want the user to misbehave again, the idea is actually almost identical to what is expressed here, that in some cases we simply can't know if they will or they won't unless we give them a chance to prove it. Of course this approach is one we should use with all due caution and discretion , being on the lookout for trolls who are just looking for a naive admin to let them back in. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

certainly uncertain

Yea, things aren't defined until observed, not sure why MastCell thinks differently? The cat ain't dead, and it ain't alive. NE Ent 22:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, you're making the point that human behavior is difficult to predict—a point which has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. For another, quantum mechanics is all about defining things which cannot be directly observed, so your opening sentence is a bit sideways. And finally, perhaps xkcd put it best... :P MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment 2¢

I think block length needs to be addressed more than unblocking. It can be a pain in the rear to get a long enough block, and sometimes (esp. on ANI) everyone will go straight to the indef site ban, rather than 6 mos or 3 years or something arbitrary. Are humans not allowed to mature IRL? d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)