While living in the Niagara Frontier region and studying for his master's, he sort of backed into a journalism career with a part-time position as an editorial assistant at Night & Day, the weekly entertainment supplement for the Niagara Gazette, the daily newspaper in Niagara Falls, New York. After moving to the Western Reserve, this led to a position, first as a stringer and then as an actual reporter, in the Beachwood office of the Sun Newspapers chain of suburban weeklies. Upon returning to New York State, he covered the city and town of Newburgh for another weekly, the Mid-Hudson Times.
After having gradually discovered Wikipedia and its possibilities late in 2004, he began editing articles, particularly those devoted to the Catskill Mountains, which he has come to love while hiking extensively and having served on the board of the Catskill Mountain 3500 Club, and which he found to be deeply in need of extension and revision.
In 2007, having resisted that fate for some time, he was successfully nominated for adminship. In that position, he gained enough trust and respect from the community to be among the first users elected to the oversight position in February 2009 (He resigned it 11 years later as the oversight team no longer needs to be as large as it was then, it is being pretty well handled by other people, and he had been focusing more on content for a while anyway).
For putting forth the time and effort to take great pictures and improve countless articles on New York towns, roads, and landmarks, I award you the Photographer's Barnstar. Kafziel13:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this Barnstar for your solid, witty, creative, supportive, learned, timely, cheerful, eloquent, and/or otherwise generally great contributions on U. S. National Historic Landmarks' articles. Yippee o yay, we pretty much met our goal of a well-started article for each of 2,442 NHLs by today!
Thanks, and have a great Fourth of July! -- Doncram, 4 July 2008
The Content Creativity Barnstar
I've come across quite a few horrendous road articles in AFD lately, so I'm was very pleasantly surprised to find Old Albany Post Road on DYK. Keep up the good work. P.S. I used to be the most prolific editor to DYK, so expect some stiff competition, I want that record back :) Mgm|(talk)12:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your fine work over the years, in blocking vandals and helping new users getting used to Wikipedia. I thank you for your hard work, Daniel! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Special Barnstar
Daniel, you really are a great person. Both on and off wiki. A diligent article writer, good friend and great father. I really respect you. :) SamBlab23:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went to WP:UAA, and noticed that you were either discussing with or waiting on four users to edit. I just wanted to give you this barnstar to show you that I appreciate that. You are a diligent and kind admin. I dream of horses (talk) 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
Awarded to Daniel Case for suggesting I quit editing for the evening - Editing after a long and tiring day was definitely not one of my best ideas. Thanks! -FASTILY(TALK)23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded for outstanding contributions in the realm of photography. Photos you have taken are among some of the best illustrations out there. This particular photo of the Central Park West Historic District stands out as a great way to illustrate multiple buildings. It's really an iconic skyline there at CPW and your photo really captures that. Thanks for all you do. IvoShandor (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just read this email - you have no idea how much it cheered me up after a long flight :). I'm really glad people found the session so productive; I'm thinking of holding a longer one next year as a dedicated thing, since the format seems to work really well. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For responding to an AIV post almost 12 hours after it had been posted (and overlooked for several admins), I hereby award you this barnstar. Congrats! :) Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:08, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!
Many thanks for your excellent edits to the Hermann Stieve article. Adding the back-stories of the Nazi victims whose deaths Stieve exploited was an excellent idea. Adding their photographs emphasizes their humanity and heroism and contrasts this with Stieve's dehumanization of them. The Anome (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar
You are a very busy admin. Your mop certainly tells the tail - I think you may want to get a new one. You've helped keep Wikipedia clean - sometimes so clean I thought it sparkled! Keep it sparkling and I may need to wear sunglasses from now on - but the good thing is vandals will be blinded as soon as they enter! Hey, not a bad idea! Here's a barnstar for hard-work - and hey, there's a new mop on it! K6ka (talk | contribs) 00:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just saw Disappearance of Leah Roberts in the queue for DYK and clicked on it because it caught my eye me and I wanted to know more. It's a great and well written article and it was really interesting. I think you should take it to GA. I really enjoyed reading it. — ₳aron11:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Resilient Barnstar
For standing firm and keeping your resolve to fight for something in the face of great resistance and negativity simply because it was the right thing to do. You have my respect. -- WV ● ✉✓03:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's rare to see such high-quality articles on Wikipedia about generalist film and cinematic techniques -- as opposed to the majority of GAs we have related to film about individual films, fictional characters and episodes.
Both are good things to have.
But it's refreshing to see your high-quality contribution in this unique area.
Thank you for your continued work towards clearing the wiki of not just the average vandals, but also the conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers. RedPanda2518:40, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back in February, you owned up on my talk page to messing up and apologized for doing so. Far too many Wikipedians respond to constructive criticism in no other fashion save to charge the ramparts with cannons blazing, and your courtesy and mindfulness in not being in their ranks was and is appreciated. Ravenswing 18:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For protecting the Siege of Boston page when I asked for the protection. You really did a great job at stopping vandals from ruining it. Thanks for your work! Sahas P.
Iron Gwazi passed its FAC! Although I am a primary contributor to the article, your involvement was just as significant. The road to FA relies on community consensus and voluntary commentary. You dedicated your time and skills to help improve the article to its current condition. Without your input, the article would not have reached its status quo. You are a significant contributor! Whether you are a one-time commenter or contribute to other GA, PR, or FA candidates, I hereby award Daniel Case with the Teamwork Barnstar! Thank you for your efforts to improve the Iron Gwazi article. Adog (Talk・Cont) 02:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Daniel Case, I just wanted to award you this Barnstar for your presence on AIV, ANEW and RPPI, as well as helping out with rangeblocks and LTA cases! — AP 499D25(talk)04:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seen you around a lot, I appreciate your work and feel like you would deserve this. Wasn't able to see your presentation over at a certain meetup sadly, maybe I'll be able to go next year! Fathoms Below(talk)19:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Admin's Barnstar
For helping quell the disruption on my talk page. I've been trying to stay away from drama on Wiki recently because of personal issues, so to see that other users were willing to come to my defense against harassment is very humbling. You have no idea just how much I appreciate your assistance. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations! Here's a medal for you in appreciation of your hardwork in creating, expanding (and nominating) 25+ articles for DYK. Keep up the good work as I see you are around fifty now. Well done again, Daniel Case! --Victuallers (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awarded to Daniel Case, congratulations on 50 fine DYK contributions! Keep up your great work with DYK! It is most appreciated. Given with respect and admiration, Ruhrfisch><>°°20:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your first hundred. Keep up the good work. I must say that I have admired your contributions both in terms of articles and in verifications and debates. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given to Daniel Case with respect and admiration on the occasion of your 200th DYK contribution. Keep up the amazing good work, Ruhrfisch><>°°04:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you have been doing the grudge work of verifying length and references for potential DYK choices. For that often thankless task I award you this Working Man's Barnstar. -- Boston (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is given to Daniel Case because even after over 2,000 edits to T:TDYK, he still checks every hook under the same criteria and is unyielding in the quality and consistency of his reviews, thanks for all of the great work :). Mifter (talk) 02:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Given with respect and admiration to Daniel Case on the occasion of your 350th article to appear in the Did You Know section of the Main Page, and for all your work with that project and on Wikipedia in general. Keep up the good work! Yours, Ruhrfisch><>°°15:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to award this special barnstar to you on the occasion of your 501st DYK. Your 500th was a wonderful hook, like a visual fugue, and as you embark on your second 500, a barnstar is in order. Of course, in addition to your impressive DYK work, your contributions in many other areas are also greatly appreciated! MANdARAX•XAЯAbИAM02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Helping Hand
I just got a notification that my DYK was approved. Thank you both for proposing a better hook and for continuing to assist with getting it through. I really appreciate the helping hand. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 01:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My 5000th edit. First milestone I've really gotten to notice in time to celebrate. Who could have imagined it would have been something so minor as adding the FA star to any article I otherwise had nothing to do with?
6000th edit. Again, relatively minor, but at least connected to a WikiProject:New York State Roads, which I'm more involved in than any other WikiProject I've added my name to.
7000th edit. I thought it would come from the highways project, but it was a little interlude on a train station that did the trick this time.
8000th edit. Took some time to find this due to problems with the tool. A message to another user about an edit he made to a Catskill article.
9,000th edit. Merely adding the {{unsigned}} template to a talk page comment. How lame!
10,000th edit The biggie: Five figures. This was actually something substantive, the addition of a further reading section (i.e., works I came across while researching the subject that I could not physically or virtually get a hold of, so I'm putting them here so the work doesn't go to waste) to an article about a Supreme Court case.
11,000th edit A talk page message to someone else ... first time I've made note of an editing milestone in the edit itself.
You'll notice that a great deal of the userboxes at right deal with projects connected to geographical locations: rivers, mountains, lakes, protected areas, roads and hiking trails. Hardly surprising, since it was my "other" major in college. And indeed I see a connection between the two. I've always found writing about places to be the most pleasant writing I do, to convey the essence of a somewhere in words.
This has really come alive in writing the route descriptions for road articles. Roads to me tell a story of the country they pass through, and I try to convey that within the limits of encylopedia style. TwinsMetsFan has chosen many of the articles for which I've written route descriptions as NYSR featured articles and singled out the prose as a reason why. I'm flattered, but of course I understand. To see some of my personal favorites in that department, there's not only the US 9 former good article, there's also US 6, NY 52, NY 55 and NY 208 (Notice that it helps that they are also well illustrated).
Explained above. I created Category:Catskills and created or added in significant part to almost all of them. And there's a lot more to come. Sometime.
Hiking, too, is another area still not covered very well here. This led to creating Category:Hiking equipment and Category:Hiking organizations, taking the photo of hiking boots. I have worked on, and created, a bit in both. I would start a WikiProject:Hiking for this but I really don't have time, and I tend to range all over the place, anyway. (For one thing, a trail construction and maintenance article could be split from trail, and trail blazing (which I expanded and added a lot of images to, could really do with not only a cleanup (it looks like someone dropped their photos all over it) but perhaps a renaming and expansion to include signage as well.
Trails is probably the best thing we've got going. Check out the project page, which has been established since I first wrote that there wasn't a project. (I like that it uses a picture I took in the userbox)
Probably we'll have to really get far along on WikiProject:Mountains first, though (and speaking of which, I've done and continue to do most of the work on Slide Mountain, which I hope to take to peer review and FA someday.
I'm very proud of Long Path, a creation of mine that is probably the most thorough of any hiking trail article on Wikipedia.
I've always loved exploring my adopted home state via car. I have seen much of it yet so much more remains. And I've always been fascinated by roads when I would read maps as a child. I liked the shapes they made, and wondered what it was like at particular places I hadn't been to. When I grew up I was able to explore them.
I didn't, however, know that there were others like this, and that there was a word for them until I got to editing Wikipedia. So when I found out about the New York State highways project, I wasted no time signing up. Creating and improving articles about the many roads I was familiar with, and some I wasn't, accounted for much of my editing back in spring 2006. I would bet that of any WikiProject I'm involved with, this would account for the most edits.
A few of the articles for which I have written route descriptions and taken or found photographs have become selected articles of the project, and on May 17, 2007, U.S. Route 9 in New York, an article myself and several other editors had beefed up a couple of months earlier, became the project's first Good Article.
In December 2007, I was asked to rewrite the route description for NY 22, the only north-south route in the state longer than US 9. It, too, has made GA, and I was awarded a barnstar for the rewrite.
While I wasn't looking, User:Mitchazenia developed NY 32, whose route description I had banged out one day at work, and for which I have taken most of the photos, to GA status as well. He went further, and on June 17, 2008, it became the first FA I can legitimately claim part of the credit for. So I did. On July 7, it was on the Main Page, sparking a lively discussion about why some two-lane state road was somehow important enough to be on the Main Page.
Two months later, Mitch got the Route 22 article to FA as well.
As I mentioned on the article's talk page, color me sacrilegious but I finally started drinking soda thanks to New Coke. It still seems, in hindsight, like the perfect medium between the tastes of Pepsi and Coke. I would love just one more can of Coke II.
So I looked this one up in summer 2005, and found it a disparate collection of facts. One of the external links tells the whole story of how Coke made its decision (which you can really understand) and I decided to rewrite the article to tell that story.
That storytelling, which has since been, as I knew it would be, edited down, got a lot of praise, which pleasantly surprised me. Its structure is still intact in the final article, even if the narrative twists have been hammered out. The article got linked from the Main Page on the anniversary of Classic Coke's reintroduction, perhaps because of the work I'd done on it in the weeks before, and still seems to draw a lot of interest (which means vandalism, too ... of all the articles I've put my stamp on, it gets the most).
On September 7, 2006, all the work I've put into it was rewarded when it received good article status. I hope eventually to improve it further, take it to peer review and then FA. Even though it was delisted a year and a half later due to my concentrating on other articles, I still have plenty of research I haven't added to it yet, and I think it could easily be brought back to its former glory. When I have the time.
In early 2005, a friend of ours shipped us some books she'd finished with and thought we might be interested in. The only one that struck me that way was The Devil Wears Prada, since I have a bit of a soft spot for popular chick lit, gender notwithstanding. I read it in three days and, still a few months new to Wikipedia, decided immediately to write an article about it.
What emerged, and is still there, reflects that era of Wikipedia and my tendencies as an editor at the time. I borrowed the template that I had sort of created for myself when doing The Lovely Bones a couple of months before. Like that one, it's a fascinating and comprehensive look at the book, but with an overly long plot summary and some critical commentary that borders on (and probably is) original research. At that time we weren't clear about how that applied to articles about literary works; today we wouldn't have it. Eventually I'll sit down and bring it in line with the novels project standards.
Later that year the film version was shot; by early 2006 it was clear that there was enough out there about it to warrant a separate article. I created it, added whatever information was available prerelease and then, when the film came out, saw it and wrote pretty much the entire beginnings of the "differences" section later that night. I also added the reviews and, most importantly, references that same night. Later I rented and watched the extras on the DVD. I probably know more about the novel than anyone except Lauren Weisberger and more about the film than anybody except the people who made it. On May 17, 2008, despite not being as complete and finished as I would have liked, it was listed as a Good Article.
That last decision has made it so much easier to upgrade the article into what it is now, my other current favorite for future featured status. It would have been so much harder if I had written it and then gone back in to put in references (as I did with New Coke and some other articles). The new emphasis on references and citations may be a pain for older articles but, with those started under that system, it is much easier to build it up to a good quality.
It also became necessary to create an article on the soundtrack album in the process, and (while I have nothing to really do with it), someone else did an article on the forthcoming TV show. Could a video game be next?
In the course of working on it, I also began expanding the article on the inspiration for Miranda Priestly, Vogue editor Anna Wintour. It grew and grew — I found her a fascinating subject. I had no plans to put it up for recognition until after I had finished with the Devil Wears Prada movie article, but in early March 2007 an assessor from the biography project gave it an A-class rating. So I accelerated my plans for it, putting it first in biography peer review. I was ready to nominate it for GA when another user did (just like New Coke ... always flattering when that happens), and on May 13 it was added to the GA list.
A WPBIO reassessment gave it a more legit A-class later. After waiting to see The September Issue on DVD, I made the additions and finally took it to FAC. It was not promoted, but I feel I can address the reasons for the failure and get it to the gold-star level.
"WP:IPBLOCK" and "WP:EXEMPT" redirect here. For information on blocking IP addresses, see Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. For exemption about fair use policy, see WP:NFEXMP. For exemption about three-revert rule policy, see WP:NOT3RR.
This policy in a nutshell: Editors in good standing whose editing is disrupted by unrelated blocks or firewalls may request IP address block exemption, which allows editing on an otherwise-blocked IP address. The right is given to trusted users and may be removed if concerns arise or when it is no longer needed. To request an IP address block exemption, use the Unblock Ticket Request System or the {{unblock}} template on your talk page (if you have talk page access). If you will be editing using an anonymous proxy, including a VPN service, send your request to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org instead.
Normally, long-term blocks of IP addresses or ranges do not affect logged-in editors. However, it is occasionally necessary to block both anonymous and logged-in users, using autoblock and/or hard blocks, to prevent disruption.
Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (except for Tor blocks[1]). Other editors can request for IP address block exemptions on a per-user basis if they can show good cause.
An IP address block exemption allows that editor to edit without interruption, from an IP address that would otherwise be blocked through no fault of their own. It can also be used to allow editing via an anonymizing proxy when need is demonstrated and the user is trusted to not abuse the user right.
Editors granted IP address block exemption should be aware that breach of this policy, including unauthorized editing via proxies, or significant concerns over account abuse or other conduct, may lead to the removal of the IP address block exemption.
The permission is usually given for 12-month intervals for experienced users, who are encouraged to request it again if they have a continued need after it expires. Users with less experience but who meet the qualification under this policy might be granted an IP block exemption for a shorter duration.
When it is considered, please document the decision and your experience here so we can learn from your experience.
There are currently 797 users who have the IPBE flag.
There are three main circumstances where the IP address block exemption flag can be given:
An editor who is unfortunately affected by a block intended to prevent vandalism or disruption. After being given the flag, they will then be able to edit without being affected by any IP address blocks.
An editor in good standing editing anonymously when they can demonstrate the need.
For one of the reasons above, an editor in good standing needs to edit from an IP address or range that is globally blocked, but is primarily interested in editing the English Wikipedia.
These are handled differently, due to the additional safeguards involved for open proxy usage.
Hard IP address range blocks are used to prevent persistent disruption from temporary accounts and sock-puppets within an IP address range. An editor with a credible editing record who would be affected by this measure may be exempted from the block at administrative discretion, allowing them to edit uninterrupted through the IP address range block.
The conditions for granting this are that:
the editor's normal (non-proxy) IP address will be disrupted by an IP address block placed on a range they usually edit on, through no fault of theirs. (This may be confirmed via autoblock or CheckUser)
the editor agrees never to misuse the exemption to edit through a blocked anonymizing proxy (this may be checked), and,
when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator.
In addition, IP block exemption may also be given by an administrator without a request, to prevent good-faith editors being affected by a hard IP address range block. The editor should be informed that in order to prevent vandalism, a block has been applied to their IP address range, and they have been exempted from it. They should clearly be recommended to read this section, and especially that the flag may be removed if used to edit via a blocked proxy. (See tags and templates below.)
Who may request
A user affected by an IP address block that is unrelated to their editing and that prevents them editing with a logged-in account.
How to request
Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System. Be sure to use the Blocked User option and select English Wikipedia, even if the IP you want to use is globally blocked, as you are requesting a local exemption. You must ask from your registered account. Requests posted to the user talk page of the IP address will be automatically declined. Administrators granting this right may sometimes need to consult a CheckUser to confirm the problem, or may wish to obtain further review by posting the request onto an administrative list or page for discussion if unfamiliar with the case.
Editing via an anonymous proxy, including open proxies and VPN services, can be easily abused. In this case, IP block exemption is granted only to trusted users. Examples of editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and existing users with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution.
However, many users are known to access through open proxy unknowingly due to settings configured in their internet browser. Before you apply for IP block exemption (which may take time and is not guaranteed to be granted), you should check the internet connection preference of your browser and change it to no proxy access. This includes opt-in services such as Apple iCloud Private Relay.
Note that avoidance of checkuser, or specific checkusers, is not usually considered a sufficient reason – concerns over checkusers should be discussed with the Arbitration Committee or the ombuds commission.
Who should request
An editor who demonstrates a need and can be trusted not to abuse the right.
How to request
Email the checkuser VRT team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org ensuring your email includes your username, or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies. Administrators who are contacted through other means may need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem.
The local IP block exemption on the English Wikipedia allows editors to edit from any IP address, even if it is subject to a global block. The global IP block exemption permission does not allow a user to edit if there is a local hard block in place. It may be appropriate to grant editors local IP block exemption to edit through global blocks if they predominantly plan on editing the English Wikipedia and they do not have experience on other projects.
Conversely, it is not always appropriate to grant editors with global IP block exemption the local permission if they would not otherwise qualify for it based on this policy.
IP block exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it, and who are trusted not to abuse it. Typical reasons why exemption may be removed from an account:
No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting – relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Wikipedia through a non-blocked IP address, user becomes an administrator, etc.
Bad faith or misleading statement in request
Credible evidence or concern of abuse (including conflict of interest by granting admin) – in unclear cases questions might be raised before assumptions are made.
As with any block (which exemption removal can effectively be), a neutral administrator may remove the right or seek discussion of perceived issues by the community. Due to the potential for abuse, credible concerns over abuse endorsed by the community may at times be sufficient for removal. However, in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.
Per a May 2016 RfC, administrators should notify users of an upcoming routine removal of their IPBE flag and allow them an opportunity to discuss. Extensions should normally be given upon request.
If the relevant user's IP address is blocked by a checkuser, verify with the checkuser in advance of granting IP address block exemption that doing so will not adversely affect a block made based on private information available only to checkusers.
All IP address block exemptions are subject to review and repeal. Exemption may be, and often will be, withdrawn if there is credible evidence or concern of abuse. It is advisable for administrators to discuss first if in doubt, since a poorly-founded exemption will be quickly withdrawn.
When considering IP address block exemption, the editing history of the editor and the abusive range concerned should be carefully reviewed before making a decision.
IP address block exemption is granted or removed via Special:UserRights. Editors having the IP block exempt right are visible as a user group under Special:ListUsers and can be reviewed. (Note that if the editor is an administrator, they will not usually appear in this list.) The reason for granting or removal are given in the relevant user's rights log.
{{subst:Ipexemptgranted}} (or "{{subst:IPBE}}") contains suggested notes for an editor who has been granted the IP address block exempt right in order to edit through a hard block of their IP address.
Suggested narrative for a hard-blocked IP address range: "This IP address range is blocked to prevent vandalism. If you are one of the bona fide users on this IP address range, and affected by this, please request unblocking, and ask for checkuser and IP address block exemption"
^Editing from Tor exit nodes require the torunblocked right, which is included only in the IP block exemption group. It is not included with the Administrator or Bot user groups. All users, including those with IP block exemption, are still affected by any cookie blocks that are imposed upon them; IP block exemption does not affect this block option.
Blocking is the method by which administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia. Blocks may be applied to user accounts, to IP addresses, and to IP address ranges, for either a definite or an indefinite time, to all or a subset of pages. Blocked users can continue to access Wikipedia, but cannot edit any page they are blocked from (including, if appropriate, their own user pages). In most cases, a site-wide blocked user will only be able to edit their own user talk page.
Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users (see § Purpose and goals). Any user may report disruption and ask administrators to consider blocking a disruptive account or IP address (see § Requesting blocks).
If editors believe a block has been improperly issued, they can request a review of that block at Wikipedia:Administrative action review. Administrators can unblock a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate.
Blocking is different from banning, which is a formal retraction of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. Blocks disable a user's ability to edit pages; bans do not. However, bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban.
Blocks serve to protect the project from harm, and reduce likely future problems. Blocks may escalate in duration if problems recur. They are meted out not as retribution but to protect the project and other users from disruption and inappropriate conduct, and to deter any future possible repetitions of inappropriate conduct. Blocking is one of the most powerful tools that are entrusted to administrators, who should be familiar with the circumstances prior to intervening and are required to be able to justify any block that they issue.
In general, once a matter has become "cold" and the risk of present disruption has clearly ended, reopening it by blocking retrospectively is usually not appropriate. In this situation, if an ongoing or serious concern persists, several dispute resolution processes exist to allow discussion and possible sanction of a user.
Blocks can be appealed (see § Unblocking). Requests to be unblocked are also decided in light of prevention and deterrence. A user may be unblocked earlier if the user agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or if the situation was temporary and has now ended. Likewise, a user who has previously returned to inappropriate conduct after other unblocks may find their unblock request declined for deterrence reasons, to emphasize the importance of change and unacceptability of the conduct.
prevent imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia;
deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior; and
encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.
Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved.
The following are some of the most common rationales for blocks.
As a rule of thumb, when in doubt, do not block; instead, consult other administrators for advice. After placing a potentially controversial block, it is a good idea to make a note of the block at the administrators' incidents noticeboard for peer review.
Administrators should take special care when dealing with new users. Beginning editors are often unfamiliar with Wikipedia policy and convention, and so their behavior may initially appear to be disruptive. Responding to these new users with excessive force can discourage them from editing in the future (see Wikipedia:Do not bite the newcomers).
A user may be blocked when necessary to protect the rights, property, or safety of the Wikimedia Foundation, its users, or the public. A block for protection may be necessary in response to:
persistent posts of unreferenced, poorly or incorrectly referenced, or potentially defamatory information about living persons; or
an account appearing to have been compromised (as an emergency measure), i.e. there is some reason to believe the account is being used by someone other than the person who registered the account.
When blocking in response to personal information disclosures or actions that place users in danger, consider notifying the Arbitration Committee by e-mail (arbcom-enwikimedia.org) about the disclosure or danger, as well as contacting someone with oversight permissions to request deletion of the material in question.
A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. A block for disruption may be necessary in response to:
attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite.
Edit warring, especially breaches of the three-revert rule, often results in a block, either from the pages the user is disrupting or from the entire site.
Some types of user accounts are considered disruptive and may be blocked without warning, usually indefinitely:
Accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism.
Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam.
Non-static IP addresses or hosts that are otherwise not permanent proxies typically warrant blocking for a shorter period of time, as the IP address is likely to be reassigned, or the open proxy is likely to be closed. Many Tor proxies, in particular, are "exit nodes" for only a short time; in general, these proxies should not be blocked indefinitely without consideration. See Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses for further details.
There is also a Wikipedia project, the WikiProject Open proxies, which seeks to identify and block open proxy servers.
A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent.
Blocks may be imposed as a technical measure to enforce a ban. Such blocks are based on the particulars of the ban. Bans that apply to all of Wikipedia—that is, they are not partial—may be backed up by a sitewide block, which is usually set to apply for the period of the ban. Other bans may be enforced with a partial block.[1]
An administrator may reset the block of a user who intentionally evades a block, and may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block. User accounts or IP addresses used to evade a block should also be blocked.
Edits by and on behalf of banned and blocked editors
Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (changes that are obviously helpful, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.
Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits made to it by others, are eligible for speedy deletion under the G5 criterion. If the page in question contains substantial edits made to it by good faith users, it is not eligible for G5.
Since categorization can impact many pages, and deletion of a category without merging can leave pages orphaned, you should carefully consider what to do with categories created by a banned or blocked user. Blatantly useless categories can be speedy-deleted, as well as any categories which clearly violate existing category standards. Care should nonetheless be taken to see if articles need to be merged to a parent category before the speedy deletion. Categories created by a banned user which may be useful or fit into a larger category scheme can be tagged for discussion and possible merging using the categories for discussion process instead of deleting them outright.
Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. Editors who reinstate edits made by a banned or blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.
New accounts which engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked editor in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the editor whose behavior they are imitating.[2] See the policy on sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry.
Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved. It is acceptable for an administrator to block someone who has been engaging in clear-cut vandalism in that administrator's userspace.
Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, if an angry user is also being disruptive, the user can be blocked to prevent further disruption.
Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating.
Very short blocks may be used to record, for example, an apology or acknowledgement of mistake in the block log in the event of a wrongful or accidental block, if the original block has expired. (If it has not, the message may be recorded in the unblocking reason.)
A blocked administrator can block the blocking administrator, but should only do so in exceptional circumstances where there is a clear and immediate need, such as in the case of a compromised account. Use of the block tool to further a dispute or retaliate against the original blocking administrator is not allowed. If in doubt, report the issue on the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents.
Disruptive behavior can be reported, and blocks requested at a specialized venue such as Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or, if appropriate, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Users requesting blocks should supply credible evidence of the circumstances warranting a block. Administrators are never obliged to place a block, and are free to investigate the situation for themselves. Prior to imposing a block, administrators are expected to be fully familiar with the circumstances of the situation. See also § Explanation of blocks.
Administrators who use Wikipedia-related IRC channels and Discord are reminded that, while these channels have legitimate purposes, discussing an issue on IRC or Discord necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC or Discord from the discussion (and excludes all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in an admin-only channel such as #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution. Consensus about blocks or other subjects should not be formed off-wiki.
As the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly discouraged, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g. ongoing vandalism or serious violations of the policy on biographies of living persons), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC or Discord to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard.
Some of the key precepts of this section may be explained using {{Before blocking}}.
Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these. Welcome newcomers, do not bite them, and assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Newcomers should make an effort to learn about our policies and guidelines so that they can learn how to avoid making mistakes. A variety of template messages exist for convenience, although purpose-written messages are often preferable. Template warnings that state that a user may be blocked for disruption or other blockable behavior may also be issued by regular editors rather than by administrators only.
However, warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking. In general, administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking, and it may be particularly desirable to communicate first with such users before blocking. On the other hand, users acting in bad faith, whose main or only use is forbidden activity (sockpuppetry, vandalism, and so on), do not require any warning and may be blocked immediately.
Blocking is a serious matter. The community expects that blocks will be made for good reasons only, based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment, and that all factors that support a block are subject to independent peer review if requested.
Administrators must supply a clear and specific reason why a user was blocked. Block reasons should avoid the use of jargon as much as possible so that blocked users may better understand them. Administrators should notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page. It is usually easier to explain the reason for a block at the time it is applied than afterwards.
If there are any specific recommendations or circumstances that a reviewing administrator would need to know, or that may help to avoid administrator disputes upon review of a block, the blocking administrator should consider including this information in the block notice. For example:
When there is information or evidence that may not be obvious, may not be fully appreciated, or may otherwise be relevant.
Prior endorsement that if any administrator wishes to unblock, or there is consensus for it, they may without consulting the blocking administrator.
If the rationale for a block depends on information that is not available to all administrators, that information should be sent to the Arbitration Committee, a Checkuser, or an Oversighter (as applicable) for action. These editors serve as functionaries; they are qualified and trusted to handle non-public evidence, and they operate under strict controls. The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed. Administrators must be able to justify their blocks using evidence visible on Wikipedia, even if it includes aspects only accessible by other administrators (e.g. revisions or log details that are redacted, or deleted pages).[3]
Administrators who are also Checkusers or Oversighters may block users based on non-public information either revealed through the checkuser function page, or revisions and log details that have been suppressed ("oversighted"). These administrators may also make blocks based on off-wiki evidence of sockpuppetry and undeclared paid editing submitted through the email addresses below;[4] in addition, the Arbitration Committee has appointed administrators who are neither Checkusers nor Oversighters to address reports of undeclared paid editing.[5] This evidence is inaccessible to administrators. As such, an administrative action is generally viewed to be made in the user's capacity as a Checkuser, Oversighter, or COIVRT members, although the action itself is an administrative one. All such blocks are subject to review by other members of the functionary team, and direct review by the Arbitration Committee.
Contact details: individual Checkusers and Oversighters are listed on the relevant pages. Private evidence involving undisclosed paid editing may be sent to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Other matters requiring Checkuser attention may be sent to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org.
Technical instructions on how to block and unblock, and information on the blocking interface, are available at mw:Help:Blocking users. The following is advice specifically related to blocking and unblocking on Wikipedia.
In addition to the further advice, there are special considerations to take into account when blocking IP addresses. IP address blocks can affect many users, and IP addresses can change. Users intending to block an IP address should at a minimum check for usage of that address, and consider duration carefully. IP addresses should rarely, if ever, be blocked indefinitely. You should notify the Wikimedia Foundation if the IP is related to a sensitive organization or a government agency.
A block of a range of IP addresses may unintentionally affect other users in that range. Before blocking an IP range, especially for a significant time, you should check for other users who may be unintentionally affected by the range block:
The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment. The duration of blocks should thus be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption are to reduce administrative burden; they are made under the presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future. Administrators should consider:
the severity of the behavior;
whether the user has engaged in that behavior before.
Blocks on shared or dynamic IP addresses are typically shorter than blocks on registered accounts or static IP addresses made in otherwise similar circumstances, to limit side-effects on other users sharing that IP address.
While the duration of a block should vary with the circumstances, there are some broad standards:
incidents of disruptive behavior typically result in blocks of from a day to a few days, longer for persistent violations;
accounts used exclusively for disruption may be blocked indefinitely without warning;
protective blocks typically last as long as protection is necessary, often indefinitely.
An indefinite block is a block that does not have a definite (or fixed) duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases, an open-ended (indefinite) block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion. As with all blocks, it is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to stop problematic conduct in the future.
Indefinite does not mean "infinite" or "permanent"; it just means that no automatic expiration time (or duration) for the block has been set. An indefinitely blocked user may later be unblocked in appropriate circumstances. In particularly serious cases in which no administrator would be willing to lift the block, the user is effectively banned by the community.
Sitewide block will prevent the user from editing any page on Wikipedia with the exception of their own user talk page. This is the option that is set by default, and should be used when there is a reasonable assumption that the account would disrupt any page, such as vandalism-only accounts or users that are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia.
Partial block will prevent the user from editing a specific set of pages, or from a particular set of namespaces. Either option may be set, or a combination of both may be chosen. There is a software limit of 10 pages per block; beyond this, sitewide blocking should be considered instead.
Autoblock any IP addresses used will apply an autoblock, or automatic block, on the IP address that the account was last using, as well as any subsequent IP addresses the account tries to edit from while they are blocked with this option set. If a different non-IP block exempt user account logs in from an autoblocked IP address and tries to edit, the user account will also be added to the autoblock list. This option should typically be disabled when blocking unapproved or malfunctioning bots (so as not to block the bot's operator or any other bots using that IP address), though it should be enabled when blocking accounts for disruptive or malicious behavior. This option is enabled by default and is only available when applying a block to an account.
Prevent account creation will restrict the user from accessing the Special:CreateAccount function page (and hence restricts the user from creating new accounts) for the duration of the block. If applied to a hard-blocked IP address or range, it will also prevent all user accounts who are not IP block-exempt from being able to create additional accounts if they attempt to do so while behind the blocked IP address or range. If applied to a user account and with the autoblock option also set, it will also prevent accounts from being created on the IP address that the account was last using.[6] It should typically be disabled when blocking accounts with inappropriate usernames (to allow the user to create a new account with an appropriate one), though it should be enabled when blocking bad-faith usernames (e.g. clearly threatening, abusive, or clear attacks toward other editors) or vandalism-only accounts.
Prevent user from sending email will restrict the user from accessing the Special:EmailUser function page (and hence restricts the user from sending any emails to user accounts) for the duration of the block. This option is not checked by default and should not be enabled when blocking an account except in cases where either the blocked user abuses it, or uses it in order to harass, threaten, intimidate, or cause disruption toward other editors. In instances when administrators feel that email abuse is extremely likely, they may use their discretion and enable this option to prevent it from occurring. When enabled, efforts should be taken to ensure that the user's talk page remains unprotected and that the user is aware of other avenues (such as the Unblock Ticket Request System) through which they can discuss the block. When applied to a hard-blocked IP address or range, it will also prevent all user accounts who are not IP block exempt from being able to email other accounts if they attempt to do so while behind the blocked IP address or range. If applied to a user account and with the autoblock option also set, it will not have a direct effect on the IP address that the account was last using, since IP address users do not have access to the Special:EmailUser function page.[6]
Prevent this user from editing their own talk page while blocked, if checked, will prevent the blocked user from editing their own user talk page (and hence, the ability for them to create unblock requests) during the duration of their block. This option is not checked by default, and typically should not be checked; editing of the user's talk page should be disabled only in cases of continued abuse of their user talk page, or when the user has engaged in serious threats, accusations, or attempts at outing that must be prevented from re-occurring. The protection policy has further details in cases where other users[7] are repeatedly causing disruption to the user talk page of a blocked user.
Apply block to logged-in users from this IP address will disallow all non IP-block exempt user accounts from editing from the IP address or range during the duration of the block. If the ability to create accounts or send email to other users is also disallowed, these functions will also be disallowed for any non-exempt user accounts who are attempting to do so behind the blocked IP address or range. This option should typically not be checked, and is typically only used in cases of long-term abuse, sock puppetry, for IP addresses with a history of significant and high level abuse, or for being an open proxy or location host. See hard block under the IP address common block list below. This option is disabled by default and is only available when applying a block to an IP address or IP range.
There are two common blocks that may be imposed on registered accounts:
A soft account block (autoblock disabled, account creation allowed) will only block the specific account from editing. An autoblock is not applied to the IP address the account last used, and other accounts that log in from the IP address are allowed to edit as normal. This is generally used in situations such as blocking promotional usernames or to enforce other username policy violations. This allows the blocked account to create a new account with a username that is in compliance with the username policy, or to simply choose to edit anonymously instead.
A hard account block (autoblock enabled, account creation disabled) will apply an autoblock to the IP address the account last used to edit, and disable the ability for the user to create other accounts during the duration of the block. Any additional IP address(es) that the account attempts to edit from during the duration of the block is also automatically blocked and added to the autoblock list. Any non-IP block exempt accounts that attempt to edit from an autoblocked IP address will not be able to do so, and will also be automatically blocked and added to the autoblock list.[8] Accounts also cannot be created by any autoblocked IP address(es), or by any non-IP exempt accounts while logged in behind an autoblocked IP address. This is typically used in cases of blocking vandalism or to prevent other disruption.
There are two common blocks that may be imposed on IP addresses or ranges:
A soft IP address block (anon. only, account creation blocked) is used in most cases of disruption – including vandalism and edit warring, and prevents only anonymous users from editing. It also restricts any account creation by the IP address or by any non-IP exempt user accounts while behind the blocked IP address. Allowing account creation from a blocked IP address or range is rare and performed only in special circumstances.
A hard IP address block (account creation blocked, apply block to logged-in users from this IP address) disables all editing and account creation from behind the blocked IP address, whether they be attempted anonymously or using an account (with the exception of accounts that are IP-block exempt). This is typically used when the level of vandalism or disruption via creation of "throwaway" accounts is such that all editing from the IP address is to be prevented except after individual checking of requests. Open proxies are hard-blocked on detection, and Tor IP addresses are automatically blocked by the Tor block extension.
Automated or semi-automated bots may occasionally not operate as intended for a variety of reasons. Bots (or their associated IP address should the actual bot not be readily identifiable) may be blocked until the issue is resolved. Bots should be softblocked (autoblock disabled) to ensure the autoblock doesn't affect other unrelated bots sharing the same IP. If only a single task is malfunctioning and the bot supports disabling individual tasks, it is preferable to disable the single malfunctioning task so that other bot tasks can continue running.
Bots that are unapproved, or usernames that violate the username policy due to a resemblance to a bot, are immediately and indefinitely blocked if they violate the bot policy, most commonly by editing outside the operator's or their own userspace.
The edits of a bot are considered to be, by extension, the edits of the editor responsible for the bot. As a result, should a bot operator be blocked, any bot attributed to them may also be blocked for the same duration as that of the blocked editor.
Editors may cite "clean start" and rename themselves, asking that their previous username not be disclosed. If such editors have been blocked previously, the administrator who has been requested to make the deletion should contact a Checkuser so that the connection between the accounts can be verified. The Checkuser should then consider adding short blocks to the new account to denote each entry in the user's old account log. Such short blocks should provide protection in case the "clean start" was based on a genuine risk of off-wiki harassment, by not disclosing the previous username, while at the same time eliminating the possibility of avoiding the scrutiny of the community.
The short blocks should be described in the block summary as "previous account block" and the final duration of the block should be noted. Blocks placed in error and lifted early should not be noted at all.
Unblocking or shortening of a block is most common when a blocked user appeals a block. An uninvolved administrator acting independently reviews the circumstances of the block, the editor's prior conduct, and other relevant evidence, along with any additional information provided by the user and others, to determine if the unblock request should be accepted. Common reasons include: the circumstances have changed, a commitment to change is given, the administrator was not fully familiar with the circumstances prior to blocking, or there was a clear mistake.
To unblock any of one's own accounts, except in the case of self-imposed blocks.[9]
When the block is implementing a community sanction that has not been successfully appealed. The community may choose to allow a block to be reviewed in the normal way, by consulting with the closing/blocking administrator, rather than requiring a formal appeal to the community. If there is consensus to allow this, it shall be noted in the closing statement and block log.
When the block is designated as a CheckUser or Oversight block, and the unblocking administrator is not a member of the designated functionary group or does not have approval from someone in that group to carry out the action.
When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy. Arbitration enforcement blocks may be appealed using the special appeal provisions.
Each of these may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including removing administrator rights—even for first-time incidents.
There is no predefined limit to the number of unblock requests that a user may issue. However, disruptive use of the unblock template may prompt an administrator to remove the blocked user's ability to edit their talk page. In this case, a block may still be appealed by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
As part of an unblock request, uninvolved editors may discuss the block, and the blocking administrator is often asked to review or discuss the block, or provide further information. Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the administrators who performed the block should not decline unblock requests. Also, by convention, administrators don't usually review more than one unblock request regarding the same block.
Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard is recommended.
Administrators reviewing a block should consider that some historical context may not be immediately obvious. Cases involving sockpuppets, harassment, or privacy concerns are particularly difficult to judge. At times such issues have led to contentious unblocks. Where an uninformed unblock may be problematic, the blocking administrator may alsowish to note as part of the block notice that there are specific circumstances, and that a reviewing administrator should not unblock without discussing the case with the blocking admin (or possibly ArbCom) to fully understand the matter.
If users claim they wish to contribute constructively but there are doubts as to their sincerity, the {{2nd chance}} template can be used to allow them to demonstrate how they will contribute to the encyclopedia, should their unblock request be granted.
Any user may comment on an unblock request; however, only administrators may resolve the request (by either declining or unblocking).[10]
Some types of blocks are used in response to particular temporary circumstances, and should be undone once the circumstance no longer applies:
Blocks on open or anonymous proxies should be undone once it is confirmed that they have been closed (but be aware some open proxies may be open only at certain times, so careful checking may be needed that it really is apparently no longer in use that way).
Blocks of unapproved or malfunctioning bots should be undone once the bots gain approval or are repaired.
Blocks for making legal threats should be undone once the threats are confirmed as permanently withdrawn and no longer outstanding.
Users may be temporarily and conditionally unblocked to respond to a discussion regarding the circumstances of their block. Such temporary and conditional unblocks are made on the understanding that the users may not edit any pages (besides their user talk page) except the relevant discussion page(s) explicitly specified by the unblocking admin. The users are effectively banned from editing any other pages, and breaching this ban will be sanctioned appropriately. When the discussion concludes, the block should be reinstated unless there is a consensus to overturn the block.
Without first consulting with a CheckUser and receiving approval, administrators must not undo or "loosen" (lowering the block duration or disabling any block options applied) any block set, or unblock any user when the block is specifically identified as a "CheckUser block", such as through the use of the {{checkuserblock}} or {{checkuserblock-account}} templates in the action summary, or by explicitly stating in the action summary that the block is a "CheckUser block" or is "checkuser-related".[11] If an administrator believes that a CheckUser block has been made in error, the administrator should first discuss the matter with the CheckUser in question, and if a satisfactory resolution is not reached, should e-mail the Arbitration Committee. Any unauthorized reversal or alteration of such a block and without prior consultation and approval from a CheckUser may result in removal of permissions.[12]
Without first consulting with an Oversighter and receiving approval, administrators must not undo or "loosen" (lowering the block duration or disabling any block options applied) any block set, or unblock any user when the block is specifically identified as an "Oversight block", such as through the use of the {{OversightBlock}} template in the action summary, or by explicitly stating in the action summary that the block is an "Oversight block" or is "Oversight-related". Appeals of any Oversight blocks that are set must be sent to either the Oversight team via email (oversight-en-wpwikipedia.org) to be discussed in private by the English Wikipedia Oversight team, or to the Arbitration Committee. Blocks may still be marked by the blocking Oversighter as appealable only to the Arbitration Committee, per the 2010 statement, in which case appeals must only be directed to the Arbitration Committee.[13] Any unauthorized reversal or alteration of such a block and without prior consultation and approval from an Oversighter may result in removal of permissions.[14]
Administrators may, with the agreement of the blocked user, impose conditions when unblocking. Unblock conditions are designed to prevent recurrence of the behaviour that led to the block (such as a page ban to prevent further edit warring).
If the blocked user does not reach an agreement on proposed unblock conditions with an administrator, the blocked user may post another block appeal.
Administrators have discretion to set the expiry of unblock conditions, provided that:
The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after one year or less will expire after no more than a year,
The unblock conditions of blocks that expire after more than a year (including indefinite) may expire up to and including indefinitely.
Unblock conditions may include page bans, topic bans, interaction bans, revert restrictions, single account restrictions and other restrictions at the discretion of the unblocking administrator.
A partial block may be used to enforce the unblock conditions of a sitewide block.[15]
If editors breach the unblock conditions or engage in fresh misconduct, they may be blocked or further restricted.
After the blocked user has accepted the conditions and been unblocked, the conditions may be appealed only to the unblocking administrator or to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.
The user will be notified of unblock conditions on their talk page when they are unblocked and a diff/permalink containing the restrictions must be included in the unblock log rationale.
Partial blocks may be used at the discretion of any administrator in accord with the rest of the blocking policy, or community consensus. They may also be used to enforce editing restrictions[1] or as a requirement for conditional unblocks.[16]
The affected editor may request an unblock following the procedures listed in § Unblocking, using the {{unblock}} template, or appealing at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Administrators can unblock a user when they feel the block is unwarranted or no longer appropriate, in accordance with the blocking policy.
"WP:GB" redirects here. For the go button, see Help:Go button.
Global blocking is a MediaWikiextension available to stewards to prevent cross-wiki disruption from an IP address, a range of IP addresses or an account. When an IP address, range of IP addresses or account is globally blocked, they are prevented from editing any public Wikimedia wiki, except for Meta-Wiki, where globally blocked users may appeal the decision. (A global block is not the same as a global ban.) In addition to being globally blocked, registered users (not including temporary accounts) may also be globally locked, which prevents anyone from logging into the account.
A current list of globally blocked IP addresses/accounts is available at Special:GlobalBlockList.
Local whitelisting — An IP address or account which is globally blocked can be unblocked locally (to edit the specific wiki concerned only), by any local administrator, at Special:GlobalBlockWhitelist. A log can be found at Special:Log/gblblock. It is not possible to override global locks locally.
Appeal against a global block — Globally blocked IP addresses and accounts and globally locked users may appeal through the email queue to stewardswikimedia.org. Globally blocked IP addresses and users may also appeal through their meta talk page, if access to it has not been revoked.
^ abWhether or not the restriction will prevent the account from performing this action if they attempt to do so from behind another IP address or range remains untested.
^Whether or not the autoblock will also automatically block any additional IP addresses and add them to the autoblock list if the blocked account doesn't edit, but attempts to perform account creations while behind another IP address, remains untested.
^This prohibition includes blocks applied to one's alternate accounts, including bots. Historically, administrators were able to unblock themselves (the unblockself user right), but this ability was removed in November 2018. Stewards can still unblock themselves, and self-imposed blocks can still be removed.
^Non-CheckUsers must not review CheckUser blocks that require access to CheckUser data, e.g., when an editor is professing innocence or is questioning the validity of the technical findings in any way. Administrators may still decline unblock requests that are made in bad faith, are more procedural in nature, or are off topic.
"WP:IPBLOCK" and "WP:EXEMPT" redirect here. For information on blocking IP addresses, see Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. For exemption about fair use policy, see WP:NFEXMP. For exemption about three-revert rule policy, see WP:NOT3RR.
This policy in a nutshell: Editors in good standing whose editing is disrupted by unrelated blocks or firewalls may request IP address block exemption, which allows editing on an otherwise-blocked IP address. The right is given to trusted users and may be removed if concerns arise or when it is no longer needed. To request an IP address block exemption, use the Unblock Ticket Request System or the {{unblock}} template on your talk page (if you have talk page access). If you will be editing using an anonymous proxy, including a VPN service, send your request to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org instead.
Normally, long-term blocks of IP addresses or ranges do not affect logged-in editors. However, it is occasionally necessary to block both anonymous and logged-in users, using autoblock and/or hard blocks, to prevent disruption.
Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (except for Tor blocks[1]). Other editors can request for IP address block exemptions on a per-user basis if they can show good cause.
An IP address block exemption allows that editor to edit without interruption, from an IP address that would otherwise be blocked through no fault of their own. It can also be used to allow editing via an anonymizing proxy when need is demonstrated and the user is trusted to not abuse the user right.
Editors granted IP address block exemption should be aware that breach of this policy, including unauthorized editing via proxies, or significant concerns over account abuse or other conduct, may lead to the removal of the IP address block exemption.
The permission is usually given for 12-month intervals for experienced users, who are encouraged to request it again if they have a continued need after it expires. Users with less experience but who meet the qualification under this policy might be granted an IP block exemption for a shorter duration.
When it is considered, please document the decision and your experience here so we can learn from your experience.
There are currently 797 users who have the IPBE flag.
There are three main circumstances where the IP address block exemption flag can be given:
An editor who is unfortunately affected by a block intended to prevent vandalism or disruption. After being given the flag, they will then be able to edit without being affected by any IP address blocks.
An editor in good standing editing anonymously when they can demonstrate the need.
For one of the reasons above, an editor in good standing needs to edit from an IP address or range that is globally blocked, but is primarily interested in editing the English Wikipedia.
These are handled differently, due to the additional safeguards involved for open proxy usage.
Hard IP address range blocks are used to prevent persistent disruption from temporary accounts and sock-puppets within an IP address range. An editor with a credible editing record who would be affected by this measure may be exempted from the block at administrative discretion, allowing them to edit uninterrupted through the IP address range block.
The conditions for granting this are that:
the editor's normal (non-proxy) IP address will be disrupted by an IP address block placed on a range they usually edit on, through no fault of theirs. (This may be confirmed via autoblock or CheckUser)
the editor agrees never to misuse the exemption to edit through a blocked anonymizing proxy (this may be checked), and,
when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator.
In addition, IP block exemption may also be given by an administrator without a request, to prevent good-faith editors being affected by a hard IP address range block. The editor should be informed that in order to prevent vandalism, a block has been applied to their IP address range, and they have been exempted from it. They should clearly be recommended to read this section, and especially that the flag may be removed if used to edit via a blocked proxy. (See tags and templates below.)
Who may request
A user affected by an IP address block that is unrelated to their editing and that prevents them editing with a logged-in account.
How to request
Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System. Be sure to use the Blocked User option and select English Wikipedia, even if the IP you want to use is globally blocked, as you are requesting a local exemption. You must ask from your registered account. Requests posted to the user talk page of the IP address will be automatically declined. Administrators granting this right may sometimes need to consult a CheckUser to confirm the problem, or may wish to obtain further review by posting the request onto an administrative list or page for discussion if unfamiliar with the case.
Editing via an anonymous proxy, including open proxies and VPN services, can be easily abused. In this case, IP block exemption is granted only to trusted users. Examples of editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and existing users with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution.
However, many users are known to access through open proxy unknowingly due to settings configured in their internet browser. Before you apply for IP block exemption (which may take time and is not guaranteed to be granted), you should check the internet connection preference of your browser and change it to no proxy access. This includes opt-in services such as Apple iCloud Private Relay.
Note that avoidance of checkuser, or specific checkusers, is not usually considered a sufficient reason – concerns over checkusers should be discussed with the Arbitration Committee or the ombuds commission.
Who should request
An editor who demonstrates a need and can be trusted not to abuse the right.
How to request
Email the checkuser VRT team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org ensuring your email includes your username, or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies. Administrators who are contacted through other means may need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem.
The local IP block exemption on the English Wikipedia allows editors to edit from any IP address, even if it is subject to a global block. The global IP block exemption permission does not allow a user to edit if there is a local hard block in place. It may be appropriate to grant editors local IP block exemption to edit through global blocks if they predominantly plan on editing the English Wikipedia and they do not have experience on other projects.
Conversely, it is not always appropriate to grant editors with global IP block exemption the local permission if they would not otherwise qualify for it based on this policy.
IP block exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it, and who are trusted not to abuse it. Typical reasons why exemption may be removed from an account:
No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting – relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Wikipedia through a non-blocked IP address, user becomes an administrator, etc.
Bad faith or misleading statement in request
Credible evidence or concern of abuse (including conflict of interest by granting admin) – in unclear cases questions might be raised before assumptions are made.
As with any block (which exemption removal can effectively be), a neutral administrator may remove the right or seek discussion of perceived issues by the community. Due to the potential for abuse, credible concerns over abuse endorsed by the community may at times be sufficient for removal. However, in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.
Per a May 2016 RfC, administrators should notify users of an upcoming routine removal of their IPBE flag and allow them an opportunity to discuss. Extensions should normally be given upon request.
If the relevant user's IP address is blocked by a checkuser, verify with the checkuser in advance of granting IP address block exemption that doing so will not adversely affect a block made based on private information available only to checkusers.
All IP address block exemptions are subject to review and repeal. Exemption may be, and often will be, withdrawn if there is credible evidence or concern of abuse. It is advisable for administrators to discuss first if in doubt, since a poorly-founded exemption will be quickly withdrawn.
When considering IP address block exemption, the editing history of the editor and the abusive range concerned should be carefully reviewed before making a decision.
IP address block exemption is granted or removed via Special:UserRights. Editors having the IP block exempt right are visible as a user group under Special:ListUsers and can be reviewed. (Note that if the editor is an administrator, they will not usually appear in this list.) The reason for granting or removal are given in the relevant user's rights log.
{{subst:Ipexemptgranted}} (or "{{subst:IPBE}}") contains suggested notes for an editor who has been granted the IP address block exempt right in order to edit through a hard block of their IP address.
Suggested narrative for a hard-blocked IP address range: "This IP address range is blocked to prevent vandalism. If you are one of the bona fide users on this IP address range, and affected by this, please request unblocking, and ask for checkuser and IP address block exemption"
^Editing from Tor exit nodes require the torunblocked right, which is included only in the IP block exemption group. It is not included with the Administrator or Bot user groups. All users, including those with IP block exemption, are still affected by any cookie blocks that are imposed upon them; IP block exemption does not affect this block option.
"WP:IPBLOCK" and "WP:EXEMPT" redirect here. For information on blocking IP addresses, see Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses. For exemption about fair use policy, see WP:NFEXMP. For exemption about three-revert rule policy, see WP:NOT3RR.
This policy in a nutshell: Editors in good standing whose editing is disrupted by unrelated blocks or firewalls may request IP address block exemption, which allows editing on an otherwise-blocked IP address. The right is given to trusted users and may be removed if concerns arise or when it is no longer needed. To request an IP address block exemption, use the Unblock Ticket Request System or the {{unblock}} template on your talk page (if you have talk page access). If you will be editing using an anonymous proxy, including a VPN service, send your request to checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org instead.
Normally, long-term blocks of IP addresses or ranges do not affect logged-in editors. However, it is occasionally necessary to block both anonymous and logged-in users, using autoblock and/or hard blocks, to prevent disruption.
Administrators and bots are always exempt from such blocks (except for Tor blocks[1]). Other editors can request for IP address block exemptions on a per-user basis if they can show good cause.
An IP address block exemption allows that editor to edit without interruption, from an IP address that would otherwise be blocked through no fault of their own. It can also be used to allow editing via an anonymizing proxy when need is demonstrated and the user is trusted to not abuse the user right.
Editors granted IP address block exemption should be aware that breach of this policy, including unauthorized editing via proxies, or significant concerns over account abuse or other conduct, may lead to the removal of the IP address block exemption.
The permission is usually given for 12-month intervals for experienced users, who are encouraged to request it again if they have a continued need after it expires. Users with less experience but who meet the qualification under this policy might be granted an IP block exemption for a shorter duration.
When it is considered, please document the decision and your experience here so we can learn from your experience.
There are currently 797 users who have the IPBE flag.
There are three main circumstances where the IP address block exemption flag can be given:
An editor who is unfortunately affected by a block intended to prevent vandalism or disruption. After being given the flag, they will then be able to edit without being affected by any IP address blocks.
An editor in good standing editing anonymously when they can demonstrate the need.
For one of the reasons above, an editor in good standing needs to edit from an IP address or range that is globally blocked, but is primarily interested in editing the English Wikipedia.
These are handled differently, due to the additional safeguards involved for open proxy usage.
Hard IP address range blocks are used to prevent persistent disruption from temporary accounts and sock-puppets within an IP address range. An editor with a credible editing record who would be affected by this measure may be exempted from the block at administrative discretion, allowing them to edit uninterrupted through the IP address range block.
The conditions for granting this are that:
the editor's normal (non-proxy) IP address will be disrupted by an IP address block placed on a range they usually edit on, through no fault of theirs. (This may be confirmed via autoblock or CheckUser)
the editor agrees never to misuse the exemption to edit through a blocked anonymizing proxy (this may be checked), and,
when the block ends, or ceases to be an issue for the editor, the exemption will be removed by any administrator.
In addition, IP block exemption may also be given by an administrator without a request, to prevent good-faith editors being affected by a hard IP address range block. The editor should be informed that in order to prevent vandalism, a block has been applied to their IP address range, and they have been exempted from it. They should clearly be recommended to read this section, and especially that the flag may be removed if used to edit via a blocked proxy. (See tags and templates below.)
Who may request
A user affected by an IP address block that is unrelated to their editing and that prevents them editing with a logged-in account.
How to request
Request IP address block exemption through the Unblock Ticket Request System. Be sure to use the Blocked User option and select English Wikipedia, even if the IP you want to use is globally blocked, as you are requesting a local exemption. You must ask from your registered account. Requests posted to the user talk page of the IP address will be automatically declined. Administrators granting this right may sometimes need to consult a CheckUser to confirm the problem, or may wish to obtain further review by posting the request onto an administrative list or page for discussion if unfamiliar with the case.
Editing via an anonymous proxy, including open proxies and VPN services, can be easily abused. In this case, IP block exemption is granted only to trusted users. Examples of editors who may reasonably request an exemption include users who show they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and existing users with a history of valid non-disruptive contribution.
However, many users are known to access through open proxy unknowingly due to settings configured in their internet browser. Before you apply for IP block exemption (which may take time and is not guaranteed to be granted), you should check the internet connection preference of your browser and change it to no proxy access. This includes opt-in services such as Apple iCloud Private Relay.
Note that avoidance of checkuser, or specific checkusers, is not usually considered a sufficient reason – concerns over checkusers should be discussed with the Arbitration Committee or the ombuds commission.
Who should request
An editor who demonstrates a need and can be trusted not to abuse the right.
How to request
Email the checkuser VRT team at checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org ensuring your email includes your username, or contact a CheckUser directly, explaining why you need to edit via anonymous proxies. Administrators who are contacted through other means may need to consult a checkuser to confirm the problem.
The local IP block exemption on the English Wikipedia allows editors to edit from any IP address, even if it is subject to a global block. The global IP block exemption permission does not allow a user to edit if there is a local hard block in place. It may be appropriate to grant editors local IP block exemption to edit through global blocks if they predominantly plan on editing the English Wikipedia and they do not have experience on other projects.
Conversely, it is not always appropriate to grant editors with global IP block exemption the local permission if they would not otherwise qualify for it based on this policy.
IP block exemption is a privilege given to editors who need it, and who are trusted not to abuse it. Typical reasons why exemption may be removed from an account:
No longer needed or insufficient rationale for granting – relevant hard IP address block ended and not anticipated to recur; editor has access to Wikipedia through a non-blocked IP address, user becomes an administrator, etc.
Bad faith or misleading statement in request
Credible evidence or concern of abuse (including conflict of interest by granting admin) – in unclear cases questions might be raised before assumptions are made.
As with any block (which exemption removal can effectively be), a neutral administrator may remove the right or seek discussion of perceived issues by the community. Due to the potential for abuse, credible concerns over abuse endorsed by the community may at times be sufficient for removal. However, in all cases, removal should be preventative and not punitive.
Per a May 2016 RfC, administrators should notify users of an upcoming routine removal of their IPBE flag and allow them an opportunity to discuss. Extensions should normally be given upon request.
If the relevant user's IP address is blocked by a checkuser, verify with the checkuser in advance of granting IP address block exemption that doing so will not adversely affect a block made based on private information available only to checkusers.
All IP address block exemptions are subject to review and repeal. Exemption may be, and often will be, withdrawn if there is credible evidence or concern of abuse. It is advisable for administrators to discuss first if in doubt, since a poorly-founded exemption will be quickly withdrawn.
When considering IP address block exemption, the editing history of the editor and the abusive range concerned should be carefully reviewed before making a decision.
IP address block exemption is granted or removed via Special:UserRights. Editors having the IP block exempt right are visible as a user group under Special:ListUsers and can be reviewed. (Note that if the editor is an administrator, they will not usually appear in this list.) The reason for granting or removal are given in the relevant user's rights log.
{{subst:Ipexemptgranted}} (or "{{subst:IPBE}}") contains suggested notes for an editor who has been granted the IP address block exempt right in order to edit through a hard block of their IP address.
Suggested narrative for a hard-blocked IP address range: "This IP address range is blocked to prevent vandalism. If you are one of the bona fide users on this IP address range, and affected by this, please request unblocking, and ask for checkuser and IP address block exemption"
^Editing from Tor exit nodes require the torunblocked right, which is included only in the IP block exemption group. It is not included with the Administrator or Bot user groups. All users, including those with IP block exemption, are still affected by any cookie blocks that are imposed upon them; IP block exemption does not affect this block option.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
.svg){kind=logo}
.svg){kind=logo}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
wikipedia.org instead.
