User:Tamzin/wild ideas/Unsucking unblocks

The problem

If you tried to design an unblock system to maximize misery among the wrongfully blocked, prolong false hope for those who'll never be unblocked, subject all blocked users to a Kafkaesque bureaucracy with shifting demands and unclear timeframes, chase away admins who actually want to help, and dissuade ever unblocking, it would be hard to do better than CAT:UNBLOCK.

Appeals are processed in random order by the first administrator to take them. They can be, and often are, declined without any back-and-forth between user and admin, meaning that if only a few admins have a disproportionate tendency toward declining, a majority of blocked users will have their first unblock declined this way. Unless an admin reserves a request for themself, any admin can come along at any time and decline an appeal. Decline reasons are often vague, either summing up to "Write your appeal right" or telling the user that, despite doing what was asked the last time around, they have failed to meet some other expectation. (Sometimes, the user might be lucky enough for this new expectation to actually have a basis in policy.) If the block said the only issue was their username, and they have been renamed, they are declined because they haven't proven they won't spam. If the user has a valid objection to the block, like that they were blocked for sockpuppetry but are not a sockpuppet, they are declined for failing to admit the truth. Heavens forbid they say the other account on their IP was their little brother! They'll be laughed out of the room, never mind if the two accounts actually had two completely different editing styles.

Is a dream a lie if it don't come true?
Or is it something worse?

Bruce Springsteen, "The River"

If they are not routinely checking their talkpage on the Web site where they are banned from all participation except editing their talk page, they must not care that much, so they are declined for not answering. If no admin sees fit to respond to their request after a while, they are declined for this fact and this fact alone. No matter that blocks are, per policy, a technical enforcement measure taken by an individual administrator, and that if no other admin is willing to write "You should stay blocked" they perhaps should not stay blocked. Or, conversely, the appeal has lain stagnant because no one is willing to say, "Look, you are just never going to be unblocked, ever, and you should go find another hobby."

The solution

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks is the primary venue for appeals of blocks, both sitewide and partial. It may also be used by users facing issues with autoblocks or IP hardblocks. Requests run for a minimum of a week, provided that they meet basic procedural requirements. They are accepted if one of the three unblock criteria are met, and declined if no administrator is convinced that the criteria are met after all questions have been answered, or if the user repeatedly fails to answer questions or follow instructions. A user whose request is declined may not appeal at this noticeboard again for three months, or six months for all declines after the first.

Scope

AN/U has jurisdiction for all blocks on the English Wikipedia except:

Block type	Correct procedure
Blocks that cannot be discussed without involving private evidence, including Oversight blocks and Arbitration Committee blocks, as well as CheckUser blocks that cannot be discussed without linking an account to an IP.	Follow the instructions in your block template. If unclear, contact the Arbitration Committee.
Blocks that enforce decisions of the Arbitration Committee, including through its contentious topic procedures
Blocks that enforce community sitebans (including three-strike sockpuppetry bans) or sanction users for violating community general sanctions or community-imposed editing restrictions	Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (AN) has jurisdiction. If you are only partially blocked and are able to edit AN, you may appeal by creating a new section there. Otherwise, use {{unblock|AN=yes}}; this will ask an administrator to copy over your request.
Blocks of users who cannot edit their talk page	You must regain talk page access prior to any appeal to this noticeboard, typically through UTRS or #wikipedia-en-unblock connect. If you are globally blocked or locked, you may use the global portion of UTRS or email stewardswikimedia.org. If your IP is a Tor exit node, this block cannot be appealed; use a different IP.

This noticeboard is not the only way to be unblocked. A user may always request an unblock directly from an administrator on-wiki or through off-wiki correspondence. Block reviews, a similar but distinct process from unblock requests, may occur at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrative action review. In some cases a user may also have the right of appeal to the Arbitration Committee or other bodies. When this page refers to eligibility to appeal here, this does not impact eligibility to use any of these other processes.

Procedure

If a user is able to edit AN/U directly, they may launch an unblock request by adding {{subst:unblock}} directly to the page. Otherwise, they may add that template to their user page. While an unblock request is open, it is transcluded to the page by a bot using labeled section transclusion, and this section of the user's talkpage is considered part of WP:AN/U. Normal user page ownership rules do not apply, although the user may remove the request outright if they wish to withdraw it.

This begins a discussion among them and one or more administrators. Non-administrators are welcome to participate, but the discussion is not a support/oppose consensus-building venue. Rather, editors are expected to work together with the blocked user to determine if any of three criteria are met:

• UB1: Collateral damage. The user is affected by a block that targets someone else. Either the user is caught in a hardblock or autoblock, or is a good-faith anonymous editor on a blocked IP or range.
• UB2: Incorrect block. The block was against policy or exceeded the discretion afforded to administrators in enforcing policy. In cases where factual evidence is disputed, this could also mean either exoneration (affirmative evidence of the user's innocence) or a finding that the evidence, while not dispositive of innocence, is not enough to justify a block.
• UB3: Time served / another chance. The block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia.

The AN/U process was created to replace a system in which users often submitted many unblock requests that were only briefly considered. Instead, in this system, unblock requests are entitled to significant but infrequent consideration. Speedy declines are only allowed on procedural grounds, and all other declines require significant administrative engagement and at least a week's discussion; however, once a request is declined, the user may not use this noticeboard for another three months, or six months if it is their second decline.

Status options

{{ANU status}} marks a case as open or closed, with options for a number of flags.

• |status= pending [default], accepted, declined, conditionally accepted, exonerated, autoblock lifted, hardblock lifted, IPBE granted, blocked, block widened, block narrowed
• |type= indef siteblock, temp siteblock, indef p-block, temp p-block, recurring IP block issues
• |awaiting= <can take multiple, comma-separated> blocked user, blocking admin, 2nd opinion, renamer, checkuser, oversighter, VRT agent, UTRS admin, arbitrator, ArbCom clerk, SPI team member, CCI team member, ACC team member, sister-wiki admin, steward, sysadmin, WMF, (a specific username prefixed with User:)
• |clearedby= <can take multiple, comma-separated> (anything from |awaiting= other than blocked user or renamer)
• |rename= not requested [default], pending, accepted, declined
• |IPBE= not requested [default], pending, accepted, declined
• |global-IPBE= not requested [default], pending, accepted, declined
• |actual-innocence= <can take multiple, comma-separated> sockpuppetry, PAID/COI/SPAM, copyvio, other

In general, only admins should set statuses, although experienced non-admins may do so when an admin has clearly forgotten to.

Course of an unblock request

After a request is posted or transcluded to the noticeboard, an administrator will triage it by assessing whether it meets the speedy decline criteria and, if not, assigning the appropriate {{ANU status}} parameters. Users will then engage in dialogue with the blocked user until a final decision can be reached. This dialogue can include notifying the user of procedural defects in their request, gauging their understanding of Wikipedia policy, clarifying misconceptions they may have had, and asking what kinds of edits they would make if unblocked. Administrators may request the input of a variety of other parties supported by {{ANU status}}, including the blocking admin, any global renamer, any checkuser, or a second opinion from any admin.

Non-admin participation is welcome, but users should understand that requests are not !votes, but rather discussions with the blocked user, in which the final decision will be made by a single administrator based on their interpretation of policy and their sense of what is best for the encyclopedia. Comments should be limited to the case at hand. Off-topic or unhelpful comments may be removed by any administrator, and users who make repeated comments like this may be directed to stop posting at the noticeboard.

"Actual innocence" appeals

If a user asserts "actual innocence" of a factual, objective assertion that led to their block—for instance, that they are a sockpuppet or paid editor—the corresponding flag should be set in {{ANU status}}. (This excludes subjective determinations such as non-3RR edit-warring and what constitutes a personal attack.) As long as reviewing admins think that the claim of innocence is minimally plausible, they should conduct a de novo investigation of the charge. This may include requesting checkuser involvement, or public or private correspondence with the blocking administrator.

If the findings underpinning the original block are endorsed, the user may not argue actual innocence in this regard again at this noticeboard. They may still appeal on grounds of the block no longer being necessary, although they are subject to the same three- or six-month wait prior to their next appeal.

Outcomes

Speedy declines

An administrator may speedily decline a request if:

• The block is beyond the noticeboard's scope.
• The user is currently ineligible to appeal their block due to a previous failed appeal.
• The request contains blatant personal attacks or other serious violations of Wikipedia policies.
• There is no coherent rationale given (not just a bad reason, but garbled text, no reason at all, a complete non sequitur, etc.)
• The request is obviously written by a large language model and does not address the specifics of why the user was blocked.
• The user has lost talkpage access.

A request should not be speedily declined merely for being unlikely to succeed, even if it lacks a snowball's chance in Hell of being accepted as written. Instead, explain the deficiencies to the user (but see decline condition #1 below). Speedy declines, except due to ineligibility or loss of talkpage access, do not prevent a user from speedily re-requesting an unblock.

Sometimes it may be apparent, given the circumstances of the block, that no reasonable administrator would unblock the user without seeking community consensus first (see also WP:DEFACTOBAN). In such a case, the request should not be immediately declined, but an administrator should explain the situation to the user and ask if they would like the request transferred to the administrators' noticeboard. If the user declines, the administrator should decline the request.

Unblocking

Any admin may unblock if they are convinced that an unblock criterion is met. For an unblock under UB3, or under UB2 where it is not a case of exoneration or a blatantly inappropriate block, the would-be unblocker should try to consult with the blocker first, if they are still an administrator. There is no precise wait time, but usually an administrator should wait at least 24 hours, and should never be expected to wait more than a week. While an unblocker should strive for understanding with the blocker, the blocker's consent is not required to unblock. If a would-be unblocker is unwilling to unblock over the blocking admin's objections, but does not agree with the block, they should refer the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or Wikipedia:Administrative action review.

Contacting the blocking administrator is usually not necessary in other circumstances. In particular, if the block was a "softblock" (i.e., it did not prohibit the user from creating a new account) and the reason for the block has been resolved, the user may be unblocked immediately. This is true even if there are issues with the user's edits; those issues can be raised on their user talk pages after the unblock.

Standard declines

A non-speedy decline is appropriate if:

• At least a week has passed since the first comment by an administrator, and the user has repeatedly failed to adequately respond to instructions or queries from administrators (but is not merely inactive), or
• At least a week has passed since the appeal was last marked "awaiting blocked user", no administrator has said they are considering an unblock, and the closing administrator believes no unblock criterion is met.

Appeals are never declined merely for lack of response. Instead, if an appeal is marked as "awaiting blocked user" for more than two weeks, it is untranscluded from AN/U and listed in the archive as dormant. A bot re-transcludes it if the user returns from dormancy.

Once an appeal has been non-speedily declined, a user may not appeal using this noticeboard for another three months after a first declined appeal, or for six months if they have already had an appeal declined.

Repeated unsuccessful appeals with no improvement may result in the loss of talkpage access, and thus the ability to make further appeals.

Community bans

Unlike a declined appeal at the Administrators' noticeboard, a declined appeal at AN/U does not constitute a community ban. However, a history of declined appeals may contribute to an administrator's finding that community consensus is needed to unblock; see § Speedy declines.

Instructions for admins

Do not deny a request just because:

• The request fails to make an argument for any of the three unblock criteria (unless the user has been given multiple chances to fix this)
• It is a checkuser block. (Refer to a checkuser if necessary, but many aspects of a checkuser unblock request can be handled by any admin.)
• The user is appealing from an account other than their main account (unless they are ineligible on another account; if they are eligible on all accounts but have lost talkpage access on their main, use common sense).
• It is a block in an area you lack expertise in. (Just wait for someone who's familiar.)
• The user does not appear to be blocked. (If they say they are seeing a block notice, they probably aren't lying, even if the issue isn't a block on their account.)
• The user is upset.
• The blocking admin hasn't said you could.
• No one else has accepted the block (unless you are willing to decline it on substantive grounds)

Do:

• Help users correct errors.
• Be patient.
• Avoid getting jaded with the system. Take breaks from AN/U work if necessary. The late Nosebagbear recommended ending every run of unblock-patrolling on an unblock, not a decline.