Wikiversity:Blocking policy/Enforcement and self-reversion

This is a draft of sections to be added to Blocking policy.

Block enforcement
Blocks are enforced through the software, against named accounts, IP addresses, or IP ranges. If an IP address is identified as being used by a blocked user, it may be temporarily blocked. If a user uses a range of IP addresses, the range may be blocked. However, the wider the range, the more likely that an uninvolved anonymous user is prevented from editing Wikiversity or registering an account. Thus custodians must balance the risk of allowing a blocked editor to edit as IP, against the risk of collateral damage.

Cooperation with a block, whether through refraining from editing, or from editing as IP in ways that show cooperation, can be a factor to be taken into consideration when reviewing a block. Because blocked users often consider blocks to be unfair, block evasion is not, in itself, a reason to later deny unblock. However, disruption actually caused by block evasion, resulting from a need to protect the wiki and the community, may be considered. Revert warring by IP after an edit is reverted due to being from a blocked editor is always disruptive.

Blocked editors who wish to make positive contributions to the community should pursue alternatives to disruptive editing.

Enforcement actions are of two kinds: reversion of edits by the editor while blocked and blocking of identified sock puppets and IP being used. Any editor may revert, on sight, any unreviewed edit from a blocked editor, without regard to the content. It is not the content, however, which is being blocked, it is the editor. Any registered editor, seeing an edit from a blocked editor, may review the content and revert it back in, on his or her own responsibility. It is discouraged for other IP editors to do this because it then raises doubts about additional sock puppetry. Once the edit has been reviewed in this way, it may not be removed based on the identity of the blocked editor, but only if it would have been removed if made by the reviewing editor.

If blocked editors are allowed to edit without review, there would be no need for blocking. Ordinary wiki deletion would suffice. Thus if a block has been created and stands, block enforcement must be allowed. This creates a conflict with the ultimate goal of the wiki: positive content. Review of edits by unblocked editors resolves this conflict. However, editing while blocked may then require enforcement labor, which is disruptive in that this labor could be applied to more useful purposes.

Self-reverted edits by blocked users
Self-identified self-reverted edits by a blocked user are not, in themselves, considered block evasion, because they can be quickly identified, require no research from anyone who does not volunteer for the task, and, if not reviewed, have done no harm. Anyone who cares can quickly verify that the reversion was complete. They are merely "proposed edits." The same end could be accomplished by a blocked user emailing proposed content to an unblocked editor for review and use; however, experience has shown that far more useful content from any editor is created with far less effort, overall, if the editor can directly place it where it is needed. Further, for another user to place content provided by a blocked editor is sometimes called "proxying" and is, itself, sometimes considered inappropriate, unless it is openly disclosed.

Hence blocking IP when it is being used solely for non-disruptive self-reverted edits, even though the editor is blocked, is discouraged, because it can create collateral damage, represses possibly positive contributions, becomes more obviously censorship, and "enforces the block" as if it were punishment. If a blocked editor cooperates with a block by self-identifying as blocked with the edit, and by self-reverting "per block," the community can reciprocate by not blocking the IP, thus beginning a process of cooperation that can, sometimes, end the original disruption and cause of block. Blocks are not punishment, with a term to be served to "pay a debt to the wiki." They are purely protective, based on the need to avoid disruptive content and resulting wasted labor.

Self-reverted edits encourage a blocked editor to make acceptable edits, because unacceptable edits will end up as a waste of time for the blocked editor, yet they force no significant consideration from anyone else.

However, self-reverted edits can still be disruptive. Examples would be self-reverted edits that reveal protected private information about another editor, thus requiring revision deletion, that are grossly uncivil, as might result in an immediate block if made by any editor, or that are repeated so as to fill edit history with additional useless changes or otherwise cause undue disruption. For any proposed change by self-reverted edit, once should be enough; if the blocked editor wishes to call attention to it, this should be done either in another place, such as the talk page of a sympathetic editor, or off-wiki. Continued edits, self-reverted or not, should not be made to the Talk page of an editor once the editor has objected to them, as they can have an effect of harassment.