User:Tamzin/wild ideas/WP:AN/U

The following is a draft working towards a proposal for adoption as a Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.
The proposal must not be taken to represent consensus, but is still in development and under discussion, and has not yet reached the process of gathering consensus for adoption. Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as policy, guideline, nor yet even as a proposal.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks is the primary venue for appeals of indefinite blocks, temporary blocks of longer than one week, and recurring issues with autoblocks or IP hardblocks. This includes both sitewide blocks and partial blocks.

It has jurisdiction for all such blocks except:

Blocks that cannot be discussed without involving private evidence, including most Oversight blocks, some CheckUser blocks, and all Arbitration Committee blocks, as well as blocks that implement an Arbitration Committee ban. These should be appealed to the Committee by email.
Blocks that enforce Arbitration Committee contentious topic procedures, which can be appealed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, and thereafter to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment^[a]
Blocks that enforce community sitebans (including three-strike sockpuppetry bans and de facto bans^[b]) or sanction users for violating community general sanctions or community-imposed editing restrictions, which can be appealed to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Users siteblocked for one week or less may appeal on their talkpages using {{unblock-short}}.

This noticeboard is not the only way to be unblocked. A user may always request an unblock directly on their talk page^[c] or through off-wiki correspondence.^[d] In some cases they may also have the right of appeal to the Arbitration Committee or other bodies. No part of this procedure page implicates a user's access to such avenues of appeal.

Initiation

In practice, some of this information would be moved to the templates in question. For now, in the drafting phase, I'm keeping it here.

A blocked user is directed to the unblock wizard JavaScript-assisted process, which will verify the correct unblock procedure for them to follow. If it is this noticeboard, the wizard will add the text {{subst:unblock-noticeboard|<Reason here>}} to their user talk page, which expands to

== Unblock request <YYYY-MM-DD> ==
<!--DO NOT EDIT THIS NOTE-->
{{hatnote|Please place new comments in the subsection below. Please do not remove this section unless you are unblocked. If you wish to withdraw this request, you may indicate this in a comment. Withdrawing after an administrator has commented may lead to a closure as "declined" and a corresponding three- or six-month ban from filing new appeals.}}

=== Your comments ===
<section begin="<username YYYY-MM-DD>"/>
<!--This content will be transcluded (copied) to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks]]. If it is not transcluded immediately, just wait; a bot refreshes the page periodicially.-->
<Reason here>
<!--PUT ALL REPLIES AFTER THIS LINE. If you want a user to reply to you, ping them by including their username, e.g. [[User:Example]] or {{ping|Example}}. -->

<!--PUT ALL REPLIES ABOVE THIS LINE-->
<section end="<username YYYY-MM-DD>"/>
===Others' comments===
<!--DO NOT EDIT ANYTHING IN THIS SECTION-->
{{hatnote|Transcluded (copied) from [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks/Log/<YYYY-MM-DD>#<username YYYY-MM-DD>]]. {{Purge|Click here}} to refresh this section's contents.}}
====Non-admin comments====
{{#section:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks/Log/<YYYY-MM-DD>|<username YYYY-MM-DD non-admin>}}
====Admin comments====
{{#section:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks/Log/<YYYY-MM-DD>|<username YYYY-MM-DD admin>}}

A bot will post new unblock requests to the daily log page of AN/U,^[e] using {{subst:ANU transclusion|<username YYYY-MM-DD>|<reason>}}, which substs as

== <username YYYY-MM-DD> ==
{{ANU status|open}}
=== <username>'s comments ===
{{#section:User talk:<username>|<username YYYY-MM-DD>}}
=== Non-admin comments ===
{{hatnote|Non-admin participation is welcome. Users are asked to limit comments to matters directly relevant to the case. Off-topic comments may be removed by any administrator.}}
<section begin="<username YYYY-MM-DD> non-admin"/>
<!--PUT ALL COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE-->

<!--PUT ALL COMMENTS ABOVE THIS LINE-->
<section end="<username YYYY-MM-DD> non-admin"/>
=== Admin comments ===
{{hatnote|Any administrator may accept or decline an unblock request in accordance with {{slink|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Unblocks/About#Procedure}}.}}
<section begin="<username YYYY-MM-DD> admin"/>
<!--PUT ALL COMMENTS BELOW THIS LINE-->

<!--PUT ALL COMMENTS ABOVE THIS LINE-->
<section end="<username YYYY-MM-DD> admin"/>

Procedure

Status options

{{ANU status}} has the following options:

Open
Open—actual innocence appeal
Pending comment from blocked user
Pending comment from blocking admin
Pending sockpuppetry review
Pending paid editing review
Pending other actual innocence review
Pending renamer
Pending checkuser
Renamed and pending unblock (for cases where an admin has indicated intent to unblock after a rename)
Declined (closed)
Accepted (closed)
Conditionally accepted (closed)
Exonerated (closed)

Multiple statuses (other than closed ones) can be set at once. In general, only admins should set statuses, although experienced non-admins may do so when an admin has clearly forgotten to.

Speedy declines

An administrator may speedily decline a request if:

The block is beyond the noticeboard's scope.^[f]
The user is currently ineligible to appeal their block.
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 user acknowledges that their account is a sockpuppet and gives no reason that the request cannot come from their original account.^[g]
The user has lost talkpage access.

A request should not be speedily declined merely for being deficient, even critically deficient.

In the case of a speedy decline, the request should be simply removed from the noticeboard and the user's talkpage. {{ANU speedy decline}} should be left on their talkpage. Speedy declines, except due to ineligibility or loss of talkpage access, do not prevent a user from speedily re-requesting an unblock.

Non-admin participation

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. Concerns about general administrative practices can be raised at other venues. Off-topic comments may be removed by any administrator, and users who make repeated off-topic comments may be directed to stop posting at the noticeboard.

Closure and subsequent appeals

An admin may close as "unblock" at any time, provided they follow applicable policies.

In addition to § Speedy declines above, an admin may close as "declined" if:

The user has responded to all concerns raised, at least one week has passed since an initial response by an administrator, and:
- no administrator has expressed interest in unblocking;
- or all discussion of unblocking has stalled with no reasonable likelihood of success.
Or the user has been told that they have not responded to all concerns raised,^[h] and failed to remedy this after two weeks.

Once an appeal has been (non-speedily) declined, a user may not appeal using this noticeboard^[i] 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.

"Actual innocence" appeals

"Actual innocence" appeals, i.e. those that dispute the correctness of the block, are a special circumstance. They are handled the same as the above, with the following exceptions:

If an unblock challenges the accuracy of a CU block, and a reviewing admin thinks the claim is minimally plausible, they may mark the section "pending checkuser review". The responding checkuser may then respond publicly, converse privately with the blocking checkuser, or refer the matter to the checkuser team, at their discretion. Whether or not there is further public discussion will depend on the circumstances.^[j]
If an unblock challenges the behavioral evidence behind a sockpuppetry or paid editing block, or more rarely another objective question such as copyright infringement,^[k] but does not involve CheckUser evidence, the section will be set to "pending sockpuppetry review", "pending paid editing review" or "pending other actual innocence review", and at least two administrators will conduct a de novo review of the evidence.
If the findings of the original block are endorsed, the user may not make another "actual innocence" appeal again at this noticeboard.^[i] They may still make regular appeals, although they are subject to the same three- or six-month wait prior to their next appeal.

Notes

^ Special appeal provisions may apply in some cases
^ A user may be considered de facto banned if no reasonable administrator would unblock them without a full community discussion. Discussion at this noticeboard is not considered a full community discussion.
^ {{unblock}} is deprecated in favor of this noticeboard and {{unblock-short}}. However, users may still use their talk pages to converse with administrators about potential unblocks.
^ By email, UTRS, or #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect. Note, however, that administrators are usually reluctant to unblock based solely on off-wiki correspondence.
^ Daily logs are used to maintain backward compatibility with transclusions even when reports are removed from the noticeboard
^ This may include a determination by the declining administrator that the block constitutes a third-strike or de facto ban.
^ The primary purpose of this rule is to avoid letting sockmasters disrupt the process with unblock requests across many accounts. In other cases, administrators should use their discretion as to whether to enforce this.
^ {{subst:ANU response requested}} should be used on their talkpage in a new level-2 section.
^ ^a ^b As noted in this page's lede section, nothing here affects users' access to appeals through other channels.
^ For instance, "These users are on the same IP but it's possible that they are colleagues" can be discussed publicly, and the status will be set back to "open—actual innocence appeal". A sophisticated technical analysis of whether a user is actually a long-term abuser, on the other hand, will likely be resolved privately.
^ "Another objective question" does not extend to matters of admin discretion such as personal attacks, non-3RR edit warring, or disruptive editing.

[1] Special appeal provisions may apply in some cases

[2] A user may be considered de facto banned if no reasonable administrator would unblock them without a full community discussion. Discussion at this noticeboard is not considered a full community discussion.

[3] {{unblock}} is deprecated in favor of this noticeboard and {{unblock-short}}. However, users may still use their talk pages to converse with administrators about potential unblocks.

[4] By email, UTRS, or #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect. Note, however, that administrators are usually reluctant to unblock based solely on off-wiki correspondence.

[5] Daily logs are used to maintain backward compatibility with transclusions even when reports are removed from the noticeboard

[6] This may include a determination by the declining administrator that the block constitutes a third-strike or de facto ban.

[7] The primary purpose of this rule is to avoid letting sockmasters disrupt the process with unblock requests across many accounts. In other cases, administrators should use their discretion as to whether to enforce this.

[8] {{subst:ANU response requested}} should be used on their talkpage in a new level-2 section.

[other-9] As noted in this page's lede section, nothing here affects users' access to appeals through other channels.

[10] For instance, "These users are on the same IP but it's possible that they are colleagues" can be discussed publicly, and the status will be set back to "open—actual innocence appeal". A sophisticated technical analysis of whether a user is actually a long-term abuser, on the other hand, will likely be resolved privately.

[11] "Another objective question" does not extend to matters of admin discretion such as personal attacks, non-3RR edit warring, or disruptive editing.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[i]

[j]

[k]