 | This is a failed proposal. Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump. |
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playpen. Admins are not babysitters and should not have to keep a repeat eye on the same offenders to the detriment of the encyclopedia. We have many projects and categories with significant backlogs that could be better addressed if admins were not turned into babysitters.
Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. It does not mean we should overlook repeated infractions on the basis of good faith. We understand the tendency for prolific editors to be viewed as having a greater leeway when it comes to long-term blocks. However, there is a point where one's disruption becomes a net negative, that is the negatives outweigh any benefit that an editor may have to the project.
I therefore propose a 5 Block Rule:
- If a user has been blocked 5 or more times for identical categories of infractions (e.g. repeated 3RR/Disruptive Editing, repeated Incivility/Personal Attacks, etc...) The next block can (and probably should) be placed for up to an indefinite length.
- Multiple offenses with significant time periods (e.g. six months or more) between them should not be considered as additional offenses for the purposes of a block. Users can learn from their past offenses, but users who still continue to offend have proven their lack of good faith.
- Blocks should not be overruled by a lone admin (although the blocking admin can reverse their own block). The party which has been blocked may appeal via any of the methods applicable to blocks in general. See: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.