Criteria for Blocking
The purpose of blocking a user (temporarily or indefinitely) is to prevent them from negatively effecting the site. Potential editors who may contribute to the site positively are a valuable resource and should be treated with care.
Administrators are required to be fair while blocking users. Heavy-handed or unfair usage of the blocking function effects the community negatively and can result in the loss of potential editors. Such blocks will be promptly reversed and reviewed so blocking must be done with great care. If a block can be disputed, other administrators must be consulted before a user is blocked.
Can a user make positive contributions to the site in the future? This question is the main criteria for blocking a user. If the answer to the question is maybe or yes, then they should not be blocked without consultation. All attempts should be made to communicate with the user before they are blocked. All efforts should be made to be fair, forgiving and give users plenty of chances to improve their work or correct their understanding of issues directly related to article content.
The usage of an indefinite block can only be done for spam, vandalism or intentional textual corruption. All other uses of an indefinite block have to be consulted with other administrators, especially if a block can be disputed.
|User activity||Block duration||Notes|
|Spam or spambot||3 months for IP addresses, indefinite for user names||IP addresses can also be range-blocked if needed|
|Vandalism: large amounts of text removal, replacing content||As above||This kind of vandalism is obvious. A user who has made a mistake or an error cannot be treated as a vandal if the edit can be discussed with them.|
|Edits where it is obvious that the purpose is to undermine the thesis of an article (rather than correcting specific inaccuracies) and where the editor is not expected to change their opinions after discussion||As above||The purpose of some new editors is only to attack the site and its content. This is easily apparent in their edit. Other new editors may be attempting to improve the site and are therefore potential editors but may mistakenly weaken the thesis of an article in a certain edit. Sometimes the intent of an incorrect edit is not easily obvious. The edit should be reverted and the editor should be messaged according to talk page guidelines about their edit.|
|Comments complaining about the content of an article or meant to initiate a debate||As above||These comments can be removed and the usernames can be blocked. Site visitors are asked to visit forums for debates about Islam. Although responding to comments on talk pages relating to debate is optional, talk pages are for article improvement and not for debate (see talk page guidelines.)|
|3 reverts in 24 hours or/and gross incivility||1st offense: 24 hours, 2nd offense: 1 week, 3rd offense: 1 month, 4th offense: 3 months, 5th offense and each consecutive attempt: 6 months. Do not block indefinite without consulting other administrators.|
Overtly offensive/malicious usernames can be blocked indefinitely or renamed. If they have already made a constructive edit, they should be renamed rather than blocked.
Responding to Blocked Users
Reverts for vandalism or ignoring guidelines should be done with no comment or a comment similar to "reverting/reverting vandalism". No other type of comment should be used in the revert.
It is not useful to respond to vandalism-only/content violation accounts on their talk pages. IP addresses change frequently so they are unlikely to read any messages. It is not useful to respond to a registered username which has been infinitely blocked because they cannot respond. If any comments are left, they should only be about the edit that was reverted. In accordance with talk page guidelines, no personal attacks of any kind should be used.
Examples of Incorrect Blocks
No blocks of any kind (temporary or indefinite) can be made without consulting other administrators for the following situations:
- Opinions: An editor expressed a disagreeable opinion: Editors have diverse opinions and they should not be blocked for expressing an opinion unless it is something universally illegal or extreme. The suggested course of action is to change the topic of discussion and focus on issues relating to article content. The first priority is having someone contribute positively to the site's main article space while complying with guidelines. Everything else, including their personal opinions on different issues is secondary.
- Mistakes: An editor made a mistake/typo or an accidental edit (that is not intentional vandalism). They might return to make positive contributions.
- Incorrect edits: An editor with the intent to improve the site made an edit which is not obvious vandalism but is incorrect in some way due to their current perception or understanding of an issue. They should be engaged on the talk page and given an explanation about why their edit was incorrect.
- Slight/occasional incivility/aggression: Slight incivility can be subjective and occasional incivility can be forgiven. Maintain a neutral dialogue and consult with other administrators if aggression continues.
Incorrect blocks will be reversed as needed.
No user can be blocked without consultation with other administrators except for the following situations:
- Obvious and intentional vandalism, text removal, replacement and/or corruption.
- The intent of an edit is to attack the site or undermine the thesis of an article and where the editor is not expected to change their point of view after discussion
- Continuing to edit after they have been told not to edit (for example, if it is clear that a user cannot understand our policies, has been asked to stop yet continues to edit).
- Inappropriate usernames with no edits (they can be renamed or blocked).
For all other situations consult other administrators before blocking a user.