Wikipedia:Five-block rule
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playpen. Admins are not babysitters and should not have to keep a repeated eye on the same offenders over and over again, 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.
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 they may have to the project.
I therefore propose the 5 Block Rule.
- If a user has been blocked 5 or more times for identical infractions (e.g. repeated 3rr, repeated incivility, etc...) The next block should be placed for an indefinite length.
- Multiple offenses with significant time periods (more than a year) between them should not be considered as additional offenses for the purposes of the 5 Block Rule.
- Blocks under the 5 Block Rule should not be overruled by a lone admin. The party which has been blocked may seek to have his case taken by the arbitration committee. Blocks under the 5 Block Rule should only be overturned at their discretion.
- Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. It does not mean we should overlook repeated infractions on the basis of good faith.