Wikipedia:Five-block rule
 | The following is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. |
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 the 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 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.