User:Tamzin/Adverse possession unblock

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.

An adverse possession unblock is a phenomenon that occasionally occurs on Wikipedia, wherein a blocked user returns to editing (see User:Worm That Turned/Quiet return), after some time is discovered (either by self-outing or by accident), and is not re-blocked for sockpuppetry due to their recent positive contributions. This can be viewed as an exercise in Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, and/or as a special case of WP:NOTPUNITIVE—the idea being that their new edits are prima facie evidence that a block is no longer needed.

While there is no formal definition of when such an unblock is indicated, the following criteria—somewhat analagous to the legal concept of adverse possession—are usually met. This is not, in any way, a policy or guideline, or anything resembling it.

• The original block is not for something very serious, like death threats or egregious BLP violations
• If there is a history of sockpuppetry, it is not particularly extensive or disruptive
• The user has been relatively transparent: Either they explicitly disclosed their past account early on, or at a minimum they have not tried to pass themself off as brand new
• The original block was quite some time ago (usually 5+ years, rarely less than 1 year)
• There is a considerable body of edits on the current account, dating back months or years, showing their ability to contribute constructively
• The new account has no serious warnings for the thing the original account was blocked for, or any such warnings were long ago
• The user is not banned. (Although if they are, the above considerations may also be relevant in a community unban request.)

This is, again, just a description of the normal considerations. Some more nuanced aspects exist—for instance, if the block is very long ago, or occurred after only a few edits, people may not expect that "considerable body of edits".

You should probably not do this. You should probably not try for the "Quiet return" at all, but if you're going to, you should keep it truly quiet. But sometimes it happens. Probably don't link to this essay. This isn't something you should try to do. This is a situation you wind up in by accident. And if you do, maybe someone else links to this essay if the matter lands at AN/I.

Most admins don't care. In particular, despite a reputation to the contrary, most SPI admins don't care. There's some sticklers, yes, but most of us would just as soon look the other way about an account along the lines of what's described above.

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Go Phightins!: Passed RfA 138/0/2 despite acknowledging that he "probably" was technically evading a long-ago vandalism block.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1084 § Block review requested: Block of newer account reversed after 13 years of relatively transparent block evasion and accidental self-outing. (Unblock later transferred to original account.)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104 § Indeffed at age 19, looking to start over at age 27: Account unblocked after 8 years despite recent logged-out block evasion.
• User talk:Davidlofgren1996 § December 2022: Unblock accepted, with blocking admin's consent, for user who had created a similarly-named new account 4 years after an indefblock for vandalism, and then edited constructively for 7 years.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive357 § Question: Unanimous consensus, including by original blocking admin, not to block a user for evading a block on a vandalism-only account created when they were nine. Writes Newyorkbrad, I would not block in this scenario nor I suspect would anyone else.
• Anonymized example: A user came to #wikipedia-en-unblock ^connect in 2023 saying that they had been blocked in 2009, but lost the password to that account. They wanted to know how to request an unblock for that account in order to edit under a new one. With the agreement of other admins present, I pointed them in the direction of Worm's essay and mine. They took the hint and left. Happily ever after, one hopes.
• Probably a very large number of cases where an admin, SPI clerk, or experienced sock-finder has spotted a sock, realized their editing pattern is nothing like what they were blocked for, and carried on quietly.
  • Anonymized example: I noticed on a user's userpage that they gave a username they've used on other sites. Out of curiosity, I checked if there was a local account of that name, and found one that had been blocked after creating a self-promotional article. It was clear from the article's content, in comparison with the new account's userpage, that the old account was created by the same person. However, it had been eight years since the block, and five had passed between the block and the new account's creation. There was no apparent self-promotion by the new account. I did not block, and when I raised the point with a few other admins for a sanity check, no one else thought I should either.