Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 8

Humane banning

The idea of lifetime banning is out of control by every major online site, include Wikipedia, Google, and Twitter. A lifetime ban is equivalent to the death penalty and should either be completely stopped as has been done in many countries or severely restricted.

Punishment should fit the crime.

There is no doubt that a lifetime ban is an easy and quick way to get rid of annoying users, and with millions of users, punishing a few innocent victims might seem like a reasonable price to pay for such ease and speed. This is the attitude eventually taken by every ruling organization, that ease and speed are much more important than worrying about punishing the innocent.

Can we open a discussion about instituting 5-year, 10-year, 30-year, 50-year ban policies for users instead of the current lifetime ban?Sthubbar (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It is most certainly not the equivalent of the death penalty, and I'm pretty disturbed to see you write that, Sthubbar. Wikipedia is a website. Nobody dies as a result of not being able to edit this website. Nothing done here will ever stop them from reading the website. We do have processes to request unbanning; right now, there are opportunities through a community-based request and an Arbitration Committee based request, and occasionally these requests are successful. (In at least two cases I can think of, the users wound up rebanned, but that shouldn't be a deterring factor for worthy candidates.) But I'd ask you to reconsider your language here. Editing Wikipedia is fun and interesting for many people, but it is not (or should not be) so important to a person that they feel they have "died" when the privilege is withdrawn. Risker (talk) 02:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm actually sort of interested to see what a discussion of possibility a "50 year ban" would look like.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, personally I feel that in some cases a lifetime ban is not enough. There really are some people here who deserve much more. We should get biblical on their asses. Not just lifetime ban them, but also automatically extend that ban to their progeny, if any. For four generations. "You and your children, and your grand children and your grand grand children and your grand grand grand children are hereby indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia". On the plus side, I think this kind of punishment would have to be utilized only in rare, extreme cases.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Risker:, I understand that we aren't killing anyone, and as with every analogy, there are imperfections. The part that I was referring to was the severity, finality and fact that many modern countries completely outlaw such punishment because of the finality. I suggest the same, that no lifetime bans should be allowed, or only in absolutely severe circumstances.

@Volunteer Marek: a 50 year ban, is something that could only be implemented after very serious discussion. For example, giving out short term bans could be done without much discussion, and I have little problem with a no-discussion 24-hour or 1 week ban. The problem is the lifetime bans are given out without any chance for the accused to defend themselves. A 50-year ban should only be given out after years of deliberation. It could be that a person is given 1 year ban, and during that time their case is reviewed in more detail with all sides given plenty of opportunity to make their case and after years of deliberation a 50-year ban could be given. Or a person is first given a 1 month ban, then 3 year ban, then 20 year ban, and then 50 year ban. There are just too many cases of people waking up one day and having received a lifetime ban out of the blue. To be clear "too many" in this case could be 1.Sthubbar (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide even a single example of someone who "[woke] up one day and [had] received a lifetime ban out of the blue"? I question your assertion that a ban has ever been imposed without a discussion that at least initially included an opportunity for the potential banee to offer a defense. General Ization ^Talk 03:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

• There are no "lifetime" bans. There are a very, very few people who nobody in their right mind would ever unblock, and they're usually handled by the WMF. And then there are people who are indefinitely banned, and they get to make a case for return. Sometimes banned users create new accounts; many of them are identified because of their behaviour and/or style of editing, and they're likely to be banned too; others may never be spotted because they have corrected/avoided whatever editing or behavioural traits that got them banned in the first place. Risker (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Risker:, an indefinite ban would actually be a "universe time" ban as opposed to being limited to the lifetime of the user. I will try to use the proper term "indefinite". I understand that an "indefinite ban" is open to appeal and this still is obscene that someone, without any notice or opportunity for defense can receive such a punishment. As mentioned before, it would make more sense in an emergency case to apply a time limited ban, such as 1 year to give time to deliberate whether such a severe punishment is warranted.

@General Ization:, me. I received an "indefinite" ban without any warning or ability to offer a defense. I simply received an email saying I was blocked. No warning, no request for discussion, no accusation just a conviction. It was only after quite a bit of obscure procedures, with no openness or presentation of evidence against me, that I was eventually able to get the unjust ban overturned. I can't be the only one.Sthubbar (talk) 03:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So in other words, the process worked; if you'd been banned for 50 years, you wouldn't have had the opportunity to appeal, which you did in an indefinite block situation. And more particularly, you weren't banned, you were blocked, and there's a pretty big difference. Banning is usually the result of a large-scale community discussion or an Arbitration Committee decision, where there are multiple people involved in the decision; there really aren't all that many banned users, and as a community we probably indefinitely block more vandals in a day than there are English-Wikipedia-banned editors altogether. Blocking is usually the decision of one administrator, sometimes in consultation with a few other community members, and is reversible. It has no specific time frame because the duration could last from a brief period to infinity. Risker (talk) 03:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Risker:, thank you again for educating me about terminology of blocking versus banning. I'm not sure I see the difference, if a user can't make changes, then what difference is there if we call them banned or blocked? Anyway, that is beside the point. In my proposal all blocks/bans of any duration are subject to appeal, so a 24hour block, 1 year block, 5 year block or 50 year block all could be appealed, so that would be the same as the current situation. The point, is that I am 100% confident there are many people that have received indefinite blocks, out of the blue, just as I did and are not interested in fighting this so they will never return. These are honest, good, valuable contributors to this project. It would make more sense to have given them 1 time limited ban and let their account automatically return active after 1 year, 5 years or 20 years.Sthubbar (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

If they are "not interested" in engaging in a process to regain the ability to edit, by explaining their behavior (perhaps with an affirmative defense, as apparently in your case) and/or by committing to cease behavior perceived as disruptive to the project, what is the value (to the project, or to the blocked editor) of making their account "automatically return active after 1 year, 5 years or 20 years"? General Ization ^Talk 04:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Also: please see Wikipedia:Standard offer. General Ization ^Talk 04:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization:, let's bring this to fundamentals. Do you agree with:

• Innocent until proven guilty
• Better to err on the side of setting guilty people free versus punishing innocents
• Punishment should fit the crime

Sthubbar (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Not interested in redirection. I asked you a question, which I'd genuinely like you to answer. What is the value of your proposal? Unless you can articulate it, I think we're done. General Ization ^Talk 12:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization:, the value of the proposal is to get the enforcement system in line with the spirit of Wikipedia. If we had to choose between autocracy or democracy, Wikipedia would strongly be on the side of democracy. The current enforcement policy is exactly the policy of autocrats. Please see Blackstone's formulation.

Democracy

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Autocracy

"it is better that ten innocent men suffer than one guilty man escape."

"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent."

"I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective"

[paraphrase of General Ization]If those that are banned aren't concerned enough to challenge the ban than why should I care.Sthubbar (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

And as a consequence of your deliberate mischaracterization of my question, and the lack of any coherent answer to it, I know that I have wasted more than enough of my time on this discussion. Good day. General Ization ^Talk 13:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@General Ization:, I understood the question to be "What is the value of the proposal?" That answer was exactly the response that it was more democratic. I understood your response to be that if innocent victims of a ban/block were not willing to make the effort to overturn the ban/block, than how much of a lose to the project was it really. That was the attempted meaning of the paraphrase. How did I misunderstand the question or misunderstand what you wrote above?Sthubbar (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Risker:, thank you for pointing out that I was blocked and there is a difference between blocking and banning. It seems I am at the wrong place, because I have no experience with bans. I'm surprised that blocks seem more severe than bans in that they are brutally enforced by the machines and bans have no enforcement without a block. I would have thought it was the other way.  :)Sthubbar (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BANEX question

asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another party [is normally permitted]

What about if another user violates an IBAN, I ask an admin to enforce it, the admin posts on AE, the Arbs say they aren't involved, and another uninvolved user spontaneously reports it on ANI and posts about the ANI thread on AE where I see it? If I posted on the ANI discussion would it be a violation?

(It's more of a hypothetical as of right now, like if my statement were requested by someone or I was specifically pinged on ANI, as right now I have no intention of actually posting there.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Dear lord. Between the two of you this is now being discussed in like six places. Is this really necessary? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's a hypothetical question related to the ambiguous wording of BANEX. It's not even specifically related to the case you are referring to (it also came up in relation to an IBAN-violation by another user like two weeks ago, where I held my tongue). I'm just as annoyed by this being discussed in so many places as you are (despite it being apparently discussed in like five other places I only received one notification on my talk page and came across the others basically by accident, and I think if I even responded in some of those places I might not be protects by BANEX). If you are saying that you would block me for commenting on the ANI, then I will not do so even if it is requested. Even if you think I wouldn't be in violation, I still won't comment unless someone requests that I do.

But yeah, it doesn't look likely that I'll get a clear answer either way in light of this, and I'd be fine with this getting hatted or otherwise closed, since I don't want anyone thinking I'm forum-shopping

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It's often better to wait until things have settled down after such a fracas if you want to discuss these things in the abstract. (I learned this the hard way myself) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Banex question

What would be the appropriate route for an editor to take if they believed a ban was being mis-used against them? Could bringing up such a complaint to ANI or AE or ARCA be considered necessary dispute resolution regarding a ban? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I can not answer all aspects of your question, but one part seems to be clear because of my very recent experience. If you receive an arbcom-imposed topic ban and you believe this is being misused against you by another editor, do NOT take this to AE. If you mention your topic ban there, you may be blocked.[1] DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That...unique perspective aside, I believe WP:ARCA would be the appropriate forum if the ban is based on an arbcom decision, which I'm assuming it is based on what I see on your talk page. You may also want to consider contacting the committee by email. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox, thanks for the advice - I have already contacted ARBCOM by email, but I have not yet received a reply. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Could I extrapolate your opinion to mean that the venue in which the ban was applied? So a community ban would be ANI, a AE invoked ban could go to AE, and an ARBCOM one would have to go to ARCA? --Kyohyi (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Another BANEX question (sorry!)

Actually it's not another one. It's the same one I asked earlier, but the timing was bad and I was told to come back once the dust had settled. It's been a few weeks, so here I am. Something like this has actually come up a few times, so I'm not specifically referring to any one incident, but asking it when it was relevant was apparently not the best move.

Anyway:

If I am subject to an IBAN with another user, and the other user violates the ban, BANEX allows for me to report them to an admin myself. However, what about if the other user violates the ban, and before I can report it a third party independently reports them on ANI? If I post to the ANI discussion, would it be a violation? (This assumes that the mere fact of my knowing there is an ANI thread is not in itself a violation. There are a bunch of ways I might be made aware of it, but in the most recent instance a notice was left on the forum where the first violation took place. Obviously if I had the other user's talk page on my watchlist, that would be another matter.)

Assuming the answer to the above is "Yes", then what about if someone in the ANI thread pinged me and requested my input? I've been pinged in a bunch of ANI threads that I knew better than to comment on, but those were where someone I was IBANned with was being reported for something other than an IBAN-violation.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The scenario is that two users, A and B, are subject to an interaction ban, and A is reported (say at ANI) for a possible breach of the iban. The question is, can B add evidence or respond to pings from the report. Answer: no. There is an interaction ban because the community is tired of drama between A and B, regardless of who is right or who started it. The assumption is that independent people assessing a report are clever enough to work out if a violation has occurred. On the other hand, if the violation involved some subtle dig that cannot be readily interpreted by other people, it might be ok to email an admin with no personal involvement (not a wikifriend) and explain the situation for them to take action as they think, or ask at the banning admin's talk whether it would be ok to add a clarifying statement at the report to show how it is a violation. The last point should be done rarely and only after there is some indication that it might be needed. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the exception is, in this case, to be sure that violations are likely to be noticed by admins. Once an incident has been reported, you no longer would serve this purpose by participating in the thread where the report was made. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding BANEX?

If reverts of obvious vandalism are allowed, are reverts of edits that were themselves made in violation of a ban, block, or both, permissible? Or do admins have the discretion to block for such edits? (To clarify, this is not related to a TBAN; it's related to something that happened some time ago in relation to an IBAN. IBANs tending to be mutual means that this is pretty common.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Obvious vandalism is clearly incorrect, and you reverting it is clearly correct; a ban violation is not likely to be any more incorrect than you (being banned there yourself) reverting it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:45, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu: Sorry to be late, but I didn't have this page on my watchlist until just now (for whatever reason) and, well, you were later. :P (The emoticon is meant to mean that I am just kidding rather than criticizing you, obviously. Although actually if I cam along in May and saw that you had responded to me in December, I probably wouldn't reply, so your having responded in March is actually somewhatrelevant.)

So, obviously per BANEX I would be allowed report said violation on an admin's talk page or on ANI. But would adding to the request for enforcement a request that the edit be reverted be out-of-line?

I mean, there is a clear distinction between Please block this user for violating their IBAN. and Please block this user for violating their IBAN. Also, I think said user is a bad person for [such-and-such reason].... But which side of that line does Please block this user for violating their IBAN. Also, please revert the offending edit [which, regardless of the IBAN, may or may not be a good edit on its own merits, but I just don't like it, and I'm not going to elaborate for you].? I would personally be inclined to think Please block this user for violating their IBAN. Also, please revert the offending edit, which I believe is a bad edit on its own merits for [such-and-such reason]. is a really grey area. I told an editor off a little while ago for making a post on ANI that, as far as the admin action it was basically asking for, was covered under BANEX, but included an excessive amount of elaboration that I felt clearly was not, but...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would think that explicitly asking for an edit reverted is disallowed if you wouldn't be allowed to do iut yourself. Simply notfy about the violation and allow uninvolved admins to handle it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed clarifying change here and to blocking policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Following on an admin's unblock of an editor who was blocked per a community consensus, a discussion was opened at AN here, which led a discussion at Village Pump Proposals here, the outcome of which are proposals to clarify this policy and the blocking policy. This event brought to light that the written policies have fallen out of sync with community practice and should be clarified. It is a fact that the community sometimes arrives at a consensus that someone should be indefinitely blocked, and this has been going on for years (see several examples at the Village Pump discussion).

Proposed changes to WP:CBAN

The community may reach a consensus to impose various types of sanctions on editors:

• If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to impose a site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban, site ban or other editing restriction (which may include a time-limited or indefinite block) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made.
• In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction. (NB, break added for third bullet)
• Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. If a block is administered or confirmed or an unblock request is denied following community consensus, the editor's block log should note this.

Editors without usernames may be banned by the community (example), but bans of editors using only IP addresses are rare.

Proposed change to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking

Unblocking will almost never be acceptable:

• When it would constitute wheel warring.
• To unblock one's own account (unless an administrator blocked themselves).
• When the block is implementing a community sanction which has not been successfully appealed.
• When the block is explicitly enforcing an active Arbitration remedy and there is no ArbCom authorization or "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" (Arbcom motion).

Each of these may lead to sanctions for misuse of administrative tools—possibly including desysopping—even for first-time incidents.

This ~should~ be fairly uncontroversial, since it just brings the written policy up to date with actual community practice, but if an RfC becomes necessary, so be it. Very open to wordsmithing, but let's not have the perfect be the enemy of the good-enough. Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC) (Note, sentence about block log added per discussion below. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC))

Last bullet should be something like "there is neither ArbCom authorization nor". We have "A and B or C"; it's meant to be "A and (B or C)", but someone might read it as "(A and B) or C", i.e. "when the ban...and there is no Arbcom authorization, or when there's a clear, substantial...". Or perhaps I've misread it, and it really is meant to be that way, in which case "neither" and "nor" need to be thrown in the other way. Nyttend (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And also, I support this proposal. (1) It's clean and simple, just fitting community-imposed blocks into the existing setup. (2) As the initiator of the Village Pump discussion, I was ready to support any reasonable solution that addressed community-imposed blocks in some way and said either "these can be undone unilaterally" or "these can't be undone", and this is indeed a reasonable proposal. It's better than the "these can't be undone" wording that I proposed. Nyttend (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for starting that discussion and am glad this is OK with you. About the last bullet - it is just meant to record and restate that Arbcom motion... should we just provide the link and not try to restate it? It is plenty clear there. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nyttend, I meant to ping you way earlier in this process. The last point about Arbcom blocks is unchanged from how it currently appears in the WP:BLOCK policy. I don't object at all to making the language clearer, but the language is derived from the linked Arbcom motion. Should it be up to Arbcom to manage this? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that that wording wasn't part of the proposal. Don't worry about it. Nyttend (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I support the proposed changes as they reflect standard procedure. However, the wording will be subject to intense wikilawyering in the future so I draw attention to two possible points of argument: (a) "closing administrator"—I think that is appropriate, but this discussion should note that the wording really means admin because there has been a tendency for non-admins to close discussions; (b) "an editor's unblock request"—what if admin A blocks user B and user C asks for an unblock review at WP:AN (I believe such reviews have led to unblocks)? Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Unblock requests must originate from the blocked editor. Third parties are not considered to have standing to make the request, and the blocked editor should retain control over when a request is made and the arguments put forth within it. That being said, there may be more complicated circumstances involving multiple people, and the entire scenario can be reviewed, leading to the block being reviewed. This is covered by the review a block portion of the sentence. isaacl (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Notification requirement

I am concerned that we are sliding down a slope, and we have to decide, as a community, where and how to draw the line. We have long distinguished between ban and blocks. A ban has always been a sanction decided by the consensus of the community in carrying the weight of the community behind it. A block may arise out of a community discussion but it can also occur at the decision of a single admin. Until now, I'm not aware of any need to make a distinction between a block imposed by a single admin and a block imposed as a result of a community consensus, but these proposed changes will require such a distinction.

In theory, bans were supposed to be imposed at AN, not ANI. This is supposed to be more than a trivial semantic difference. An incident can give rise to a block, but a ban is supposed to be imposed as a result of more serious sequence of events, seriously discussed by the community, and agreed to by a consensus of editors.

@Jytdog: pulled together a list of 13 blocks, (the list is in the Village pump discussion.) all of which were discussed in ANI not AN. The location was proper, because at the time the issues were raised, the discussion was about a block, not a ban. However, @Ivanvector: makes the reasonable observation that "thus, they're bans".

That sentiment seems to be embodied in this proposal to change CBAN wording. The concept of ban, which originally meant, well a ban, but now includes blocks in some circumstances. I think we need to be exceedingly careful about where we draw the line. The proposal does say "a consensus of editors". Does that include, for example, this recent block by @NeilN:? Just to be clear, I have no objection to the block decision, but I think a report to ANI, followed by a "community" discussion which I will repeat in its entirety — "blocked" and closed with no further discussion six hours later counts as a legitimate block but should not be treated as a community block which could only be undone via community discussion. I do think any unblock ought to follow the usual guidelines that the unblocking admin should contact the blocking admin but those are the existing best practices, we are debating a new set of rules applicable to community blocks. Does anything reported to ANI resulting in a block now constitute a community block? I think that goes too far. We ought to have some minimum standards on what defines a community block including length of time the discussion is open.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I agree with you regarding having minimum standards. I think the blocking admin should evaluate the discussion and explicitly mark the block as a community block if the discussion warrants it. Obviously the block you pointed to is not a community block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) User:Sphilbrick yep the NeilN block was not the result of community consensus, but rather an admin acting on their own authority . No discussion that reached consensus - just a report and then swift admin action. The first bullet describes a typical community discussion, that is then actually closed. We cannot legislate CLUE and I don't know that it makes sense to describe minimum standards.

But there are more borderline cases. Among the examples I brought at the VP, I thought this close and subsequent action by User:Sandstein was done with admirable clarity and nuance in light of the specific context there (an ongoing AE case I think). In such cases where there is substantial discussion, a closing statement like "this is a community-imposed indef" (which is what should almost always be the case) or "I am indef blocking on my own authority" (should be rare) would be useful -- and as Sandstein did there, if the admin takes over authority from the community it is important to provide a reason. This is not worth going into in the policy but I wanted to note it here on the Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The proposed changes aren't intended to create a distinct community block mechanism, the community has done this on its own. The changes are only meant to clarify that when a sanction derives from community consensus (versus an admin's sole authority, such as from a report at WP:AN3 or WP:AIV) and/or is endorsed by community consensus, it may not be overturned unless the community consents. I don't think there's a benefit to creating a bright line distinction between administrative blocks and community sanctions, it ought to be apparent from the discussion (or lack thereof, as in NeilN's block referenced above) and creating a set of boxes to tick just invites wikilawyering and gaming.

(edit conflict × continued) Regarding "closing administrator", WP:NAC advises against non-administrators closing discussions which are expected to be controversial, and those which they lack the technical access to implement. While technically a non-administrator can close a discussion indicating a consensus to topic ban (for example) I'm not aware of that ever happening and I think such a close would likely be contested. The only common instance where a non-administrator closes a sanction discussion is likely to be one in which no sanction results, and so this section doesn't apply anyway. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict × again, sorry) And I also agree that admins should make clear the rationale for their blocks. "Per discussion at (link)" ought to be a sufficient block log entry for community-discussed blocks, and clear closing statements are important. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I accept that writing out minimum standards may be quite difficult. I was initially attracted by the thought of explicitly marking it in the closing discussion, which I support, but I don't think that's quite enough. Imagine the following, plausible scenario: the block of User:Yinzland Is one of the examples in the village pump list which is now declared to be a community block. Suppose the editor writes into OTRS, complaining that they are blocked and asking what can be done. (This is not uncommon, I reviewed hundreds of such requests.) In many cases, I point out the the process for appeal which is typically on the talk page, but sometimes the editor will explain the circumstances and sufficient detail that it makes sense to look into myself. I would always start by looking at the block log to confirm they are blocked, and the block log would tell me the reason "(Personal attacks or harassment: Indefinitely banned for personal attacks)" and the blocking admin Trebor, who hasn't posted since 2011. His a clear example where the usual advice to contact the blocking admin could be ignored. What if the editor was contrite apologized and asked for a second chance? I think most admins would find it reasonable to unblock and watch. However, because this block is a community block which is now a ban and requires a community discussion, I should not unilaterally unblock but bring it to AN for discussion. I'm actually not opposed to that requirement but asking how on earth I would know this. Sorry for all the words but I'm building up to a proposal that a community block can only be considered a community block if it is explicitly noted in the block log. It is unreasonable for an admin reviewing an unblock request to do a search of AN and ANI to see if it may have been a community action.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, my ec comment above this should probably be below this instead. Yes, I agree that admins can't be mind-readers when it comes to these blocks. We have explicit requirements for log notation for checkuser blocks, for example, maybe something of the sort for community blocks? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a great point S Philbrick. Can be handled by adding to the very end (where recording things is noted). "If a block is imposed under the process described above, the block log must note this so that future reviewing admins are aware that they cannot unblock on their own authority." or the like. Jytdog (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions currently says that ...the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse.. Perhaps "if necessary" should be dropped, and a single required venue noted (with other venues optional)? isaacl (talk) 16:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That wouldn't help S Philbrick, who is addressing the block log, specifically. Jytdog (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm assuming that examining the editing restriction log is part of the steps followed by anyone seeking to unblock an editor, so they can understand the actual restriction and read the discussion that led to it. However making logging the sanction mandatory is independent from requiring a notation in the block log, so both can be done. isaacl (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

You assume incorrectly. I am aware that the editing restriction log exists, as I occasionally check it out in the context of problematic editing, but it has never occurred to me to check it in connection with an unblock request. I suggest it would be unreasonable bureaucracy to require such an action. If someone wants to log the request there, more power to them but I think checking the block log and attempting to converse with the blocking admin should be sufficient (in the case the block lock does not indicate a need for community discussion). It's quite easy to include such a comment in the block log. I see that many admin's do include a link to an ANI discussion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The few times I've issued a block on behalf of the community I've included a permanent link to the ANI discussion in the block reason. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

As do I, I think it's a good practice. I actually didn't know about the editing restrictions page until a week or so ago and I have no faith at all that it's kept up to date. I assume that if the proposed changes are implemented then a notice will go out in the next admins' newsletter, and we could include a reminder to properly annotate the block log (I agree it's the best place for this). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I too think it's questionable if the log is up-to-date, and it's probably more essential to examine in cases of restrictions without blocks, where it can be pretty hard to find a pointer to the relevant discussion. Personally I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for administrators to check one place for editing restrictions (particularly if logging is made mandatory). But naturally those doing the work should do what works best for them, so sure, let's put some text into Wikipedia:Blocking policy, maybe something under Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Implementing blocks?

Block log If the block arose from a discussion, please include a link to this discussion in the block log. If the block is enforcing a community sanction, please note this as well.

isaacl (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think if we're going to make logging at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions (I assume) mandatory, we should create a way for it to be done programmatically, i.e. have a bot do it. If we design a common template for notifying a user of a community sanction, a bot could be programmed to automatically update the log from the information provided. I know nothing of the particulars but it should be easy enough to do. Something like {{uw-banned|<type of ban>|<length or indefinite>|<description of sanctions>|<permalink to discussion>}} which would produce a block notice on the user's talk page and which the bot could just parse over to the log. Placement of the banner could be built into Twinkle's block functions, for those admins who use it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support I support the concept of including the information in the block log. It is useful, whenever it is feasible, to have information in a single source, and as the block log is something that should almost always be reviewed when considering an unblock, it seems like the logical place. (I started to say it should always be reviewed but I'm literally in the middle of reviewing a uw-ublock-famous, and that doesn't really need a review of the block log).--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support Honestly IMO should have been policy from the very beginning. Block log notation of relevant discussions is the only way for blocks to be reviewed properly while also maintaining temporal efficiency. Though allowances should be made in wording and in programming such that multiple discussions can be linked in the log (for each block) and so that the block log can be updated in case of an appeal or other secondary relevant discussion. A "bright line" between consensus based and single or small group authority based blocks (or even bans) is appropriate and necessary for the proper function of the is community in my view. It may be appropriate to define a quorum for a consensus based block in the future. Endercase (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• Support notification requirement; agree about "slippery slope"; Oppose adding the language to "Unblocking will almost never be acceptable: * * *When the block is implementing a community sanction which has not been successfully appealed." --David Tornheim (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
• comment - have added a sentence to the proposal about this. There is no disagreement about this that needs !voting on. The means - bot or manual - is a different discussion. Jytdog (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Diff of change, just because I couldn't see it at first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• • I believe there should be couple of sentences added to the section Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Implementing blocks as well, as this section provides technical information for carrying out a block. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support. Individual users, admin or not, should not be able to overturn community consensus. James (^talk/_contribs) 19:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think. I still don't know what a "community block" is. If a user is banned by community consensus, then obviously an individual administrator shouldn't be permitted to unilaterally overturn it. As far as blocks go, while I oppose the idea that any sysop should be allowed to indef-block a user outside of user-name violations, vandalism-only accounts, or clear legal threats, as long as it is to be permitted, the reverse must remain true. I also oppose the idea that only the blocked user may request unblocking. It's not uncommon for a third party to ask the blocking administrator to reconsider, or question the block at a notice-board. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:44, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

To your last point, about only the blocked user making unblock requests, that's not meant to be changed by this proposal. I think it's not covered by these sections at all. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

• Dear god yes Admins should not be allowed close discussions where there is overwhelming community consensus to block, and then a few hours later unilaterally overturn "their own block" based on a spontaneous change of heart and/or off-wiki contact with the blocked editor. (In the latter case, community discussion should precede any unblock, since any admin INVOLVED enough to know off the top of their head whether said off-wiki contact contains false or misleading information would be too INVOLVED to close the previous discussion or implement the block in the first place, and a community discussion would allow the presentation of evidence that the off-wiki contact was insincere.)

I know the proposed change wouldn't technically prevent problems like that -- admins already should not do this and the vast majority of the community would likely agree, and the proposed change is essentially cosmetic as it makes said preference a little clearer than it already is -- but it's definitely a move in the right direction.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Jesus. That wound up being a long "addendum". TLDR: I am biased. I was unilaterally blocked by an admin, and then even when said admin recognized that the block was no longer necessary, they sought community consensus to unblock anyway. On another occasion, I observed an admin refusing to unilaterally block even though they recognized that a block was necessary, directed the block request to ANI, and then unilaterally overruled the block that had been imposed by community consensus. Admins should try, as far as possible, to be consistent about this. This is my personal view related to the policy but not based on a strict reading of what the policy says. If you want to discount my !vote based on me being biased in this manner, I understand. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I'm a little biased in my !vote here, as I personally think all community-imposed "blocks", fixed-term or indefinite, should for unblocking purposes be treated the same as formal site-bans. There are a lot of editors who don't know the functional difference between a block and a site-ban, or who do know the difference but when !voting in ANI (etc.) discussions tend to disregard it, apparently more because they think the phrase "site ban" is ugly than because of a considered opinion that any admin should be allowed unilaterally unblock. I don't read the proposed amendment as actually imposing this personal preference of mine on the policy (it clearly doesn't), but it is a slight, symbolic move in that direction. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC) I also sympathise with User:Sphilbrick's slippery slope argument, but I actually think that going further down that slope is a good thing. I think the these proposed changes will require [...] a distinction between a block imposed by a single admin and a block imposed as a result of a community consensus reflects a inaccurate reading of the proposed amendment, as the When the block is implementing a community sanction part refers to the imposition of a block as an explicit implementation of a community site-ban. It would not formally ban admins from unilaterally undoing community-imposed blocks. I just think that admins should be encouraged to bring their personal inclination to unblock before the community. This is what was done when I was last blocked, and my block had been a unilateral action by an admin; it was only after a bunch of users (mostly admins) agreed that I should be unblocked that I was unblocked. It's completely bizarre that, depending on the personal inclinations of the blocking admin, someone who was unilaterally blocked should not be unblocked without community consensus, but someone who was blocked with overwhelming community consensus can be unblocked unilaterally by an admin. And yes, I am thinking of one block in particular (other than my own), although my view has not really changed since the incident in question. It is one of the ones User:Jytdog listed, and how it came about was almost conspiratorial -- the blocking admin, on noticing the blockworthy offense, said that they would have blocked if there was community consensus to do so on ANI, and then once the ANI thread was opened and showed overwhelming consensus for a block, he jumped in, closed the discussion, and then a few hours later unilaterally unblocked. It was like he specifically wanted to overrule the community just because he could. If you want more specific details, email me. My having been aware of the incident in question is not an IBAN-violation (as I was notified on my user talk page, and specifically asked whether it would be out of line for me to comment there on this page -- scroll up), and it having influenced my way of thinking about the project is not either, but specifically elaborating and naming names would almost certainly be. Put simply, if an admin refuses to block unilaterally, they should not unblock unilaterally, and vice versa (as in the case of my last block). Also, when admins are explicitly directing community discussion for "community blocks" as opposed to the "unilateral blocks" that they are reluctant to perform, to ANI, and when a lot of ban discussions take place on ANI rather than AN to begin with (and no one ever brings that up on said ANI-based ban discussions), then the technical distinction between AN and ANI (which, again, no one seems to recognize in practice) should not formally influence policy, in my opinion. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One-way IBAN

Just a hypothetical situation, because I'm not interaction-banned, I don't expect to be, and I've not seen this situation arising at all.

A is one-way banned from B. Some time later, A starts an ordinary discussion somewhere, and after a while B comes along and joins the discussion in a non-problematic way, e.g. A created an AFD on WP:N grounds and B says "Keep, because I found sources X, Y, and Z". Do we say that A is allowed to respond in a normal way (e.g. "Actually, I don't think X or Z should count, because they aren't reliable sources..."), because B's joining in the discussion initiated contact, or do we say that A's response would be a ban violation? Or what if B sent a message directly to A, e.g. "Hello, since you've edited in topic area X in the past, I thought you might like to see this new group of articles", or B makes a discussion comment (not ban-related) mentioning A, e.g. "I don't know much about this subject. Maybe A could help?". Is A allowed to respond in those situations, or would these still be ban violations? Final note — of course such situations could be seen as taunting/stalking/etc.; I'm envisioning a situation where nobody, even A, would complain that B had done something wrong.

Surely we've had some situations where the person protected by the ban contacted the banned person and the banned person responded; if "yes this is a ban violation" or "no this isn't a ban violation" has normally been the result, I suggest that the policy be expanded by saying that this kind of contact is, or isn't (whichever's been the normal result), a violation. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In your scenario, B is being a jerk. In the rare instance where a one-way iban is issued, it is pretty ugh always the case that the protected party does not want any contact with them and has had to ask for an iban to make that happen. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

That, or really forgetful. Either way, the situation indeed is gameable (why I'm not a fan of one-way ibans, why I don't remember ever supporting one), and if A remembers the ban and keeps calm, he's going to start wondering if he's allowed to do/say anything. We ought to have something here saying "if B initiates, A may respond" or "A can't respond if B initiates, but if he thinks B's harassing, BANEX permits an ANI request [or something else in this vein]" — we ought to address this subject so A doesn't wonder. Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

A should certainly be allowed to respond to incoming interactions; B is taking the chance of such interactions when (s)he interacts with A. Such an interaction ban should mean that any interactioj of B with A is "at his/her own risk". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

clarification sought on G5

A sockpuppet of a blocked user evaded the block and (re)created articles since deleted under WP:CSD#G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire/Archive. In none of these were there significant edits by other users. Said articles are now at WP:DRV. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July 6. Are there alternatives to deletion under G5? Can the articles be restored in toto? Can the articles be restored apart from edits made by block evading user? Can block evading user's edits be restored but with their user name rev del'd? In future instances, can block evading users contribs be rev del'd w/o deleting entire article? ThanksDlohcierekim (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The usernames cannot be rev del'd. Doing so would remove the attribution required by our WP:CC BY-SA 3.0 licence. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Following on with what JJMC said WP:REVDEL#Notes on use is the relevant policy for this. Reverting the edits of banned/blocked users will likely do the job. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Effect of a TBAN on your own user talk

WP:TBAN gives a very nice set of examples about TBANs. However, I noticed today that while "talk pages" (generically) are mentioned, it's not necessarily clear to all TBAN'd people whether your own user talk page (where we typically allow greater freedom).

Imagine this scenario:

• User:Example gets a TBAN about Foo.
• User:Innocent, who is unaware of the TBAN, goes to User:Example's talk page and asks a question about the article there (e.g., about a edit made by User:Example in the past).

What range of responses are permitted to User:Example? In the most draconian interpretation, even replying to say "I'm not really following that article any longer, so you should probably talk about how to improve it at the article's talk page" might be considered a violation. Is this permitted? Is anything else permitted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been in that situation several times and I have just said: "Thanks for your note but I can't discuss that". There has never any drama made over that by tps. I do not think a TBANed person should give any advice about what the other person should do. Jytdog (talk) 20:24, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it would take a really special brand of knob head to conclude that saying you're not going to talk about a topic constitutes talking about it. Anyone running to ANI with that is unlikely to get far with it. Reyk _YO! 13:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

In general, the accepted and encouraged practice is for User:Example to say something along the lines of "I'm afraid I can't discuss that topic right now" or "I am not allowed to discuss that due to an extant topic ban" or "I am not editing in that area right now, and I can't contribute to that discussion". User:Example is free to mention the existence of his topic ban, but isn't required to. (That is true on the user's talk page or anywhere else it might be relevant. The mere fact that a user is topic banned is not, itself, in the scope of the ban. Unless the topic ban is actually on the topic of topic bans, which starts to get really weird....)

An editor who attempted to get Example in trouble for any of those statements would be roundly mocked and possibly boomeranged at AN/I. As a related aside, admins also don't look kindly on any User:NotSoInnocent who makes repeated or inflammatory posts on a topic-banned user's page in an effort to goad them into a violation; see WP:BEAR. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

AFD

A recent dispute has raised a point I was not really aware of (but it is clear if you think about it) AFD's are discussions, and thus IBANS are affected by them.

I am wondering if this slight confusion could be clears up by changing the wording to add something like "including AFD's".Slatersteven (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• For some IBANs this would make sense, for others less so. I think it'd be better to clarify this issue on the individual IBANs rather than all of IBAN generally. Reyk _YO! 11:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I think that is too open to an Admin forgetting, or an affected edd not understanding.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Updating WP:TBAN

This is just a minor suggestion. TBAN doesn't clarify anything about article creation, and I think it should. My reason simply is to make sure that TBAN editors don't create articles revolving around topics they're TBANed for. The possibility of TBAN editors might have an WP:OWNing attitude or simply trying to evade their TBAN because the community failed to mention article creation. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. It would also protect editors who believe in good faith that they're allowed to create articles. It would take up very little space and could head off trouble. I see this as similar to the line saying "and the topic ban applies to your own talk page and userspace too." Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this would be necessary, and I don't see article creation as equivalent to edits in one's own user space. It's not a grey area and I can't imagine how it could become one. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

BANREVERT and involvement

I will point to this recent AE Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Atsme as an example of where an editor, in all ways "involved" w.r.t. a second editor, interpreted that second editor's TBAN to take it on themselves to revert the removal of their text by that second editor, claiming BANREVERT to do the reversion. Ignore all other aspects of that situation, it seems to me that BANREVERT should not be done by editors that have a potential involvement with the editor that is under a ban, particularly in a case where we're talking a TBAN and the topic's relevance to the TBAN is not crystal clear. I feel this could readily lead to edit warring by battling editors. But that said, I can't envision the entire scope of how adding some type of "uninvolved" language to BANREVERT would affect other uses, so I'm just throwing out the idea if such language could be added or why it should not. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that involvement is irrelevant here (I assume you mean in the general sense, not admin-level involvement, but my point is the same either way) as edits made by banned editors may be reverted by anyone, anytime, without regard to the usual limits on reversion (such as 3RR). Banned means banned. Of course, if the editor being reverted is not editing against a ban, then the editor doing the reverting is subject to all of those normal limits, but then involvement is still irrelevant. But to your point about being sure about the scope of a topic ban, it's on the editor doing the reverting to ensure that they're actually reverting a banned edit, and if they're not sure they should not use BANREVERT as a rationale. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both the above. I mean, ideally, there should usually be some other content-based reason for reverting apart from BANREVERT, but requiring that such a reason be stated upfront, but only by "involved" editors, is too much; especially when the definition of "involved" could simply be "knowing enough to know that the editor is banned", in which case only involved editors would be able to invoke BANREVERT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree and comment: Masem seems to be describing a situation in which someone said, "You're topic banned from THIS, so that proves you're filth and I can revert you on THAT." That is not how the topic ban system as written is meant to work. The stigma is causing a disruption. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Assuming I'm interpreting your "THIS", "you're filth" and "THAT" correctly, I think you are misinterpreting Masem's original comment, which relates to "grey" areas that may or may not be covered by the ban (the topic's relevance to the TBAN is not crystal clear). And I gotta say, I don't agree with you regarding the "stigma": I was TBANned for two years (and still am subject to two separate suspended TBANs), and have never experienced the scenario you described. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

That's good. I don't know of anyone who deserves to be treated like that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Permanent ban

If a user was banned many times, will a user get permanent ban? FourBowl5905100 (talk) 10:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

There are some folks who are de facto permanently banned, but in theory all community-imposed bans or ArbCom bans are subject to appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The right to appeal can also be removed. Endercase (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Both community-imposed and ArbCom-administered bans may include a time restriction, i.e. "This ban may not be appealed for at least twelve months" or wording to that effect. I don't think I've ever seen a ban that explicitly and flatly forbids any appeal or request for parole in perpetuity; in a legalistic sense I suspect that such a restriction won't work because neither ArbCom nor the community at large have the authority to irrevocably bind themselves and their successors to a particular remedy or course of action.

In practice, there is nothing which compels the community or ArbCom to expend more than the most cursory effort in considering futile requests. From a technical standpoint, it is possible to remove an account's ability to post to all pages on Wikipedia (including their own talk page) and to send email to other Wikipedia editors, which leaves them only socking (which gets quickly shut down, generally) and emails to ArbCom or the Foundation (which are usually dealt with off-wiki) as mechanisms by which to file appeal or parole requests.

In theory, any ban could be reversed at any time, given appropriate extenuating circumstances. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters

There is currently an RfC being held at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: update to banning policy for repeat sockmasters about an update to the banning policy for repeat sockmasters. All are invited to comment. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Explicitly adding voluntary bans

The community has accepted that editors may accept voluntary band and these bans are recorded at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. I have added text

Users may voluntarily accept restrictions on their editing and/or behavior. These bans are recorded at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary and are treated in the same way as if the restriction were imposed by the community.

to explicitly recognize this practice. Jbh ^Talk 17:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal for mandatory minimum duration length for CBAN discussions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The discussion has run for quite a long span of time (~ 11 days), whilst being notified about at multiple prominent venues and there seems to be a near-unanimous snow consensus to Y implement the proposed policy-change.Whilst some have wished greater time-frames, no consensus could be found for the implemenation of any of them.~ Winged Blades^Godric 04:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

---

I'd like to see a change to WP:CBAN from "Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members." to "Sanction discussions must be kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members."

Summarizing from here: Can someone please explain why there's a rush to close banning discussions? If the editor is currently being disruptive that can be solved with a block. Otherwise it saves a lot of time and discussion when the editor or someone else complains that not all interested community members had a chance to comment. The shorter the discussion stays open, the better for opponents of the editor to steamroll through a sanction. All sides - opponents, supporters, uninvolved (who usually take longer to comment) - should get at least the chance to be heard. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Pretty much everyone in the linked discussion seemed to agree with this on principle. I don't necessarily support the longer 48-hour wait discussed there, and think "mercy" should still be observed in SNOW cases (where all leaving it open will do is allow more "Yeah, ban 'em" comments to pile on) per IAR.

I'd actually support stronger "encouragement" of closers to take care with timing of closes in general (not just ban discussions); it recently came to my attention that non-admins have closed AFDs as "keep" when consensus was clearly in favour of deletion (with one "keep" that ignored policy and sourcing) until six days in, at which point the one "keep" engaged in disruptive canvassing that allowed a sudden steamrolling.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

While piling on may be a risk, I trust that admins and experienced editors will step in and stop that from getting out of hand. Plus, down the road when hearing possible appeals, it's always useful to see if there was strong, broad community consensus or a consensus of highly affected editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Needless bureaucracy. Cases can be decided or overturned on their merits, just as they always have been. Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support there are never good reasons to rush through a CBAN that quickly. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It can not be a community ban if there is not a good faith attempt to get input from the community or at least that subset of the community who have AN/ANI on their watchlist. Most people do not even check their watchlists every day and closing before 24 hrs means even fewer eyes and opinions on the matter. Most editors who come up for a CBAN have, at one time or another, made valuable contributions to the project. The least we can do is allow for a reasonable time to hear whatever arguments there may be for not nailing down the coffin lid. Jbh ^Talk 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Sounds good to me. --Jayron32 04:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - What may be 7pm in one country (USA/Washington DC) could 1 in the morning in another (UK), Anyway no need to close discussions the moment their open especially when it's inregards to CBans, Personally I think leaving for 48hrs is better however 24 is most certainly better than 10. –Davey2010^Talk 04:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It's not "needless bureaucracy"-it's not bureaucracy at all-but if it is, It's necessary bureaucracy: we should be automatically leaning towards providing too much, rather than too little, time for discussion on what are probably the most important discussions there are here. >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 08:31, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support A ban cannot be a community ban unless members of the community have had a reasonable chance to notice the discussion and respond. The target can receive a normal block if needed but 24 hours is required to assess a ban. I support 24 hours and don't recall examples where 48 hours would be desirable. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. 24 hours at minimum IMO, arguably longer, since it sometimes takes a while for word to get around. Gatoclass (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Seems entirely reasonable. ~ !dave 12:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support - We're a WP:GLOBAL WP:VOLUNTEER project, and we should not be conducting business so that only the most active users in a few time zones decide fairly consequential community actions. GMG^talk 15:27, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  I have taken the liberty of adding this to WP:CENTRAL. GMG^talk 15:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support 24 hours, oppose anything longer as that only adds needless drama. Also, I see no need for an RfC on this: just update the policy to what is the usual understanding for what it means. This isn’t controversial. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Well, given that it's already been opposed by an experienced editor (who presumably would therefore revert a bold change to the policy in favor of community discussion), it may not be particularly controversial, but it's not uncontroversial either. GMG^talk 15:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  Meh, if this were just a discussion and not an RfC, we could have made the change already based on consensus that it was a minor tweak to the policy that simply clarified the existing understanding of the wording by most of the community (which is what it is). The irony here being that this RfC has a shot of closing in less than 24 hours at the current rate... TonyBallioni (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  And also a shot of being challenged and reopened on procedural grounds, as WP:NOTLAB recently was. Better to mind our jots and tittles from the outset IMO. GMG^talk 16:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  RfCs should typically be the last option for determining consensus, not the first, especially for such a minor change. I don't blame Neil for opening it, I just oppose the idea that every minor change to a project space page must have an RfC, as I think that the comparison to NOTLAB is very different. I hope someone will come along in a few hours and close this, assuming that the current trend carries out. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: Another editor turned my initial comment into a RFC. I didn't and don't object. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  @NeilN: Thanks, didn’t notice the history. Like I said, I think we could have shut this down already if it were just a discussion, and given the response right now, think we probably should. It’s an uncontroversisl clarification, and I think having to have RfCs on every one of those is a negative for the project as it increases the bureaucracy and makes the normal consensus building process more difficult. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  @TonyBallioni: I agree with you but if editors wanted a RFC I figured it would be counter-productive to force them to open one, separate from this discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Meh. I tend to favor permanency over expediency in cases like this. It's an occasional personal bias I've grown to be comfortable with. GMG^talk 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support 24 hour minimum (but nothing longer) - on pure principle that we should have a duration that these discussions must remain open before they're allowed to close. This is to mandate that a reasonable timeline be provided so that as many people in the community as possible can have a chance to participate. Most of our other discussions have durations like this defined (i.e. XFD, RFA, etc) and it's only proper that we have one defined here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Establishing consensus requires patience; since there is never an urgency to impose a community ban, time should be allowed to let the global community of editors consider and offer their views. Regarding the potential for drama as a conversation progresses, editors should be able to constrain their comments in a matter to avoid unnecessarily antagonizing any of the participants, particularly when a consensus is clearly emerging. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support per nom. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
• Further comment How would this proposal work with the May 2017 decision that a "community indefinite block" can only be appealed to the community? Are "block" discussions still to be SNOW-closed regardless of elapsed time? A number of commenters in the current "Darkness Shines" case (particularly those who commented on his talk page while he was "banned") appear to have had a problem with the speedy close based more on the cosmetics of a "ban" that can only be appealed to the community being imposed that fast, without being aware that a block imposed under those conditions is functionally identical to a ban in terms of how it must be appealed. I personally would not mind this proposal applying equally to "community blocks" as to "bans", but how do others feel? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • The edit in May did not introduce a change from practice at the time or now: in spite of the ambiguity introduced by the text change, a block is not an imposed editing restriction. As described in the third paragraph of the banning policy, a block is used by administrators to deal with immediate problems, or to enforce a ban. I appreciate that some think if editors say "support indefinite block", their stated view should only be taken literally, rather than as a colloquial expression of intent. Either way, though, there's no distinction in practice: they both result in an editor being unable to edit, and appeals of editing restrictions imposed by the community are handled by the community. With regards to this proposal, the issue isn't really the resulting decision, but whether or not the community has been sufficiently patient to allow a consensus to develop across the global community. isaacl (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, the current language recommends this as a best practice and that's good enough. The proposed language provides a technical loophole for editors to argue that their ban is invalidated by the discussion not being open long enough. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 23:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ivanvector: Yeah, but that happens anyway: see the discussion linked by NeilN; technically it wasn't the banned editor himself who was claiming the ban was invalidated, but still. (I was initially on the side of reopening that discussion, but all it seems to have done is allow the editor's friends to muddy the waters with !votes that ignore all the context: claiming that a limited topic ban from "American politics" would somehow prevent edit warring and personal attacks in edit summaries on the Cambodian genocide article, arguing that stepping down the level of sanctions from last time would magically have a stronger effect, making strawman attacks against those supporting the ban by calling them "civil POV pushers", etc.)

In cases where a clearly NOTHERE editor like this one made a wikilawyer-ish claim, they could just be dismissed and talk page access revoked (see my "IAR" remark above).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support for site bans, but prefer 7 days. Support 24 hour minimum for other (page/topic/interaction etc) bans. Site bans are the most serious sanction the community can impose and are difficult to appeal due to their nature. They should be strongly considered with as many eyes as possible before being enacted. Regarding other types of bans, the most common criticism of community bans is that they were made by only only a few people so can't really be considered a community ban. Any type of community ban should be considered in depth, and the editor given time to respond to concerns. This proposal would not, of course, prevent an admin from blocking an editor who is editing disruptively (during a ban discussion or anywhere else). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Suppport - These are important decisions with lasting and sometimes unforeseen consequences. I'm in favor of making sure that lynchmobs of drama board denizens are not allowed to run riot and that these matters are resolved thoughtfully. Carrite (talk) 13:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support 24 hours as a bare minimum per Oshwah. It's only fair that a discussion be open at least a full day to allow people in all timezones a chance to participate. ansh666 01:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support 24 hr minimum, but would be open to a longer period. AfDs run for a min of 7 days; surely, banning an editor from the site is a more consequential decision? I understand that this is done to minimise drama, but 48 hours seems more reasonable. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It drives me nuts when barely a few hours pass, there are six people supporting some proposed sanction and they've each posted in every other dramaboard thread they can find, and then someone comes along and slaps a little purple box on the thread and there we go, The Community Has Spoken! Of course there should be a 24-hour minimum, in an environment where people are working from different time zones and not everyone has the time to F5 ANI all day. I'm of two minds on making it longer than that - yeah, AfDs are seven days and a ban is a bigger deal than most AfDs, but the article isn't watching its colleagues weigh in on its poor performance the whole time. It's also possible to fix an article given a few days to do the research, but rarely possible to make a behavioral change in that timeframe. Of course, no matter what the minimum is, I expect that closers will have the common sense to realize that's a minimum, not a deadline, and there's no need to jump on it at 24 hours and 2 minutes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support It takes us a week to delete an article if there's even the slightest chance of disagreement, often longer. It should take us at least a day to decide to ban an editor from the site. Yunshui ^雲_水 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support 24 hours minimum per Oshwah and :Ansh666 it allows users from all time zones to participate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support Generally a minimum of a week for site bans at least, also the person who is being banned should be notified of the discussion, if they don't have talk page access then they should email the AC to add their defense, it is grossly unacceptable that users aren't often notified of proposed site ban discussions, if someone is being trialed for life imprisonment, they are entitle to defend themselves so why should it be any different on WP, also at the top of ANI is specifies that you must notify anyone who you are discussing. I don't see a problem with not having a maximum time (unless it is done to try to persist in banning them) Of course we can IAR and close earlier in limiter cases and maybe a temporary ban such as they can only edit their own user/talk page and the discussion at ANI until the proposed ban is enacted, or similar for topic bans. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support24 hours make sense with the usual IAR caveat if there is a blizzard of !votes in either direction. Blackmane (talk) 10:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I think the point is that these discussions should not be snow-closed before 24 hours, even through IAR. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:38, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
• (invited here by by) Support. I can't think of a good reason why we shouldn't allow at least 24 hours for these discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:59, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I'd probably support longer since not everyone edits once a day. Nihlus 02:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support as an absolute mimimum. For one thing, it would not be an equitable process if users are disenfranchised due to their times zones, but it should not be considered a maximum either, by quick-on-the-trigger closers. I would personally prefer even a longer minimum in order to avoid any aspect of a kangaroo court, while stressing that ANI and AN, as their names imply, are administrator noticeboards. That said, and because it was mentioned, this RfC has a clear consensus and could already be closed now.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Socking update

Regarding this edit: Is it necessary to have a shortcut link WP:THREESTRIKES? As the concept of three strikes is generally applicable to many areas, I suggest it would be better to not limit it to this one instance. If a shortcut is really deemed desirable (as an aside, I think it often encourages the use of jargon where unnecessary), how about something like WP:BANREPEATSOCK? It has the added bonus of not relying on a specific baseball reference. Regarding the note to log the ban under arbitration enforcement sanctions if necessary: since this ban is a community ban (based on the community consensus to approve it into policy), is it necessary to log the ban there? It may lead the banned editor to think the action can be appealed as an arbitration enforcement action when actually it must be appealed to the community. isaacl (talk) 16:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It's an easy to remember shortcut that wasn't taken and is clearly applicable (and I'd raised it in the brainstorming for this with no objections). We have plenty of redirects that could also go to other titles, and the fact that it hadn't been claimed by now makes me think it unlikely that we would find a better target. BANREPEATSOCK seems less ideal as being harder to remember. The instructions are not to add to the AE log, but to any relevant arbitration list. The only circumstances I can think of this being the case would be if someone was evading a previous AE block, in which case, it would be relevant. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:BANREPEATSOCK is harder to remember since to me that's exactly what the new policy is for. Three strikes, on the other hand, could refer to any type of failure, and if you're not familiar with the usage in cultures that are aware of baseball, then it has no meaning. The value of a memorable shortcut is far overrated anyway; if it's not a shortcut they're using all the time, editors should be double-checking their shortcut targets. So given the jargon problem we have, even though personally I'd prefer that editors use meaningful link text, it's more important for the meaning of the shortcut to be readily apparent to someone reading the shortcut name for the first time.

(As for discussion of the shortcut link during the RfC: to me it was a lot more important to get agreement on the policy change, and leave implementation details such as a shortcut name, if any, to, well, right now.)

Yes, I understand about relevant arbitration lists, which is why I said "if necessary". While I appreciate the ban is a follow up to the initial AE block, it's also not an AE action, and logging it as one is inaccurate. (A note of course could be included saying that the ban is not an AE action, but my question remains if it is helpful to log it there.) isaacl (talk) 16:27, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The shortcut looks fine to me as it is. --Jayron32 16:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I see the concerns about jargon the opposite of you, honestly. This will only be used in pretty limited circles (unblocks and SPI), and having it easy to remember is a positive. I don't share the concerns re: people not getting what the text means because of a shortcut because the text is pretty explicit. Yes, it is an initial baseball reference, but it is also pretty intuitive, and has become part of idiomatic English beyond just baseball. Re: the AELOG, yes, but it helps to have a record if someone is appealing the AE action to note that it is a community sanction on top of the original AE action. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

To put it another way, if editors don't already know what WP:THREESTRIKES points to, are they going to understand when someone says "ban editor X because WP:THREESTRIKES"? (Yes, I'd prefer that the bare shortcut not be used in text, but shortcuts often get used that way.) Even if you get the baseball reference, is it three blocks? Three violations of neutral editing? Three conflict of interest issues? Nonetheless, I appreciate there is a difference in opinion regarding the importance of a shortcut serving the reader. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

If they click on it, yes. For wha it’s worth, I also consider it to be significantly less jargony than BANREPEATSOCK, which could also be interpreted any number of ways. This at least makes the number clear, and I’m confident context would make everything else clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not married to that specific proposal. I suggest though that a culture-specific reference that doesn't provide an indication of the problematic behaviour in question might not be the best shortcut link that will likely serve as jargon to represent this portion of policy. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest we close this section. It gives the impression the RfC is still underway. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic bans and wikipedia email function

Superseded by RfC below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As far as I know, topic bans do not extend to use of the wikipedia email function to contact another user and the current text of the banning policy specifically says that topic bans cover "edits to pages" which I don't think the email function would come under (unless the terms of the specific ban say otherwise). But the question has come up recently at AE and it would be useful in such cases for the policy to explicitly clarify this one way or the other. Therefore I propose adding either this to the end of the section 'Topic bans': Emailing another user using the Wikipedia 'Email this user' function about any of the above. Or this: Use of the Wikipedia 'Email this user' function is not covered by a topic ban unless the terms of the ban specifically include it. Thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC) I was just about to start an RfC about this. The question also arises with respect to interaction bans. In my view, bans should not be considered to encompass e-mails unless expressly specified in the ban, because e-mails from specified users can be individually disabled per Wikipedia:Emailing users#Prohibiting email from specified users, and also because e-mails are by design private and leave no diff behind, which complicates enforcement. Sandstein 10:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC) @Sandstein: Feel free to hack this around into an RfC format and take my consent to editing my text above as read. I thought to gather opinion before starting a formal RfC but feel free if you think that's better. GoldenRing (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Limited bans and Wikipedia e-mail

The policy does not specify whether limited bans, notably topic bans and interaction bans, prohibit contacting another user through the Wikipedia:Emailing users function. This has become an issue in a recent case at WP:AE. Should the policy be amended to clarify this, and if yes, how? Sandstein 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Opinions

• Amend to clarify that limited bans do not prohibit e-mails sent through Wikipedia unless specified in the ban. In my view, bans should not be considered to encompass e-mails unless expressly specified in the ban, because e-mails from specified users can be individually disabled per Wikipedia:Emailing users#Prohibiting email from specified users, and also because e-mails are by design private and leave no diff behind, which complicates enforcement because of privacy concerns. Sandstein 11:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I can also agree to an amendment clarifying that limited bans do in fact prohibit such conduct, but either way I think that the issue should be addressed. Sandstein 21:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Amend per Sandstein. GoldenRing (talk) 11:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - because experience has shown that 'not prohibited' is often deliberately, and disingeuously interpreted as 'expressly permitted' . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Amend per Sandstein; email is effectively off-wiki communication even if it's sent through the WP website/interface. ansh666 17:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: If anything, I would amend it in the other way. Per WP:BEANS, as soon as we tell people "it's OK to harass your opponent though email", they'll probably start doing that. Second choice would be to keep silent on the matter, but first choice would be to amend policy to expressly forbid it. No, we don't place the onus on the harassed to set themselves up to dodge harassment, and even though people can choose to block emails, they should not have to. It's not their responsibility. It is the community's responsibility to protect people from harassment. --Jayron32 18:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Nail, this is Head; Head, Nail. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:00, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32. Would prefer explicit language that recognizing using WP Email is a violation of a limited ban. --Masem (t) 18:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with Jayron32 default should be to prohibit all attempts to influence coverage of the topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• oppose per Jayron. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Amend per Sandstein - topic bans are deliberately limited, imposing the minimal restrictions viewed necessary to prevent disruption. Email is hardly an inherent part of a topic ban, and thus should not be included. Obviously, any use of the email to attempt to subvert the topic ban via proxy should automatically expand the ban to include email Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• oppose it we TBAN or IBAN someone, that ban applies everywhere in WP. Use of the WP email system is started within WP. So yes it applies. Someone should be allowed to use the WP email system in the field of the their ban, only if it explicitly stated (which would be surprising) Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: Someone under a TBAN who is using the Wikipedia email system to comment on / influence / criticise edits being made in the area of the ban is certainly violating the spirit of the ban, and if such behaviour is not prohibited, it certainly should be. It is true that evidence and acting on breaches may be difficult at times, but that certainly does not mean that such actions should be considered acceptable in any way. The policy should be amended to make it clear that any attempts to influence or comment on edits in the area of a ban through any wiki-related means is covered by a topic ban. EdChem (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose: the point of an interaction ban is to forbid interaction between two people, certainly email is interaction. The topic ban is slightly more complex (unless I'm wrong, some people are forbidden from editing articles but allowed to suggest edits in talk?), but if you're not allowed to comment on a topic on a talk page, you shouldn't be allowed to comment on the topic in Wikipedia email. --GRuban (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - E-mail should not be allowed to be a deliberate end run around a topic or interaction ban. Per Jayron32, I would be in favor of an amendment in the other direction, specifically including e-mails within all limited bans. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron32. Email shouldn't become another avenue for harassment. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose and ammend per Sandstein, especially for IBANs. TBANs can be flexible (i.e. no article edits, but talk and email, or no talk, but email), perhaps even limiting email to a few users in the topic area who won't be swayed by the user, instead evaluating the message on its own merits. However, the default case should be a lack of email, in my opinion. IBANs are to avoid problems between users, and as such should extend to email. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
• I support an amendment to existing policy, but not the one being proposed. My opinion is that an interaction ban should ​be construed as broadly as possible: no directly interacting with them, no participating in discussions where they're actively commentating (excluding AfDs, RfAs, and so on, but including specific conversations on those pages if the editor in question is actively engaging in them), no deliberate editing of the same articles, no "thanking" them, no talking about them on-wiki or in any other public forum offsite, no nothing – and certainly no emailing them. For topic bans, restrictions on private conversations are overreaching and should not be enacted. There's nothing wrong with an editor who's topic-banned from Israel-Palestine articles talking about Israel-Palestine issues via email, unless of course those emails are harassing in nature or they're getting someone to edit by proxy. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron's reasoning, prefer to stay silent — it's an option of course, but I don't think there's ever been a belief that these would include email by default. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

A topic ban is of very limited efficacy unless it includes a stipulation not to contact other users to influence their editing in the topic area.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't the end effect of such disruption end with a ban for the user changing their editing based on the email? --Izno (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

No, only if their editing is considered disruptive - and a ban process is enacted. It should of course be considered a reason to ban the topic banned editor since it is an attempt to circumvent the topic ban by proxy editing and canvassing.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, so, if the one who received the email doesn't cause disruption, how would we know they have been influenced in any meaningful way? --Izno (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It should be the intent to exert influence and not whether the attempt succeeds that should be construed as a breech of the topic ban.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:06, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

How do you verify the intent occurred? --Izno (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

For example if editors state that they have received such emails with the intent to influence their editing. Then the administrators or arbitrators can request to see the email if necessary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Whilst I agree enforcement is an issue, I don't think the onus should be on the potential recipient to block email from the sender. The sender has a responsibility not to attempt to engage with someone when this would be in violation of an editing restriction. isaacl (talk) 15:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to point out, emails are not sent through Wikipedia, they are a Wikimedia function. Any such ban on Wikipedia is reaching outside the scope of Wikipedia by it's very nature. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh? No, not really. --Izno (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

It's a function accessed through the Wikipedia interface. That's why admins can block it they have to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The "Email this function" identified in the TO: line which WMF project was used to active the email link (just checked with commons). So while it is a WMF function, the specific email is connected to the project. --Masem (t) 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

If someone is using Wikipedia’s email function to evade a topic ban or even worse an interaction ban, that is obviously not ok and should merit a block with email disabled to prevent further violations of the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Beeblebrox. Using the email function to criticise edits in the area of a topic ban certainly should be covered by the ban. In the AE case, we are considering an editor site banned by ArbCom and where the topic ban was part of the unbanning conditions. Wikilawyering about whether emailing on the topic area was technically prohibited or not totally misses the point of the ban – to disengage from the area completely – and looks like the actions of someone not interested in respecting their ban from the topic. In short, policy changes / edits to clarify that Wikipedia emails may not be used by topic banned editors to discuss / influence content in the topic are warranted, but they should not be used as a basis for accepting an "I didn't know" / "I didn't realise" / "How could I know?" excuse for actions in the specific case raised at AE that were self-evidently inconsistent with the spirit of the unbanning conditions. EdChem (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I agree that using the email function in that way is not okay; my concern is with the second part, "to prevent further violations of the ban." Blocking someone on-wiki is an extremely ineffective way of preventing further violations if the current violations were via email. In the case of an IBAN, for instance, if the party receiving the email has responded - even to say "Don't ever email me again" - then they now both have each others' email addresses and blocking does nothing to prevent further email contact. If they were abiding by the ban on-wiki, then a block becomes purely punitive. In the case of a topic ban it might be slightly more effective, as the editor is likely to want to contact many editors and some of them for the first time; nonetheless, if they have been actively using email for some time they will likely have a sizeable address book and we can't do anything to prevent them using it.

These concerns are not far-fetched; the facts that prompted this discussion demonstrate them. BMK was emailed by CO using the Wikipedia email function; BMK replied by email to say, "Don't email me again" or words to that effect, and CO responded nonetheless. A block does nothing to stop this contact from there on. GoldenRing (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of agreement that using email to evade the effects of either a topic or interaction ban should not be permitted - but banning it outside of that seems a purely punitive measure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosebagbear (talk • contribs) 15:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, we can only do what we can do. I don’t see it as “purely punitive” to tell someone that unless they stop inappropriately emailing other users they will remain blocked. That is the preventative goal of such a block, and we’ve certainly banned people before for harassing others by email, whether they are using WP’s internal system or not. (BMK made a “tactical error” there, If I get WP email form people I don’t want knowing my address, I don’t reply by email.)

What I do think we should do is make it clearer to all that if they receive an email that violates a topic or interaction ban they should forward it to the functionaries or arbcom, as anyone subscribed to those lists is bound by and well-informed of the privacy policy. While neither group is really looking for more work, I odn’t think this is a super-common occurrence. It shouldn’t take much time or judgement to determine if the email is indeed a breach of the ban, all they need do is inform the appropriate venue whether it is or not and let the community take it from there. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to note, I recognized at the time -- or to be more precise, very shortly after I had sent my reply to Captain Occam -- that I had made a "tactical error" in responding to Captain Occam's e-mail via e-mail rather than simply posting on his talk page (which I did as a follow-up, to make sure that my reply was public). My excuse is that I get very little Wikipedia e-mail, and I can't recall the last time I got one from someone who might be considered to be an antagonist, so I was not mentally prepared for the best response mode. In any case, once the deed was done, it was done and there was nothing I could do about it. (I didn't know about the blocking facility at that time.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I am completely in favour of making it clearer to people that they should forward ban-breaching related emails and that should lead to wider (including email) bans. Nosebagbear (talk)

But it seems to me that many of the oppose votes above seem to be thinking that a complete allowance is being made - there is this significant middle ground area that is forcing decision making one way or another.

What about something along the lines of "Amend to clarify that limited bans do not prohibit e-mails sent through Wikipedia unless either: specified in the ban or users attempt to subvert the ban by communicating with a prohibited user in an interaction ban or breach a topic ban by editing proxy." Nosebagbear (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Proxying for blocked users?

It has come up in a discussion at WP:AN that the section on proxying for blocked or banned editors is very unevenly enforced. It therefore seems prudent to discuss the issue here in order to have greater clarity on the subject. 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The key points seem to be as follows:

• Currently policy says the edits suggested should not be made by proxy unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. This would seem to imply that in almost all cases the edit should not be made unless the responding user already has some involvement in the topic area pertinent to the request. Is that what we want to be saying?
• Many admins and others believe that blocked users should only use their talk page to discuss and appeal their block, and that any other use, including edit requests or just unrelated conversations, is inappropriate. Where do we draw the line on this?

I’ll also notify WT:UP since that would seem to be the other policy in play here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I was looking for the place the other day, where we say that people who are blocked should only use their TP to request an unblock, and I could not find it. Both BLOCK and BAN refer to "abuse" of a blocked/banned editor's access to their talk page, but that is not really defined. In my view we should add something defining what "abuse" is, like"

Editors who are blocked or site banned may only use their talk page to appeal their block or ban. Use of their talk page for any other purpose is an abuse of talk page access.

That would make it more clear that people should not be posting requests for article changes... Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure we need to go quite that far. At the very least an exception should be made for requesting that clear-cut vandalism be reverted, but agee that we should formally just get rid of the idea that blocked users can still edit by proxy. I’m going to add this to WP:CENT as well since it seems like a lot of admins aren’t really up to speed even on the current policy. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

This would be similar to the WP:BANEX "subject to the usual exceptions", right? I think obvious vandalism or BLP violations, discussing the block/requesting an unblock, and perhaps U1 requests. ansh666 01:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It might just be worth adding a note pointing to BANEX in PROXYING. That seems simplest. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat here what I said at AN. I've seen blocked IPs (that I haven't blocked) carry on productive conversations with other editors about content. No one is complaining so I leave them alone. My rule of thumb is that if you're not continuing to push for the edits that got you blocked, and you're not engaging in any other disruption, and no other editor is complaining then I'm basically going to ignore what you're doing. No offense to Jytdog, but the proposed wording is a really bad idea. Not infrequently, you've got editors on the "other" side coming to the blocked editor's talk page wanting to talk through content issues now that the immediate disruption has stopped. The proposed wording not only prevents this discussion from talking place (sometimes showing new editors how to collaborate in a controlled environment) but it punishes blocked editors for replying on their own talk page. I believe this is an area where WP:IAR, judiciously applied, is the best course of action. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor who has been blocked in the past, I have used my talkpage to do "administrative tasks" while blocked from mainspace editing. I don't recall the exact details, but I think it was doing dab work on a list I'd created earlier, and moving the clean list into the mainspace once the block ended. The purpose of a block is meant to be a punishment, and mine was not being able to edit for a day (or two). Contrary to what some editors may think, I don't go looking for blocks, and I'm certainly not here to vandalise WP, but I wanted to use my block time as productivly as possible. Maybe I'm rambling a bit, but prehaps this remains as it is, and is looked at on a case-by-case basis for obvious issues with proxy editing. Worst case is that user has the talkpage access revoked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: The purpose of a block is meant to be a punishment - not true; Wikipedia:Blocking policy states something like six times that blocks are not punitive. For instance, in the lead section it says "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"; and later on there is the WP:NOPUNISH shortcut. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• Compared to some admins, I don't actually do a lot of blocks; what blocking I do is generally blatant vandals, socks, spammers, and other people who quite obviously have no intention of becoming a regular contributor. That said, I do regularly check out unblock requests and sometines accept or decline them. I therefore get to see a lot of what goes on in blocked users' talk pages and the thought I often have is "Hmmm, this shouldn't be allowed." I'm often tempted to withdraw TPA but unless it's blatant 'business as usual' or particularly egregious, I leave it be. That said, Wikipedia has reached the stage where we should be looking at better enforcing our rules rather than relaxing them. A block should not be a punishment but it should certainly work as a deterrent even if some people just don't care and end up with a log as long as Corbett's. And that may wellmean revoking TPA, otherwise the blocking policy for anything less than indef is toothless.

A block is a block, and when we block we are conscious of the fact that it is the better solution and that we will have to forego on that user's otherwise good faith work. Whatever the community sometimes tries to claim, bad blocks and bad admins are nowhere near as frequent as they contend. I would go along with Jytdog's suggestion - if nothing else, it offers some clarity, and it's the way I have always thought it should be interpreted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Note I'm the direct cause of the discussion on WP:AN, as I revoked TPA for a blocked user who was attempting to edit-by-proxy. With that out of the way. I'm in a similar boat to Kudpung. I mostly patrol the unblock requests so see lots of what goes on there. I also believe we should disallow edit requests while users are blocked. It's not uncommon for blocked users to generally edit appropriately, but introduce deliberate falsehoods about 20% of the time. It's also not uncommon for those users to request edits by proxy. What do you do if the other person then performs that edit? Block them? They've been duped by a blocked editor, they weren't maliciously trying to harm Wikipedia and will (and often do) rightfully get snippy when you warn them about their edits. And allowing this proxy editing makes it harder to enforce WP:SOCK. Fundamentally, if we wanted these blocked users to continue editing, we'd either not have blocked them in the first place, or would have placed a topic ban instead of an outright block. But no, we blocked them.

Reminder: we have the {{2nd chance}} template which is used occasionally. Rarely successfully, though I saw a successful case this past week. :) Anyway, I think that's an obvious exception to the proposed change, though one which does not require rewording Jytdog's suggested change. It's still using the user's talk page to appeal their block or ban. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• It seems that the proposed wording would mean that use of a user's talk page to discuss and explain problematic behavior in a way that isn't directly asking for an unblock would not be allowed. Say...hypothetically if someone were blocked for copyright violations that involved misunderstanding whether educational content licensed for non-commercial use can be used on Wikipedia. You know...because hypothetically that might be an issue that could take a few thousand words to explain in minute detail why a block might have had substance and wasn't simply a personal vendetta...in a way that would hypothetically even convince them to ask for an unblock in the first place. Not that that's ever happened recently. GMG^talk 12:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussing this as a hypothesis is probably more misleading that it is helpful. Discussing the block itself should of course be allowed - what Jytdog is proposing is that a block should not mean 'business as usual'. That said, it shouldn't take 1,000 words to explain.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, it may have taken 5,217 words to explain. And of course I'm being a touch deliberately facetious with my "hypothetical". I don't think that disallowing good faith attempts at resolution is the intention of the wording, but as worded, I do think it could be interpreted as having that effect by someone who is overzealous, and takes it to mean that if there isn't a Template:Unblock involved then it's misuse of the talk page. If what we intend to say is "editing by proxy is discouraged" then we should simply say that. GMG^talk 10:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BURO. I'm not sure that any change in policy needs to be put in place -- I like NeilN's take on it, and his dealing with it on a case-by-case basis. I think this should stay within administrative discretion, much as blocking itself is, or the removal of TPA is generally. At the very most, something about "abuse of the talk page while blocked can lead to access to it being removed" can be added if it not there already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that enacting such a prohibition will produce more inconsistency on the part of those who obey policy: if I notice that you're making productive requests while blocked and you get sanctioned for it, I'm going to remove those sanctions, because those sanctions are preventing us from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face, and don't make it harder for those of us who care most about improving the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 12:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• The issue of proxying is a red herring in these cases. The only thing that matters is the person who pushes the "publish changes" button accepts all responsibility for the edit. If the edit is wrong, non-neutral, unverified, tendentious, part of a pattern of edit warring, etc, then the person who submitted it in the article text assumes all responsibility and all consequences for making that edit. It doesn't matter if they heard about the edit from another editor, if you make the edit, you own it. And all the problems that come with it. --Jayron32 16:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree about ultimate responsibility for the edit, but do not agree that proxying is a red herring. When we block someone, we are telling them that they are not welcome to edit unless and until the block is either expired or successfully appealed. If instead they simply keep editing-by-proxy, the block looks like a joke. I don’t think we should go so far as to reblocking for any comment not related to unblocking, but I do not believe we should encourage proxy editing. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Pardon, but aren't sanctions supposed to be preventative, rather than punitive? Requiring that another user take responsibility for a blocked user's edits seems like a good way of preventing disruption to the project. Tamwin (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No. If an editor thinks that they can still effectively edit while blocked, why would they avoid doing what got then blocked in the first place when the block expires? ansh666 19:33, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm okay with formalising the practice that user talk pages and other user space pages for blocked users are only for unblock appeals, and in rare cases other activities with the permission of the community or the blocking administrator. If you're blocked you are not welcome to edit, and that shouldn't change just because you have friends willing to proxy for you. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:08, 3 April 2018 (UTC).

• Logically the decision (whether a ban should be "tight" or not within the user's talk page) should be judged on what is most beneficial to Wikipedia. This then gives the following balancing test:
  • i) Potential positive edits (by proxy)
  • ii) Potential positive learning experience for banned users vs
  • iii) Continued disruptive edits (by proxy)
  • iv) Negative effects to victims of a banned user (n.b. This may or may not be caused by the user actually doing anything new)

As to what importance to ascribe to each, as well as considering probabilities, I can't be sure. There isn't even a convenient split, since the balancing test might fall one way for those with revert war bans, topic ban violators and more conventional ban subjects. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BEANS, WP:BURO, and WP:DON'TDISAPPEARUPYOUROWNNAVEL. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with Kudpung. Our blocking policy is not meant to create dyads of a blocked editor who suggests content edits and a proxy editor who screens that interaction. We block editors with the belief that they cannot be trusted not to be harmful. If we allow proxy editing, those harmful personalities will adopt fools in order to remain present here thereby inviting many harmful editors to return. Further, I think blocks should be punitive as many of our long-term abusers can only be reached by denying them opportunities to edit. Ultimately I don't trust anyone willing to be a proxy editor and I question the contributions of any blocked editor who is so foul that they must have a partner to restrain their influence on wiki. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

It is difficult to formulate any sort of policy on this given the number of different situations in which an editor might be blocked or banned. For example, we cannot reasonably treat someone serving a first-time 24-hour 3RR block the same as someone who's been indeffed for flagrant misconduct. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, we also typically unblock first time 3RR blocks to time served if they say "I won't do it again" or in some circumstances give them the option for 0RR for a few days (I prefer the first, but in really tense edit wars, will sometimes opt for the second). I think a good distinction to be drawn is between users who will likely be unblocked in a few hours and users who are probably not going to be unblocked before the end of the block (assuming this is say, 72 hours plus).​TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm against imposition of a new one-size-fits-all rule. Some blocked editors are productive Wikipedians on a temporary hiatus and they may have important input to make. Others are disruptionists. Our current case-by-case basis seems to work well enough sorting this out, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
• I'd also rather leave this to a case-by-case decision. There have been times where a blocked editor has been the subject of an article or connected to the subject, and they've then pointed out mistakes or even BLP violations that I've acted on. There have also been times when a blocked editor has continued to post suggested changes to a wide range of articles on their talk page, and editors have chosen to follow those - making the block largely ineffective. While I'd like to stop the latter, I'd rather not prevent the former, and overall I'd prefer to be told about BLP and other serious issues than not to be informed, even if that means sometimes having a blocked editor make less essential edits by proxy. - Bilby (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Reset of ban following evasion

The reset of ban policy seems a little odd, at least if it is actually obeyed. "For example, if someone is banned for ten months, but on the sixth month attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer may be reset from "four months remaining" to "ten months remaining", so [...] his or her eventual total duration would be 16 months".

Surely this means that, so long as someone was only going to breach their ban once, it makes more sense to do so early on? The punishment for the same action, in similar circumstances, would get a harsher punishment after 5 months than 3 etc etc.

Is this actually followed, and if so, why was it adopted over just "add 3 months" (or whatever is appropriate) for a single ban breach? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Missing condition under BANBLOCKDIFF?

Are discretionary sanctions considered to be "imposed by the Arbitration Committee"? I've been explaining the difference between blocks and bans in my own words for a while and it usually takes the form of "individual admins are not allowed impose bans unilaterally except in certain very specific circumstances", but that whole bit seems to be missing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee authorizes administrators to impose sanctions at their discretion in specific contentious areas. Although the sanction is imposed by an administrator, it is under the authority delegated from the Arbitration Committee. The section "Decision to ban", subsection "Authority to ban", item 3 mentions this specifically in the context of imposing a ban. The specific types of sanctions that can be imposed are described in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions § Sanctions. isaacl (talk) 02:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

3X and CheckUser

Publicly documented CheckUser evidence should typically be involved before a user is considered banned in this way.

What is "publicly documented CheckUser evidence"? Is this evidence that is available to all CUs, or a public statement by a CU that the user's been socking (i.e. it's evidence that's been made public), or something else? Nyttend (talk) 03:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It means that a checkuser has confirmed, publicly (i.e. stated on Wikipedia somewhere) that the person is socking. --Jayron32 03:03, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

We tried to clear this up with the footnote Publicly documented CheckUser evidence includes any statement by a CheckUser connecting specific accounts on the English Wikipedia based on technical evidence.

Basically if you can diff a CU connecting the accounts, it counts as publicly documented for this policy. This can either be via tagging, SPI, or just normal user talk/AN/ANI post. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow I missed the footnote when I was asking this. Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. Always good to ask. I mainly pointed out the footnote in case it wasn't clear. I think adding that to the prose would be clunky, which is why I put it as a footnote (it also includes some other info as well.) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Blanking already-archived talk comments by ban-evaders?

What's the policy here? I've always understood it as being generally acceptable, even encouraged, to remove comments that were made in violation of a ban, or by an obvious sock in the case of a block or site-ban, but what about when the comments were already responded to and/or archived before being noticed? Apparently the Teahouse is always an exception. Maybe I'm just wrong about blanking ban evasion comments in general? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The answer is "there's no need to delete those comments so don't" and "if someone already did, leave them and don't undo their deletion". It is both unnecessary to delete them, and unnecessary to undo the deletion. Forget it and find something else to do . --Jayron32 12:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• (ec) I would say leave them alone. Messing around with archived discussions is more trouble and annoyance than it's worth. For AfDs, at minimum, consensus seems to be substantially against removing, blanking, or striking through sock comments once the discussion is closed. Reyk _YO! 12:25, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reyk: I had already accepted Jayron32's elaboration before seeing yours, but by sheer coincidence at around the same time I was reading WP:SKCRIT, and #4 implies AFDs are the one place where the official guideline actually does at least recognize the removal of banned editors' comments, as an AFD page can be speedily deleted as a banned contribution if the nominator is banned. Not saying you're wrong about consensus, but it is pretty amusing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

See WP:TPO, especially the last bullet. As a general rule, archives should not be touched. If you absolutely must edit an archived comment, best practice is to strike it with a note rather than remove it. Removing comments from a discussion in a way that changes the apparent course of the discussion or appears to change the meaning of other editors' good-faith comments is regularly seen as disruption. If a banned user's contributions to a discussion have significantly affected the outcome, that may be cause to ask a close review (deletion review in the case of XfD) to reopen and relist the discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88:- Yeah, I agree. The case where the nominator is a banned sock and nobody else has participated is a different scenario to where the banned sock is one participant among several. Agree that the two don't really conflict. Reyk _YO! 12:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue, always, is one of usefulness. If you see a banned user commenting, as in doing it now, then remove it. If you find that a banned user has commented, as in some time in the distant past, leave it alone. Yes, banned users aren't allowed to contribute. Yes, you're allowed to remove such comments, but the usefulness of removing them degrades rapidly with time. If you trip over some ancient comment from a user, just leave it. --Jayron32 13:18, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Explicitly adding voluntary bans

The community has accepted that editors may accept voluntary band and these bans are recorded at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. I have added text

Users may voluntarily accept restrictions on their editing and/or behavior. These bans are recorded at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary and are treated in the same way as if the restriction were imposed by the community.

to explicitly recognize this practice. Jbh ^Talk 17:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: voluntary restrictions are enforceable simply by saying they are and sanctioning their violation. The community has already accepted this tacitly by recording bans at WP:Editing restrictions/Voluntary. You seem to be saying those restrictions no longer valid. Is that the case?

Copying to WP:AN#Question on enforceability of voluntary editing restrictions to keep conversation there. Jbh ^Talk 17:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Here probably makes more sense as it is the talk page for the banning policy: we just cross posted: we never actually use the page you link to and the only one that at first glance actually is voluntary is Jytdog’s, and I think the other two are inappropriately logged, as they are actually community sanctions (the Jytdog one might be as well, I haven’t looked at it too in-depth.) Without explicit community consensus or an ArbCom remedy authorizing discretionary sanctions, I would refuse to block solely for a violation of a voluntary sanction, and would be strongly inclined to grant any unblock appeal that said “Voluntary means voluntary. You’re making up a definition that isn’t known in English.” The whole point of voluntary restrictions is that they are informal and can’t be enforced without further discussion: it shows we trust people. I can think of several other issues with treating these the same as community sanctions without actual consensus but don’t want to go on too long. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Rusf10's ban was explicitly voluntary and Md iet's says " This is a voluntary ban but can be enforced by blocks" so it is hard to argue it was mis-logged. Voluntary is, indeed voluntary. When one voluntarily says one will do/not do something and voluntarily accepts one will be sanctioned for not performing as stated then both the volunteer and those they made the agreement with expect the sanction will be enforced. There is no contradiction in the use of the term.

I firmly disagree that those logged restrictions can, in any way, be seen as 'informal' – being logged argues strongly against it. Nor, is there any indication on WP:Editing restrictions that any of the restrictions should be interpreted as anything but binding and enforceable. Jbh ^Talk 17:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking through that page and it’s archive, voluntary sanctions have been logged exactly four times in the entire history of Wikipedia.

Rusf10’s received community consensus and if you look through the discussions, I wouldn’t exactly call it voluntary anymore. Misread the sanction on and iet re: the AN part, but I see no need to log it and don’t see it as any different than the standard talk page “I’m going to block you if you do this again.” warnings that are normal. There are only two times admins are allowed to unilaterally impose restrictions: as unblock conditions and when authorized by the arbitration committee. This proposal is dangerous as it would essentially allow a theoretical admin to bully his or her way into having community authorized blocks, enforceable by others. If one of the people on that list were blocked solely for violating a voluntary restriction, and they were not being disruptive, I do not think there currently exists any basis in policy or practice for a block, and I would unblock and bring to the community at AN for review. This is distinct from if they were being disruptive in the area, and the admin blocked for disruptive editing using this as a negative factor. That is justified, but it would still just be an individual admin action, not enforcement of a community approved sanction. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:13, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I do see your point but WP:Editing restrictions differentiates between unblock conditions and editing restrictions. The page goes so far as to separate them by sectioning, grouping Voluntary with Community placed and ArbCom placed. I think having a mechanism to hold an editor to a promise is very valuable. I understood this to be such a mechanism and I am concerned that some people who I respect very much do not think that to be the case. The existence of logged voluntary restrictions with time limits, appeal requirements and explicit provision for blocking for violation lead me to believe that there is not an existing consensus on the matter, I've drafted an RfC on this, you have much more experience with wording such things so any input would be very much appreciated. The draft is at User:Jbhunley/sandbox/Red pad 15. Jbh ^Talk 18:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

My concern is that we’ve only used that section four times and to my knowledge have never tried to block someone for breaking a restriction logged there. Speaking from experience, these type of discussions happen all the time and are usually just an informal agreement between an admin and someone else as to what is and isn’t disruptive and what future behavior might be considered blockable.

In my experience one user who I don’t mind pinging on this is Legacypac, a while ago I suggested to him that he basically act as if another user didn’t exist, and go on something like a voluntary IBAN. It wasn’t logged, it wasn’t a sanction, it was just me asking him to consider limiting interaction because they didn’t get along. Fast forward, Legacy and the other user started getting along better and in some circumstances collaborated. I make suggestions like this all the time, and most other admins do too, and they are never logged. Logging takes away part of the benefit of voluntary restrictions are that they give people some leeway to grow and reintegrate into an area without having to go through the bureaucracy. If people are actually being disruptive, most admins have no problem blocking as individuals and pointing to the warning/agreement.

I’ll look at your RfC later tonight and provide any feedback on it if you want it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I had thought these logged restrictions were part of an escalating continuum admin "suggestion" -> unblock restriction -> logged voluntary CBAN. If they are not widely seen as such I see a great benefit to our behavioral 'issue' resolution system. I also think it is important to have a way for an editor to make a promise which can be enforced simply from a trust perspective i.e. You are doing something wrong -> OK I'll stop -> Your promise is not worth anything -> ANI drama vs You are doing something wrong -> OK I'll stop -> Great log it -> Done.

I do see how this could balloon but we are already doing this without any real policy backing so I think it necessary to either bring policy in line with practice or practice in line with policy. Anyway, yes, I would appreciate any suggestions you have on my draft. I tried to keep it bare bones and neutral but I recognize I am not the best judge of neutral either. Thank you. Jbh ^Talk 19:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Without commenting on the rest of the discussion which I have not thought through I will say that User:Rusf10's restriction, while voluntarily accepted by him, was enacted along with a involuntary restriction on another user. I have yet to see Rusf10 even get close to violating the mild restriction they accepted but if he did I would consider it worth a warning at very least. The pair of restrictions hatted some significant disruption. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I accepted the voluntary restriction, in order to get a deal done. It was my hope that if I accepted it, the other user would accept his as well. Of course, that didn't happen and the community imposed his restriction instead. Even though the restriction is voluntary, I would expect consequences if I violated it, otherwise the restriction would be meaningless. So yes, the penalty for violating a voluntary restriction (especially those that were negotiated) should be the same as violating an other restriction.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, yours is basically a community sanction, even if you agreed to it, and it was also only the third time this had ever been done: my point is that logged voluntary sanctions aren’t really a thing we do and are more the exception than the rule: most voluntary restrictions are never logged or kept track of outside an admin’s head. The question for them in my opinion is whether someone is being disruptive, and if they are, a block is warranted. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia works due to minimizing bureaucracy and focusing on issues that help the encyclopedia so TonyBallioni's removal of the new text is good. Someone might never have been banned, but if they go rogue they will be blocked. Someone else might have a topic ban but merely be warned if they technically violate it in some minor way. A voluntary ban is voluntary and should not be logged or made into a big deal. It's OK to have a bit of face-saving with no formal sanction. Johnuniq (talk) 05:05, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think you may have missed that voluntary bans are already being logged — They are being logged with explicit notations that violations will result in blocks and requiring appeal to AN for removal. That is why I pointed to WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary where this is already how things are being done. The issue is bringing policy in line with practice or stopping the practice as a violation of policy. Jbh ^Talk 06:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh ^Talk 06:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Proxying

Can we get some additional opinions on the meaning behind WP:PROXYING? We recently had a blocked (not banned) editor, Ihardlythinkso, suggesting edits to chess topics on his Talk page. His posts were subject to blanking, which I restored, and now SQL has revoked his Talk page access. I think this part of the policy can be confusing for people who don't read past the parens (beginning with unless...). I'm remembering a specific case where The Rambling Man (sorry to keep pinging you TRM) was blocked by Future Perfect at Sunrise for proxying and Floquenbeam unblocked him, saying the policy is unclear. The relevant active ANI thread is here. --Laser brain (talk) 03:30, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

This was last discussed in March. The consensus there was to handle it on case-by-case basis: revoking in these circumstances is within the norm of admin discretion, and for admins who regularly patrol CAT:RFU or UTRS (which SQL is) it is a pretty normal view. (Note: I haven’t reviewed the specifics of this case, but that is the background to the policy question.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I find this to be a very fitting use case for what's described in that discussion. I think this editor was making good-faith remarks about chess topics and people with an axe to grind showed up and started complaining. So he's been sanctioned for something that's a grey area indeed. --Laser brain (talk) 03:55, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

It’s grey, but there is certainly an unease about it among many admins. I’m in the stricter camp on this, but I understand that not everyone is, and I’ll admit to turning a blind eye myself sometimes. From a policy perspective (this time WP:NEVERUNBLOCK the second header), if the revoking admin stands by the revocation the best thing to do is leave it open for community review at a noticeboard. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

"Broadly construed"

IntoThinAir added some words in April that have changed the meaning of the topic-ban section.

To the sentence stating that "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic", he added "as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". But the phrase "broadly construed" refers to the scope of the topic: "topic X, broadly construed" means "everything that could reasonably be viewed as about X". "Broadly construed" doesn't refer to the type of page (article, talk page, sandbox, etc) to which the ban applies; the page already explained that the ban applies to all pages and parts of pages about X.

I plan to revert that change unless there are objections. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that "as encapsulated in the phrase" refers to "related to the topic", not to "pages...and parts". I'd suggest leaving it as is until this is clarified. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that the clause in question refers to "related to the topic". I will try to think of some alternate wording that will help. isaacl (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Slim, I take it that your above post has to do with this recent ANI incident that resulted in debate about the meaning of "broadly construed"? I'm not sure how IntoThinAir's edit changed the meaning. And I don't think it would have stopped SilkTork from using the wording "broadly construed." I think IntoThinAir added it because "broadly construed" is so often used in topic bans and it makes sense to have the terminology somewhere in the section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I recently had cause to copy the sentence, and I realized it was wrong, so I came here to see when the phrase was added. The sentence says, with the new words in bold (bold added):

Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed."

That's not what "broadly construed" refers to when used in a topic ban. It refers to the scope of the topic, e.g. "climate, broadly construed"; "disputes about gender, broadly construed". In other words, don't rely on a narrow definition of the topic. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:13, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. The aforementioned SilkTork wording was used in March anyway. I'll leave you and others to work this out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC){{}}

@SlimVirgin and Flyer22 Reborn: I'm not sure if I understand the topic-banning policy as it applies to talk pages. If an editor were topic-banned from pages related to American politics, would they also be forbidden from mentioning American politics on their own talk page and user page? Jarble (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Jarble, yes. A topic ban "covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic", unless the editor is asking for information about the ban or appealing it. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

How about changing the sentence in question to the following underlined text (for context, the rest of the paragraph is also shown):

The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid editors from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as parts of any page broadly related to the topic. To avoid further disruption, topic bans are "broadly construed". For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", this editor is not only forbidden from editing the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

isaacl (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been pinged to this, but I don't think this relates to the recent blocking incident I was involved in. As regards wording. I don't think that adding the phrase 'as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed"' alters the meaning, though it may add some extra understanding. The sentence is dealing with both pages and topic, and the added phrase appears to wish to make clear that "related to the topic" equals "broadly construed". If we are looking at tidying up the phrase, I would offer: 'Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers not only articles, but all pages (or name spaces) and parts of pages that under the phrase "broadly construed" can reasonably be regarded as related to the topic.' SilkTork (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

SilkTork, I don't know why you were pinged because this has nothing to do with your recent blocking incident. I'm going to restore the sentence that was there before the disputed words were added (or, rather, the words were added to the wrong sentence). If people want to propose new words or a new position, please do, but the mistake should be reverted first. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I've done that and added "See also: WP:BROADLY" to the top of the section. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

SarahSV, it appears from the discussion that you are the only one who has a problem with the added phrase. You said you would revert unless there were objections, and Sarek said: "I'd suggest leaving it as is"; meanwhile, we are looking for the best way to make the intention clearer, because if you struggle with it there may be others who also have difficulty parsing that sentence. There is a discussion in hand, nobody else has objected to the phrase, and one person has clearly said leave it be while we discuss it. Adding "See also: WP:BROADLY", is not as effective as the term you reverted, as it doesn't explain the term in context. Given the circumstances, and to alleviate feelings of frustration among your fellow editors which may lead to an edit war, please revert yourself, and allow the discussion to continue. SilkTork (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear; I too prefer that the text remain with the additional phrase, pending the outcome of this discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I suggest the following modification: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers not only articles but all pages and parts of pages in any name space that under the phrase "broadly construed" can reasonably be regarded as related to the topic. I don't really like including "under the phrase 'broadly construed'" as it is redundant and is used artificially here just to use the term "broadly construed". But I appreciate that many people will want to see the two words used. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Are there any comments on this proposal? isaacl (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sarah is correct and the added phrase is wrong. Broadly construed refers to the boundaries of a topic—the phrase means that when there is doubt about whether a particular edit violates the topic ban, the answer is likely to be yes, it is violation. WP:Broadly construed is an essay rather than a part of the policy because the concept has no clear definition capable of informing a particular editor whether a particular edit they are contemplating would violate their topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan, SilkTork and I agree with you that "broadly construed" refers to the boundaries of a topic. SilkTork has suggested a change to help clarify this, and I suggested a modification. Personally I also agree that I don't see much use for shoehorning the phrase "broadly construed" into the text, so I would also support wording such as the following, which is a more concise rewording of what is there now: Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers not only articles but all pages and parts of pages in any name space that can reasonably be regarded as related to the topic. isaacl (talk) 22:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Editor restriction logging discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions regarding the logging of restrictions imposed as an unblocking condition, as well as formal logging of editor warnings. Administrators and editors are invited to participate in the discusson. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLOCKBANDIFF table is incorrect

The table at Wikipedia:BLOCKBANDIFF is incorrect, in the topic ban column.

Topic bans can be imposed by any uninvolved admin IF they are doing so under the terms of a topic-wide arbitration decision.

That is different from what the table currently says (it currently implies that ArbCom itself needs to make the decision).

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting other users' contributions?

Where a banned user takes part in a talk page discussion, of course their contributions should be deleted. But what if another editor makes a good-faith response to the banned user's edits? Should the other editor's contributions also be deleted? --Viennese Waltz 12:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

There are no simple rules for what is best in all circumstances. One useful tip is that if someone does delete a section including a good-faith response, the person who made that comment should reflect long and hard on whether their comment is so important that they should make a fuss about it. Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In general you should not delete the talk page contributions of another editor who is not blocked. See WP:SOCKSTRIKE for some ideas of how to deal with it. --IamNotU (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Proxying

In the Proxying section, there should be clarification of "they have independent reasons for making such edits."

What's a "good enough" reason for wanting to make productive edits?

Do I really need a reason to help improve the wiki?

Benjamin (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll remove it unless there's a good reason to keep it. I think it's enough to simply say that they take responsibility for the edits. Benjamin (talk) 12:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The point is prevent a banned editor from having another editor to do xyz when they would not have a reason for doing so without the banned editor asking. It would allow a banned editor to proxy good edits, and banned means banned. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Again, what then would be considered a "good enough" reason? Benjamin (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The policy says independent, not "good enough". — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you elaborate? Benjamin (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I have reason to make any good edit, don't I? Benjamin (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

My view on this is that the reason for making an edit shouldn't have anything to do with "User:XYZ, who is topic-banned from this area, asked me to make this edit." When you submit edits, you should be doing so for your own independent reasons, not because a banned user asked you to do so. I think it's related to the complexity of the edit. For example, if you spot a typo in an article, then naturally you would fix it regardless of whether a banned user told you to do so or not—in that case, you clearly have an independent reason for making the change. On the other hand, if a banned editor asks you to insert a whole paragraph that they wrote into an article, and you do it, then that's probably going to be considered proxy editing, even if you believe the edit was good—it'd be hard to argue that you independently came up with this exact paragraph to add to the article. The goal is to prevent editors from indirectly contributing to a topic area from which they are banned, even if the edits appear to be good on the surface. Mz7 (talk) 12:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

How would it be proxying at all, if I had spotted the typo myself first? And if it were pointed out to me before I spotted it, then who's to say I might never have? Also, if the intention of this policy is to prohibit proxy editing outright, then it should say so, and clearly define what that means. But as it is, it seems to say that proxy editing is okay in some cases. Benjamin (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you're overthinking this. Basically, if a banned user points out something like a typo – a very obvious change that you would have made if you had spotted it yourself – then you're allowed to make the change. If a banned editor asks you to make a very substantial change that you would not necessarily have made by yourself, then it is proxy editing and disallowed. Mz7 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Say, for example, a banned editor suggests substantial improvements to an article that was already on my to do list? Benjamin (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Ignore them. Encouraging banned users damages the encyclopedia. WP:DENY is all we can do. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If proxy edits are disallowed in all cases but very minor edits then the wording of the policy should make that clear. Benjamin (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You won't find certainty in the rules at Wikipedia. Things here operate on a pragmatic basis. My previous comment is the best general advice for the benefit of the project. If a banned user mentioned an egregious error or a WP:BLP violation, some consideration should be given to fixing the problem. However, encouraging their participation by doing their bidding regarding dime-a-dozen wording problems or typos is just a bad idea. Johnuniq (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's important to draw clearly the distinction between "explicitly disallowed by policy" and "general advice". Benjamin (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can understand your desire for a cut-and-dry policy, but unfortunately, I think we've intentionally left the policy ambiguous, to be decided on a case-by-case basis: see the past discussion at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 8#Proxying for blocked users?. Whenever a banned editor proposes a change to a topic from which they are banned, we have to weigh the benefit of making the change against the cost of giving agency to the banned editor. On the one hand, making the change might improve the article in the short run; on the other hand, it would effectively allow the banned editor to circumvent their sanction if every prima facie "good" edit they recommend will be submitted on their behalf. Above, I've provided to you the extreme examples: a typo fix vs. a substantial paragraph. However, where to draw the line in the middle is much less clear to me, and I'm not sure whether a bright line should be drawn at all. My advice to you would be the same as Johnuniq's: if a banned editor recommends substantial changes to an article that was on your to-do list, just ignore them. Improve the article as if you hadn't seen the banned editor's recommendations. This is the safest path I see that doesn't risk landing you at WP:ANI. Mz7 (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I read the discussion, and it seems clear that the policy as worded might sometimes allow it, but it's controversial. I personally would support allowing proxy editing. The requirement that the editor take full responsibility for the edits should be sufficient to prevent bad edits. Benjamin (talk) 02:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Can vs should. If a banned editor reverts vandalism can they be reverted?

Re: [2].

“ obviously helpful changes [by banned editors], such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, should be allowed to stand ”

vs

“ obviously helpful changes [by banned editors], such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand ”

I think we should make it clear that certain edits by banned editors should not be reverted. If a banned editor reverts a clear-cut vandalism like blanking a page with an obscenity, technically one could quote the current policy and say that it does not clearly say that such an edit cannot be reverted (restoring the blanked, vandalized version of the page). I suggest the chance in wording from 'can' to 'should' to clarify that. I don't think this is 'enabling banned editors', just stating the obvious. It's simple logic. Undoing an obviously helpful change such as undoing vandalism should NOT be reverted. The current 'can' wording can be read as 'undoing an obviously helpful change such as undoing vandalism can be reverted'. C'mon. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It does seem obvious, doesn't it? I mean, otherwise, what would we do, just leave the vandalism up? Revert the reversion, and then just revert it again? Seems rather silly. Benjamin (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Self wheel warring :) I reverted LTAs reverting vandalism, then revert vandalism to LTAs version, then... help! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Life is complex and some LTAs are really long term and really abusers. Many of those have social smarts and know that the maximum LOLs can be achieved by making a few good edits that people will argue over. This is an old story that has been disputed for at least ten years with some editors applauding any typo correction regardless of how others in the community feel, while other editors believe that universal DENY gives maximum long term benefit for LTAs. The issue was thrashed out in an Arbcom case that I have happily forgotten. I don't think there was any concrete conclusion other than the weasel wording we have now, namely that some edits by banned users can be allowed to stand. That is how all policies work (other than legal issues such as BLP and Copyvio)—each case has to be considered on its merits. At any rate, accepting edits from banned users definitely encourages them, and arguing over their edits provides extreme encouragement. No solution is problem free. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

IBAN query

Hello, I have a hypothetical question regarding IBANs for anyone who may be watching this talk page: if two users are forbidden from interacting, but one disagrees with an edit that the other makes, is there anything that they can do about it? Or do they just have to leave it and deal with it? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Conflict between this article and Editing Restrictions

Hi,Bbb23 and I noticed that there is a conflict between the instructions provided in this article and in Editing Restrictions. Namely, Editing Restrictions says that "editors who are subject to site bans are listed at Category:Banned Wikipedia users", but this article says that "The sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse." I think the intent is that the site ban sanction is logged into the banned user category when the ban template is added to the userpage, but I'm not sure. Since it's vague enough that even experienced checkusers can't parse it; I think it needs clarification. Perhaps it should say "site banned users have the ban template applied with a link to the discussion, which automatically logs it to the banned user category" or something like that. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 06:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I blame myself for what happened here. It is all related to the recent community ban of User:Mzmadmike at ANI. I rarely close ban discussions because of the paperwork involved, which means I don't have as much experience with the administration of it as other admins. Because of some problems I was having with Rockstone35 - and I'm not complaining about Rockstone's post here as I even suggested it - I ended up reading CBAN and then advised the closing admin, Jonathunder, that they might (I don't see it as required) add a tag to the user's userpage and add the user to Editing restrictions. He did both, and Rockstone pointed out what Editing restrictions said, and here we are.

Now looking at this again in the morning (when I'm fresher), my guess is the problem stems from the fact that CBAN talks about all community bans, including site bans, and the intent, at least now as I can't speak historically, is that topic bans and interaction bans are logged at Editing restrictions but site bans are not. If my guess is right, then it should be fairly easy to add a sentence to the CBAN section clarifying that. Hopefully, more knowledgeable admins will chime in.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Would you oppose me making such an edit to the CBAN section clarifying it if no one else does in the next few days? I was thinking something to the effect of "The sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, for specific editing bans, this is Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. For accounts which are banned site-wide by the community, their userpage should be blanked and replaced with the banned user template along with a link to the community discussion which led to the ban." I would suggest we do not suggest adding users to the the long term abuse article, as that's only for extreme cases where the user's actions are extremely abusive; most banned users don't fit in this category. All the best -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I'd rather wait for more input.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Okay that works for me. Maybe there should be a RFC sent out so we can get more people's input. I might do that later. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 18:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

You're too eager. An RfC is not necessary. Just try to be patient.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, will do. Thanks! -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the proposed language can be simplified somewhat. I am concerned that there will be some pushback from the crowd that feel the banned user tag is punitive/a badge of shame, and will desire to see “should” replaced with “may”. My thought is that where the block log is clear and links to the discussion, it doesn’t matter. The distinction between banning and blocking really seems to have lessened in recent years, such that the main one is the ability of admins to unilaterally unblock based on an unblock request. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:30, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that my proposed language is probably too wordy, as it was just a quick draft. I would say it does matter if the user is marked as banned or not because if they are marked in that way, they show up in Banned Wikipedia Users, which provides a centralized location for banned users. I've seen at least one case where a user was banned (I'm assuming was listed as banned in the late LOBU page) in 2012, and no one marked their user page as banned, so in 2016 they were banned a second time.

The reason for the distinction being lessened probably was the deletion of LOBU in 2014, as now the only way to know if a user was banned or not was on their userpage or perusing the category; so it no longer is as easy to determine. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:45, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've gone ahead and changed the section. I believe my change is simple with very few words, I added "Except for a site ban," before "the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions...". I intentionally didn't elaborate on how site bans are "recorded" by a hidden category as I don't see why it's needed and it would just make it wordier. At the same time, I removed the site ban from Editing restrictions. I hope these changes are acceptable.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• Generally endorse, though I'd like to see a bit added on when we should use the banned user tags. I think an explanatory footnote following "Except for a site ban," that reads "Community bans should be documented in some way, such as in the block log when the ban is implemented or in a message to the banned user on the user talk page. The use of the {{banned user}} tag is controversial, but is an option. If it is to be used, the decision usually falls to an administrator. Mass tagging banned users as banned is generally seen as disruptive. Previously, sitebanned users could be logged on a variety of pages. This is no longer done." There could be links to relevant discussions. If this is too much to just drop in without a full discussion, that's fine, but I think there should be something. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Mendaliv: Tagging banned users as banned isn't controversial and tagging banned users has always been policy. Swarm has agreed that tagging banned users as banned is just fine. I went ahead and made a bold edit that says: "A user who is sitebanned should be tagged with a {{banned user}} template on their userpage, with a link to a discussion to the ban." which follows the instructions in that template which state that the template "is for accounts that have been banned after due consideration." In addition, I dug up the old deletion discussion for the List of Banned Users Page, and many of the arguments for deletion explicitly referenced that we can still track whether or not a user is banned by checking their userpage and the banned user category. Therefore I feel that this change merely reflects long-lasting policy.

However, since this is a bold edit and I know that it may be controversial, I'm okay with anyone reverting it so we can discuss it afterwards. If it does get reverted, as part of that discussion, it should be brought up somewhere else so we can get clarification from a wider part of the community about whether or not there is consensus that policy has changed or if we should revise how bans operate. I am thinking making a thread on the village pump. It certainly appears that there isn't much activity on this page about it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 04:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, I'm going to follow this guideline and undo my change. Will instead mark with ^{[under discussion]} as suggested -- Rockstonetalk to me! 04:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the template you added to the policy. As far as I'm concerned, you should not be editing the policy at all per your commitment at ANI and subsequently. Also, maybe I missed something, but I don't see where that template was "suggested". At this point, I think you should turn your attention to other areas of Wikipedia rather than administrator areas. Remember, you received multiple warnings from administrators, including me, and you risk being blocked if you cross the line.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bbb23: it's suggested here, where it says "If wider input on a proposed change is desired, it may be useful to mark the section with the tag {{Under discussion}}", which is exactly what I did. I still don't see what I did wrong adding such a template when I am following the suggestions on that page... I'm not trying to be disruptive, but I'm a little upset that users are suggesting that I shouldn't contribute to Wikipedia administrative policy or work on banned user discussions on the basis of an (admittedly serious) lapse in judgement on my part for which I apologize for.

However, although I really enjoy contributing to administrative policies like this (probably my favorite thing on Wikipedia...), based on suggestions here from Swarm, you, and the others on the ANI thread, I'm going to refrain from: closing any discussions, making any edits to policy pages (that is, I may contribute to discussions involving policy on talk pages and on the village pump, but I will not directly edit anything in policy), linking to user ban discussions on userpages of banned users, and adding or removing ban templates, for a minimum of six months as suggested by Abecedare here. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 20:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

• Rockstone, I think it will be best if you bow out of this subject area for the indefinite future. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Why? Am I not allowed to have input into this? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Input is fine, but you're making a lot of missteps in this area that border on disruptive (or are in fact improper). Like I've been around here for over 10 years and I'm not sure I've ever directly edited a policy page. I think Swarm's just trying to tell you it might be better to back off a bit until you become better versed in the "practice" part of "policy and practice". —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, when you're on a final warning status for CIR meddling behind the scenes, it's best to just step away. Not trying to give you a hard time, but just something to keep in mind going forward. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Well, I've been here for 12 years (started in 7th grade, now getting my PhD in computer science), but I suppose I've not been that active. As I said, I'll refrain from doing anything which could be perceived as disruptive in this area for at least six months, and I'll be much more cautious. I'm still a little frustrated because I don't think that change was disruptive, but it's not worth getting into an argument over. (also, thank you both for being polite. I appreciate it. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 06:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Length of CBAN discussions and the "appeal CBAN"

There is an ongoing AN thread that I think could use some separate discussion at the relevant talk page.

The two points I'd like to open discussion about are these:

• Our current minimum timeline for discussion of a CBAN is 24 hours. I understand that there is some reasonable intent that we want to be "merciful" when discussing nevative behavior, but as the current thread there at AN shows, there seems to be some belief that a longer period would also be reasonable and would have prevented some of the ongoing chatter there. Should we better stress that not all people can participate inside of 24 hours, or simply increase the mandatory minimum to e.g. 3 or 5 or 7 days?
• There is some other discussion wherein because the original block is being appealed, and because the original participant did not understand that the block would convert to a CBAN if the community found in the negative for an unblock, that the ban was not fair. I can understand this point of view. Should there be a gentle note here, or maybe a standard template that admins can use, so that the admin can or should inform the appellant about what will happen then?

Just starting the convo. I'm less interested kn the particulars and more interested in making sure we think that our SOP is good and fair on these points. --Izno (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

• I happened to be looking into this and wanted to say what I found: There is actually a certain degree of precedent for community discussions of blocks to not automatically convert into site bans, despite what the policy says:
  • This discussion was rather complicated, as a time-limited block was brought up for discussion and then unilaterally converted to an indefinite block while that discussion was ongoing; according to the letter of the policy, I think the result should have been a site ban. I'm not exactly clear on what the close there actually means; it seems to be that an administrator can unilaterally unblock but only within conditions set by the community, which is somewhere between a site ban and an indef block.
  • This discussion is even worse; the closers found no consensus for a site ban, but "The indefinite block will remain in place, and endorsed by the community. The block should not be lifted without community consensus." It's not clear what they think the difference is between a site ban and a block that can only be lifted by community consensus.

• Conversely, examples of unblock requests that could have been granted unilaterally but were instead brought to the community and effectively became a CBAN are not hard to find:
  • This discussion was never even closed. The user is now effectively sitebanned.
  • This discussion explicitly considered a CBAN and endorsed it.
  • This discussion didn't explicitly consider a TBAN but is now effectively a siteban (I believe this was before the requirement for such discussions to be open 24 hours).
  • This discussion converted an indef into a CBAN.
• It's not really clear to me why this particular denied unblock request has caused so much controversy; the process used and the result are perfectly par for the course. GoldenRing (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
• On point #1, I think the minimum time should be increased (7 days for an AfD, why not for this?). Not every editor logs in every day. People need time to "sleep on it", review an editor's contrib history, and discuss with each other. On point #2, I think there should be a fair "notice" requirement, and suggest that any unblock request at AN should begin with the affected editor saying "I understand that if this request fails, my block will turn into a community site ban", or something like that. If an editor writes that themselves, we can be sure they understand. If they don't write it, the request should be denied as procedurally invalid/malformed. – Levivich 21:06, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• On time: there have been from time-to-time strings of !votes that are rather painful to read, even when you are not the person and do not know them, it's rather sad or worse when it goes on and on and on, I am not sure there is a good answer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps any admin considering closing it within a certain window (say, before 72 hours) should have to ask the blocked editor whether they want it to continue. In this case, it wasn't just the length of time. It was the fact that there was a wave of support, then a wave of opposition. The closing admin, in my view, should have taken into account that the first wave might have wanted to address the issues. So it's also a question of keeping an eye on the dynamic of the discussion, and getting a sense, as the closer, of when it's truly done. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

• I think 24 hours is fine for most cases, since most block/ban discussions are honestly obvious outcomes. Longer should be encouraged when there isn't enough participation (perhaps where there are fewer than five !votes). Another progressive change would be providing some guidance for when closure is appropriate, in the form of factors for a closing admin to consider, for instance whether "sides" appear to have become settled and entrenched. Leaving these discussions open for seven days, especially ones like the one that precipitated this discussion, would provide a fairly easy means of ensuring such blocks are upgraded to bans: Opponents to unblocking could very easily muddy the waters enough such that no consensus could be reached after seven days, defaulting to a ban. I am opposed to changing this aspect of the rule as well because it wouldn't accurately represent the practice and procedure of unblock discussions. Once the Community has duly considered an indef block, whatever the outcome, it is not within any individual administrator's discretion to change.
  I am opposed to incorporating a specific notice requirement that is required for AN/ANI jurisdiction to attach: converting an indef to a CBAN isn't an increased penalty, it's a recognition of the fact that the community duly considered the block and that an administrator may not unilaterally unblock that editor. And that is the only significant difference between a block and a ban. This isn't a court, nor is it a discretionary sanctions regime. In fact, the outcome is about as nondiscretionary as it gets: A failed unblock discussion is a ban because no admin should unilaterally unblock.
  I would support clarifying that AN/ANI have no discretion to "oppose unblock but oppose ban" as it is contrary to the nature of a ban. If the Community has duly considered the block and not unblocked, then the editor is banned and may not be unilaterally unblocked by an admin. I am, however, in favor of clarifying the meaning of "due consideration"—discussions that fail to reach a quorum, for example, and are archived without resolution, should not be considered bans.
  That is all I have for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

  I think it's also critical that any increases in the minimum time for discussions not be considered retroactive, as it would surely result in the automatic unbanning of a large number of rightly banned users. When we made the 24 hour minimum mandatory, I don't think it was applied retroactively. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

• I favor lengthening the time to somewhere between 72 hours to one week because not everyone is on WP every day so 24 hours may be a bit of an unreasonable expectation for a proper review in some cases.
• I think that the blocked editor should have CBAN pointed out to them clearly but that would be adequate. An explicit statement that they understand should not be necessary if they proceed to request a review at AN.
• To address SarahSV's statement, "Perhaps any admin considering closing it within a certain window (say, before 72 hours) should have to ask the blocked editor whether they want it to continue." No, that shouldn't be a requirement for an admin. Once it is at AN, it should not be the blocked editor's prerogative to withdraw or extend the request as they are not in control and they could try to game the system. If the blocked editor tried to withdraw the request and terminate it early because there is a consensus to uphold the block then the status quo of the review would need to be enforced anyway. The blocked editor cannot be allowed to subvert community consensus because they see a probable negative outcome for themselves. If community members have invested their time with investigation then it should be allowed to continue. Policy does not have anything about a right to withdraw the request but policy does state "The standard distinction is that a ban is a social decision about the right to edit..." I don't believe that a right to withdraw a request that has gone to AN has been codified.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In terms of time, I would retain the 24-hour minimum for a decision to retain a block, but would strongly encourage admins not to close within 48-72 hours unless the decision is clearly uncontroversial. An option may be to allow a decision to uphold the block if it's uncontroversial after 24 hours, but to wait 48-72 hours before overturning a block. I strongly endorse User:Mendaliv's point that any decision to lengthen the minimum time should not be applied retroactively.

In terms of SarahSV's suggestion that the blocked editor be asked whether to allow an early close - I would say that that's fine, provided that their request is not binding on admins. Leaving the thing open for a week at user request when it's obviously going nowhere is a waste of everyone's time, so admins should be able to override the user request if they feel that that is appropriate.

The automatic conversion to a community ban is, as I see it, not an additional penalty but a recognition of reality - that if the user is going to get unblocked they need to go through WP:AN. If they didn't need to go through WP:AN already, then presumably the discussion wouldn't have been started.

On that basis, I would suggest that when this happens, we should not treat it as an additional penalty (Since this discussion constitutes "due consideration by the community", [User] is now community banned from Wikipedia.) but instead note the requirement (Note that this user should not be unblocked without consensus at WP:AN.) It amounts to the same thing, but is more grounded in the actual process and doesn't sound like we're punishing them for appealing. Kahastok talk 22:01, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My only criticism is on the last point, that we're letting "banned" sound like an increased penalty. It's simply not. Especially for people who aren't familiar with the Wikipedia system. So many people say "banned" when they're talking about someone who's blocked. Sure, within our community, most of us seem to know the difference, but perhaps not enough of us know that a ban is not "worse" than a block, it's just a different status. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

But the wording I cited above, lifted from arecent close does treat the ban as something new. And part of the point of having this discussion is that a number of editors have expressed concern with a block being automatically "upgraded" to a ban. It may be that we're not increasing the penalty, but a lot of people - including closers - seem to think that we are. And there may be ways we can improve the understanding of this point.

We used to refer to editors as being de facto community banned when no admin was willing to unblock unilaterally. It seems to me that while the words might have gone from the policy, that is the status of the blocked users we're dealing with in this case. The only difference between a community-banned user and a blocked user who can only be unblocked through community discussion is that the former might not (in theory) be technically blocked. Kahastok talk 21:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm a few days late here and violating my (voluntary, self-imposed) Wikibreak, but this is a matter that I find requires my input. First and foremost, I'd like to note that the impetus for this discussion was conducted fairly and correctly, in accordance with our current policies.

Now, I will admit to some apprehension regarding the current length of time for discussion of community bans and unblocking requests; twenty-four hours is a bit short, I think. I would not oppose an extension of this time, written in policy if necessary, by 24 to 48 hours (such that the time, in toto, would be some two to three days). (This, of course, would not have any sort of retroactive effect.)

Second, I believe the easiest way to resolve this issue (and prevent its recurrence) would be to require, or otherwise strongly request, that the administrator who opens an unblock request inform a blocked user of the possibility of a declined (or otherwise unapproved) request, and the consequences that would be thereby attached (i.e., banning). A template could be fashioned to do so, yes, but the exact wording is another matter: I find Berean Hunter's way of doing so here to be succinct and well-formed.

One last thing: I'm sorry, Sarah, but I can't support allowing blocked users to withdraw their requests for unblocking. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 19:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

• I really don't think that declined requests should be converted into a ban. Rather I think a ban should only occur after due consideration by the community, block by Jimbo, decision of ArbCom, or under 3X. Just my two cents. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 02:31, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

  Think about it though: Someone that shouldn't be unblocked by an admin without authorization of the community has for years been considered "de facto banned". If the community has decided against unblocking someone, no random admin should be able to trump the thought process there. In other words, someone that has had an unblock declined (or a block imposed) by community discussion is de facto banned. All this does is formalize it and thereby prevent mistakes by admins who might have missed that discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

• The issue I have with formalizing it is that "de facto bans" wouldn't show up in the banned Wikipedia users category, which makes tracking them impossible. Unless admins should then mark "de facto banned" users as banned on their userpage? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 05:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • My feeling is that it's all part of a growing trend away from unilaterally-reversible blocks, which in turn is part of a trend towards blending the concepts of bans and blocks. The whole idea that they're separate concepts in the first place has always been counterintuitive and frankly rather pretentious. All the hand-wringing about driving inexperienced editors away by "upgrading" their blocks to bans, for example, should just disappear once you realize that they're the same damn thing to all the inexperienced editors out there. The fact that they were blocked in the first place is going to drive them away. Calling it blocking, banning, exile, or crucifixion makes little meaningful difference to them; they're still unable to edit. Thus, in the long run, I think fewer and fewer admins are going to respond to an unblock template unilaterally (i.e., without referral to AN/ANI). And in the short run, I think it makes little difference whether this "conversion" is notated with the big mean banner of banning on the userpage, a block log entry referring to the discussion, or even a message at the user talk page noting that the editor is now banned. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • So you're saying that you don't think being able to track who is banned and who is blocked is necessary? Not saying I disagree with you, just seeking clarification. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I think going forward it's going to be less relevant because the distinction between blocks and bans is eroding. Anyway, to the extent tracking such cases is useful, I don't think the specific {{banned user}} tag is necessarily it. If categorization is desired, there are quieter ways of doing it that shouldn't bother people concerned with badges of shame. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
        • What other ways can we categorize users as banned that are less obvious? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 21:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
          • Hidden categories (or templates that transclude them), rather than actually blanking the entire userpage and replacing it with the equivalent of "THIS IS A BAD PERSON WHO SHOULD BE AVOIDED". I'll admit that {{banned user}} has been softened a lot since the old days. In 2007 it was the same tan color as talk page boxes and included File:Stop x nuvola.svg rather than whatever the current "info" one is. But I think the whole practice of blanking the whole userpage and replacing it with that template has never been popular, at least as applied to normal people (i.e., not LTA people that have no friends to stand up for them here). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
            • The ban template currently does create a hidden category. How about no longer blanking the userpage but keeping the ban template box? (so that people can still tell why a user was banned)-- Rockstonetalk to me! 22:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • There's never been any practical distinction for community-imposed sanctions. The community has the authority to ban an editor; a block is then used to enforce the ban. Some people argued that since some editors used the word "block" instead of "ban" during discussion that there was a distinction. Thus wording was added to this policy page to clarify that when someone is blocked as a result of a community discussion, they can only be unblocked by a community discussion. To wit, the block is effectively a community ban.
        • Regarding unilaterally-reversible blocks, as always this still holds for administrators imposing blocks on their own initiative. Absent authorization from an arbitration remedy, or discretionary sanctions, administrators do not have the authority to ban a user; a community discussion must be held. They can use a block as a remedy for a policy violation, and retain the authority to remove the block early. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The "appeal CBAN" again

With another editor at AN looking like their appeal for an unblock is going to result in a CBAN, I'd like to propose a change to the policy. I propose that the current text:

Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

to:

Editors who are indefinitely blocked or whose indefinite block is affirmed by consensus after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the wikipedia community".

The (intended) practical effect of this is that an indeffed editor who appeals to AN and whose appeal is closed as "no consensus to unblock" would not become subject to an "appeal CBAN"; only an editor who appeals to AN and whose appeal is closed as "consensus that the block should remain" is CBANned.

The usual justification for the existing text is that an indef'ed editor can appeal to an individual admin but once the indef is considered by the community, it would be wrong for an admin to override that community consensus. However, in the case that there is no community consensus, an admin is not overriding it, leading to my proposed change. Some thought would have to go into how this is applied retrospectively, since such discussions are currently usually only closed as either "consensus to unblock" or "no consensus to unblock". It may be necessary to either consider all such discussions prior to the change to have resulted in CBANs or require that all editors subject to such a CBAN re-appeal to AN (if they wish to).

I'm sure there's lots I've missed here and I realise this is a big change to policy, hence my proposing it here rather than making a BOLD edit. Thoughts? GoldenRing (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Your proposed wording does not have the intended effect. The core sentence with the optional clause in parenthesis, "Editors who are indefinitely blocked (or whose indefinite block is affirmed by consensus) after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the wikipedia community." is still rendered as "Editors who are indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the wikipedia community." in the case of a no consensus to unblock outcome.
• I believe that if the community is undecided then the status quo of the block should remain until such time that the appellant makes a successful appeal to the community. That is simpler and less prone to drama. Cowboy unblocks after the community is undecided shouldn't happen.
• The community may lift a checkuser block by consensus. Your intended process should not allow a non-checkuser admin the ability to lift the block unless it is upholding a consensus to unblock.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 10:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
• Since site bans imposed by the community are already covered by the first bullet, I suggest confining the third bullet to the case where the community is reviewing an indefinite block imposed by an administrator. Without any change to policy, perhaps something like Editors whose indefinite blocks are reviewed by the community and remain blocked are considered to be "banned by the English Wikipedia community". With the proposed change to policy, perhaps something like When an editor is indefinitely blocked by an administrator, and the community reviews and affirms the block by consensus, the editor is considered to be site banned by the English Wikipedia community. isaacl (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been meaning to return to #Length of CBAN discussions and the "appeal CBAN", but between a vacation, a return to work, and a certain Wikipedia-only distraction, haven't made my way there. Would it be painful to move this section up the way? --Izno (talk) 12:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose: The change wording results in "no consensus" closes of discussions not converting to bans. They should, because admins should not be capable of substituting their judgment for that of the community. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If the user could be unblocked by a single admin, why is their current unblock request going through AN?

The "appeal CBAN" is a recognition of reality - that for this user, unblock requests need to go through AN. If that wasn't already the case, the user wouldn't be at AN, so it doesn't actually add any extra sanction in practice (it just formalises an existing sanction). But I think we perhaps might need to make this point clearer because it is obvious from these discussions that this is not understood by editors or even closers. Kahastok talk 08:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kahastok: Actually we get a steady trickle of these, where theoretically a single admin could unblock but in practice no single admin is willing to do so and so an admin reviewing the nth unblock request suggests that it should be put to AN. Elisa.Rolle recently went through this process and there was a lot of criticism of Ritchie333 for suggesting that it be tried without pointing out the potential CBAN consequence. Darkfrog24 is in a similar situation at present: Blocked indefinitely by NeilN with the first year as an arbitration enforcement action. Now the first year is up, NeilN isn't editing and no other admin is prepared to unilaterally unblock. It looks likely that their appeal at AN will be closed as "no consensus" and they will then become CBANned.
@Mendaliv: This is intended to deal with cases where the community has failed to make a coherent judgement on a case. In principle, currently an editor could appeal to AN, have no-one comment on it, the request gets archived after five days and, hey presto, they're CBANned. On the one hand that has little to do with the judgement of the community and on the other hand seems obviously unjust.
@Berean Hunter: I agree the wording is a little unclear but I'm not convinced it has the effect you say; if "are blocked" is intended to be some sort of perfect tense, then what is the meaning of "are or remain blocked" in the existing wording? I like isaacl's suggestion above. Also, there is no intention to mess with checkuser blocks here; those are already immune to overturning by individual admins and that would not change. GoldenRing (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: This is intended to deal with cases where the community has failed to make a coherent judgement on a case. It's not the outcome that's important, it's the consideration. The fact that a block has been put to the community's consideration, and having duly considered that block, there is no consensus to unblock, then that person should not be unilaterally unblocked by an administrator responding to an unblock request. That is, they're CBANned. The hook in the current policy is "duly considered": If there is no due consideration of the unblock request (e.g., insufficient discussion prior to archival, insufficient participation, no policy-based reasoning is apparent in the discussion, an unblock wasn't formally proposed and therefore wasn't really even considered, etc.), then it's not a community ban. There need not be a particular coherence in the outcome; all that matters for the purpose of this policy is whether the person is blocked or unblocked at the conclusion of a discussion that duly considers an unblock request. In principle, currently an editor could appeal to AN, have no-one comment on it, the request gets archived after five days and, hey presto, they're CBANned. This is completely false: There is no consideration at all if nobody comments on it, let alone due consideration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 10:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Interaction bans and thanks

"use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits." - but aren't thanks private and visible only to the recipient? How can this be enforcable? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks are public. See Special:Log/Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Interaction bans and removal of content such as by deletion

In the interaction ban section, it is specified that editors under an interaction ban may not "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means;". How far back are people under IBans expected to go back in the history before removing a paragraph or tagging an article for deletion? five days, five weeks, five months or five years? ϢereSpielChequers 06:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Still a member of the community

Is that part of the chart actually needed for anything? Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Following up. Can we remove the first line of the chart in Wikipedia:BLOCKBANDIFF? The rest of the policy makes little mention of membership in a community, so it seems of practically no import. (there is a mention of in BMB of rejoin the community which just seems shorthand for people who can post). The rest of the policy makes clear banned users are banned, be civil but they can't post on the site, so such posts can be undone, etc. That seems like more than enough. What do we gain by a kind of personal shunning type language? Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It's useful to have general principles spelled out, rather than specific details. The idea that a banned user is no longer a member of the community is a general principle and the details follow from that. What is the point of removing the line? Johnuniq (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I kinda agree with this. The fact is it's more an illustrative point as to the difference between blocks and bans than an institutionalized shunning. The use of {{banned user}} is far closer to that, and it's still routinely done. I think the point also illustrates a difference for terms of use purposes (even if it's not a foundation ban). That said, I believe the evolution of the concepts of blocking and banning have somewhat eroded the distinction. That a banned user was no longer part of the community was pretty much true back when formal bans (particularly CBANs) weren't handed out like candy. Nowadays, sitebanned users (whether formally banned or banned as a result of a "community block") pretty routinely rejoin the community via mechanisms like the standard offer. And appeals to the Committee are granted quite a bit more often now. These ideas are somewhat incompatible with the theory that banned users aren't part of the community anymore. Moreover, with indeffed users, it's not exactly clear how they're still part of the community in a way that banned users aren't. So I think there's room for better explaining the distinction, but I don't think the line is completely false. It's unquestionable that banned LTA users are no longer part of the community as a result of their bans, and (for better or worse) foundation-banned users aren't part of the community either. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Why? I thought I said: "it seems of practically no import" . If by "principle" you mean foundational belief, it seems very strange to try to state something must be believed by site users, like a religion or cult. Or if you mean principle in that it is a priori proposition that must be accepted, it just does not seem to matter as it means practically nothing from which nothing actually flows: No one has to hold to this line in the chart as a claimed principle for it to follow that all bans are just "a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages" or that bans are handed out by various group entities and are appealed to those groups, whereas blocks are a technical feature of software requiring a single button pusher, and are handed out by individuals ostensibly acting with authorization from others, and are appealed to those individuals or to the group. So, this line in the chart just seems to be gratuitous snark or a weird kind of personal social ostracism. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

By "principle" I mean ideas that are subject to change and interpretation but which provide general guidance. For example, the nutshell at WP:BLP says to write with the greatest care etc. in articles on living persons. All the gumph that follows on that policy is the common-sense extension of the principle outlined in the nutshell. I think you're reading too much into the "member" wording to compare the community with a cult—anyone is free to value banned users if they want, but the efforts of such banned users is regarded as corrosive by most of us. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not the nutshell for this policy. This is the nutshell for this policy: "Problematic behaviour may lead to editing restrictions (partial or complete) to be applied to any editor, either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee." To understand that, all one must accept is that sometimes others may see an editor's behavior as problematic, and the remedies being restrictions on editing. So, whatever corrosiveness is addressed, and it is not because they are members of anything, it's because their problematic behavior is addressed by simply placing prohibitions on editing. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

If this was shunning we would have restrictions on any interactions with a banned editor. As it is we are free to interact on Commons, Meta and a thousand other WMF Wikis with editors who are banned from EN Wikipedia but who are still members of other communities. If someone is globally banned from all WMF sites you are still free to interact with them on Facebook or elsewhere. Shunning is a real thing, there are religions that do practice this today. If in the future we start requiring all Wikipedians to unfollow and defriend and otherwise drop all contact off wiki and in real life with banned editors then it would be fair to describe us as shunning people (and we would indeed have become a cult). ϢereSpielChequers 05:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

The phrasing used was 'shunning-kind', so it was from my first post given it's not the exact same, but your post still gives no rationale for 'member' expelled 'from community' language in the chart. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Jimbo ban

Interesting, Jimbo retains the authority to ban editors. That means he can go starkers one day and ban all Wikipedia's editors with a sitewide universal edict, then laugh the laugh of the mad and the damned and roam the halls of Wikipedia giving everything the once over before locking the door. I like it. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:58, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

I suggest some rewording here. Feel free to provide some better versions.

Bans (other than site bans) are usually not technically enforced.

- The original statement will not be true after the deployment of partial block (or, arguably, is already incorrect now).

Editors banned by the Arbitration Committee (including those who are also under community sanction) must appeal to the Committee.

- Only to emphasize this. Although someone may find the emphasis unnecessary.

--GZWDer (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't know where you want to make the first change, but since partial blocks are not deployed, as you stated in the footnote, there is no need to make any changes to policy yet that depends on partial blocks. Your second proposed change is not true; editors under community sanction have not been banned by the arbitration committee. isaacl (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Did you see "also"?--GZWDer (talk) 16:32, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the point in the qualification as written so was thinking you meant something else. Since Arbitration Committee restrictions are independent from community-imposed restrictions, there isn't any reason to mention them together. isaacl (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

But the text is currently under "community ban" section. Maybe we should said "this section does not apply to any people blocked or banned by Arbitration Committee."--GZWDer (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Interaction bans

Regarding this edit: while true that interaction bans imposed by the community are located at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions § Placed by the Wikipedia community, those enacted by other means are in other sections of that page. Rather than replicate this information, is it sufficient to take note of the link to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions in the hat note and in Wikipedia:Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions? isaacl (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

oh by all means, whatever works and is accurate - I'd just gone "want to check ibans, let's see WP:IBAN, whoops is the actual list somewhere on this page, oh that one at the bottom's probably it, ah yes it is" twice now, and figured the second time a link to the list would be an actually useful thing to put in - David Gerard (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Blanking a user page of an indef banned user

When a user is inded banned, is it recommended or not to blank their user page (just leaving the notice about them being indef banned)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Not, unless there's some reason that it should be blanked, like it's a blatant WP:NOTWEBHOST violation, or unduly WP:POLEMIC, or some such. In those cases it may be better to request speedy deletion and then recreate the page with the ban notice. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:43, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons RFC

See Commons:Commons:Village pump#Request for comment: Deletion/undeletion of uploads by banned/blocked users. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)