Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users

RfC on user rights of (site) banned users
Should the user rights (e.g. template editor, autopatrolled, etc.) of site banned users be removed when banned (case-by-case or otherwise)? If so, subject to case-by-case restoration if unbanned? There was a previous RfC that was similar to this in 2012 which spawned WP:INDEFRIGHTS, but its question was quite broad, referring to all indefinitely blocked users. This RfC was created with the partial intention/inspiration as a "refresher" on consensus, but with the main focus this time on banned users rather than the broad classification of "indefinitely blocked". As such, I believe that this RfC would be beneficial to pose.

Pinging all (non-blocked) participants of the last RfC (if I missed anyone, please do let me know and/or ping them) & per request:. Ping closer of previous RfC:. -- The SandDoctor Talk 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


 * To clarify as there was some confusion: this only applies to banned users, not the much broader subset of users that are "indefinitely blocked". -- The SandDoctor Talk 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * meh this seems to be mostly make-work (i.e. what problem is it trying to solve?). In general, I don't see it as a problem for an admin to degroup accounts that don't have a need for the group (such as by nature of being banned) - but it isn't something that really needs to be worked on either.  Notably, if someone is long term banned many of these groups such as the "template editor" group in the example above, already have inactivity removal provisions that can be used to clean them up over time. —  xaosflux  Talk 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it would seem sensible to remove any discretionary right from a banned user before return, but proactively doing it would be a bore. Guy (help!) 20:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support generally. A siteban is removal from the community. Someone who subsequently rejoins the community should need to re-earn trust-based userrights, especially after a long absence. At the very least the default should be revocation, with restoration permissible on a case-by-case basis where there’s a need for the userright or no obvious concerns. Things like template editor, autopatrolled, account creator, etc. should probably not be automatically restored. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep it conditional based on if the reason for the block (or unblock conditions) are related to the user right, if they aren't then unless its a particularly dangerous right I don't think they should automatically be removed however maybe after a year they could be.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Not every user who is banned is actually "banned". There are those who voluntarily request an Admin block for personal exclusion reasons with varying agreements on time scales and changing of mind. One such case was caught by this just the other day. I doubt that they welcomed the reminder email! Leaky caldron (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By my read this proposal only applies to site-banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox: we 'd on this, but I was explaining the same thing. Leaky caldron has a good point, but blocked and "banned" are not the same thing (though it is true that banned users are blocked as well). I hope that helps clarify, Leaky caldron! -- The SandDoctor Talk 21:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * . Thanks. I know well the difference between blocked and banned. My point, simply, was that the removal by you of userrights which I came across was for a voluntary blocked user, not a site banned user. So was that an error? Leaky caldron (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was some ambiguity that myself and Beeblebrox interpreted and I thought best to clear up, my apologies if it came across as "talking down" or anything of that nature (not my intent at all). My actions were wrong as I was not (offhand at least) aware of WP:INDEFRIGHTS when I took those actions. Not excusing it, but it was probably due to it being a small subsection of an information page rather than a part of a policy page that tripped me up. I like to think that I am constantly learning and do my best to avoid past mistakes. I did mainly focus on banned users and masters/socks (especially the latter), however. Removing the rights of a WP:SELFBLOCK was an error on my part. I have since reversed these actions and the rights of the user in question should have been restored (if not, email me the username and I will make sure that they are - always possible my "clean up" missed one or two). I hope that that helps. -- The SandDoctor Talk 20:23, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So, it I'm correctly understanding the situation, you were going around stripping user rights from banned users who couldn't use the rights anyway and accidentally also did so to a bunch of people under self-requested blocks, and then immediately opened this RFC? I mean, obviously you know you made a rather large mistake there, but one has to wonder why, when so many processes experience regular backlogs, one would choose to make up a task that doesn't need doing and isn't supported by policy (per the last RFC which left us at case-by-case basis, clearly not what you were doing at all). To me this taints this entire process, as if you are trying to retroactively justify what you were doing. From the look of things below it isn't working at all, I would suggest you simply withdraw this proposal as bad timing/snow. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think Xaosflux puts it well. I don't see a serious issue in need of a resolution here. It's not an issue at all unless and until they are unbanned, and any admin can revoke any user right they think may be abused. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Meh on what's done to people banned from now on . Totally oppose what initially prompted this—the OP unilaterally deciding to retroactively strip currently-banned editors of permissions—per my original comment; quite aside from the ethical issues raised by the mean-spirited vindictiveness of symbolically stripping people of rights they're already unable to use, it's actively disruptive. Because of the way Echo works, any change to someone's userrights generates an email notification unless that editor has specifically opted out at Special:Preferences; consequently, editors who've moved on from Wikipedia and editors who are dutifully biding their time waiting until they're ready to submit a standard offer request will out-of-the-blue receive a "we've decided to kick you when you're down" email from Wikipedia, which they'll quite legitimately consider rude and which has a non-negligible chance of reminding trolls and vandals who've given up and moved on just why they had a grudge against Wikipedia. Consequently, stripping of userrights from existing banned users has definite negatives, with no positives other than allowing the person doing the stripping to feel good about themselves (stripping the rollback right etc from a banned user since they can't use any of these permissions as long as the block is in place). &#8209; Iridescent 21:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No way, Iridescent. No. You can articulate your disagreement with something without being incendiary and rude. Calling TSD's good faith actions "mean-spirited vindictiveness" is completely beyond the pale. TSD is one of the kindest, friendliest, most well-meaning users in this entire community. Stripping extended privileges from sock accounts, locked accounts, and banned accounts is not actually that unreasonable on its face. So it has a negative consequence he didn't know about. I didn't know about the automated emails, and I've been working PERM for years. Hell, not even Newyorkbrad knew about that. That's an honest mistake, not something that remotely gives you license to make such an egregious personal attack. Get off your high horse, this is not a matter of "ethics", it's an exceedingly minor mistake made out of ignorance of an esoteric technicality, and one he bent backwards to immediately recitfy. Swarm (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You can have your opinions, I'll have mine, and I'll note in passing that every single person here except you appears to agree with me. (Why would NYB knowing or not knowing about something have any significance? NYB would be the first to admit he has almost no experience with the actual workings of Wikipedia.) Taking an action which has other than aiming a parting kick at editors who for whatever reason have got themselves in trouble is IMO pretty much the embodiment of "mean-spirited vindictiveness". You may not know about the automated emails, but TSD certainly did, given that they've had twelve different changes of userrights since the introduction of Echo and consequently has either received six or twelve such emails (I'm not sure if they're triggered when changing one's own rights), or has taken the trouble to navigate to Special:Preferences and manually disable them. &#8209; Iridescent 07:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No, this is not a legitimate difference of opinion. I'm quite obviously not even commenting on the RfC itself. You're making personal attacks, aspersions, and assuming bad faith here, which is unacceptable. Don't use the fact that people agree with actual logical points you've made as a straw man to justify your outrageous personal attack. No one else has personally attacked TSD's character as you have. The fact that you think the automated emails were intentional harassment rather than a simple overlooked negative consequence is nothing short of absurd, and it's exceedingly clear that you know nothing about TSD whatsoever&mdash;who, I will repeat, does not have a mean-spirited bone in his body in my experience. Instead, you've jumped to the most bad faith interpretation of the situation, which is something that's literally prohibited as a matter of policy. So, no, I will not sit idly by and pretend that it is a valid "difference of opinion" when an administrator is slandering somebody on-wiki, and the fact that you're digging your heels in over this just reflects poorly on yourself. Swarm (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Standard for hard indefs, stay as we are/case by case for others - the most standard siteban for experienced editors (those with extra userrights) are probably 3RR breaches. It'd be ridiculous to remove them for that. But I think a full hard indef would be a reasonable case - they indicate a full loss of trust, and I feel it would be better to remove them immediately then when someone is returning with a standard offer. I wouldn't be particularly fussed with PC, but the other rights pose a more substantial risk that might as well be resolved. Everything between short and indefs can be decided by Admin discretion. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Nosebagbear, I can't think of a single occasion in which anyone has been sitebanned for a 3RR breach, and I find it hard to imagine any circumstances when the community would support it. Have you got any examples? &#8209; Iridescent 22:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - when writing it I'd thought that breaches of it under AE could be sanctioned as site bans, but of course that's not part of an enforcing admin's authority under discretionary sanctions. Blame the lack of tea at this late hour Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per 's well reasoned response listed above, .. and again here There's far too much gloating and grave-dancing done now when an editor is hounded off, or blocked out of the project.  Leave people with a shred of dignity and respect.  They aren't going to sneak back in and block someone, delete a page, and I HIGHLY doubt they'll confirm an edit. — Ched (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I too agree with Iridescent's argument. I really do see it as gratuitous gravedancing; indeed, I first became aware of this debate when I saw the changes on my watchlist, for editors who I would hope could return someday. I would add that, in the event of a successful ban appeal, this stuff can be sorted out at that stage, and it's quite plausible that a return would mean returning with the same permissions as before. There is no point in creating new work, nor instruction creep, and no problems would be prevented. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do oppose the arbitrary removal of rights that precipitated this RFC for the reasons others have mentioned above, I support the RFC proposal as written. I trust the blocking/unblocking admin's judgement as to the rights the user in question should have. I do have to stress the case-by-case portion, however. -- Dolotta (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Partly per iridescent, but also there is the practical issue, some of the people who get banned are excellent writers who have conduct issues, revoking autopatrolled for such a user is just muddying the water if they have been banned despite their content contributions rather than because of them.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * case by case: if the ban relates to a discretionary right, or perhaps if the behaviour leaving to a ban = loss of trust, then it should be up to an admin at any time upon a review to remove discretionary user rights. No one is usually going to do this only to grave dance or upset someone, it is simply an administrative task and I think it pointless to try to dictate a policy advocating how to handle general discretion over a discretionary right. Should the user come back and be allowed to edit they can re-request any special rights through the usual channels (WP:PERM). N.J.A.  &#124; talk  00:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose; rather pointless. The current setup works a lot better — if you legitimately come back from the ban, you may need to be on probation with just the basic rights, but there's no point to removing everything in every case.  For example, if you've been targeting other users, you'll need to lose access to edit filter manager, since that's a highly trustworthy right, but if you've never moved a page disruptively, there's no reason to take away pagemover.  Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. An unblock can be made conditional on losing some rights, presumably rights associated with the reason for the initial block.  Systematically revoking all rights previously  attained and having the editor "earn back" these privileges seems unneeded and uncalled for. It amounts to ritual public humiliation, a punitive act.---- Work permit (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose removing rights from previously blocked site-banned users per Iridescent and per WP:DENY. The proposal as suggested seems like unnecessary and needless red tape (especially when users having permissions doesn't really affect anything), so I'm inclined to oppose it as well, or at a minimum, leave it to the blocking admin's discretion. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Misread the proposal, so edited the wording to reflect that. I still believe that my main points still stand, though. OhKayeSierra (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To minimize overhead, I think the best approach is to leave the user rights as they were when the block implementing the ban was enacted. If as a part of that decision, it was decided to remove certain user rights, then that should be done. If unblocked, the user's privileges should be reviewed at that time. isaacl (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per what Iridescent says. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary busy work. There have been times I've wanted to do this myself, but there's just no value.  One advantage of sysops having and all the tools is that we can assess such things when the time comes, not before.  It's annoying from a perfectionist stance to have user counts inflated, I we can get over that. ~  Amory  (u • t • c) 10:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It depends. If they were caught socking, rollbacker should definitely be removed, for example. If they were globally banned, I would suggest removal of all rights. --Rschen7754 18:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case. First and foremost, blocks used to enforce bans are still preventative; any sanctions or removal of user rights should only target areas of disruption (where they will ideally mitigate disruption if the banned editor returns), requiring a case-by-case analysis of the circumstances leading to bans. Although site-banned users are seen as a net negative, this does not mean that every one of their edits is unconstructive, rendering removal of unrelated rights unnecessary. In the case of sockpuppetry, removal of user rights should coincide with the reason for sanctions on the puppeteer, and any rights trusted to not be (ab)used by multiple accounts should be removed (although it seems rather unlikely that many sockpuppets can attain such rights). That said, I oppose procedural removal of all user rights from site-banned users. They cannot edit regardless of their user rights, it would be an extra chore for sysops with no clear benefit, and non-egregious cases can be specifically evaluated in appeals or unblock conditions. ComplexRational (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose  It seems to address a problem which I do not see, and in the cases where it would make sense, it could be accomplished without this RfC.  Collect (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Iridescent's well reasoned argument. This is basically a pointless makework. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Iridescent, Collect, Xaosflux. Killer Chihuahua 18:30, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - Oftentimes, the ban is related to a user's behavior, not whether they're capable of correctly renaming files or rolling back vandalism. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Case-by-case (i.e. status quo). Rights may be removed if the user is effectively permanently banned (e.g. LTA/serial abuser, blocked for many years) or if the ban concerns misuse of the user rights in question.  -  F ASTILY   23:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak support moving forward - [summoned by bot] The reasons given for not notifying long-banned users is a good reason to leave it alone for past blocks, but this seems like a very sensible step to take by default when banning/indeffing someone (acknowledging there may be exceptions) and I'm yet to see any good reason why not. That said, the reasons to do so also aren't terribly urgent. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 04:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Aside from the occasions that xaosflux mentioned below, I think the actions that would be done are rather unnecessary and indeed a solution looking for a problem. The folks are banned; they're out of our editing community; we need not interact with them any longer (and that would include actions should as those suggested above). &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 14:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Considering those rights can't be exercised anyway (they'd either be hard infef'd for their siteban or get in trouble for violating their ban), is this really neccesary? Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 21:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose: If such a policy is applied retroactively to already banned editors, is it unfair as it was not part of the punitive measures applied at the time of the original ban. Even though the policy change was not proposed for such reasons, it will likely appear to be "mean-spirited vindictiveness" from the perspective of banned editors getting such messages in email months or years after being banned from Wikipedia. It also will make additional work for those tasked with implementing the policy. Carl Henderson (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I believe we already remove EFH and EFM from banned editors so they can't view private filters, but if not we should change that. With respect to the other perms, there's no point. – bradv  🍁  05:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * After many years since the first RfC, I'm still against removing said userrights from blocked/banned users unless the userrights are somehow related to their block/ban. Iridescent makes a good argument, too. Acalamari 05:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Removing the rights would seem to be the logical thing to do but banned users can't use them anyway. I think this is a solution looking for a problem. If in the rare instance someone is unbanned, depending on the reason for the original ban it could be decided then if the user should also retain the rights. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * What is the point of this? If they are banned, they cannot do anything with the rights, so there is no point in them having them.  That said, assuming they are blocked (and I cannot imagine someone being site banned but not blocked), they cannot use them anyway so there is no point in removing them.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only advanced right that you can do anything with if you're blocked is admin, in which case you can view deleted.  So site banned admins should have the admin bit removed, but for any other user rights I don't see how it matters either way. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Does anyone know if a block prevents a person from using rights that do not involve an edit? Accepting a pending revision and patrolling a page come to mind. I presume they would be prevented from doing so. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * there are a few beansy things in the admin and other very special restricted groups that could be used when blocked, but reviewing activities are not some of them (they fail with with various errors to various degrees of helpfulness, similar to "unable to complete because you are blocked" or "permission denied."). — xaosflux  Talk 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Historically, blocked admins couldn't block other people (as far as I'm aware), but they could unblock themselves, so a determined admin couldn't really be stopped by anyone except stewards and the WMF developers. (See this Signpost story for an example of what could go wrong.)  However, last year, this permission was removed: all you can do now while blocked is blocking the admin who blocked you (a safety mechanism for small wikis with few admins, in case one admin goes rogue), unless you blocked yourself, in which case you can still unblock yourself.  Nyttend (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m just relieved to come here and find out that this isn’t about Mr. Corbett. From that Signpost story: a novel suggestion that admins should be able to sacrifice their own sysop status and desysop another admin, in order to allow for debate on which of them should be resysopped. Or see . EEng 14:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * see EmergencyDeSysop (abandoned). — xaosflux  Talk 14:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That made sense in a situation where admins could unblock themselves. Now that it's no longer possible, the "block the admin who blocked you" option is better, since it's simpler (any third admin can unblock the victim), and it serves the emergency purpose of stopping the hacker or rogue admin.  And barring a bizarre error or an intentional test, there's no way that this feature could be used if both admins were acting in line with policy (either #1 is gone rogue and #2 stops him, or #1 imposes a block for good reason and #2 is grossly abusing the tools, or they're both behaving badly), so Arbcom would never allow both accounts to continue with admin rights after everything had settled down.  Nyttend (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment removing rights from those that won't need them and keeping statistics up-to-date is basic maintenance which is good, but it's not that easy to say who's "hard" indef blocked or not. It would be more important to remove rights like file mover, page mover and mass message sender(perhaps even extended confirmed) from people who have been inactive for years, because those rights can be abused and a lot of Wikipedia accounts are being captured based on password leaks elsewhere. --Pudeo (talk) 10:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: this is not relating to all blocked users, just the subset that are site-banned. -- The SandDoctor Talk 15:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Just thinking about this a bit more, I've removed rights from sock-farms before, but generally with a nice note on each one like "Should you become unblocked and return, please pick one of your accounts for rights and let me know or drop a note at WP:PERM". I have been taken up on that before. I suppose that's not really in scope of "site ban" discussion here, but it is similar.  I think an important part is to treat such actions as such with neutral to supportive comments. —  xaosflux  Talk 21:59, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - No judgment but this seems to be a lot of work for very little benefit. If they're site-banned don't the editors lose all their editing privileges (i.e. their technical ability to edit)? The user rights themselves become useless in most cases. I think we should examine each user individually. On the other hand, Database reports/Blocked users in user groups would get a lot shorter. epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the BUG report is mostly extendedconfirmed, which we almost never remove except for specific extendedconfirmed gaming. — xaosflux  Talk 12:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)