Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 7

How long should community ban discussions run?
I am appalled that User:MilesMoney was banned on a very questionable thread, after being opposed mostly by Austrian economics fans who didn't like Miles pointing out the fact that their fringe economics has no basis in empirical observation or the peer-reviewed literature. When I asked the banning administrator to re-open the discussion and allow more time for opposing views such as mine, I was refused. I was shocked that we require only 24 hours to close community bans. How many days should a community ban discussion remain open? EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * At least 7, and preferably 14. Anything less is unlikely to gather the diversity of opinions needed for such a long-term and difficult decision to reverse. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooops An RfC based on the wording above is not going to resolve anything. It is quite common for discussions at WP:ANI to reach consensus on a community ban in a short time because 24 hours is plenty for the experienced lurkers at that page to come to one of three conclusions—yes, CBAN is appropriate; no, it's not; or, more time needed. The latter occurs when someone says "but what about X?", where X is a factor that had not previously been discussed, and which seems pertinent, but where ANI is not a good place to examine the issue because it involves more detail than is suitable for that noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the discussion should have been moved somewhere else before being closed? In this case it only took 48 hours for a pile-on to convince an experienced ANI lurker of a "consensus" that 7+ days would certainly have shown to be a much more equal divide, if not an entirely opposite picture. Since User:TParis has declined my request, how will we ever know? I suppose it's only a matter of time before it happens to any of us. What's the point of investing time and effort into editing at all, if a political railroad pile-on can end it at the whim of the mob in 24 hours? EllenCT (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Many such have closed in under four hours.  In fact, for one to run as long as the MM did (just over 48 hours) is highly unusual.   I note that MM has averred proof of off-wiki canvassing, which he ought to provide to ArbCom as quickly as possible.   If such is not provided in a timely fashion, I think he is likely not going to find friendly ears with the arbs.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I note with amusement that the editor originating this proposal (1) is still fixated on the fallacious notion that MM's CBAN was somehow tied to his involvement in her own pet issue, and (2) that she's upset the closing admin wouldn't re-open the discussion just for her so that she could join the small minority in opposition to the sanction. While I agree that it may be worthwhile to revisit some of the provisions of CBAN, prefacing a proposal this way is risible.  And not particularly neutral, I might add.  Roccodrift (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As long as necessary, but no longer. Speaking to the general case, many community ban discussions can be and are decided unambiguously – and correctly – in a matter of hours.  If the 'natural' length of the discussion (due to the complexity of issues or breadth of parties involved) comes to more than two or maybe three days, it's probably too complex to be handled through AN(/I); after a couple of days, the noticeboard discussions tend to go back to being just the original parties to the dispute shouting back and forth at each other, and there is little additional constructive, independent participation.  Speaking to the specific case of MilesMoney, if he has credible evidence that a discussion's consensus was significantly altered by off-wiki canvassing then he has recourse to ArbCom, who may choose to review the evidence and the sanction imposed.  Even if we grant that EllenCT's assessment of and assumptions regarding the MilesMoney case is entirely correct, her proposal to impose a mandatory minimum duration on ban discussions would not squarely resolve the problem she perceives.   TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * We should bear in mind why the awful Community Sanctions Noticeboard (CSN) was deleted at MFD. The community hated that site ban proposals were being run like a court martial, and decided that all ban proposals should be kept open for a reasonable period. As "a reasonable period" is undefinable, imposing a minimum time limit for proposals probably isn't going to work. AGK  [•] 15:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * no minimum starting out an RFC by saying "I am appalled" is certainly not neutral. Consensus can form rapidly, it can form slowly. If there is an issue with the process being unfairly rushed in a particular case, that can be appealed on a case by case basis. This is not such a case. (but certainly feel free to appeal in any case) Gaijin42 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * no minimum Considering all the obviously vandalous or abusive Anon IPs or new users who get taken there, it has to be up to the Admin to make a quick decision when necessary, so you can't make a minimum. A few years back I got a six month block for inferring sexism about someone from (leaving out details for obvious reasons)... The community got mad about the block and the admin changed it to to 1 week. So if an admin really acts out of turn, it will get dealt with by the community or ArbCom. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No minimum Administrators should be able to determine when a thread should be closed, as they did in this case. It should remain open until a substantial number of editors have an opportunity to respond.  In this case the administrators held it open for 48 hours, which allowed over 40 editors to respond, which is high for a community ban.  If it is open 24 hours, it allows every editor who checks their watchlist every day to respond.  The banned editor has claimed that a "conservative cloud" conspired against him, and suggests the outcome would have been different had more time been allowed for uninvolved editors.  If he in fact has evidence of this, which he claims he does, then he should present the evidence.  But there is no reason to alter a policy in order to prevent canvassing that is already contrary to policy.  I doubt however that any evidence exists.  I have never edited from a conservative point of view, had no discussions on or off wiki about the ANI thread which I set up, and made no comments on it while it was running.  I think that* the editor has made this up, and if he is not able to provide the evidence he claims exists, then he has made unwarranted personal attacks against other editors, which just adds to the many reasons why he should be banned by the community.  TFD (talk) 18:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No set time required - the length of time depends on how quickly comments come in, and how persuasive are the cases for or against the position of the RFC.Mattnad (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no minimum. Can someone help the OP get an understanding of this community.  AN/ANI discussions are archived after 48 hours of not being touched. They're kinda like microwave popcorn - when the popping slows down, it's time to take it out of the microwave. Community ban discussions are similar - when you're down to 1 post every 12 hours, time to close it up (unless of course it's a frickin avalanche)  ES  &#38;L  19:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we need a version of Listen To Wikipedia that has popcorn sound effects and can be pointed at specific sections of specific noticeboards. The on-duty uninvolved closer for that particular ban discussion could then leave it running in the background (while working on other things) so that they'd know when the popcorn was ready. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Different animals – These are basically two different processes: The AN and ANI threads have their short-term lives and turnarounds. RFCs and RFC/Us have a 30± day life. Also, any discussion here about a particular banning will not help much in determining minimum, maximum, optimal timeframes. That is, the broader topic of the AN/ANI process is the concern. In any event, the judgment of the closer is an important factor. (And we also have a Request for Closure noticeboard for discussions that grow stale, go in circles, etc.) – S. Rich (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No minimum per arguments above. WP:NOTBURO. --Rschen7754 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No minimum Per EatsShootsAnd Leaves. This "minimum" proposal seems unhelpful. Capitalismojo (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Yes, I know about WP:SNOW. Yes, I should have asked the question with WP:SNOW in mind. Yes, this is a Wiki so I would be glad if you would close this RFC and open the correct one. No, I don't think it is a waste of anyone's time. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which "you" are you referring to as for closing this? And who'd be the editor to open a new one? – S. Rich (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any one with the competence to ask the question formulated well enough to take account of WP:SNOW. EllenCT (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that leaves me out. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironically, what should probably be WP:SNOW'ed and closed is this discussion. More seriously, EllenCT is correct that ban discussions should go on for a reasonable length of time given all the circumstances. But for all the reasons discussed above, interposing a defined time minimum isn't the best way to ensure this. (Not commenting here on any specific discussion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Historically, this came up before, when we made CBAN a procedure and established length recommendations. Both a longer dueation ("bare minimum 48 hrs" and no-SNOW were ideas I pushed for.  Shot down.
 * The idea of not letting it run longer and build up more of a disruptive discussion (largely, damaging to the bannee) was the main counterarguement.
 * As written, there is something left to be desired. The MM case did comply with my original preferred practice.
 * Ellen and MM both point out that, unlike arbcom cases, ability to defend onesself is limited with CBAN. One can identify CBAN as akin only to the 'proposed decision' at Arbcom cases - community members already having seen the history and having opinions about activity.  There is still some disparity.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I refuse to believe that the community prefers quick knee-jerk lynch mobs, but I don't know how to formulate the question to accommodate both WP:SNOW for e.g. clear vandals and enough time for political railroad pile-ons to be resisted. But a lot of the survey respondents above are simply following my contributions here, and probably hoping to do the same to me some day soon. Someone else should re-open this with a reasonable question accommodating WP:SNOW to get less response from people who don't like what I have to say. EllenCT (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * EllenCT, when you voted at ANI, were you basing your vote on your previous interaction with the editor, or did you read the links I and other editors posted? I saw nothing actionable in his contributions to the articles where you had contact with him.  However, in the Rothbard article, he insisted on using an article (or opinion piece, depending on your perspective) which claimed Rothbard in his newsletter had supported David Duke when he ran for governor of Louisiana.  Even when it was pointed out to him that the newsletter did not mention Duke during the campaign, the editor continued to insist that we include the claim.  And there are examples of similarly unhelpful discussions.  TFD (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think re-discussion of a specific editor is helpful here and it was a mistake to be so particular in the RFC statement. Regarding the issue of WP:SNOW closes, I would like to point out that CBAN is not typically the means for dealing with obvious vandals. They get blocked by admins without the need for any significant community discussion. SNOW closes for turning down obviously bad ban proposals ought to be allowed for, but we don't need to provide for rapid positive closes to ban vandals. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The point is that evidence was presented and most of the 40+ editors who responded read and accepted it. Some even provided evidence of their own.  The reason for this proposal I assume is that the proposer assumes the editors who replied did not consider the evidence.  TFD (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Involved/Uninvolved editors in Community ban

 * Community bans and restrictions section reads in part:
 * Community sanctions may be discussed on the Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on 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.


 * In the close of this WP:ANI the closing Admin wrote:
 * A community ban discussion of uninvolved editors means that a group of predominately involved editors in the current dispute cannot determine who gets banned from the project. It does not mean that editors involved in the dispute cannot contribute to the consensus.  This interpretation is fairly new and recent. (Plus other relevant comments.)

This issue was a couple editors repeated complaints that involved or allegedly involved editors "voted" with "Oppose" or "Support". (The discussion was not divided into "involved" and "uninvolved" sections.) Questions: Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is the policy, don't we need to explicitly say "involved editors" can't actually "support" or "oppose" a banning?
 * Do we need to define "involved" better? Some may claim having commented on a previous ANI or having made one comment on a talk page of one of many articles in question is "involved."
 * Do we need to require that there be involved and uninvolved sections?
 * Related to the quote by me above is this able which outlines how the consensus would've looked given my interpretation above, given the "not involved in underlying dispute" interpretation, and given the "never involved with subject" interpretation.--v/r - TP 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is impossible and unreasonable to force involved editors not to participate in community ban discussions/votes. For starters, there are some people whom are so active at AN/ANI that it is very hard to find editors who are completely uninvolved with them, and yet are likely to participate in a CBAN thread. Secondly, those involved in the situation are those who have witnessed things first-hand; sometimes that makes them unreliable, other times it makes them more reliable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I wasn't clear, assuming I have it right, the idea is just you can't say "Oppose" or "Support" but you can say "Comment" and say pretty much the same thing without drawing a conclusion - maybe not that big a deal? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how you phrase it, this is not a sensible road to go down (the other flip side is that uninvolved editors may not understand the subject area well enough to make a call, or simply won't care enough - both are common occurrences). Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Evidently somewhere - on ANI among Admins? - there was some consensus to change this. But it needs to be confirmed here. If we can't find where this consensus happened, I guess we should do a Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There is discussion about the wording in the talk page archives. The intention is to prevent a group of POV editors guarding an article from getting a new editor banned over a content dispute.  But unless the meaning of "involved" is defined, and editors are separated in discussion threads by whether or not they are involved, it seems pointless.  TFD (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * In any event, I suggest that CANVASS be applied strictly on all !votes, and that anyone CANVASSED by a person soliciting a specific position by wording or clear inference ("you have had problems with xxx and he is being discussed at AN/I" or the like) in any way by discounted in any !vote counts where the !vote was made in accord with the !vote of the CANVASSER . This will not solve the entire problem, but it would prevent vote-stacking or pile-on situations a bit. Collect (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (appending per comment below) Collect (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So canvass your enemies before the vote to nullify their votes? That'd be a slick tactic. NE Ent 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- append !votes in accord with the !vote of the CANVASSER would take care of that small piece of potential wikilawyering . Thanks.  Collect (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Any proposals on specific language that would help on any of these issues? I'll come up with some in a day or two myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Confusing article
This page is highly confusing. It doesn't right-out tell me where to go to propose a ban of any kind. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's in there. It's a bad idea just to "go ask for a ban" without understanding the circumstances under which bans are generally issued. NE Ent 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I still couldn't find a link for ban proposals. Please redirect me there, thanks. :O -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is under WP:CBAN. Discussions take place at AN or ANI.  ARBCOM can also ban editors.  TFD (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

open ended bans
I just reverted a change from "permanent" to "indefinite" because indefinite has a specific wiki meaning in the context of blocks which is different than that of permanent bans. NE Ent 22:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The term "indefinite" isn't used exclusively with blocks. Editors who are banned without a time limit are also referred to as banned "indefinitely". Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * "Permanent" implies that bans are final, and cannot ever be lifted. That's not true. Banned users are always entitled to appeal their ban, although the time frames in which they are allowed to appeal can be restricted. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ambiguity as to Appeal of Community Ban to ArbCom
The policy is ambiguous in one detail. It has sometimes been stated that English Wikipedia community bans may be appealed to the English Wikipedia ArbCom, but there is no explicit statement to that effect. May community bans be appealed to the ArbCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In theory, yes, any ban may be appealed to ArbCom. Community ban appeals are heard by BASC. In practice, however, we're generally very reluctant to disturb sanctions placed by the community, and generally would do so only if there were serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. It's not really our place to substitute our judgment for a genuine community consensus. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And I would emphasise that community ban appeals are usually dismissed and referred to the community, because – as Seraph. says – we don't need to substitute our judgement for the community's. Most appeals we hear are of users blocked, usually for sock puppetry, by a single administrator. It would be best if the policy didn't direct community ban appeals to ArbCom at all. AGK  [•] 12:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added notes to that effect. NE Ent 02:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "generally very reluctant to disturb sanctions placed by the community" is inconsistent with the acceptance of the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics case. NE Ent 02:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The principle that guides the Arbitration Committee in these situations is here. (That case involved a community sanction short of a site-ban, but the relevant principles and the reasoning behind them are the same.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Has the committee ever completely overturned a community ban? I recall one or two instances of arbcom re-instating a talk page so the user could appeal it themselves, or arbs opening an unban discussion at ANI, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone go from banned to unbanned with no community involvement.  Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes; there have been some (very rare) instances when a community ban was overturned directly by Arbcom, and a few other situations where Arbcom actively sought out community opinion before overturning a community or Arbcom ban. The results have been mixed, but perhaps no worse than when the community directly overturned bans.  It's happened maybe 1-2 times a year on average. Risker (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Evasion
Wouldn't range blocks be used if a banned editor evades the ban from numerous IP addresses? Captain Cornwall (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BMB - further enforcement measures
User:Richard Daft is subject to a community-wide WP:BAN and, following recent typically insulting and disruptive edits, I decided to take action under the terms of WP:BMB and remove all known edits by his SPI-confirmed accounts in Sockpuppet investigations/Richard Daft/Archive. I outlined my case at WP:ANI where the admins were helpful up to a point but there is no doubt Daft will continue to operate and I have a question concerning this sentence under WP:BMB : "Serious, ongoing ban evasion is sometimes dealt with by technical means or by making an abuse complaint with the operator of the network from which the edits originate". In view of the length of time and the enormous number of Daft manifestations processed at SPI, can something be done "by technical means" or via his operator? Daft is an exceptionally persistent troll and some drastic action is needed to stop him disrupting the WP:CRIC project. HCCC14 (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

changing appeals procedure
The community has long endorsed both proxy posted appeals via email and talked paged blocked editors being allowed to discuss with individual administrators via email, if that editor so chooses. Therefore the wording of the appeal procedure should not be changed without a full community discussion. 10:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Says who? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * One example Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256 NE Ent 11:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've taken it back to the non BASC version. I made the edit based on what the block template and the top of that section is about. From my reading the section is about appealing to ArbCom and they don't accept appeals by proxy so they'd have to email BASC. In any case I think emailing BASC should be there as one of the options (probably replacing "an arbitration clerk, or a member of the Arbitration Committee" with the text I added). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've made a suggested edit that I think covers both cases. NE Ent 13:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

How to respond to banned editing?
So, a sock of a banned user (Sportfan5000) made a contribution to a deletion discussion. Am I to ignore that argument simply because it was made by him? C h r o m a Nebula  (talk)   15:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the Fox Attacks AFD, I'd recommend you just leave it for an administrator to close. It's hard for me to see that the sock actually sways the discussion in a different way than it would have gone.&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's already closed. And I apologize for the Nelly Furtado affair (although I did add it to the WP:HALLOFLAME. C h r o m a Nebula   (talk)   21:54, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarify "Pages created by banned users"
Statement under "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors": Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, and which have no substantial edits by others, are eligible for speedy deletion. Pages includes articles, project pages and user talk pages? Does it include only those created after the ban? And does it need to specify that site banned editors shouldn't be creating them at all? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:02, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're over complicating this. Some things are implied, others are left up for editors to come to a consensus on on a case by case basis.  The rest of it, we don't want to make these policies concrete and then tie ourselves into a knot of instruction creep.  Pages includes all pages, but their own user talk page may be considered an exemption under the condition of an unblock request, perhaps.  For the most part, yes, it's pages after a ban.  Pages before a ban could be considered if they were the reason the editor was banned in the first place.  No, it doesn't need to specify that.  We can make these decisions on a case by case basis at noticeboards.--v/r - TP 22:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proxy editing for banned users

 * KoshVorlon BOLDly removed the section that previously allowed making edits suggested somewhere by currently banned users, if an editor took responsibility, had substantial reason to believe it was productive and otherwise proper within Wikipedia policy, etc. I have reverted that.  I believe there is the beginnings of a lean towards that position (ban = no proxy at all) in the community, however there has been significant discussion on noticeboards that supported being able to do so in some circumstances with some specific banned editors.  I therefore believe that this is too BOLD for a simple BOLD change to such a serious policy.
 * I would like to request discussion at least here, ANI, possibly VP on whether a consensus can be generated on changing, if it is felt that the change should go forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the content of the bold edit (although I agree that discussing it is in order). A banned editor is not a member of the Wikipedia community (which anyone else in the world may choose to be) and may not edit.  Removing the special exception is reasonable.  An editor in good standing may make an edit that is the same as that suggested by the banned editor, but only because it is his or her own edit.  I see no need for the weird special language that sometimes permits proxying for a banned editor.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that, if a banned editor suggests something, without the special language that suggested edit now becomes verboten. Even if it's actually made by another editor as their own edit.  However, I would welcome KoshVorlon's explanation of his intention with the change to clarify how he interpreted the current and his proposed versions.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's always been the purpose of the "independent reason" clause. That people abuse the independent reason clause is a separate problem.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Concur with revert, policy is good as is. NE Ent 10:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * One issue seems to be whether or not the community knows that the banned editor was the source of the suggestion for the edit. Why would a banned editor be making requests for edits public, unless it includes the idea of circumventing the ban?  On the other hand, is it really possible for a banned editor to continue to participate on a long-time basis using proxying?  So perhaps this clause is really only useful in exceptional cases, and is supported by WP:IAR.  Without either an example of abuse, or an example of where the clause has been useful, the clause is verbiage.  Perhaps we could change the clause to read, "...except under WP:IAR."  Unscintillating (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with the change because the removed provision is redundant and can be omitted without changing anything. Even if the clause is removed, editors will not be sanctioned for making edits similar to a banned user's if they are able to show that they are not in fact editing at the banned editor's direction. Also, the part about "verifiable or productive" is weird and should be removed in any case. What does "productive" even mean here? We're not producing anything.  Sandstein   10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea to produce an encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * A correction of table syntax would fall under the umbrella of "productive", but would be hard to describe as "verifiable".&mdash;Kww(talk) 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I did make a bold edit in the section labeled "Proxying".    If someone is site banned, allowing them to contribute in anyway on-site is a violation of the spirit of that ban.  Banned means banned.   If someone is Article or Page banned, allowing them to contribute to that page or that article would also be a violation of the spirit of the ban.    If someone is under an interaction ban, to allow someone to proxy a message to the person they're banned from interacting with is, again, a violation of the spirit of that ban.

For instance, I'm currently topic banned from any article that mentions transgender anything, or LGBT anything. To me, that means that I should not be allowed to contribute to, either directly or by proxying, to any article that falls under that ban. Now, that ban is set to expire in April. Once that ban is expired, I could contribute once again, but during the ban, as far as I'm concerned, I need to keep away from any article I'm banned from. (I say that to show that this isn't just academic to me :) )

I would, as the proposer, support changing back the first paragraph in the proxying section to read:

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying)

KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  17:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is something a bit more nuanced than a simple "yes they can" vs. "no they can't" will answer, but I will say that a formulation of "banned editor == bad edit" is simplistic and petty. What counts is the improvement of the encyclopedia; if a good edit came as the result of a banned user's suggestion, then it should not be challenged on the basis of origin alone.  The Wikipediocracy, for all its sophomoric jibjabs, does by and large take WP:BLP quite seriously, and I have taken action (initiated a deletion discussion, participated at WP:BLPN on several occasions where the impetus was a post there by a banned user.  The banned user Russavia, who despite many glaring faults is well-versed in the ins & outs of non-free content policy, used his en.wiki userpage to highlight copyright violations and such.  Where the bad proxying can come into play is in the project's hot-button topic areas.  If a person partial to one side of the Israeli-Palestine conflict or climate change or whatever is giving off-wiki direction to others to advance a particular point-of-view, then that can be problematic, as it is difficult enough to deal with on-wiki behavior in those areas.  So all in all, the current wording reflects the most commonsense approach; if you post it, you own it, despite where the impetus came from.  Banned users are just people who may have transgressed against the project's rules; they are not un-people, nor are they criminals.  At the end of the day, they're still people. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as is: To note my COI, per a lingering Arbitration, I'll probably be topic banned from an area for too vociferously complaining about WP:BLP issues. These issues will remain after (hopefully) the tag-team and proudly POV editors who have inserted questionable material into a number of Bios are topic banned.
 * Assuming Arbitration doesn't totally forbid such activity, I would like to encourage the most egregious problems to be solved. I have set up a couple talk pages that show the best (too often unused) WP:RS for one bio and a draft restructuring of current material with notes. I would like to refer a few people to that material, especially after my notes about it get archived from the article's talk page. I'd like to leave at least a few messages on a few talk pages to alert editors (who were driven from the articles by previous nonsense) that they are free to return and fix the articles. I'd like to point out what I think are the worse problems, if only by referring to previous talk page discussions.
 * On the other hand, if they aren't banned from such activity, I imagine the editors who have clearly express total distain for the subjects of the BLP and are quite capable of motivating editors as biased as themselves to form new tag teams.
 * So it's a bit of a conundrum for me. Nevertheless, I am glad to see that this option does exist in serious cases, and BLP is the most serious case. Like many other things, it has to be looked at on a case by case basis. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment  So far - consensus is evenly split 2 - 2   Hopefully more comments will  show up and add more to this discussion

I Agree that we should let banned users to Request revisions, but the one thing that is troubling is that they are banned from Wikipedia, that's it, goodbye, as being Banned is a formal retraction of editing privileges, no more 2nd chances. I only voted This way because all the votes would crush my 1 vote. Happy Attack Dog ( you rang? ) 13:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Allow, but urge caution. If a banned user makes a suggestion and I agree with it, I should be allowed to make the same suggestion. It would have to be me making it; "I don't think we should translate Wikipedia into Klingon" instead of "BannedUserSock says we shouldn't translate Wikipedia into Klingon", and it should have a caution about not helpng a banned user to game the system. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's so simple I'm not sure why we are even discussing this. Making an edit as a proxy of a banned editor should be allowed.  However, that editor who makes the edit is responsible for the edit.  If any of you are stupid enough to make an edit on behalf of an editor that has been banned from a topic area or Wikipedia entirely, knowing that their editing caused them trouble in that area in the first place, then you accept whatever blocks and bans that come up as merited from the edit itself.  If, for example, some moron were to go to some LGBT article on behalf of a banned homophobic editor and say "LGBT people spread diseases" then the editor who made the edit is responsible for posting such stupid nonsense and will likely join his friend in being topic or site banned.  It's that simple.--v/r - TP 19:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * TParis says it well and I agree. The proxying editor takes full responsibility for the edit and whatever fallout may derive from it.  If the content of the edit goes against policy, or serves to aggravate the situation which caused the banned editor to be banned, the proxying editor should then (and only then) be sanctioned for disruptive editing. Their lack of participation in the situatin prior to that should not be allowed as an excuse. BMK (talk) 19:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with the comments from TParis and BMK, and much of what Tarc says as well. If a banned user (or anyone, really) offers a suggestion for improving Wikipedia, there is no reason an editor in good standing cannot implement that suggestion, if they independently decide that it's an edit that should be made, and are willing to accept full responsibility for doing so. 28bytes (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with those comments too. The policy is good as is. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC).
 * I also agree that we should allow for proxying, with the warning that the person acting as the proxy takes full responsibility for the edit, and if the edit violates policy or otherwise could result in warnings or disciplinary action that they will bear the sole burden for it. I can imagine the problem if we don't allow for proxying, where editor A makes an edit but gets banned (for a related or unrelated matter), editor B reverts the edit, and editor C wants to reinstate the edit but can't (no matter how correct the edit is) because our banning policy disallows it. That doesn't seem at all far-fetched, and even though I can't recall where, I swore I've seen it happen (except fortunately editor C is not disallowed under our current policy). --  At am a  頭 22:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(I'm posting this as it was left on my page by an IP. I've checked and it's appears to be from Chrysler, no blocks either, however, if this I.P is a sock, then anyone can remove this post   KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh  22:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)  )

The best case example of the proxy I have seen is along these lines: You are banned from LGBT. You have a little watched LGBT BLP on your watch list. You see a BLP violation that is clear, unambiguous, and vile. You contact an admin to say "Hey, this may need to be taken care of". That section prevents someone who has a battleground attitude with you from turning both you and the admin in for a ban violation and proxying for a banned user. I can't post this to the talk page due it being semi-protected but that clause is there for a reason. Its to prevent the petty battleground crap from flying between wikilawyers. Others abusing it is just like any other policy on the site, it happens. 129.9.104.10 (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe there needs to be a firm delineation between topic banned and wikipedia banned. People can get overly excited and violate policy on topics of extreme interest to them, while being sensible on other topics, and those people should be cut more slack than those who are incapable of policy-compliant edits and behaviors in any topic area. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be specific. Do you propose that the editor be permitted to proxy edit in the topic area in which she is "incapable of policy-compliant edits and behaviors?"  In what way does proxy editing in such areas differ from the case of the editor who is site-banned due to such behavior in all topic areas?   SPECIFICO  talk  14:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I can see that by questioning me specifically, SPECIFICO is continuing to follow me to harass me and is not going by the voluntary IBAN others have agreed to while waiting for an Arbitration decision. (SPECIFICO never would explicitly tell us if he agreed or not.) I thus shall not be answering him. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that being banned from Wikipedia is, by definition: "A formal retraction of editing privileges." That means there are no more chances. And because getting banned by the community takes quite a bit of work. They don`t deserve a second chance to edit. Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 18:41, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. A ban, whether a topic ban or a site ban, is imposed only after due consideration.  While continued participation may be of interest to the misbehaving editor, it is not in the interest of the Project.  A clean break is required.  Content improves over time, and the process of ongoing improvement in WP is not based on individual views or personalities but rather on the pursuit and adaptation of all the good RS references out there in the world. Others will find the right content and the articles will improve.  The process should not be viewed in terms of contributors but rather in terms of content.   SPECIFICO  talk  18:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 *  Comment  It's been mentioned at least twice here Banned is a formal retraction of editing privileges , that's precisely my reason for the bold change, allowing an edit even if it's good, IMHO goes against the spirit of what a ban is all about.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   19:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, how about we make the "Allow a banned user to propose changes" system a retractable revision? That way anyone who is misusing the Allow a banned user to propose changes system to be retracted of that privilege. Maybe this option will be able to become a compromise between the two sides. Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 19:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason you need case-by-case analysis in topic bans anyway is that one editor may be banned for being a sock puppet, meat puppet, tag-team editor, outed-paid employee, serial harasser/vandal/etc. who's really good at WP:Gaming the system. Another just may have had the misfortune of having to constantly revert and/or complain about and/or lose their temper about such offending editor(s) while admins twiddle their thumbs. I can think of a couple socks I and/or others have tussled with who were outed only after a couple months or even years of bad editing - and other less nefarious editors who got blocks and bans just for losing their tempers with them (and usually edit warring). Allowing those who care more about pushing their agenda than Wikipedia policies to aggravate, drive away or get topic banned editors who are not similarly intent on gaming the system would be destructive of the project. [Added later, finishing thought: Similarly allowing gamers to proxy edit would be destructive, but forbidding some proxy bidding, at least on important un-addressed policy issues, by editors who have been goaded into or slipped into bad behavior also would be destructive.] Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 22:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Typo: revision = Privilege sorry guys...  Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 13:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree with a case-by-case basis.  If I'm topic banned  (actually, I am topic banned from LGBT, Transgender articles, broadly contstrued )  it means that my behavior is seen as problematic in that topic (or the banning sysop thinks it is ).   Far as I'm concerned, it would be wrong for me to suggest anything on the talk page of that topic, or suggest that someone post something on any article or talk page that I'm banned on for any reason, even if the post is 100% helpful.   Same would be true  if I were speaking of an interaction ban, or even a site ban.    As far as I'm concerned,  I'm banned from certain areas, so I take that opportunity to participate in others and steer clear of any area that I'm banned from, from any means, even suggesting someone else post something on my behalf or make a change in the article on my behalf.   Just my .02  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   16:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of those things about you would be wrong. You shouldn't do all of those things.  But is it wrong for someone to do it on your behalf?  Does you being in the wrong make the next person in the chain wrong?  I don't think so.  A topic banned editor can be blocked for suggesting a proxy edit, because the action of suggesting it on-wiki would be a violation of the topic ban, but the editor making the edit wouldn't be blocked for the edit itself because they themselves are not under any sanctions.  They'll be judged on the merit of the edit itself; not it's source.  Although I would footnote that with a warning that any editor who encourages a particular editor to continually edit via proxy to get around a topic ban should be sternly warned or blocked for that encouragement.--v/r - TP 20:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that it's complicated. In particular, if a topic-banned editor makes an on-wiki suggestion within that topic-ban, then the banned editor is in violation of the topic ban and could be sanctioned for suggesting the proxy editing.  But the person acting on that illicit suggestion should not (normally) be in trouble.  So:  Kosh is topic-banned from LGBT stuff.  Kosh should therefore not post a message saying, "Hey, there's a serious problem with this LGBT-related article".  But if Kosh were to do this, or if Kosh were to e-mail someone about the problem (which is normally "legal" under standard topic bans), and the other editor agrees that there is a serious problem and then fixes it, then there really is no good reason to sanction the editor who cleans up the problem.  We don't want to be in the position of saying, "Thanks for fixing that mess.  But we know the only reason you knew that the mess existed was because this topic-banned person called your attention to it, so we're going to punish you for it.  If you didn't want to be punished, then you shouldn't clean up horrible messes that have been mentioned by any banned editors."  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me explain this via an example. Editor A has been topic banned from articles related to bananas, lets say he looks at the page Banana and sees a section were someone says bananas are purple. Editor A says to editor B "Hey, could you take out the section about bananas being purple?" That editor should be fine and not get banned. Now Lets say that editor C is topic banned from anything regarding fruit, now lets say that he keeps on spamming the pending requests with ridiculous comments like grapes are blue. Admin D comes along and sees that he is being a annoyance. He then revokes Editor C`s privilege to send pending requests. Hope this explains everything - Happy Attack Dog  ( you rang? ) 14:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If we can get back to current wording: Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits. This seems to contradict what TP writes above:  A topic banned editor can be blocked for suggesting a proxy edit, because the action of suggesting it on-wiki would be a violation of the topic ban, but the editor making the edit wouldn't be blocked for the edit itself because they themselves are not under any sanctions. 
 * The main change in current word I might be would be change direction to suggestion since banned editors certainly shouldn't be directing anything; however suggestions on important issues, especially BLP violations that no one has bothered to fix yet, certainly should be allowed. (Again, see my possible COI statement above, in case I end up under topic ban in near future.) Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 20:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The most important part here is that editors, whether they are proxy editing or not, are responsible for their merit of their edits. "Because banned editor told me to" just isn't going to fly.  With that understanding, if someone chooses to edit on behalf of a banned editor, that's their choice and they assume the risk.  That's what this all boils down to.--v/r - TP 22:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * TParis,  First,  I wouldn't ask anyone to post anything on any page I'm banned from.   I'd see that as gaming the system.  If a person's banned from a page, they're banned, period.  It doesn't mean, they, personally, can't post , but they can ask other to do it for them.  That's straight up gaming and that loophole needs to be closed.  The only solution I can see, is stating unequivocally that banned is banned, and therefore, a banned individual can't post in an article they're banned from, nor can they ask anyone else to do it for them.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh   11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Carolmooredc - Regarding your wording, I like it, but I'd change it a bit:  Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) .

Anytime an editor is banned, asking someone to proxy for them is, in and of itself, a violation of their topic ban. It doesn't matter if their suggested change is good, bad, or otherwise. Banned means banned. It's that simple. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  15:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is rather draconian, and does not seem to be a point-of-view expressed by many others, if any. Tarc (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm not the only person that's stated "banned means banned". I've actually seen others express this point of view.

I don't really see it as being draconian, but yes, it's extreme, but bear in mind, being banned is not a first step, nor a second nor even a third step in dispute resolution, it's a step that's taken when others haven't worked. Therefore, if anyone's at this point, they've had chances to "do the right thing". As a formerly topic banned wikipedian, I can tell you sometimes the ban is in place, not as a final step, but because of discretionary sanctions (that's a whole other ball of wax), where the topic was the source of controversy and the ban was placed to lessen that controversy. In my case I didn't ask anyone to do anything on my behalf on any of the articles I was topic banned from. I saw that as giving the appearance of gaming the system. I just avoided those articles and edited other areas of wikiepdia. I ask no less of anyone else that became banned that I have asked of myself. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh  21:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Do topic bans extend to the banned editor's user talk page?
If they do, words to that effect should be added to WP:TBAN. It could easily be done by changing the final bullet to say "...(including edit summaries, and user talk pages)..." (changes in italics). If they don't, that should be made explicit.

This could eliminate unfortunate misunderstandings such as THIS ONE. -Lou Sander (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I think user space should generally be exempt from the ban, unless the ban discussion specifically includes it. In my experience, "Broadly construed" is almost inevitably synonymous with "shifting the goalposts". Reyk  YO!  02:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * PROXYING implies that the user may still make suggestions, and it would be better to have those suggestions be on wiki rather than off wiki, where they can't be monitored. I would personally say the talk page should not be included, but disruptive use of the talk page per WP:UP will still lead to talk page revokation Gaijin42 (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * A topic-banned editor who attempts to game their topic ban by misinterpreting and wikilawyering WP:PROXYING in the way that you suggest is simply going to find themselves entirely and fully banned, instead of just topic-banned. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec) Unless specifically exempted, topic bans are understood to apply everywhere on Wikipedia&mdash;including talk pages, including user talk pages. A topic ban means "Stay away from this topic on the Wikipedia project."  Period.  It's not really complicated, except when people try to find ways to not stay away from a topic.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks more like willful defiance than "unfortunate misunderstanding" to me.&mdash;Kww(talk) 03:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see any willful defiance, but I can see how others might. Alonzo doesn't see user talk pages mentioned in WP:TBAN, and emphatically says so. The Admin sees willful defiance, scolds Alonzo, and takes further action. Some folks in this very discussion say that topic bans are understood to apply everywhere, including user space, while others think they shouldn't apply to user space. IMHO the problem is an inadequate explanation of the extent of topic bans. If the strong interpretation stated by TenOfAllTrades above is correct and has consensus, WP:TBAN needs to be more explicit about it. -Lou Sander (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It definitely does not currently say that a topic ban covers user talk pages. No user talk page is either "broadly related" to any particular topic or "part of other pages related to the topic". A slippery slope? Perhaps "broadly construed". If a caveat were added "including userspace", it would also exclude the necessary parts of WP:BANEX across the board. "Asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban" would be worthy of a topic ban violation. Unless it's strictly a block appeal? No. Doc   talk  07:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "anywhere on Wikipedia " certainly does encompass user talk pages, unless they are somehow miraculously disengaged from the Wikipedia servers, but the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk: in the URLS suggests no such miracles are taking place. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: In the example that is offered, the offending mention of the banned topic is on THIS particular User Page. The discussion regarding the offense of mentioning the banned topic is on THIS particular User Talk Page. They are presented as examples only. Other examples may well exist. -Lou Sander (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "anywhere on Wikipedia", as mentioned, includeds user space, barring WP:BANEX, which the user page that was the ban violation is unambiguously not. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can a randomly topic-banned user not expect to use their talk page to address "a legitimate concern about the ban itself"? A user talk page is not an "appropriate" forum to even mention these concerns? What is a legitimate forum? Doc   talk  13:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * They absolutely can. However, that was not what was taking place in the situation in question. This was a case of blatantly flaunting the topic ban on the user page, then engaging in epic WP:IDHT on the user talk page when told this was a ban, including personal attacks. Those were what led to the TPA revocation. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that "anywhere on Wikipedia", as briefly mentioned in the examples in WP:TBAN includes user space. I think that explicitly including "user space" in those examples would avoid a lot of confusion about it. So would including "anywhere on Wikipedia" in the material that precedes the examples. If topic bans really DO extend "anywhere on Wikipedia", it shouldn't be hard to get consensus for either change. --Lou Sander (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support adding specific mention of User-space pages to the list of examples. This is not a policy change as they are already included in existing interpretation and enforcement.   13:46, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is "process-wonking". What is widely understood is that any particular topic-banned editor can just be blocked and have their talk page access removed as an extra measure if needed. What is not widely understood is that automatically removing user talk pages as a forum for all topic-banned editors flies in the face of BANEX. A bad idea. Doc   talk  14:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Widely or not widely understood? It looks like the real situation is that topic banned editors can bring up the banned subject on their user pages for WP:BANEX reasons, but not for others. IMHO, that is reasonable policy, and should be explicitly stated in WP:TBAN. Or maybe TenOfAllTrades's useful "A topic ban means "Stay away from this topic on the Wikipedia project." Period." could be there instead. It could avoid a lot of misunderstandings, accusations, and unproductive discussions. --Lou Sander (talk) 15:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Improving the wording of WP:TBAN might be reasonable. Whenever a topic ban is issued per WP:Arbitration enforcement the best practice is for the admin to spell it out in very thorough language, so there is no chance of misunderstanding. Since the WP:ARBCC case there is a tendency to view topic bans as covering everything. The concern in that case was that some banned editors were using their talk pages to give article editing assignments to their like-minded colleagues who weren't banned. If a topic ban is issued by the *community* rather than Arbcom (or under the authority of Arbcom at AE) the exact terms are whatever gets agreed upon at a noticeboard. Community bans are sometimes worded to allow talk page editing. Since WP:TBAN is a widely used 'template' for terms of bans it should probably be beefed up to have no chance of misreading. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How can one best go about doing that? Is there a way to propose a specific change? Lou Sander (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the only place to propose changes to the policy. Draft up some language and gain consensus for it. Any bold change made to this policy might be reverted unless consensus is clearly in favor of the change. Doc   talk  05:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Didn't we already decide something on this during the climate change stuff? Gigs (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ".. unless pages are explicitly exempted" could be added to cover those instances. There are cases where a TBANed editor is even allowed to edit article talkpages or contribute in wiki space. Rare maybe but they nevertheless can exist. Agathoclea (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I will work on a proposal for a (slightly) changed WP:TBAN. My plan, unless there are objections, is to put it on a sandbox-like sub-page to this one, and link to it here. It can be brought to this page if and when initial consensus seems to be emerging. Lou Sander (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Clarifications needed: I just got topic banned and tend to be against continued use of talk pages for the topic banned subject. (Since mine was for being too snotty to editors who it took Wikipedia a year to ban for POV pushing in BLPs, my bias is against seeing more of such stuff anywhere.)
 * However, what about past use? I assume all archived discussions of the topic would not count. Should pre-topic banned discussions still on the user page count or should user be encouraged to archive them? And what about my separate "Do page" listing a bunch of articles and a bibliography and suggested restructuring on other separate pages? Don't want to leave those up if they get me in trouble down the road... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need a whole boatload of new rules that boil down to "don't be a dick". Though, if people followed that rule, we'd rarely need topic bans. Each situation is going to be different.  If there's a reasonable objection to the user pages you have up that are in your topic banned area, prompt removal/archival of them would probably keep you out of any real hot water.  I don't really know anything about the circumstances around your situation, so take this as general advice, not as a license to use your userspace for provocation, since that's what this is really about.  Gigs (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * any instructional WP:CREEP should be based on actual widespread confusion and not a single person's attempt to Wikilawyer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Policy fallacy. NE Ent 10:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * support in order to cut Wikilayering off more quickly. If people are saying "the rules don't cover this" then they are at least claiming to have read them, so I don't see how Policy fallacy really applies. Yes, a reasonable person could see how any website would not be obligated to host a screed against its own policies and decisions, without having to read any rules, but we've already spent way too much time on this unreasonable person. Mangoe (talk) 18:52, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to modify WP:TBAN
Having read all the discussion above, I propose that the last bullet in WP:TBAN be modified to say:
 * discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (including edit summaries and user pages), for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist.

At the cost of three words ("and user pages"), this clarifies things and corrects an obvious omission. Some fine points of topic bans are covered in WP:BANEX (exceptions) and WP:PBAN (definition of "page"), which could be referenced in WP:TBAN, but probably don't need to be, per the discussion above. -Lou Sander (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would oppose that change for the same reasons I stated. It hasn't been an obvious omission for nearly four years - why now the confusion? The cost of adding those three words is massive. It would needlessly muddy the waters.
 * What I would support is one short, simple additional sentence stating that userpage privileges can/will be revoked for topic-banned editors who use them to soapbox about whatever it is they were topic-banned for. Doc   talk  03:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with that and, what's more, I would use that exact same wording. Reyk  YO!  03:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Dumb question(?) Do Arbitrators have to base their decisions on policy made here? Or can they say that what they write or don't write about someone when they sanction them is the policy for that person. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 02:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No they don't need to base it on WP:TBAN. In fact they generally avoid linking to WP:BAN now (mainly for topic and interaction bans) as can be seen in the recent gun control case. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * But Admins still could apply policy made here to violators of Arbitration under discretionary sanctions, assuming there's no Arbitration language to the contrary? With an appeal to Arbitrators possible in any case?
 * (I still can't decide if it's anarchy in action or The Tyranny of Structurelessness. ;-) Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 04:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes admins generally refer to WP:TBAN when issuing discretionary sanctions, but in theory they don't need to and define it differently. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is good, but the problem is that once you add "and user pages" in one section, you have to add it to absolutely every section that talks about a ban. For example, consider WP:IBAN just below TBAN: "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia"—if "and user pages" is added to TBAN but not to IBAN, it raises the question (in a wikilaywer's mind) of whether it is ok to abuse the interaction-banned editor on a user page. That is why I do not support this proposal. Something similar might be suitable in a more generic place near the top of the page, to point out that "anywhere on Wikipedia" includes user pages. I have not examined the above, but I don't see a resounding yes as the answer to the question in the parent section header—commonsense and precedence confirm that a topic ban extends to the banned editor's user talk pages. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Support – this would clarify that banned editors cannot go about posting on talk pages ( theirs and others) about topics. After all, it was their editing on certain topics relate to the fact that they are banned. (And frequently their disruptive editing occurred on user talk pages.) The fact that the issue has not been clearly brought up may be explained by the fact that banned editors usually learn the lesson and avoid infringing on their bans with topic-related edits. Adding the three words solves the exceptional problem. – S. Rich (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Added suggestion: rather than specify certain pages, use the terms WP:MAINSPACE and WP:NAMESPACE. 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC) (Upon further consideration, modify my comment as the current policy does allow for own-talk-page commentary "unless abused". Striking "their". 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC))
 * Srich, you're making several factual assertions which are not substantiated and which do not reflect demonstrated consensus. SPECIFICO  talk  23:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This has nothing to do with improving the encyclopedia, since allegedly disruptive editors are already topic banned from the object of their "disruptiveness." Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. I mentioned above my "COI"(?) that I'm currently topic banned (and supported the change). The other editors above who also are currently topic banned also should mention that "COI". Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, to prevent gaming the system by those who have been topic banned, but are still trying to have an effect on how Wikipedia covers the topic. I've seen [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=prev&oldid=608168626 Steeletrap using Collect's talk page] to edit by proxy, despite Steeletrap's topic ban on Austrian economics. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC to re-validate WP:Banning policy
Related discussion is at WT:Banning policy. Notices have been posted at WP:Cent and WP:Village pump (policy). Unscintillating (talk) 23:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm not sure what is being asked here. If I !vote 'oppose', what alternative to existing policy is being proposed? Nothing at all - making any bannings impossible? Or a specific change to policy - in which case, we need to know what the alternative being proposed is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment – per the project page hatnote "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors must normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus." The RfC is asking "does the page 'Banning policy' document WP policy?" Clearly it does document WP policy. – S. Rich (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Where is the OP's evidence that this page does not document a policy? -- Jayron  32  23:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Support I have the sneaking suspicion that someone has an agenda here. Maybe not, maybe there is a genuine desire to see whether people feel that, on whole, the linked page should remain a policy. There's not enough context to tell which one it is, and there's nothing actionable being discussed here. I might be willing to expend additional energy outlining my views on the policy if this conversation were presented differently, but if you're just looking for a binary choice, all you're going to get is me saying that I support the policy, wrapped in a very thinly veiled statement indicating that I think that you are wasting the community's time and should either make what you're actually looking for known or close the thread.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, there does appear to be context. See the "Banning enforcement" thread above.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Will someone please close this as a misguided attempt to do who knows what. We are not going to have an RfC on every policy talk page to decide whether the sky is blue. There is some context above, but unless one were to study that, and add something in a comment here addressing the underlying issue, this vote would not achieve anything other than confusion with people on one side of the underlying issue saying "see, I told you!", while those on the other side claim the RfC supports their position. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OH. I see now.  The OP didn't get their way in a dispute, and so is doing this.  WP:POINT seems to be what this is all about.  -- Jayron  32  00:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Summary:

This was a productive RfC, where editors considered what it means to support or oppose a policy. One concept that came into focus might be called "consensus denial", i.e., the generalized denial that a policy has consensus. Consensus denial lacks context, and opens the door to uncharted territory on Wikipedia. The closing of this RfC concludes that consensus denial is inherently unreasonable.

Broader analysis:

Seven editors including the OP and the closer participated in the RfC. The RfC was open for one hour and forty-six minutes. Two editors supported the proposition, no editors opposed the proposition, and three commented. The closing was a directed verdict for "Support".

Participants discussed what it means to support or oppose a policy. On the whole, participants responded to the issue at hand, and avoided the unrelated details in the underlying case. The nature of the proposition brought some agreement-phobia, with misgivings that the issue was a Trojan. There was an undertone of non-specific comments directed at the text of the RfC and the original poster.

There were many helpful edits. The initial question opened new territory for discussion. My personal view is aligned with the editor who quoted from Template:Policy. One editor had the clarity of viewpoint to type in a bold summary. Two further comments confirm that generalized community consensus for a policy is not a given.

An idea exposed by this RfC is that of "consensus denial", or the generalized denial that a policy has consensus. Editors saw that consensus denial opens the door to uncharted territory. This was the major theme of this RfC. It is a door that was opened in the underlying case. One editor called for premature closure of the RfC, which would have left the door open. Support for keeping such a door open might be called "consensus-denial enabling".

The closing blocked further consensus-denial enabling in the RfC, and says, "There is no reason to" re-validate a policy page. Note that this statement is not a denial of consensus denial, rather, the closing says that consensus denial is an idea without reason.

I thank those who took the time to participate in this RfC. Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Banning enforcement
See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (5th nomination). Can someone talk to these two editors, they don't seem to know that it is normal to revert the edits of the socks of banned editors. Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Unscintillating. I checked with an Admin about this before proceeding. Please see here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I know it's not normal to edit a closed discussion that's part of the history of a page when, if the page is recreated and sent to AfD again, previous AfD discussions will be scrutinized and striking comments after they're closed distorts the context of the information available to the closer. It's not a question of what's normal, it's a question of not creating a misleading version of history.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of one of the edit comments, "(Reverted to revision 597005311 by DangerousPanda: Reverting good faith but improper post close edits. We do not retroactively strike or delete edits by a banned user.,. (TW))" Unscintillating (talk) 02:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (5th nomination) already has eight reverts of the sockpuppets of banned editors, like the one I have requested there. Unscintillating (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * And how many of them were reverts for changing it after it closed, like yours? here is what it looked like when  closed it.  This is how it should stay.   knows what he's talking about.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:DGG answered the question that he was asked, but he was not asked a question that is relevant to the current situation. Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As per this edit, "(Undid revision 604962093 by Ad Orientem (talk): When it's discovered they're a sockpuppet of a previously-banned user, yes we do, per WP:EVADE)". Unscintillating (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, it's clear there's a difference of opinion. It's why I pinged DGG.  I can see I should have pinged  as well.  Some people agree with you.  At least two do not.  It's a conflict in procedures, so we're going to have to wait and see what others think (I think you were right to bring it to this wider venue).  I'm slightly less concerned with closed RfCs than I am with closed AfDs, since articles get recreated and then the closed AfDs become important again, and if it appears that comments were struck it may make the closer's rationale seem less coherent.  That's a bad thing.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I clearly should also have pinged as well.  My apologies.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - No, no, no, no. We do not retroactively remove comments from banned users in closed SPI cases, or any other closed discussion. Once the discussion is closed and archived, it should not be altered, it's part of history. And your claim here and here is not policy, and incorrect. What the heck is a "quiet edit"? The edit was restored during discussion. Edits by banned users may be reverted on site, but they don't have to be. And they surely are not to be stricken from the history of pages without good reason. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd like to respond to your question, but your question belongs at WT:TPG and is off-topic here, and any reply I make would be likewise off-topic. Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replied at WT:Talk_page_guidelines. Unscintillating (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. The edits were clearly in violation of a ban, since the editor who made them was banned long before he did so. Since we now have multiple people saying to revert them, I'd say that's an "ambiguous case" and they should stay reverted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with alf laylah wa laylah . What we have here is a disagreement over interpretation of policy. And so I too would like to get some other opinions. On a side note I appreciate Unscintillating's opening this discussion up and his very civil response to my mass reverting of his edits. I tip my hat. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * On another side note tomorrow is Easter so I will beg everyone's indulgence if I don't get back to this discussion promptly. A blessed feast to those who keep it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know where anyone got the impression that there was a need to retain Benjiboi's edits. Striking or deletion is the norm, with striking being preferable in a case like this, where deletion would make some of the replies to the deleted material incomprehensible. We most certainly do seek out the edits made by banned editors and remove them.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not think it exact to say that "we" always seek them out. Nobody is required to remove them, tho anyone is technically free to.  I do not seek them out, as there are much more productive things to do here, and  if I encounter them I do not remove them unless they are actually disruptive. If they're helpful, they are helpful; in an AfD they usually are just counterproductive if pointed out, which is all that is necessary.  DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that closed discussions should not be edited after they are closed. The point of archiving a discussion is to create an immutable record of the discussion as it was when it was closed. If people come along afterwards and change things, then it defeats the purpose of archiving in the first place. This is why it says at the top of every closed AfD discussion: "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page."- because we are not meant to edit it again. If we need to point out that one of the participants was a banned user, the place to do that is at the article's talk page or the deletion review. Finally, I think it's clear that reverting and striking through are not the same thing, so I do not think that the bit in WP:BAN about reverting banned editors strictly applies. Reyk  YO!  03:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The specific WP:Banning issue is an old dispute, in which Reyk has been unwilling to self-revert or discuss on the talk page of the AfD discussion(!), after protecting the edit of the sock of a banned user, one who started an AfD discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of this argument claims that imperative mood supersedes a policy because editors don't know the difference between an archive and a diff. Unscintillating (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have restricted myself to discussion of the issue and have not commented on people. It is a pity that you have chosen to make this personal but, because your response is purely an ad hominem, I need not respond to it. Reyk  YO!  02:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no apparent relationship between the comment to which you have responded and the claim that it is somehow ad hominem. An ad hominem "is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."  I moved the comment to below the previous bullet, but you've moved it back saying that this is the correct place for your reply.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The hypothesis is that an edit on a closed AfD is a case in which imperative mood in a template should supersede a policy, which is already a weak starting point for a claim. The logic is founded on the false premise that editors don't know the difference between an archive and a diff.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * But if the major premise of your argument is that editors don't know the difference between and archive and a diff then, that being false as I personally do know the difference, your argument, even if the conclusion is true, is unsound. Therefore I suppose we gotta have an RfC, since this all isn't leading anywhere.  Side note: I would say that this statement: "The specific WP:Banning issue is an old dispute, in which Reyk has been unwilling to self-revert or discuss on the talk page of the AfD discussion(!), after protecting the edit of the sock of a banned user, one who started an AfD discussion." in which a user's position on a question of interpretation of policy is claimed to be the result of an "old dispute, in which Reyk has been unwilling to..." is pretty much textbook ad hominem, given that it "is a rejection of a claim on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author or of the person presenting the claim," but that's neither here nor there.  How does this sound for an RfC question: Does the banning policy allow for the removal or striking through of a banned editors comments in an officially closed and archived discussion which contains the words "No further edits should be made to this page" in its closing statement?  Is that neutral enough?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "In a closed AfD, does the imperative mood in Template:Afd top supersede WP:Banning policy so as to protect the edits of the sock of a banned editor from time-stamped strikeout font?" Unscintillating (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think a neutrally worded question is preferred to one containing innuendo about other editors' motives. This talk of "protecting sockpuppets" is an example of poisoning the well. Reyk  YO!  10:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the community does not support the edits of the sock of a banned editor. I am reposting the protected edit request for WP:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (5th nomination).  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * For specific details of the requested edit, see WT:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (5th nomination). Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: No reason this needs to be brought up here with an edit request. Please discuss on that page, perhaps linking from here, and post an edit request there when you have consensus. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The policy is not being questioned, and the consensus here regarding AfD pages seems clear. The puzzle to me is why one of those familiar with the consensus for WP:Banning policy has not already made this edit, so perhaps there is more to this than I am seeing.  Callanecc seems to want an RfC on the talk page of the AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The last edit I made on the AfD talk page, with the edit comment "policy", was:


 * This post has not been sustained. Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I propose for an RfC:


 * Unscintillating (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The RfC is completed, where I posted this summary, "This was a productive RfC, where editors considered what it means to support or oppose a policy. One concept that came into focus might be called "consensus denial", i.e., the generalized denial that a policy has consensus.  Consensus denial lacks context, and opens the door to uncharted territory on Wikipedia.  The closing of this RfC concludes that consensus denial is inherently unreasonable."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Five days have now passed without comment. Do we need still another RfC, specifically on the consensus for Template:Policy, as in this diff and also shown in the cquote box above?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not clear what you are saying. There was only one RfC, which is below, and it was closed quite quickly. Also, I do not see where you said "This was a productive RfC...." (Was your summary posted on some other RfC? If so, then what is the point of an RfC here?) In any event, the RfC you proposed above and started below did not make sense. The Banning policy is the banning policy. It remains as policy until the community agrees to change it. This talk page process is where we hold discussions about changing the banning policy. Once there is consensus on this talk page to make a change or make changes, then the banning policy gets changed according to the consensus. Before any changes are made the policy is validated and the discussion process serves to validate changes agreed to in consensus. A third possibility is that you want clarification as to the template language. If this is the case, perhaps you could start a discussion on the template talk page. If this is what you mean you should also explain why the template language should be changed. In any event, I hope my comments help clarify the question and confusion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Diff, as requested. Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, Unscintillating, you need to stop playing games here. It's rather plain what is happening here 1) You wanted someone to remove a few posts from banned users from an archived discussion.  2) No one thought that was a good idea.  3) That upset you.  4) Now you're making slightly obscure demands that somehow, because you didn't get your way, that the entire banning policy is invalidated.  It isn't.  You just need to stop beating the dead horse here, and let this go.  The banning policy is still in effect, and no one is going to remove those old posts from the banned user in question.  You just have to accept both of those things as fact, and neither of them is contradictory nor does the latter mean that the former isn't policy.  Just let it go already.  It isn't worth the time you've dedicated to it, just let the whole matter go away, will you?  -- Jayron  32  01:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * At the RfC, your viewpoint was identified as that of consensus-denial enabling. Do you agree that if your viewpoint prevails, the policy will be weakened?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The context here is that two admins have declined to make what would appear to be a routine banning enforcement edit. What more do the admins need?  You will find more detail above and at WT:Articles for deletion/Russell Hantz (5th nomination).  Unscintillating (talk) 01:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I see – in the hatted section. Well, even with the hatted section in mind Jayron is absolutely right. This needs to end. You are making comments on a Project page (e.g., banning policy) which has had an impact on another topic and you framed an obscure and unhelpful RfC which is sorta about a template related to the banning policy and you suggest "another RfC" might help. It is time for this thread to be archived as hopelessly worthless bordering on disruptive. – S. Rich (talk) 01:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So banning enforcement has no teeth? Editors are on their own, and should not expect admins to support banning enforcement?  Is that the conclusion with which we leave this discussion?  Unscintillating (talk) 02:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now you are asking loaded questions. I, for one, will not answer your question.  – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have requested closure of this thread. See: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure. – S. Rich (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Policy contradiction between WP:Preserve and WP:BAN
I've started a discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy -- Kendrick7talk 17:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

content contributed by banned users on another WMF project?
I know that banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, but what about importing their contributions from other Wikimedia projects? For example, if a user is banned here but is active on Commons, are we allowed to add his or her images to a Wikipedia article, or should we wait until the ban expires? Similarly, if a banned user has written a good article on another wiki, would it be acceptable to transwiki it here?

Thanks. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)


 * This section of the policy should answer your question. The upshot is, if you can verify and vouch for the content being added, you can add it. Nathan  T 22:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That's oversimplifying. Even if you can verify and vouch for it, you need an independent reason to add it. If a banned user starts creating articles in another wiki and you agree to simply copy those over here for him, that would be proxying and would result in a block.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the crucial point is whether or not you're editing explicitely at the request of the banned user. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:46, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a bone of contention. I've always argued that people that go around restoring banned editors' edits after reversions are proxying. It may not be at the banned editor's request, but the net effect is that the editor is making the edit simply because the banned editor did so.&mdash;Kww(talk) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But disallowing otherwise constructive edits on the sole basis that the person making them has been banned ultimately is a net negative for the encyclopedia. I think that if another editor judges the contributions to be a positive for the project, he should be allowed to re-implement it. The wording of this policy is meant to enable swift enforcement in cases of meatpuppetry by banned users, not to ultimately prevent improvements to the encyclopedia. Its wording could do a better job of representing its spirit. (IMO) ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  00:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There are very few edits that only the banned user can or will make. I've got no objection to a regular editor of an article looking over a reverted edit and blessing it. What I do have a problem with is people that see that a mass reversion has happened and intentionally going through each and every reversion and restoring them if they found them constructive.&mdash;Kww(talk) 01:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The "independent reason" bit pretty vague. If someone writes something on Wikisource, or Simple English, or somewhere else whilst banned here... My "independent reason" for copying to the English Wikipedia need be no more than that I think it usefully adds to this project as well. I doubt that would result in a block, and I imagine any admin imposing a block for that reason would find themselves at arbitration. I think your argument about restoring banned editors edits is not commonly held, and you're perfectly aware that blocks on that basis are usually not supported by the community. is correct, and I'd go further - mass reversion of edits made by a banned editor is a silly, deprecated practice unless the purpose of the ban is content related (i.e. persistent copyright violations, hoaxes, etc.). Anyone performing mass deletions for no other reason than that the content was added by a now-banned editor should be blocked. Nathan  T 17:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For the first time in some time, I find myself agreeing with . I agree that blocks for restoring banned editors' edits are not usually forthcoming, but they can be appropriate if the restoration really is for no other reason than that the real editor (C) feels that B's reversion of (banned) A's edits is inappropriate, not that A's edit was appropriate.  Anyone blocking someone for "performing mass deletions for no other reason than that the content was added by a then-banned editor" should be blocked.  (If the ban occurs after the edits, that would be different.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction between someone restoring content because they think the content is appropriate and restoring it because the deletion was inappropriate is... a little bit of sophistry that can't form the basis of practical advice to editors or administrators. The bottom line is that banning an editor does not require the deletion of content they have created. Any deletion or restoration of content should be done based on an evaluation of the content itself. If someone wholesale deletes the product of a thousand edits for no reason other than that the contributor was later banned, then reversing that obviously wrong action is in no way "proxying" for the original contributor. If the restorer was blocked I would happily take the blocking admin to arbitration. Nathan  T 20:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hold up, since when are bans retroactive? I don't recall bans affecting past contributions. Only ones after the ban. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It has certainly happened before that someone has been banned, and someone else over-zealously goes back and deletes a large amount of content. Restoring the reverted edits of a sockpuppet is something that falls under the sockpuppet policy, really, so for the purposes of this policy we're dealing with deleting/restoring edits from before an editor was banned, importing content from another project of an editor banned here, or otherwise acting as a go-between for someone who is not editing directly on this project. The canonical case of post-ban content deleting/restoring is Peter_damian, but that's sort of a hard case / bad law situation imo. Nathan  T 21:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm only discussing edits made in violation of a ban in force at the time of the edit, either through IP-based block evasion, sockpuppet accounts, or violation of a topic-ban by an editor that still has general editing privileges.&mdash;Kww(talk) 21:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, the original question and reply you commented on were specifically referring to users who were banned from editing Wikipedia but still editing other projects, and whether it would be appropriate to import content from those other projects. To my mind that remained the predicate of the discussion. I still have a more nuanced view of reverting edits from users editing through a ban, though, I suppose. If some makes ten valuable edits in an area from which they are topic banned, I would support a block of the user and the retention of the content. That way we achieve the linked goals of enforcing behavioral norms and supporting quality content. That might be a little less mainstream of an opinion. Nathan  T 21:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The only situation which I can think of where some may consider justified the blanket reversion of a long period of edits is when an account is newly discovered as a sock of a long-time banned user, where every edit since the ban has theoretically been made in violation of our banning policy; but even then, going back months or years to revert all their edits on the sole basis of our banning policy seems both harmful and like shitbureaucracy, so I don't think any reasonable user should go that far. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  21:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban clarifications
See WP:ANI, side conversation, my disclosure where I added A2 milk as a QPQ. I was a little concerned with how quickly User:Stalwart111 (who works regularly with COI editors) seemed to escalate an issue with User:BlackCab (a connected editor to A2 milk), starting with requesting enforcement of typical WP:COI editing restrictions for a first-time admitted paid editor due to reversion and probable promotion, and moving rapidly within 24 hours to a topic ban request that was immediately joined by editors who have favored tighter general restrictions at COI talk. This seems calm now and I am talking mostly productively with Stalwart, but I wonder if this policy is allowing sudden escalation because of its vagueness.

What is "proven to be repeatedly disruptive" in this case? It seems like if someone with 9,000 edits starts paid editing and tries to announce that and roll with it, but has a blind spot about promotion, this is not repeated disruption. My experience is that disruption is a parliamentary term related to dilatoriness and means something that actively prevents others from continuing their ordinary planned business. A moderator does not call out disruption on the first or second case of mere interruption because it is presumed others can ignore minor issues; it would not be "repeated" until after a formal warning indicating a pattern that is hard to regard in good faith, and it is not "proven" until the repetition after warning is put through some formal process, and in this case that process is not ANI because that conversation is supposed to take place after the pattern is already "proven". It doesn't seem like that's what those words mean here. This statement may need to be clarified and expanded so as not to suggest that in general any two edits you disagree with, plus an incomplete conversation about them, count as grounds for proposing or supporting a topic ban.

And what does it mean that AN is "preferred" to ANI? Practice seems to indicate the opposite.

I think we could also have a link about the "template to distinguish comments" because I don't know what I would use to indicate within the conversation that the first four editors to !vote on the ban nomination (one !vote was not bolded) have a history of being involved with COI editors, and that doesn't neatly fall into involved or uninvolved. Does the subject editor get to !vote (perhaps in agreement with the ban), or only to "respond"? And 24 hours (or 36, the archive time) is enough to make such a decision? The "editing restrictions" page is plenty long and, as an inclusionist, I'm also inclusive about editors, so I wonder if this ANI poorly represents the usual course intended by this policy. Frieda Beamy (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think you need to familiarise yourself with the case more comprehensively. You've misinterpreted some things and misunderstood others and (as a result) the summary of the case presented above is neither accurate, nor a "problem" that requires solving.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I thought we agree that we don't agree on all the details. Please feel free to correct the case history. The problem I expressed is that this page seems to need clarifications (or maybe pointers to clarifications in the archive) and I am just mentioning the case we were involved in as a starting illustration. Frieda Beamy (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It was at ANI (rather than AN) because the original thread related to editor behaviour and a series of incidents. A plain topic-ban proposal (without the precursor discussion) would have been at AN.
 * The topic ban related to POV editing and edit-warring, not paid editing.
 * "Proven to be repeatedly disruptive" was the disruption itself, a lack of remorse for it and a commitment to continue. Sanctions are designed to be preventative rather than punitive and in this case the proposal aimed at preventing disruption. When BC committed to curtail the disruption and work collaboratively, the proposal was moot and was withdrawn.
 * It didn't "move rapidly" to a topic ban proposal; my intention was never to go in that direction at all. I proposed that after BC's responses and after pointy edit-warring had started, again, related to the edit warring and nothing at all to do with the fact that BC was a, "first-time admitted paid editor". And again, once there was a commitment to stop, the T-BAN proposal served no purpose.
 * Anyone who proposes a topic ban after, "any two edits you disagree with, plus an incomplete conversation about them" would (at a guess) be subject to sanctions themselves. That would be completely inadequate.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 07:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Refactoring. The questions are still there, and we also have a disagreement under discussion about WP:NOPAY. Frieda Beamy (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

can non-admins impose community bans?
policy

Recently, I closed this AN/I discussion per WP:NAC, with a clear consensus to impose a cban from moving pages. However, the edit was reverted by John, saying that the wording used in WP:CBAN (closing administrator) meant that a non-admin close was not allowed, however another user said that admins were only needed to enforce actions.

Therefore, I wanted to clarify the community's current viewpoint. Can: -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  20:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) any editor in good standing close a discussion with clear consensus at the relevant venue, and impose a CBAN per WP:NAC.
 * 2) Only administrators can close discussions and impose CBAN's.
 * Please identify where the words "(closing administrator)" appear. Unscintillating (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * in the last sentence of the WP:CBAN section and "uninvolved administrator" appears in the second last paragraph in that section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Support (non-admins can impose CBAN's)

 * The closer is not imposing anything, merely documenting the existing consensus. Furthermore, unless a tool needs to be used directly and immediately, it should not require an admin.  If language exists in the documentation implying or stating that an admin is needed to do it, it shouldn't.  Admins only have extra tools, and if an action doesn't directly and immediately require the use of those tools, then anyone in good standing should be able to do it.  -- Jayron  32  05:13, 15 July 2014
 * Summarizing consensus is something an admin absolutely should be able to do, but an experienced editor may be just good at it. So long as the summary is accurate, I don't see a reason why a non-admin shouldn't close a RfC, AN/I thread, etc. other than the controversy it may cause.--I dream of horses (T) @ 03:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support - The closer is merely documenting consensus, any non-admin in good standing should be able to do that.   Kosh Vorlon     12:33, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support for topic bans, interaction bans, etc., but not site bans (since they need an admin tool to implement). If no admin tools are required for an action, there's no reason we should limit it to admins. After all, they're just regular editors trusted with a few extra buttons. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support As Kudpung correctly states below "an outcome that requires an admin tool use should only be closed by an admin." However, many, topic and interaction bans (such as the impetus for this discussion) do not require the immediate use of the block button.  As the sysop bit is a technical not a social privilege I reject the 'expediency of the moment' argument that  Newyorkbrad puts forth; we should be encouraging NAC's that are well reasoned and reflect consensus.  Additionally, the 'super-user' argument that Risker puts forth appears to be in direct conflict with the lead of WP:ADMIN: "...are Wikipedia editors who have been granted the technical ability to perform certain special actions...".  Any editor in good standing has the right to close a discussion, provided they have the tools to implement the decision (as appears to be the case here, unless sysops can now 'move restrict' editors??).  Regards, Crazynast 02:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support any editor in good standing to close any debate that they have the tools to finish. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px blue;font-size:60%;color:rgb(221,40,35)">Chillum</b> 03:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support to a point. It does not require tools to enact a ban and closing obvious ban discussions and filing the other paperwork is fine.  The problem is when the outcome isn't very obvious.  In those cases an admin should close, not because we are smarter (we aren't) but because the community has selected us specifically to deal with contentious situations, and in those situations, the tools may be needed.  To me, it is much like AFD in that respect, where we ask non-admin to stay outside the boundaries of contention.  So yes, with reasonable limits based on good judgement. Farmer Brown (alt of Dennis Brown)  21:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, along the same lines as an AFD. Non-admins are people too!  My decision shouldn't hold any more weight (and sometimes should hold less weight) than a decision by a competent non-admin who's assessing consensus properly.  We require admin closes for "delete" at AFD because non-admins can't enforce such a decision, but a ban closure doesn't require any permissions beyond   as long as no block is part of the ban.  In other words, require admin for a "siteban=yes" decision, but don't require admin for "siteban=no", "topicban=yes", "topicban=no", etc.  A non-admin close most definitely should be reviewable, but on the same terms as a close that I perform.  Nyttend (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Follow-up discussions with a non-admin may in some cases be less confrontational.  We also have former admins experienced in closes.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The task is simple: anyone can assess the discussion and determine whether a consensus has been reached. It does not take an admin to spy out consensus. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Qualified Support I am fundamentally opposed to the concept that admins are more capable of making sound judgement than other established and respected users. I was going to oppose this on the grounds that there should not be an attempt to ban a user when enforcement of that ban can't be made, but User:Crazynas won me over with the argument that there are cases where a block will not be necessary. It may not be common, but it does happen, and in the cases where it's fairly obvious the user is likely going to abide by the ban, then why not have a non-admin impose it? (In reality, THAT'S where the sound decision-making is going to be tough; not the part where obvious consensus is identified.) -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible support. The implication that non-admins are inferior to admins really stinks. The only time only an admin may close is in the case that only an admin may implement the decision, but even in the case of full community sitebans, you don't need a block for that. Cheers and Thanks,  L235 - Talk Ping when replying 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While I agree that admins are in no way superior to other users, I am not aware of any user, ever, being subject to a full siteban without a block. Once a person has reached the point of actually being banned, it isn't reasonable to assume they will simply accept the decision and not edit anymore, they are always blocked as a technical means of enforcing the consensus to ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (only admins can impose CBAN's)

 * I'll weakly support this position, and I agree with Johnuniq that this is a bit too close to the incipient event to draw any real conclusion for policy. I'm not against non-admins closing discussions in general but the community internal differentiation between a block (which can technically only be imposed by admins) and a ban (which is either enforced via a block or via social action) is not one which is widely understood. In practice, this means that even if we change the wording of the policy to explicitly allow non-admins we'll still see a repeat of what happened with Mdann52. An editor will see a discussion which has basically run its course--in this specific case I imposed the ban a few hours after Mdann52--at which point the "banned" editor will likely complain that the ban is illegitimate. Now instead of the discussion being closed it turns to bikeshedding over who can impose bans. I've seen this happen a dozen times or so and the outcome is rarely (if ever) beneficial. Protonk (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The non-admin doesn't have the technical ability to enforce this. It's a hollow threat by a non-administrator. They would then have to find an admin to do a block if it is violated at which point the administrator should have closed the discussion anyways or is making the decision about the ban. This isn't like an article deletion discussion where it can be reversed at DRV or something, this is an actual person being restricted from editing (or being threatened at least) and the consequences should not be taken lightly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose in practice (but support in theory): I believe the community ought to be able to decide community bans without the input or agreement of admins, but the potential for drama is far too high in the case of a community ban which is imposed by the community but which can find no admin willing to enforce it through blocking the banned editor when they violate it. Requiring admin closing shows that there is at least one admin who believes that there is a clear consensus and that the ban is for sufficiently good reason. While I don't much care for that limitation on the authority of the community, the other possibility for disruption is worse. Any closing either in favor of or against the ban should be appealable to ARBCOM, but ARBCOM's authority should be limited to review of the closing admin's consensus evaluation, and should not allow ARBCOM to substitute its judgment for the community's (even if the matter could have been brought to ARBCOM rather than the community in the first place). Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Regretful oppose: I'm sorry, but I see this as analogous to allowing a non-admin to NAC an AfD and choose delete; assessing the consensus doesn't require the bit, but enforcing it does. And for better or worse, we've not allowed that. TransporterMan is right on the money: the drama risked outweighs the reward, even though that reward is not trivial. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst the decision to ban an editor is the community's I believe that the assessment of that decision should be left to an administrator who have both the power and authority to enforce the ban as well as having been selected with their ability to assess consensus in mind. A decision which prevents a user from editing in a certain way should always come from an administrator as is currently reflected in WP:CBAN. An analogy to AFD would be a consensus to redirect and full protect, whilst a non-admin would be able to redirect they would need to ask an admin to protect. That admin would need to review the deletion discussion before they used their protect button. As the decision required the use of admin tools the non-admin shouldn't have closed it. Likewise in this sense, while writing a close statement, putting it on the subject's talk page and completing WP:EDR doesn't require admin buttons any enforcement of the ban does. I would have no problem and would encourage non-admins to suggest a close statement if they wished to do so. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Blocks and bans are in the domain of administrators; it is one of the key issues on which the granting of administrator tools is assessed and granted or not granted, and it is the most restrictive action that administrators can perform. Administrators are expected to personally assess the consensus in any discussion that leads to the use of their tools, and they are held personally responsible for any actions they take as a result of their assessment. I do not support in any way non-administrators assessing consensus on matters of community bans; that's pretty much the definition of something that one requires demonstrated confirmation of community trust (i.e., a successful RFA) to carry out. Risker (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of the comments above. In addition, non-administrator closures are generally best avoided when the outcome of a discussion is likely to be controversial. A sanctions discussion closing with the result of a community ban or topic-ban discussion is inherently controversial, in that at least the sanctioned party will typically be strongly opposed to the sanction. Having a non-administrator closing in such circumstances is often snatched upon by the sanctioned party as a basis for challenging the outcome, and it's best to avoid such a result. And, typically and hopefully, there will only be a small handful of such user-conduct/proposed-sanction discussions pending on AN/ANI at a time, so the virtues of NACs in other contexts, including backlog-prevention and skill-building for future admins, are less applicable than in venues such as XfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While the community can impose a community ban, the onus is on the closing administrator to determine the consensus and enact the ban (if necessary). I don't feel comfortable with allowing a non-admin the ability to close a community ban discussion and then seek out an admin who would have to serve as a proxy. Also, non-admin closures have primarily been used to assist in the reduction of backlogs in clear-cut scenerios (e.g. closing as keep in AfD). Community bans occur on AN or ANI where there is rarely a shortage of admins to close the discussion. Mike V  •  Talk  01:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason that non-admins may not close an AfD as "delete"&mdash;in reality, they cannot enforce that decision, and so an admin's judgment is ultimately needed anyway. If the admin then says "No, I don't agree the ban was valid" after the "banned" editor commits a violation and a block is requested, a very messy situation will result. It will ultimately reduce drama to have an admin impose the restriction in the first place, and that will leave no doubt that there will be if the need arises someone willing and able to enforce the restriction with a block. Also, restricting an editor's editing privileges is a serious decision, and is one that's best left to someone who has been through community vetting. The notes above on low volume are applicable as well, and rarely will community bans end in as clean and easy to determine a consensus as a near-unanimous "Keep" AfD. Most editors who misbehave that badly are just indefinitely blocked and no one cares to argue; ban discussions are often much more acrimonious and hard to tease meaning out of. None of the above is to disparage the editor who did close the discussion in question though, as they were clearly acting in good faith. Normally non-admin closes by experienced editors are perfectly acceptable, but where admin tools are required to effect the result of the discussion, best that an admin close it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Only users who can block other users (currently admins) should be allowed to impose block-punishable restrictions on them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Newyorkbrad. Non-controversial (or uncontested) community ban proposals are unlikely. Just like AFDs, non-admins should restrict themselves to closing obvious consensus cases where arguments don't really need to be weighed in detail. I also have concerns about allowing/encouraging non-admins to implement community decisions they can't enforce.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 11:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose- Banning an editor is something that only admins should do, because they are the only ones who can enforce the ban with a block. I also think it would be a bad idea for just anyone to be allowed to topic ban people. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  11:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "the community" could be one individual, six of his friends, and the non-admin closer friend of his. At least Admins have something important to lose if they engage in questionable cbans. Plus various arguments above. Carolmooredc  (Talkie-Talkie) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So much for WP:NOBIGDEAL... Crazynast 02:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It stopped being no big deal a looooooong time ago. Even the content you linked to says as much. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, and that was a tongue-in-cheek response to "at least Admins have something important to lose". I'm not saying that the standards (for RFA) should be lowered to what they were in 2003, just that losing the bit shouldn't be that much of a loss. Put another way, I agree that the responsibility is greater now than it was, but that doesn't mean that the prestige should be.  Crazynast 21:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite not being an admin, I've never been particularly comfortable with non-admin closures in most contexts. Content RfC's are about the only area where I think that is easily appropriate. Part of the problem is the downstream effects - controversies like this one, for instance, or eventual conflicts over the validity of whatever outcome emits from the closure. Another part is the attitude of the folks who sometimes perform non-admin closures (not saying that is necessarily the case here). Perhaps my view is colored by the discussion and participants when the idea of non-admin closures was hatched, but even so... Count me as an oppose. <strong style="color:#0033CC">Nathan <strong style="color:#0033CC"> T 17:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose the risk of misuse is too big, creating far more drama and trouble to solve. <span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Zell Faze (talk) 00:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We can't really trust people other than admins to make CBANs. It would be kinda, well, a disaster. EMachine03 (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, allowing admin to make cbans would be a disaster. We are talking about judging consensus, not making a unilateral call.  The community is still who decides. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: I don't think that there is really so great a backlog of Banning discussions as for this to be justified.  It Is Me Here  t /  c  21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The implication here is that a backlog would be the only reason to allow editors to 'help out'. Put it another way:  generally the onus is on those that want to remove a right to justify why the larger group cannot exercise that right, not the other way around. Crazynast 15:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Some "equality shouts" bring me here... obviously banning is part of Wiki technical administration which affects an editor's editing ability, and sometimes it needs to be backed up by a block. Therefore only very trusted users (i.e. admins) should have the right to enforce bans. Per others above, "consensus" can be built by less than 10 editors (and in a case, 11 editors decided to demote a guideline). If non-admin closure for banning decision is allowed, there would be more troubles like "canvassed" closers allegations, which only add more burden on admins and ANI drama (aren't we having enough to watch?).Forbidden User (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

comments

 * What on earth does "about admins can impose CBAN's" mean? Should "about" be "only" there, perhaps? Tarc (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * good catch! I have corrected the wording. -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  04:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This should be withdrawn or closed. There was a recent issue, but apart from that I don't recall any discussion or controversy, and in general an RfC should follow after an initial discussion to determine whether there is any point to the RfC. The "wording" point refers to the fact that WP:CBAN says "When determining consensus, the closing administrator will..." which carries the strong suggestion that an admin will apply the ban. That makes a great deal of sense because if no admin feels like closing a discussion, any violations of a ban would be hard to address—after an admin close, the admin's talk can be used to ask whether some diff is a violation, and even if the admin is temporarily unavailable, there are often other admins who will notice such a request and who may act. Johnuniq (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Administrators, a policy, is pertinent. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Shut this down. No problem exists, no need for this RFC. This distracts from real issues. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe this violates the RFC guidelines. Unlike most other dispute resolution processes, RFC only — at least in its current incarnation — recommends discussion before filing an RFC, but does not require it. When used for policy modification/formation WP:PROPOSAL says to use RFC and doesn't mention prior discussion at all. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that there has been recent confusion over this and considering that the increase in non-admins being allowed and encouraged to close various discussions has made "closing administrator" in WP:CBAN arcane I think we should take this opportunity to clarify whether bans discussions can be closed by non-admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * While uncontroversial and clear consensus can be closed in most discussions by non-admins in good standing, I have always (rightly or wrongly) understood that an outcome that requires an admin tool use should only be closed by an admin. Worse - as a totally uninvolved admin I have once closed a debate in which the consensus was clearly for a ban, and I came out heavily  criticised by  another admin  for having done so. In  that instance however, it  turned out that that admin had a COI in the issue. Thus I contend that where even we admins can get caught in the cross-fire, it would seem appropriate to restrict  NAC to only clear-cut  consensus where no admin tool use is required. That said, the text of WP:CBAN appears to assume anyway  that the close would be made by  an admin, but let's not  confuse ban with block - only  the blocking part actually requires use of the block  tool; therein lies the ambiguity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've changed "Support #2" to "Oppose" since a) the users adding content there are all calling it "Oppose" and b) in my opinion, it's less confusing. APerson (talk!) 20:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a silly debate about a minor issue with an exceedingly obvious solution: Yes, non admins can close a discussion regarding a ban. No, they cannot impose said ban because they lackk the technical ability to issue a block in order to enact the ban.
 * So, non-admin closes a discussion. Then they have to ask an admin to do the technical end of it. No responsible admin is going to do that without going over the discssion themselves and making sure the consensus favors a a ban. So nothing is accomplished by the non-admin close, but nothing is really hurt by it either, assuming the closer doesn't mind wasting their own time. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , that may be true regarding site bans, but the discussion here also pertains to topic-bans or similar sanctions (that disputed close that led to the RfC involved a "community ban from moving pages"). Plus, what about community ban discussions where the user is already indef-blocked, so no "technical" implementation is required? Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have found myself over the years moving into the camp that believes that banning people who are already blocked is pointless, so my solution in that specific scenario is best summarized as "who cares?" In the other cases you mention I think the normal guidelines for NACs apply: if the outcome is obvious, go right ahead, if there is any doubt at all let an admin do it. If the user chooses not to respect the result just because a non-admin did the close, they will probably find themselves on the wrong end of actual admin authority soon enough. This only becomes an area of concern if a particular closer has a habit of making bad calls. That can be dealt with on an individual basis as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing this page
I'd just like to remind everyone that this page is a policy, not an essay. Nobody should be adding or removing anything other than typos without getting consensus for it beforehand. Unilaterally altering policy is never the right thing to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:17, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Since that message was apparently not read and/or understood I have protected the page. I sincerely hope my fellow admins will respect that they should not edit through the protection and will instead discuss these issues here instead of continuing to unilaterally modify policy without discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The talk page is also semi-protected so now non-autoconfirmed users cannot make or weigh in on suggestions for improvement. Did you intend that? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The page was indefinitely semi protected before Beeblebrox full protected it (see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&action=view&type=protect&page=Wikipedia%3ABanning_policy here]), this was due to vandalism. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

What Banning policy is not
IMO, there should be a message in the lead, possibly in boldface, which says something like:
 * Everything on this page is only applicable to the privilege of editing the English-language Wikipedia. Banned or blocked users will still be able to read any article and edit the other Wikimedia projects, like other-language Wikipedias or sister sites like Wiktionary or Wikimedia Commons.

Just a suggestion. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary, all policies and guidelines on the English Wikipedia only apply to enwiki I don't think we need to say this everywhere. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. We can safely assume anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia to get banned already knows this. Dennis 13:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that I read this page for the first time yesterday and I had trouble remembering that it did not apply to reading Wikipedia. I was investigating the classes of WP Users (admins, bureaucrats, etc.) and it led me here. I've been a editor since March 2009 and have somewhere just under 2000 edits. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Banning and Blocking
We recently had a discussion at arbitration enforcement in which an editor had been topic-banned under BLP discretionary sanctions and continued to edit. The editor then said that he assumed that topic-bans were "hard-coded", so that the ban had not been implemented yet. In the discussion of the difference between blocks and bans, would it be in order to clarify that only site bans are enforced by blocks, and that editors who are subject to topic bans are expected to obey the ban or face subsequent blocks? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably not worth it. We cannot foresee every possible excuse someone could give for pretending they didn't know what they were doing is wrong, and we shouldn't try.  Any reasonable person would understand that when the community, or people vested by the community with the authority to act on their behalf, say "quit doing that", you should maybe quit doing that thing that they told you to quit doing.  People trying to weasel out of that aren't going to be dissuaded by language that forbids that one tactic to avoid the ban.  They'll still try to avoid the ban, just use some other bullshit excuse.  It's not worth our time to fill this page with every possible way someone may try to weasel out of their bans.  -- Jayron  32  19:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Time To Get Censoring
The language of the policy needs to be altered ASAP to avoid further confusion.There now can be no mention of the list of banned users, since it has been deleted after a decidedly inconclusive deletion discussion. I hope there will be a Deletion Review, because: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." That should be changed as well, as it is simply not the way it's done around here. Doc  talk  23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * All such material that is still required will be moved to WP:LTA, as indicated in the deletion discussion close. Please go ahead and update the documentation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no mention of LTA in the discussion close at all. Am I missing it? I see the opinion of one admin, as if we needed the wisdom of a Solomon to decide. (Emphasis mine) "Here's why I think this discussion shows consensus to delete. The evidence that this page is potentially harmful, made by several, to me outweighs the arguments that the page is "useful"." Absurd. Doc  talk  23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I also will not update the documentation here. What I'd really like to add, but cannot, at WP:NOCONSENSUS is the following: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. In abnormal or politically-charged deletion discussions, individual closing admins are permitted to interpret their own consensus for the greater protection and good of the project." Can an admin add that for me? Doc  talk  00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think an admin needs to call a WHAAAMBULANCE for you, tbh. AfDs are not votes, the strength of the arguments are weighed.  If many of the "keep" weigh-ins were weak, than that final tally is more one-sided than a numeral 35-33 would suggest.  WP:DRV, at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh? Piss off with your "whambulance". Way to be a dick. How about you clarify the LTA thing, smartass? Doc  talk  00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * In the midst of all this passive-aggressive whinging, there is one good point: the link to the deleted page needs to be removed from this policy. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ugh. You wanna see "active" aggressive? Doc   talk  01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to be taking the deletion of this page very personally. There are more productive things you could be doing if you feel so strongly about it like going to DRV, instead of complaining and shouting. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Doc   talk  01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated links
Per the recent deletion discussion, I've updated the links that used to go to the List of Banned editors to Category:Banned Wikipedia users and Long-term abuse. Both were cited by the discussion as alternative venues for getting information about banned users. -- Jayron  32  01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm going to nominate the LTA list at MfD as soon as I get to a non-mobile device. There is no logical difference between the two lists, as the "potential" for harm is exactly the same. There is no difference at all. We can't have one enemy list, or two or three, if we are to continue as the "friendly" site. Doc   talk  01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's beginning to sound a wee bit making a point-ish. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no having one's cake and eating it too. They are identically purposed "enemies lists" with the exact same potential for abuse. Because one is "liked" more than the other is immaterial. Doc   talk  05:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * We must not forget to note this per the MfD instructions: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as historical or redirecting it somewhere." So when I get accused of being "pointy" for being "consistent" with this ridiculous decision, it is duly noted. No more enemies lists of any kind should be allowed here. Period. See you in the funny pages. Doc   talk  05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Banned user category
Please go over to Category talk:Banned Wikipedia users to discuss a series of questions I have about this policy. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Appeal clarification
I'd like to propose we make it explicitly clear that any community ban enacted by the English Wikipedia community must be appealed and can only be appealed on the English Wikipedia, and not at Meta or other sites. This has been long standing practice but it isn't clearly stated, which has led to a little confusion and a community banned user appealing their ban on Meta recently (see ). I'd prefer if it was explicitly written down, if only for the benefit of banned users. Thanks, Nick (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Does that really need clarifying? Just as I can't block someone on the de.wikipedia website because I'm only an admin at en.*, it is seems to fall under WP:BLUE that any ban on a given wiki can only be appealed or adjudicated on that same wiki.  made it pretty clear there  that you can't do that, and the idea that CC would break the rules and try to claim they weren't clear, well, that is par for the course.  Dennis 2&cent; 14:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This is only the second time that I am aware of that a banned user from here has appealed to meta. In both cases the banned user was among the most intransigent, stubborn, serial ban evaders. Of meta wishes to waste their time hearing an appeal when they know they can't do anything about, I say let them. If instead they take a more realistic approach and shut down such appeals as a useless waste of their time, good for them. Either way it isn't really en.wp's problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IBAN on talk pages
I think our IBAN policy could do with a bit of clarification. What is not clear to me is to which extent editors who have a mutual IBAN can participate in (article) talk page discussions. The current language says only they can't reply or make reference to each other, which can make for pretty awkward conversation, and would allow both to participate in the same thread on a talk page, for instance. I, and I don't believe I'm the only one, have typically interpreted letter and spirit to mean "you can't participate in a thread the other has occupied already", and it seems to me that this potentially avoids a lot of problems, until of course it doesn't. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, from the point of view of practice and policy. I'll ping, with whom I've been mulling this over a bit (no need to jump to it, John; just a courtesy note). This conversation may well take a while, which is fine, but since I don't regularly hang out here (not exciting enough!), please ping me if you're commenting say a week from now. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I saw that thread on your page and it got me wondering as well. Simplified, I always thought it meant "don't participate in the same thread without good cause (you were pinged there, it is about your edit, etc), which I think is what you are saying.  I think it has been left vague because every situation is different and it is kind of up to us to determine "intent".  I've seen someone accidentally enter the same thread, a very long one, but wasn't mentioning the person and it didn't cause a problem except for the complaint, and it left me saying "no harm done, try to avoid in the future", as there didn't seem to be an intent to violate the policy.  I just can't block someone for a mistake.  Obviously, if someone jumps in and is countering the other's argument, even if not mentioning them, so they are diminishing the other's input, then sanctions are reasonable, but incidental or accidental should be ignored, imho.  The purpose of the iban is to keep them from arguing and/or antagonizing, not to keep them from participating, so sweating the little things seem unnecessarily bureaucratic.  Dennis - 2&cent; 18:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with Denis' perspective. The current wording is not optimal but seems designed to allow for some leeway by not being too explicit. The apparent intent of the parties is relevant to determining whether a real violation of an iban took place, and we don't want to make a rule that basically bars a user from participating in a discussion just because someone else got there first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans in user space
Do topic bans apply to writing about the topic in the sanctioned individual's own user space. For example, is an individual topic banned from "Pseudoscience" allowed to have substantial sections on their user page discussing pseudoscience theories? At present, none of the topic ban examples given address personal user space. Dragons flight (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, a WP:TBAN covers "all pages" including user pages. The last example includes "also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages". Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I missed the final clause in the last example there. Thanks.  I assume therefore that users can't add material covered by TBAN to their user page.  For a related point, if the user already has content that would be covered by the topic ban in their user space, but it was created before the sanction was applied, should it be removed?  Dragons flight (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. My take is that a discussion about imposing a topic ban should have involved someone raising the question of whether existing material was a problem, and if so, what to do about it. The two issues are separate—an editor is topic banned because of disruption associated with their actions, but keeping existing material in user space is not disruptive provided the material satisfies WP:UP. My conclusion would be that existing material could be kept, but tweaking it would violate the topic ban. Of course it would be fine for the editor to delete such material. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been explicitly told by the Arbs that content in user space is subject to topic bans. Including writing drafts of appeals of the bans (do them offline was the direction) Gaijin42 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * See also Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_7 Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And the arb comment Gaijin42 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-controversial change to remove bad link
This is a minor change, which I considered just changing, however as per Arbitrator Beeblebrox above: "Nobody should be adding or removing anything other than typos without getting consensus for it beforehand. Unilaterally altering policy is never the right thing to do." This isn't a typo change, but fairly close, still I thought I would get consensus first.

The "See also" section on this page links to Arbitration/Index/Principles, I had followed that link and found this little sentence "Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed." Now as an experienced editor, I knew this wasn't current policy. So I found that on Arbitration/Index it states that "Links which are struck through lead to historical archives that are no longer maintained. All other links are current committee archives." And "Principles" is one that is struck through (so it is no longer maintained). This page shouldn't be linking to a list that is no longer maintained and likely to confuse new editors that might not realize. So I propose removing it from the "see also" list. --Obsidi (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Maintenance editing of pages isn't actually changing policy, so it's fine to just change them. NE Ent 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut for Recidivism?
Would anyone be opposed to adding a shorcut to the Recidivism may lead to a ban section? WP:RECIDIVISM seems obvious, but perhaps something easier to spell would be better? Bosstopher (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ NE Ent 00:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

RFC on appeals processes now open
See Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

VPP discussion about TBANs
Cross-posting for visibility: Village pump (policy)/Archive 118 ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanking and IBAN
There have been some requests on ANI over the past few weeks about editors thanking others with whom they have an interaction ban. Given that it's at least somewhat unclear whether this is a violation of an interaction ban are there objections to adding "Thanking editor y;" as a dot point under WP:IBAN? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly" should already cover that. How is "thanking" even a gray area if an interaction ban is currently in place? It's certainly at least "making reference" to the editor. Doc   talk  11:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion is that it's not an edit so not making reference to them in that sense. This comment from User:Samwalton9 (Though it's debatable whether a thank constitutes an 'interaction') suggests that there is some confusion including among admins. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not hugely well versed in how interaction/topic bans operate, but my wording there was because thanking someone seems a relatively benign violation of an interaction ban and I didn't consider it block-worthy. If the user had been somehow disruptive by thanking a whole load of edits or appeared passive aggressive by thanking for something a reasonable editor wouldn't thank for I would have considered it, but two thanks didn't seem like a particularly awful offence. I checked here and there were no IBAN points which I felt covered thanking so I went with my judgement. I agree that a clarification may be needed. Sam Walton (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * To me it's self-evident that a "thank you" system message is a form of interaction and therefore prohibited. But can others even check whether such a "thank you" happened?  Sandstein   14:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Special:Log includes Thanks Log as an option. I don't know if it's possible to see the particular edit being thanked. NE Ent 15:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As NE Ent says, Special:Log/thanks can be used to see who thanked whom, or to see what thanks a user has received. However (I'm fairly sure), the edit that was thanked cannot be seen—that's by design to provide privacy. Re the issue, being thanked by an opponent is very creepy (I'm currently trying to work out why I was thanked by someone I had commented about negatively on an admin noticeboard), and using thanks to contact an IBAN editor should be sanctioned as an obvious IBAN violation. In general I don't think we should document every bad idea because it suggests that anything not mentioned is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Give me a nutshell
How would you say what banning is in a nutshell? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Should I say "Long-term abuse may lead to a ban"? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Long-term abuse to the Wikipedia policies may lead to a ban"? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How about 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. However, given the current information provided in the lede, I feel a nutshell might end up redundant. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  20:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * However, some people are visual learners and having prose may not be nice for visual learners to understand. But your way of writing is better. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 10:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not just that but also about the fact that this policy is one of the most important policies. Without an explicit nutshell, the important policy could not be understood clearly enough for all users to understand. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think there might be something a wee bit weird with the tenses of the verbs in the sentence. I'm trying to think of a possible improvement that's still going to be easy to understand. The minimal change version would be something like "... lead to editing restrictions (partial or complete) being applied...". Might be easier to switch the subject of the sentence to the restriction themselves, giving "Editing restrictions (partial or complete) may be applied to any editor with/showing problematic behaviour. Such/These restrictions may be applied either by community consensus or by the Arbitration Committee."
 * Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

BANEX
Fellow Wikipedians, The exemptions section for Edit Warring (WP:3RRNO) contains the following text:
 * If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war/3RR noticeboard.

This has the benefit of clearly identifying when & where an editor is claiming an exemption to policy. I believe that including an equivalent section here at WP:BANEX would also assist with editors clearly identifying claimed exemptions to limited bans.

I propose adding the following:
 * If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the BLP noticeboard.

Opinions from other editors are invited. If there are no objections, I will add this to the policy page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The idea sounds good to me. Though I'd suggest wording it a little differently due to the different circumstance (e.g. it's not just reverting and BLP issues):
 * If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible explanatory edit summary or that you link to an explanation detailing the exemption. When in doubt, do not take the action (for example the edit). Instead, engage in dispute resolution, and in particular ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the administrators' noticeboard (or if the ban is from the Arbitration Committee, request a clarification from them).
 * Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Many thanks. Appreciate the improved wording. I will wait another day or so in case other editors wish to comment. Absent objections, I will add the updated text. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ban notice for users using real names
I'd like to propose that the User pages section of the banning policy be modified to exclude using the banned template for users who are using their real names, possibly using basic page blanking instead. Conceivably, this could include any name where there might be confusion with a real one, but that's probably a bit too broad. There's also the question of whether they should be added to the relevant category or excluded altogether. Does anyone have any thoughts on either of these points? – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  03:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the intent of the change that it is undesirable to link a person's real name and a statement that they are "banned from Wikipedia." Of course, it isn't really possible to determine that an account that seems to have a real name is really a real name (i.e., account "John Doe" does not necessarily belong to a real person called John Doe). However, given that a link between a banned account and a real sounding name has possible negative consequences for an unrelated person with that real name, then this is perhaps a moot point. That is, while "John Doe" may not be operated by someone called John Doe, any real person called John Doe shouldn't have to face questions that they might be the person who Wikipedia banned. So I support your suggestion. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Does Banned include NOINDEX? Guy (Help!) 13:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONSENSE and basic human respect already cover it. We aren't forced to use the template anyway, it says "should" not "must", so some judgement is given.  Real life trumps any website, so if there is a reason to think it is their real name, blanking the page is sufficient for banned users that really go away.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * JzG: Yes, it appears to.


 * Dennis Brown: I'm actually bringing this up because of a mini edit war I spotted on an old banned user's page over whether the template should or shouldn't be there. I thought explicitly adding it to the policy might avoid such situations in the future. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that we should take no special effort to hide the public behaviour of people who have gotten banned. Wikipedia is a place where people get credit for their actions. That being said we have no requirement to use the template at all and if a user is not engaging in block evasion then I think we can do without. <b style="color:DarkRed">Chillum</b> 16:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * These banners, and similar ones alleging or "reporting" that accounts are socks, serve no useful purpose except to shame the person behind the account. That is their intention. If people need to know why an account is blocked, the information is normally in its block log. In the case of the "sockpuppetry" ones, I reviewed a large swath a couple of years ago in my role as a checkuser, and at least 40% of them were incorrectly linked to specific sockmasters. I would suggest any that are more than 3 years old should be automatically deprecated; heck, we should probably get a bot to remove them. There are very, very rare cases where they provide useful information. Incidentally, just because the template includes a "noindex" value doesn't mean that they're not spidered and copied; there are mirror sites all over the net that include userpages with all their warnings. Google won't put the actual page at the top of their results because they haven't crawled it, but they don't deprecate copies of the same page on other sites.  Risker (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Jimbo Wales has also expressed an opinion in the discussion that spawned this one. (Also, on an unrelated note, I'm really confused right now as to how and how far to indent this message. :Þ) – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  19:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Removing "editor"
Re -- I understand the logic behind the edit, but think it read better before. Not everyone has a STEM orientation, so "editor Y" adds clarity at the cost of redundancy. NE Ent 13:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * . Doc   talk  06:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Policy regarding a handful of barnstars awarded by banned sockpuppets.
I've discovered and struck a remarkable handful of (~7) barnstar awards from a user's page. Is such restoration of content by BANNED users by a third party (diff)] appropriate? What does and should our policies say about this? What's best practice? Surely they shouldn't be left as is. I haven't determined what fraction of the barnstars were awarded by socks of users who were banned at the time of the award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 October 2015‎


 * Any post from a banned user may be reverted. Generally any user in good standing may restore such content if they take responsibility for it. I don't think I have ever seen the practice of striking such comments though. However it really does not matter as barnstars have no official value. <b style="color:DarkRed">HighInBC</b> 15:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Some of the barnstars appear to have been awarded while the editors were in good standing; for these, there is no reason (and no justification) for removal. We do not go through and retrospectively purge the site of anything that a user has ever said or all changes that they have made. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 16:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK/Agreed. But, some of the barnstars appear to have been awarded while the editors were not in good standing; for these, there is reason (and justification) for removal.  I think striking is better - more transparent.  Anyone disagree?  Re. "Generally..." - yes.  But: I don't think it's ever appropriate for any user in good standing to restore such content (that is, a barnstar from user who was banned when it was awarded) because they can't reasonably take responsibility for it; it's a comment signed by the banned user, expressing the banned user's view at that time; another user can't take responsibility for it, as I understand it.--Elvey(t•c) 19:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I handled a similar situation recently. A user who had been renamed logged back into their old username and used it to award themselves a barnstar. I ignored it at first as harmless silliness, but then the user was also asking for advanced permissions they didn't qualify for and was "polishing" the barnstar they awarded themselves with better graphics and a different message. While barnstars have no official purpose, they are just expressions of gratitude, awarding one to yourself or awarding them using socks is at the very least dishonest. So I guess I would say case-by-case basis for this sort of thing, it isn't as if it's aparticularly pervasive problem so I don't think we need any actual policy adjustment to deal with it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vehemently. Striking is generally understood to mean the original author is withdrawing the comment. Removing a banned editors contribution with a explanatory but neutral edit statement -- e.g. WP:BANREVERT, sock of editor abc -- is minizing disruption. Striking without comment is misleading, striking with comment is grandstanding and shaming, contrary to Banning_policy NE Ent 00:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Update TBAN to aide boundary detection
Add an objective, operational definition of "broadly construed" to better reflect established practice in determining scope.


 * 1) strike the parts clause from the section lede: The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor 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 the parts of other pages that are related to the topic.
 * 2) strike bullet 4 (the "parts" exemption): * weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
 * 3) add bullet:


 * any page that wikilinks or "See also" links to a weather-related page;

Comment The lack of clarity of "broadly construed" is leading to confusion, to avoidable requests for enforcement at ANI and AE, and adversely effecting collegiality. This proposal clarifies "broadly construed" to encompass a sort of one degree of separation, and increases the scope of topic bans. This will adversely affect the participation of only topic banned editors, with the benefit of increased transparency and reduced burden at noticeboards. Our notion of "broadly construed" is somewhat similar but currently independent from our notion of due weight. This proposal leverages objective wikilink artefacts in our project in the service of detecting topic ban scope boundaries. If a relationship has sufficient due weight to justify a wikilink, it is related closely enough to be considered "broadly related" in terms of topic ban scope.

In practice, many editors filing requests for enforcement for topic ban violations simply do not believe bullet 4, or believe the word "broadly" trumps bullet 4, or believe the specific wording of a topic ban notice can trump policy including TBAN bullet 4. Any edit which might appear to be allowed by bullet 4 may be interpreted as boundary testing by someone and we have no disincentive to file a request for enforcement of a topic ban violation of this type, as it may always be considered a judgement call. To this extent the popularity of the topic ban remedy in the post-discretionary sanctions regime era is at odds with the original intent of increasing collegiality and reducing filings.

What do you think? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * In my experience, the vast majority of people who fall afoul of topic bans do not do so because the limits are not clearly defined, but because they have a problem dropping the issue that led to them being topic banned to begin with. We usually give them one free pass, with a warning not to test the boundaries again. If they can't leave it alone, then obviosly a topic ban was not a sufficient remedey. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. By "fall afoul of topic bans" I understand you to refer to "found to have committed a topic ban violation." I agree many findings of topic ban violation are apt, but maybe not the vast majority of all requests for enforcement of topic ban violations. Has this been studied? Are you aware of any metrics on requests for enforcement of topic bans? In your experience, have you also seen requests for enforcement of topic ban violations that you thought were not topic ban violations due to TBAN bullet 4, the "parts" exemption? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Written policy is supposed to summarize generally accepted practice. Best I can tell no one believes the "parts" clause; the most tenuous indirect relationship to a topic brings an entire page at a time into scope. We should get rid of it. Who will help update this policy? Hugh (talk) 04:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The proposal is misguided. Constant practice, including by the Arbitration Committee, is to have topic bans include parts that relate to a topic on pages that otherwise don't. Otherwise, e.g., all noticeboard discussions would be excluded. The policy needs no change.  Sandstein   17:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. So, your read of the "parts" clause in WP:TBAN is its intent is to permit comments on a notice board filing, when the notice board might have a different filing related to a topic elsewhere on the page? Sure, but if the applicability of the "parts" clause is only noticeboards or only Wikipedia space, maybe it should say so. In your view, does the "parts" clause apply to article space? Because it seems to me in recent practice there is no such thing as an article or talk page, where parts unrelated to the topic may be edited. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You're overthinking this. The purpose of a topic ban is "don't edit anything related to the topic". Not pages, not parts of pages, not discussions, nothing. The policy reflects that and needs no change.  Sandstein   20:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. May I ask again, do you believe the "parts" clause applies to article space? In other words, a given article, might one part of it be in scope and another part out of scope? From your reply it sounds like no but I would like to please clarify. Thanks. Hugh (talk) 21:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The scope of a topic ban under discretionary sanctions is the scope of the discretionary sanctions
Proposed: When a topic ban is issued in an enforcement action authorized by discretionary sanctions, the scope of the topic ban is exactly as specified in the "Locus of dispute" subsection of the "Findings of fact" section in the "Final decision" of the authorizing Arbitration Committee decision.

The scope of all topic bans issued under the same set of discretionary sanctions will be the same. Everyone topic banned, authorized by the same case, will be banned from the same topics, edits, articles, pages, and parts of pages.

Our arbitration committee deliberates over a scope, and votes, and then our enforcing administrators do whatever they want. The scope of topic bans authorized under discretionary sanctions often bear little resemblance to the scope of the authorization. Some (many) believe the scope of a topic ban, as specified in a DS enforcement topic ban notice, may be so worded as to exceed the scope of the ArbCom decision and to exceed the restrictions on scope in our policy WP:TBAN. Some (many) believe the scope of a topic ban, as specified in a DS enforcement topic ban notice, is irrelevant, and the real scope resides only in the intention of the enforcing admin, and may be modified or extended at will by the enforcing admin.

While in the discretionary sanctions era, historically it has certainly been great fun for our enforcing administrators to demonstrate their creativity in devising increasingly baroque and carefully worded topic ban notices, such notices are creating confusion, generating notice board filings, and harming collegiality and productivity. Paraphrasing, no more "custom" discretionary sanction enforcement topic ban scopes. More uniformity of topic bans will contribute to the development of consensus in identifying the edges of topic bans, and thereby reduce filings, and increase collegiality and productivity. DS talk page notices will aide in detecting in-scope articles. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hugh, I think your proposal has great merit. Anything to clarify the boundaries of a TP will assist those under the ban and those wishing to enforce it.  However, I would like to suggest that a lot of this goes back to the wording of the locus.  I was recently topic banned in an ArbCom where the locus was worded "The dispute centers on pages about Subject X, Subject Y, and Subject Z, including biographical pages about persons involved in these topics, with numerous editors engaging in poor conduct, including battlegrounding and edit warring." Subjects X and Z were related only in that they attracted similar editors.  I was judged to have been disruptive in Subject Z, but because of the wording of the locus, I was banned also from Subjects X and Y despite having made only 6 edits in Subject X and 0 in Subject Y.  So, I think we need to be more careful in the wording of the locus. DrChrissy (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your support. I agree the above proposal means we lose the flexibility of a DS topic ban with a scope which is a subset of the locus of dispute, all or nothing. However, I think the benefits in uniformity, collegiality, and productivity outweigh this. As far as the need for care in specifying the locus of an ArbCom case, may I note that the locus of dispute in an ArbCom case is subject to consensus at least to the extent that mere mortals may comment on a pending case, while the statement of the scope of a topic ban in a topic ban notice is the creative expression of one admin, and effectively exempt from consensus by WP:ACDS. Thanks again. Other comments? Hugh (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That also doesn't look helpful to me. The point about discretionary sanctions is are that they are at the admin's discretion. That means that a discretionary topic ban can be scoped more narrowly, but not wider, than the area defined in the ArbCom decision. And these are very wide: if somebody has a problem with UFOs, for example, it is useful to ban them only from that topic, and not automatically from the whole "pseudoscience" topic area. That discretion is actually in the ArbCom decision, which this policy can't override.  Sandstein   20:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I hear you reminding me policy is just stuff the community agrees on, and ArbCom is not bound by that, thanks. I agree scopes narrower than the scope of the DS are popular, but we also have custom DS enforcement topic ban scopes that are orthogonal to all DS scopes, and my point is "custom" DS enforcement topic ban scopes are more trouble than they are worth because we end up with a unique scope for each enforcement action to lawyer about the boundaries of. We have hundreds? of topic ban scopes, most customized to some extent, but just three dozen some DS scopes. The proposal trades proportionality away for gains in collegiality and ease of administration. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "That discretion is actually in the ArbCom decision, which this policy can't override" By "that discretion", I take you to mean the discretion to issue a topic ban for a subset of the locus of dispute? I understand ArbCom's discretionary sanctions instructions mandate proportionality. This discussion may have to move if there is support, but for now let us continue here, thanks. From discussion at DS enforcement topic ban violations at AE and ANI, it seems to me many or most editors do not believe WP:TBAN applies in full to DS enforcement topic bans, are you making the broader statement that since the authority to issue them comes from ArbCom, WP:TBAN does not apply in full? Thank you. Hugh (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion (and I haven't talked to the Committee about it) is that WP:TBAN applies to all topic bans unless stated otherwise. Regarding this proposal, the community is not able to override Arbitration decisions (including procedures). The discretionary sanctions procedure current states that discretionary sanctions may be imposed at the discretion of the enforcing administrator, the scope is included in that discretion. If you want the discretionary sanctions procedure to be modified (as it appears this procedure aims to do) you should propose an amendment at WP:ARCA. I, personally, would oppose a change which prevents enforcing admins imposing topic bans which are tailored to specific editors rather than the whole "area of conflict" which as Sandstein points out can be very large (however the Committee may disagree). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments. Yes, as previously noted, this discussion if it has legs will need to move, so thanks for your engagement here.

Revised proposal: When a topic ban is issued in an enforcement action authorized by discretionary sanctions, the scope of the topic ban is as specified in the "Locus of dispute" subsection of the "Findings of fact" section in the "Final decision" of the authorizing Arbitration Committee decision, or a strict subset of the locus.

Preserves the option of proportionality required by our DS instructions and of concern to commenters above. Discretionary sanction topic bans are significantly different from community topic bans in that our pillar of consensus is explicitly not required in the discretionary sanctions instructions. In established practice, the first admin that gets a creative idea for a DS topic ban scope in their head, it's done, no discussion, ANI/AE filing closed, appeal if you don't like it. The clear intention of the discretionary sanctions regime was to relax consensus requirements for penalties in defined loci in the service of expediency in reducing conflict. Untended consequences include that DS topic bans have become the main tool used by partisans to select their collaborators, and the lawyering around the proliferation of creative DS topic ban scopes. Community topic bans are still available to those who believe a highly creative scope is appropriate to a situation. Even an ArbCom topic ban has more of a role for consensus in that all editors may comment. Paraphrasing, no more "genetically modified organisms and another thing." Comments? Hugh (talk) 16:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Unneeded instruction creep. Also, as explained, this policy is not where we determine how discretionary sanctions are applied. We as a community can't even do that, only the Committee can.  Sandstein   16:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wording on TBAN page
I recently edited the article page to make clearer that a TBAN includes the users user-page, talk-page and sandbox. This has been reverted. The reasons I made this change were partly personal - I received a TBAN about 8 months ago and did not realise this applied to my sandbox...it was not stated in the article at that time but I have since edited this in. We are often told on WP that, within certain limits, we can handle and edit our own talk page as we wish. This means editors perceive their talk page as being "different" and more like "their property". I suggest this perceived difference needs to be addressed with a clear and distinct sentence in the TBAN article, not one that is just tagged on the end of a sentence about WP articles in general. DrChrissy (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. I had a TBAN expanded for something similar, so that's my bias.  I don't see any kind of problem with this type of clarification. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a further suggestion, the multiple points regarding TBANs could be numbered. This would make it easier and clearer when giving/receiving warnings, sanctions or enforcements. DrChrissy (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Article bans, page bans, topic bans, and the "parts exemption' of topic bans, broadly construed
The "parts exemption" of topic bans:

"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. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic 'weather', they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as...weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled 'Climate' in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;"

Three ban notices

 * 1) "...hereby banned from the topic of the weather (broadly construed)..."
 * 2) "...hereby banned from the article Weather..."
 * 3) "...hereby banned from any and all pages related to the weather, broadly construed..."

Two article subsections

 * 1) article New York, subsection Climate
 * 2) article New York, subsection Wall Street

Questions for reflection

 * 1) Which if any of the above ban notices is a topic ban, article ban, or page ban?
 * 2) Which of the article subsections is in or out of scope of each of the bans?

Discussion

 * The tag "broadly construed" is redundant in a topic ban notice since it is definitional.
 * What I see happening in generally accepted common practice: Administrators like the "broadly construed" idea in topic bans, but they don't like the parts exemption in topic bans, so they craft a sort of hybrid, broadly construed page ban, and we all refer to it as a topic ban. This has the effect that the parts exemption of topic bans is useless, since, in practice, there is no such thing as an article, parts of which are in scope and parts of which are not. This technique has become so popular that our written policy is outdated with respect to commonly accepted practice and written policy is misleading. Also, while page bans and article bans are nominally more specific and offer easier scope detection than topic bans, tacking "broadly construed" on to every ban is contributing to more filings and less collegiality and hindering productivity. Further complicating matters, in discussion the distinction between topic bans and page bans is lost. What do you think? Hugh (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding trouble with TBAN
I'd like to request that the section on topic bans be expanded and rendered more specific. I'm facing a complaint right now because I didn't know that I wasn't allowed to tell anyone who filed the original complaint against me or post a link to the topic ban discussion. One of the admins just said that I must have been acting in bad faith because I asked for clarification after the ban was filed. If this section is made more detailed and specific, then that may be less of a problem in the future. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What do you think needs to be more specific? In my view, what you describe should not be subject to the ban.  Sandstein   16:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well I got blocked for it anyway, though to be fair, it wasn't "anyone"; it was someone who specifically requested my involvement in a conversation covered by the ban. Right now, there's a topicbanned user at AE who didn't know that they weren't allowed to report someone for violating the same ban (or claims at least), though there's also an interaction ban involved with those two.  I realize we want to avoid WP:BEANS, but "I didn't know I wasn't allowed to do that" has shown up a lot in the month since I've been watching the page.  At least, specifying counterintuitive non-exceptions would save everyone some time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that in Darkfrog24's case they were explicitly told that they may not comment about other users' views or activity in the topic area they (DF) are topic banned from. When someone asked DF to participate in a discussion that would violate their topic ban, instead of simply saying "I'm not allowed" or "I'm topic banned [link]" they chose to comment on other users' views and behaviour in the topic area. It was these comments that resulted in their block, not the asking for clarification (which DF has had far more of than most people need). Catflap08 and Hijiri88 is still open at AE, but both are topic banned from the same topic and also have a mutual IBAN. Hijiri88 reported Catflap08 for breaching the latter's topic ban, which is being seen by at least most as a breach of the IBAN by Hijiri88 and some also see it as Hijiri88's topic ban. Catflap08 clearly breached their topic ban, but have not breached their IBAN (so far as I am aware). Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No I did not comment on the filer's views. "This person filed the original complaint" is not a comment on his or her views of the topic area. I was very surprised when I found out that anyone thought otherwise&mdash;and so were all of the uninvolved editors who commented.  If "don't name the filer" had been listed here, it would have saved us both some time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the background on the original poster of this thread. The original post in this thread is a plea for collaboration on more clarity in our written TBAN policy. Would you agree the TBAN section in this article is outdated with respect to commonly accepted practice and that our project would benefit from its revision? Isn't it true that the TBAN policy in this article dates from the era of community topic bans, and has little applicability to the current era of DS enforcement topic bans? Is not a community TB a very different animal than a DS TB? Can we put a little effort into documenting generally accepted practice and save ourselves a lot of time and ill will at AE and ANI? What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not understand what is unclear about the present wording regarding topic bans - if you are topic banned from a given topic then you are prohibited from writing about or discussing that topic anywhere on Wikipedia unless the wording of your ban clearly and unambiguously says otherwise. Whether the topic ban is imposed through DS or otherwise makes no difference to what is and is not permitted. If you want to change any of the wording then make specific suggestions that can be evaluated. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. Some issues with the current wording off the top of my head. First, the current wording definitely gives the impression to the reader that the policy is attempting to provide, through examples and counter-examples, guidance on detecting the scope of topic bans, guidance in the interpretation of "broadly construed," and constrain the scope of all topic bans. Meanwhile, at least in the case of the increasingly popular administrator-applied DS enforcement topic ban, we know from extensive generally accepted practice at ANI and AE that in fact this section does not constrain the scope, and that in fact the scope of a topic ban resides only in the intention of the enforcing administrator, and may be re-interpreted, expanded, or modified at will by the enforcing administrator; everyone at AE and ANI believes this, why can't we document it? Apparently there are flavors of topic bans, and these flavors have differences which are relevant to enforcement; an administrator at AE recently referred to a "standard" topic ban, others believe there are "topic bans" which ban an editor from a topic distinct from "page bans" which ban editors from pages. Some (most?) believe policy WP:TBAN does not apply to DS topic bans; if not, why can't we say that? The current written policy makes no distinction between various types of topic bans. In summary, we have accumulated a vast body of commonly accepted practice surrounding topic bans, that from lack of documentation is creating work at noticeboards and ill will in our community. What do you think? Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Think of it like a magic trick. If you already know that there's a mirror under the table and a spring inside the tube, then the trick seems obvious when you watch it performed.  If you don't already know, however, then the trick looks seamless.  From over here, why would talking about the ban itself be tantamount to talking about the banned topic?  Why would a person's own talk page be covered by the ban?  I'm not actually sure if this was part of why you expanded the scope of the ban in my case, by why would talking about whether or not someone else violated a similar ban be covered?  Why would talking to the admins who issued the ban count?  The ban notice says to ask if anything's unclear, but these things didn't look like they were in the gray area.  They looked like they were allowed.
 * As for a specific suggestion, to start, this page should definitely say "The goal of a topic ban is..." When mine was laid down, I was under the impression that it was meant to be temporary and that I was fully expected to return to the banned area eventually. "The goal of a topic ban is to allow the user to cultivate better editing and talk page practices in less contentious parts of Wikipedia before being allowed to return to the banned area" or "The goal of the topic ban is to keep the banned user away from the contentious area in the hopes that he or she will develop other interests and choose to remain away permanently" or "The goal of the topic ban is..." Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Darkfrog24 I'm pretty sure you can talk to the admin who invoked your TBAN about the scope of the TBAN. I have done this several times.  I might not have always liked the answers I got, but it shows engagement and a willingness to avoid a TBAN violation. DrChrissy (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it was Thryduulf here, and I'm sure he can tell you that he did not see it that way. But what do you think of the proposed text? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are reading all these caveats and hidden meanings into things from? There are no tricks. There are no mirrors under the table. Administrators are not trying to trap you into breaking your topic ban.
 * You may ask the imposing administrator questions to clarify the scope of the topic ban, but only if you are doing so in good faith.
 * If you are subject to a topic ban then you need to stay well away from that topic. If you are seeking to find the exact edge of it you are not complying with the spirit of the ban.
 * Topic bans apply to every page on Wikipedia unless they explicitly say otherwise.
 * "Every page" means "every page", not "every page except your userspace", not "every page except ones I've not edited before", not "every page except if I'm reporting someone else for breaking their topic ban." etc.
 * Topic bans are only imposed when a user has demonstrated that they are presently unable to edit collaboratively in a given topic area such that they are a net negative to the project's coverage of that topic.
 * If a topic ban has a finite duration specified then you will be able to return to editing the given topic area when that time period elapses.
 * If a topic ban is indefinite then you will be able to return to editing when you have convinced uninvolved administrators that you are able to edit productively and collaboratively in a different topic area and your return to the topic will pose a low risk.
 * If you have continued to edit on the border of the topic area, or have edited contentiously elsewhere, or have ceased editing completely, you are unlikely to convince them.
 * If you have stayed away for the longer of a few months and the minimum time before your appeal, and have edited productively elsewhere then you are more likely to convince them.
 * Any return to the topic area may be in one go (the topic ban is completely lifted with no conditions) or it may be phased - often this takes the form of a narrowing of the scope or being allowed to edit one or more specific pages that would otherwise be covered.
 * I have never heard the suggestion that this policy does not apply to topic bans imposed under discretionary sanctions. However, a topic ban is only one form of sanction and sanctions that are not topic bans will obviously not be covered by the topic ban policy.
 * For example, a page ban is not a topic ban, it is a restriction from editing one or more explicitly listed pages.
 * The goal of topic bans is to improve the encyclopaedia by separating those hindering the editing of a specific topic from that topic. If the editor in question is able to return to the topic area at a later date as a productive collaborator then that is excellent, however the encyclopaedia is more important than any one editor. Thryduulf (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mean that someone's necessarily trying to trick banned users. Stage magic is an example of how a group of people with inside knowledge may not realize what things look like to people who don't. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While not making any comment whatsoever about DF's case, I think I can see where they are coming from. Many administrators, thankfully, have a great deal of experience here on WP.  However, it is a perfectly natural human trait that along with this experience, there is often a reduced ability to remember what it was like to be less experienced.  I think what DF and I are both trying to do here is use our experience to better WP.  We have both suggested clearer wording for informing the reader from the point of view of someone who has received a TB and may not fully understand this.  Our suggestions may not be the most beautifully word-crafted prose, but surely informing the reader is of more paramount importance.  It should be remembered, this might be the first time a newly-banned reader has clicked on this page to see what it now means to be living under a TB, and this person might very well be rather distressed at what has probably just happened to them. DrChrissy (talk) 16:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your thoughtful reply. May I first remark that your comment at policy talk is roughly twice as long as the policy section under discussion WP:TBAN. Some of your reply is already in policy, but other of it I believe may be rough drafts of brief additions to policy which would be genuinely useful to readers in reducing filings and ill will. Respectfully may I remark that it may be possible that hanging at AE and ANI it may be one can get so close to this policy it gets hard to step back and see how truly deficient it is with respect to commonly accepted practice, to see it from the perspective of a newly TBAN-ed colleague. Thanks again. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "page" What page means. "Page" of course has a technical definition on Wikipedia, but as you know it is also used in casual parlance to mean "article." I think we can afford a few additional brief examples, perhaps with a caveat "including but not limited to" if it is felt necessary. If we can add a few words here that forestall one violation or one filing or one escalation, that is an improvement. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "Topic bans are only imposed when a user has demonstrated that they are presently unable to edit collaboratively in a given topic area..." In the special case of discretionary sanctions enforcement topic bans, this is too strong, this should read "...only imposed when one administrator reasonably believes that an editor threatens the smooth running of the project..." "Demonstrated" is too strong, since evidence is not necessary; only a reasonable belief by an individual administrator is necessary WP:ACDS. This particular distinction is one example of how our written TBAN policy has not been updated since the DS regime era and how it suffers from attempting to generalize over important distinctions between flavors of topic bans that are relevant to enforcement. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Several of your comments above are clarifications and expansions in the area of returning, and I think they would be useful additions and contribute to community building. As you know, in spite of the intention many participants in TBAN enforcement actions and TBAN violation reports want the targets to go away. Hugh (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "a page ban is not a topic ban" Our written policy distinguishes page bans from topic bans. In commonly accepted practice, administrators craft ban notices which seem like sorts of hybrids. A notice of the form "hereby banned from any and all pages related to X, Y, and Z, broadly construed" - page ban or topic ban? A page ban whose list of pages is defined by reference to a set of topics? A topic ban which includes the totality of each in-scope page, a local override of WP:TBAN bullet 4, the "parts" exemption? What do you think? Hugh (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "I have never heard the suggestion that this policy does not apply to topic bans imposed under discretionary sanctions." Above on this very page a long-time editor and administrator wrote "...a discretionary topic ban can be scoped more narrowly, but not wider, than the area defined in the ArbCom decision...That discretion is actually in the ArbCom decision, which this policy can't override." To me this reads as expressing the sentiment that our policy WP:TBAN is in the realm of our community and the practice of discretionary sanction topic bans flows from a higher authority. Hugh (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It was not until I entered this discussion that I realised there was such a thing as a page-ban sanction! Perhaps admins should be encouraged to use this more frequently to stop disruption, rather than the more heavy handed topic-ban, especially for first offences.  This would be easier to enforce than a TB.  It would be easy to see if the banned user then took their disruption elsewhere, in which case, if these pages were related, a topic ban could be issued. DrChrissy (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggested new text: Add "When asked a direct question by an administrator" or "When asked a direct question by an administrator who already knows that the ban is in place" to the list of exceptions. I don't see this as a change in policy but rather as explicitly stating something that may have been seen as going without saying. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Violation of topic ban
''Appealing a topic ban on Jimbo's talk page is a violation of a topic ban. After you have been topic banned, discussing your topic ban on Jimbo's topic page is a violation of your topic ban''. This page needs to be clear about this otherwise more editors will get blocked or indeffed. QuackGuru ( talk ) 16:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But this conflicts with Arbitration/Policy which states Remedies may be appealed to, and amended by, Jimbo Wales, unless the case involves Jimbo Wales' own actions. DrChrissy (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then we can request clarification from Arbcom. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this would be a very good idea. I appealed my TB on Jimbo's talk page once and there was a huge amount of effort both on my part and the part of other admins/editors, to no effect.  Jimbo chose not to get involved, which of course is his right. DrChrissy (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If an editor appeal's on Jimbo's talk page this is the outcome. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You're referring to two recent blocks of editors who were clearly not appealing their topic bans. Appealing a ban is allowed, discussing a topic which you've been banned from is not. I tend to think both policies are fairly clear about this. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Quackguru, this did not happen in my case. Perhaps it is the difference between a decision made under arbcom and one that is not.  I am not trying to be argumentative here, I am trying to make something clearer which is simply not clear to many editors and has caused a lot of time and effort for many people along the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrChrissy (talk • contribs) 19:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC) DrChrissy (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read this comment. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had already read that. I'd like to be clear here, I am not arguing for or against appeals on Jimbo's Talk page.  I really don't care if that is a possibility or not.  My concern is that at this moment, there appears from some WP pages that it is an avenue of appealing bans.  If this is not the case, so be it.  But, we need to remove content in PAGs which indicate this is a possible avenue of appeal. DrChrissy (talk) 19:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's talk page is a valid place to appeal a ban. Not only does he hear appeals (in theory), but it's also a place to reach other admins. The point however, is that the ban must be appealed, which is something that didn't happen here. This is made clear in all the relevant policies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A topic banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but they are allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales. It was not clear to me. I added one sentence to make it clear. Thoughts? QuackGuru ( talk ) 19:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Modification of block; reminder about unblock appeal channels
Following an appeal to the arbitration committee, 's block (originating in this ANI thread) is modified to restore talk page access and permit appeals through normal community channels including UTRS and the unblock template. He is strongly advised to carefully consider the concerns that have been raised about his editing before attempting to appeal. This does not prohibit decline of appeals by any community mechanism or withdrawal of talk page access should problems arise.

The committee emphasizes that block appeals are an important component of community dispute resolution processes and should not be withdrawn without compelling evidence that appeal channels are likely to be abused.
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 22:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification
This policy lacks fundamental information.
 * 1) It should be made clear that the affected user cannot discuss the topic ban on his talk page (if I understand correctly).
 * 2) There should be information exactly when bans start to be effective (and those self-imposed?).
 * 3) If a ban is self-imposed. Is the user allowed to make a notification of such a ban on his talk-page?
 * 4) I don't know if this is common, but what if a user was asked to self-impose a ban on himself and he does so (WP:AGF). Does it render him unable to engage in the following discussion about community topic- ban (potentially in the same topic-related discussion) and also to make further replies in the same discussion even when fiercely attacked?
 * 5) It should be clarified where user can post information about violations of WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED, including personal attacks and other forms of harassment against a user who cannot defend (since he cannot discuss a topic ban). Attempts to provoke a user may happen.
 * 6) It should be clarified if user can inform others explicitly that he has a topic ban and must refuse to comment on some aspects or issues in a discussion.
 * 7) In my opinion, user shouldn't be held responsible for violations unless notified about the contents of this policy explicitly with a link. --Asterixf2 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to presume good faith and treat these as requests for clarification (rather than first stage wikilawyering). Please give me a moment and I'll be happy to help clarify for you. - jc37 18:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. :) --Asterixf2 (talk) 18:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC); clarified topic-ban --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * First, please read over Topic ban, Exceptions_to_limited_bans, and Bans_apply_to_all_editing.2C_good_or_bad, which may help clarify some.


 * 1.) It depends on what is meant by "discuss the topic ban". Yes, to WP:CIVIL, non-disruptive requests for clarification. No to trying to work around the topic ban in any way.
 * 2.) immediately upon placement. This isn't a stopwatch where we wait for the time to run out. The goal here is to give the banned individual the opportunity to show the community they can interact appropriately elsewhere before asking for the ban to be removed. We offer this as an opportunity, as otherwise, one of the other alternatives is indefinite blocking from all editing. Bans are not "self-imposed", though they may be "self-accepted".
 * There's a difference between discussion of a topic and discussion of a topic-ban. A topic-banned person can engage in a discussion about a topic ban, without discussing the topic, unless otherwise specifically restricted from doing so. Though they should be discerning of such comments in such a discussion as to not violate the topic ban, nor to invite further sanction by disruptive or tendentious editing.
 * 3.) WP:AN - though please be aware of WP:BOOMERANG.
 * 4.) In most cases, there should be no reason to comment at all. But if directly asked, a simple statement of "I cannot discuss this topic due to a current topic ban" should suffice.
 * 5.) every editor is accountable for their edits. While we encourage editors to be bold, they should also be discerning and responsible editors. This is a collaborative encyclopedic project, not a battleground for debate.
 * I hope this helps. - jc37 18:57, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok. Thanks. --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * However I have some doubts. Policy says 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. Discussions about topic-ban are related to the topic (in particular topic name may be mentioned) and WP:BANEX doesn't include discussions about topic-ban explicitly. WP:BANEX also doesn't include exemption for notifications about WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED violations. Perhaps it should be fixed? --Asterixf2 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be perhaps better to avoid using word discussions and use parts of pages as in the policy description that I have quoted. If there is a long discussion, perhaps user shouldn't be banned from all of it but only from making statements about topic with the exemption for statements about topic-ban only. It doesn't seem obvious what kind of policy and its description would be best but I don't think that the current one is clear enough. --Asterixf2 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is that there is a bright line that you shouldn't cross. If there is a discussion that even touches on a subject that one is topic banned from then one should steer clear of that discussion. The point isn't to find loop holes or work arounds. --Adam in MO Talk 21:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Then it would be highly inappropriate because it would allow any other user to exclude a topic-banned account from any discussion. --Asterixf2 (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In your case it is very simple - stay away from witchcraft, period. It is very unlikely that anyone will mention that topic in most other areas and if they do, well, drop out of the conversation. If someone is being an ass and manipulating your TBAN then and only then go to an admin and say "I think User:Example is exploiting my topic ban to win a dispute". It should be painfully obvious that that is what is occurring becuase you will, of course, not be editing anywhere near something where your TBAN might apply - that is what "broadly construed" means. TBANS are simple - stay away from the topic or get blocked, get blocked more than a couple of times and end up blocked indefinitly. Probing around its edges and wikilawyering will have the same result but with a much greater chance of the indef block being a community ban because people get tired of that crap really fast. Go edit biographies on 19th century explorers or butterflies or something else you find interesting but away from that one topic. To be safe stay away from areas where that topic is even moderaly likely to come up. Simple.  J bh  Talk  17:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)