Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Archive 3

Accuracy?
I checked one (just one) name on this list - User:Tobias Conradi. Either this list is inaccurate, or his userpage is. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone monitor this list? --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone monitor this talk page? --Dweller (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I do, but I don't see why either is inaccurate. The ArbCom remedies are indefinite; the site ban was imposed separately by the Community. In the event that his site ban is revoked or removed by the Community, then the ArbCom restrictions listed here will continue to apply. Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Perfect sense. But there's no record here of a community ban. Just the Arbcom one. --Dweller (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The evidence of site ban is at Community sanction noticeboard/Archive10; the log for site bans is List of banned users - we don't put the log for site bans at this page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

<-Ah... OK. Does it not seem obvious to mention this in the rubric at the top of the page? (I won't dare suggest the possibility of merging the two pages) --Dweller (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That does indeed seem obvious - what doesn't seem obvious is why it isn't mentioned there (or if it was there, why it was subsequently removed). I've boldly added it per your suggestion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Smashing, ta. --Dweller (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Cutoff point for sanctioned editors
I've been reviewing several of the cases of different users listed here and determined that several of them are probably no longer in effect because of several different factors, including: the time limitation of the original ban, their vanishment, their nonexistence, or just the plain fact that some of these users have been indefinitely blocked for extensive sockpuppetry to evade the original ban or have use the sockpuppets to engage in long-term abuse against the project. In particular, I've put up a certain banned IP editor 195.82.106.244 up for clarification by the Arbitration Committee (see permalink) because the IP ban was listed in the "ArbCom bans" category. I think, however, that more of these users also ought to be reviewed by members of the Arbitration Committee or someone else more familiar with the process so as to remove several of these unnecessary bans from the users on this list. There should also be a clear guideline as to when "indefinite" bans should be re-reviewed and clarified again once in a while. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  19:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The bans are kept in place because they are necessary, particularly if the user is allowed back on the project at some point in the future. Editors don't want to be wasting time reviewing cases which are in no need of review; that time is better spent in the content space. If an user wants their remedy reviewed, they can request for a review through the standard means explaining what they have done which would indicate that there will no longer be any continuing disruption or problems if the measure is lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Table that needs fixing
The table in the "Placed by the Wikipedia community" section becomes messy when sorted. Could someone try to fix it? Hey Mid  (contribs) 13:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, the "Final warnings" section. The 'Date' column is way too wide, while the 'Warning' column is much too narrow, for the amount of text going in it. It looks silly, they should be the other way around. (Sorry, I'm not good with tables, otherwise I'd do it myself). -- &oelig; &trade; 23:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've fixed these. Apparently rowspan should NOT be used when using a sortable table.
 * Also, I've moved this to the bottom of this talk page since it has been a while since the post date. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 16:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that. -- &oelig; &trade; 04:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Rowspan problem notice
Should we have an editnotice that says NOT to use the rowspan param anywhere in the sortable tables? Seems like it would be better to me. LikeLakers2 (talk &#124; Sign my guestbook!) 16:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Process for Appealing "Indefinite" Topic Bans
Greetings,

My topic-ban for the subject of "longevity" has been up for 366 days. Several editors suggested that after one year, the ban may be lifted. However, it is not clear to me what the process is to request a topic ban be lifted.

Further, I do think the topic ban was excessive in the first place. My edits were NPOV and based on science; the edits of the primary "opponent" were religious-based POV editing. It's like a "creationism vs evolution" debate. Even to put the debate on the same level really isn't fair to those who are basing their editing on principles such as evidence or proof.

Also, the problem from a year ago died away and hopefully will not return.

I await hearing from someone as to possibly getting my "topic ban" lifted. "Indefinite" is not forever. Ryoung 122 17:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban on 92.24.3.41?
Since IP addresses don't really belong to anyone, topic banning an IP address sound a bit odd. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a topic ban?
Ok, I found out about this RfAr (Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair) today. The final decision stated that all the editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair were banned from editing that article indefinitely. Does this meet the criteria to call that a topic-ban? Hill Crest&#39;s WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans shouldn't extend to banned editors own pages.
An editor who's topic banned (such as I) shouldn't be prevented from discussing those very topics on his/her own pages - Userpage, secondary page, sandbox etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (@GoodDay. Remember WP:OWN, those are not "your" pages.) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes they should. A topic ban is to get a person out of a subject area. Your proposal creates backdoors for people to get back into a subject area where they were disruptive. -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  23:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. A topic ban should be a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)