Wikipedia talk:Topic ban essay

Topic ban
Wikipedia does not currently have a one-stop spot to describe how topic bans work. Here is a proposed page that does just that. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting concept, and perhaps an idea whose time has come. Is this an accurate summary of current policy on the matter?  There were discussions not too far back where people debated the formulation of proxy editing: I think it ought to be at least described as best practice (if not outright required) for proxy editors to declare their intention in advance and seek approval before altering articles.  Otherwise the disruptive editors could game the system in a really damaging way: by manipulating people who are in good standing to make edits to topics they don't fully understand.  Durova  386 18:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who has been under a type I ban for the last six months, I can assure you that it is accurate from my end. I think that the risk that proxy editors take on by becoming proxy editors should not be understated, and if current wording is doing that we must change it. However, if, for example, a topic banned user says something like, "The last sentence in section 3 of this article from which I have been topic banned is missing a period." then making a proxy-edit for the user should not be something for which a third-party should need to get approval for. But, YMMV. Maybe the community thinks otherwise. Let it be discussed. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks reasonable (no comment as to whether it accurately captures current practice). One suggestion: you might want to change the intro to the list of ban types to read "Among the several types of topic bans editors may be subject to on Wikipedia are:".  I'm thinking specifically of the current discussion of a topic ban that proscribes all editing in the Wikipedia project space and only allows editing articles.  Consensus is that such a ban was once imposed, whether or not it still remains in effect.  I doubt that there are enough other instances of such a ban to warrant a separate item on the list; my concern is that the current wording implies that the list is exhaustive, and may be seen as curtailing the ability of the community to create such specifically-tailored remedies in the future.  —  æk Talk  18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What may end up happening is that a "topic ban" might become a "partial site ban" at some point. However, I think it best to stick to what has traditionally been called a "topic ban" when describing this page. Already, Jehochman has included "interaction bans" as a subtype of topic bans. I'm not sure that they really qualify, but I'd like to get more community input. I agree, however, that in an innovative community like Wikipedia we are constantly coming up with novel ways to solve problems and so we should not be so proscriptive when it comes to types of bans. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The name for the second ("Discussion space topic bans") seems misleading, as it includes the mainspace, which is not normally considered part of the 'discussion space'. I regret to say that I don't have a better descriptor to suggest.  Also, the difference between #2 and #3 feels odd to me.  Does ArbCom really bother to differentiate between "You're not allowed to talk about ____ anywhere on Wikipedia, except for on your account's talk page" and "You're not allowed to talk about _____ anywhere on Wikipedia, including on your account's talk page"?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I can't see any problem with the idea (and I'm generally in favor of clarifications of this sort), but does this really want to be a page of its own? Wouldn't it work better as a section of wp:Bans and blocks or wp:Banning policy? -- Ludwigs 2 04:18, 23 December 2009 (UTC)