Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 5

Difference between block and ban

Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, a consensus was reached to extend CSD:G5 (creations by a banned use) to cover blocked users as well as banned users. The change was implemented on 7 February 2010. This invalidated a statement in Wikipedia:Banning policy about the difference between blocks and bans. It said that blocked users' edits "should go through normal AfD or dispute resolution process", whereas "banned users editing despite a ban or on their behalf may have all of their edits reverted without question..., and any pages that they create may be deleted on sight under WP:CSD#G5". Since this statement was no longer valid I have removed it. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocking and banning are alike because if a user is blocked indefinitely, the user is considered banned until an administrator unblocks them. Keyboard mouse (talk) 04:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A statement to that effect was added to the banning policy on 27 February 2010. Previously the situation was far less clearly defined. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Protection of banned users talk pages

This page is unclear on this point - are banned users allowed to edit their own talk pages or not for the purposes of appeal, after being banned? I am talking about editors who have been site banned by 'community discussion' at AN, which per this page only needs to take 24 hours. If an editor never even logs on while this discussion take place, and therefore missed both the initial and final notification, and an admin comes along and applies the template and protects their page, that's the first thing they hear of it, and have no option but to appeal to arbcom. The page currently however implies that bans "may be appealed to the community" implying via their talk page and that talk page access is "More likely not allowed" for site banned users. The page needs to be clearer. If nodody comments, I will take the hard line view and clarify what I've actually seen occur - that talk page access is always removed once a user is banned by community discussion at AN, whether they were aware the discussion had been initiated or not, and their only recourse of appeal is to arbcom MickMacNee (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

formal or authoritative bans

A formal ban is when a group of people decide to ban under valid reasons. Someone in authority that bans someone is usually not for valid reasons but for the protection of the project. A ban from an authority figure is much harsher than from the community. ShadowReflection (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

not clear enough

I only came here to see how to ban a particular user, this page is full of bs and not clear enough. There should just be a section "How to ban a user" with just a list of what to do. Cahaya seni needs to be banned, he was posting promotional bs on the jewellery page. VMS Mosaic reverted that parasite's edits, but didn't tell him off or report him, as far as I can see. I don't know how the policy goes, if something happens to VMS Mosaic for turning a blind eye to this guy. Owen214 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor is not even close to being eligable for blocking, let alone banning. The editor was maybe spamming, and should be warned accordingly (which you did, and I repeated). If the editor persists and/or repeats .. WP:AIV is the place to be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lifting of a ban

Suppose a user is indefinitely banned per WP:ANI consensus, takes a 14-month wikibreak, and then returns under a different name and exhibits good behavior for a couple months, having, perhaps, matured a bit and developed a mind-set that is more conducive to behaving appropriately and getting along with other members of the community. Is there any procedure for formally lifting the ban? Or would it be better for the user just to pretend that nothing happened? Tisane (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Clean start, and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans. However the decision to use sock puppets for evasion will count against the editor. The preferred way of doing this is to send the email to arbcom before creating the new account. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Types of ban

I noticed that nowhere do we describe what a topic or interaction ban actually means, hence the need to draw up detailed rules in most cases. I've attempted to describe our usual practice in a new section, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of ban.  Sandstein  21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've modified some of the details as I don't agree that the original reflected how things work properly in practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

These seem to be mostly stylistic changes, but ok.  Sandstein  13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Coercion = immediate banning?

This line (from Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Coercion) seems rather dubious:

Attempts to coerce actions of editors through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning.

Firstly, neither ArbCom or the community are prone to acting with haste in banning editors, so I doubt the truth of this implication. Secondly, this line seems to encourage administrators unilaterally banning the offending parties. I suggest that this be clarified and folded into either the "Types of ban" or "Decision to ban" sections as a normal rationale rather than special dispensation. Skomorokh 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think is somewhat of an extension of WP:NLT; offsite and real life harassment is and should be grounds for immediate banning. I certainly wouldn't want to edit with anyone who harassed people. NW (Talk) 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Banning isn't instantaneous. I think that the sentence is supposed to mean "You'll get indef'd now, and banned after an ANI discussion concludes in a couple of days." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's several types of types of conduct (and several types of harassment) which will result in a ban after a few days and setting an exhaustive list will be a pain to update. I think we all agree that it's grounds for blocking (per NW) so it should be reflected in blocking policy. That is, coercion is too narrow to describe the sorts of behavior that would warrant "immediate banning". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision-delete as a way of dealing with banned editors

I have now seen the situation where a banned editor has created a sock making mundane edits to unrelated subjects which are clearly pretty mundane and beneficial to the 'pedia, yet their presence causes som other editors distress.

It occurs to me that some banned editors might get a sense of amusement seeing an improved page reverted to an older one with errors in defence of wikipedia's banning policy, yet contrary to the improvement of the 'pedia.

My idea is, how about using revision delete in these situations (as well as 'swamping' the page with improvements, hence the banned editor's 'stamp' on the article disappears into the history) - the banned editor's presence is expunged, and mundane and unequivocal improvements left. This way there is nothing for the banned editor to revert over, yet their presence is eradicated. I think this is useful in a situation where edits are (a) uncontroversial and clear encyclopedic improvement and (b) unrelated to the topic area of the person's banning (?). What do we think folks? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this not violate our licensing policies? NW (Talk) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

well, in one way they are still there, they are just invisible to nonadministrators.....? (sounds of wikipages ruffling to look licencing up...) Casliber (talk · contribs)

PS: I am looking at this page - Wikipedia:Copyrights - is there another that is more explicit? I can't see anything that this contravenes there..(??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I remember Moonriddengirl saying once that a full list of authors had to be provided to satisfy CC-BY-SA-3.0 (but not GFDL) conditions. I could be wrong though. NW (Talk) 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If we keep any changes of substance, the page history has to credit the editor correctly and publicly, otherwise we are in violation of our own licensing agreement with the editor (we agree to license each contribution under CC-BY-SA-3, and that requires crediting the contributor each time we agree to use their contribution). Really minuscule changes that don't meet any copyright threshold - something like a single change in spacing, punctuation, capitalization, etc. - might not need to be attributed, but if we attribute the editor's other work it's better to be safe than sorry. If you don't want a banned user to receive a byline, you'll have to completely remove their edits. GFDL only really requires crediting the five "principal authors" of a work, but we no longer have any text that's GFDL-only, so the CC-BY-SA requirements are what's important. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It has the somewhat nebulous:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

well that doesn't happen, there is just a standard acknowledgement as organized by the WMF. No-one gets a say in how prominently or otherwise it is displayed. (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who contributes using our edit interface agree to be credited as specified at foundation:Terms of Use - the page history is option c). My interpretation (I admit that it is only that) is that each time they agree to this form of attribution, we must credit them, except that "Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions". Omitting credit for some edits could break attribution for reusers of our content who only used part of the edit history. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(Not really sure where to indent this) Now, don't we sometimes remove usernames anyway if they're horrible and defamatory? E.g., User:JIMBO WALES [verb]S [noun]!!! (I'll let your imaginations run wild about what the verb and noun might be and avoid and BLP vios that way). Is this different from doing that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The way that we would ordinarily fix this concern is to revert the banned users edits and then rewrite the article again in our own words to correct omissions or errors in the text. That does not always happen because of time pressure that limits our ability to clean up the articles. If we keep any edits of significance then I would think that the editor should be credited in the history. It is the ethical thing for us to do. As to RevDel the edits, I have concerns about raising the exceptions that we will do this on most articles edited by banner users. In general, right now we are not able to monitor articles well enough to remove highly problematic material quickly, so I'm not sure that this is the best use of our time and work effort. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of edits by the topic banned

I just want to check something. With site banned editors other users cannot do edits for them and we revert these edits immediately. If a Topic banned editor gets another user who has a history of operating (if only as a single purpose account) in that topic area to make an edit for them - is this a breach of WP:MEAT? Also, is asking somebody else to make an edit for them enough for a topic banned editor to be in breach of their ban?--Cailil ^talk 19:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, but the circumstances play a key part in determining if it can be considered a breach and how it should be enforced. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban wording

As this section shows, the expectations of a topic ban are not clearly enough defined at present.

A topic ban means that the user is no longer invited to contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia's articles on the topic and that their past attempts to do so have been very disruptive. Also if other editors act improperly then the topic banned users' contribution is not needed to correct it - uninvolved editors without a history of poor judgment and conduct in the topic area will comment if comment is needed.

Would consensus agree with a tightening of the wording as follows:

Original

Proposed

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 otherwise specified, 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 articles such as Wind and Rain, including their talk pages; weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology; weather-related summaries of edits to any page; 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; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist.

A topic ban indicates to a user that for the duration of the ban, they are not invited to contribute to the shaping of the topic on Wikipedia. This is usually due to a history of improper conduct on the topic. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic on all pages (including their userspace and project pages, not just articles) and making edits about the topic in unrelated pages. Their views on other disputes that may exist within the topic area are not required either. For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" this means editing is forbidden on: weather-related articles such as Wind and Rain and their talk pages, weather-related project pages such as WikiProject Meteorology, or summaries of weather-related discussions or edits; weather-related wording and sections in other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as the section on "Climate" in the article New York; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist or an RFC on weather-related wording; discussions of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors on weather related topics (except for factual correction and appeal of their own sanction) per discussion below not needed, first exception is a big loophole, second is already in policy; or userspace posts or engaging with other users (including past disputants) on weather-related topics. A useful way to do this is to reply "I'm forbidden to post about this topic on-wiki due to a topic ban."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. The more specifics we put in, the more loopholes we create. That said, the descriptions above seem reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mild support. I share the general concern of S of V that adding specificity can lead to loopholes.
  • Specific observations:
    • "except for factual correction" sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Unless I'm missing something, this creates more problems than it resolves.)
    • "Appeal of their own sanction" - support. (Oddly, the current CC topic ban wording does not have such an exception. It should)
    • "userspace posts" - support. (Oddly, the current CC topic ban wording does not prohibit such posts. It should)
    • Question - what good will this revised wording do if ArbCom ignores it and crafts their own wording? Presumably, specific wording by ArbCom trumps generic wording. Ideally, we would agree to good wording, and ArbCom would simply enact a topic ban, implicitly invoking this wording, but that isn't what happened. Perhaps this means it will be helpful in the case of an AN imposed topic ban, but given that the recent interest is instigated by CC issues, it is worth discussing how to get ArbCom on board.--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1+2/ Agreed and fixed. My thought was about others taunting them or misrepresenting their topic ban. On reflection #Conduct towards banned editors covers most of this.

Also appealing a sanction is already an exception at #Exceptions to limited bans. So I've removed these exceptions as "probably not needed".

4/ A good wording for topic bans can only help ArbCom cases and community sanctions - if worded well enough, ArbCom may adopt it as the standard topic ban conditions.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As the original author of that policy section, I agree with the (few) substantial clarifications, but think that most changes to the wording are no improvement. Some thoughts:

1. I originally tried to get the point across in as few and as simple words as possible. But:
   1. The proposal contains expressions like "shaping of the topic" (what's that?), "userspace posts", RFC" and "disputants" that may be unfamiliar to non-native speakers of English or new users.
   2. For instance, instead of "are not invited", we should use the clearer and shorter "may not"; instead of "indicates to a user that" we can simply say "means that ... the banned user".
   3. "for the duration of the ban" is also self-evident and thus redundant.
   4. "This is usually due to a history of improper conduct on the topic." Usually, but sometimes not? That means we sometimes topic-ban people on a whim? The original "where their contributions have been disruptive" is more to the point, IMHO.
   5. "this means editing is forbidden on" can more concisely be expressed thus: "they may not edit".
2. What does "Their views on other disputes that may exist are not required either" mean? If disputes about the topic, that should need no elaboration; if disputes not about the topic, then why?
3. I am not sure that the new example paragraphs four and five are really needed: they are simply examples of "discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia" (¶3).
4. Could the cumbersome "userspace posts or engaging with other users (including past disputants)" be replaced with "messages"?
5. The sentence A useful way to do this is to reply "I'm forbidden to post about this topic on-wiki due to a topic ban." does not work well with the preceding one, since it's not clear what "this" refers to. If we need to have that piece of advice, how about we avoid wikijargon and say: "The banned user should not react to queries related to weather except with "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or a similar response."
6. Can we lose the random-looking bolding? Other parts of the policy don't have it either.  Sandstein  18:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• (I think the bolding is only there to emphasize the changes) - this overall clarification is essential to prevent the use of loopholitis. Collect (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) .

Quick comments using Sandstein's numbering:

• Shorter wordings (1.2 - 1.5) look fine.
• Not too concerned over unfamiliar terms or non-English use (1.1) - anyone who's been editing enough to get topic banned (which usually means they make useful contributions elsewhere too) is unlikely to need help understanding very common wiki-terms like "RFC" and "userspace".
• (2) "Views on other disputes" reworded - yes.
• (3) Topic banned users often have a past of warring. Many have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:LAWYER. The topic ban is to get them to drop that area so we don't have to block or ban them entirely. Spelling it out is no bad thing in the circumstances.
• (4) "Userspace posts" -> "messages" works, but "engaging with users or past disputants on the topic" probably needs specific mentioning.
• (5) Agreed.
• (6) Per Collect and yes.

Amended wording based on this:

--Proposed v2 -- A topic ban means that the user may not in any way contribute to the shaping of the topic or to discussions about editing related to the topic on Wikipedia, because their previous involvement was too disruptive. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes on all pages (including project pages and their own userspace, not just articles) and edits about the topic on unrelated pages. For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" they may not edit or participate in: weather-related articles and their talk pages, weather-related project pages such as WikiProject Meteorology, or summaries of weather-related discussions or edits; weather-related wording and sections in other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as the section on "Climate" in the article New York; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist or an RFC on weather-related wording; on-wiki discussion of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors, engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages on weather-related issues. Canvassing weather related actions, for example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email (this is forbidden whether or not topic banned). The banned user should not react to queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic. A suggested response is "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or similar, with an optional link to the relevant decision if wished (but without editorial comment). If engagement continues, ask for uninvolved administrator assistance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. A few more questions and comments:

1. What does "and [the topic's] editorial processes" mean? Do topics have editorial processes dedicated only to them? Do you maybe mean "and discussions about editing related to the topic"?
2. "including their userspace and project pages" should be rephrased as "including project pages and their own userspace". I initially misread the sentence as referring to project pages belonging to the user, which makes no sense.
3. Is "edit on" correct English? I'd have said "edit about", but I'm not a native speaker.
4. What is meant by "plain" links?
5. In the phrase "engaging with other users (including past disputants and in messages to or from other users) on weather-related topics", I'm not sure that the prepositions "in" and "on" are apposite. How does one engage "in" a message, or "on" a topic? Besides, one cannot violate a topic ban by receiving a message, which is what "from other users" seems to imply. Might we say "sending or responding to messages related to the topic, no matter whether or not the other user was involved in any previous disputes"?
6. To avoid a double negation, "is also forbidden" should be omitted, or else the last bullet point should begin capitalized and be preceded by a period.
7. In the last paragraph as currently proposed, we seem to be no longer talking about the "weather" example, so it should read "queries about the topic or disputes related to it", which also avoids a repetition of "related".  Sandstein  20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've twice seen topic banned editors ask about whether they could participate in mediations related tot he topic. I suspect that this proposed language would make it clear that that's not acceptable, and that'll be a help.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein -

1/ Same thing, your wording's fine and may be more obvious, 2/ Fine as well, 3/ It's difficult to find the right grammatrical structure (some of these require "in" and some "on" and some "relating to"), I have changed it to "may not edit or participate in", 4/ means no commentary, just the link (providing a link is not the same as a loophole to rehash the entire dispute and all one's views), 5/ the culprit is the expression "and in messages to or from other users". Your wording helps fix this. Try this: "on-wiki discussion of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors, engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages, on weather-related issues". 6/ Cannot see the wording "is also forbidden" in the text, can you check this, 7/ see comment on #5.

I have edited v2 to reflect these. I also made one other changes - added off-wiki canvassing as a likely loophole.

"Engaging with other users (including other disputants)" could be improved. "Engaging with other users [on the topic]" is covered already under "sending or responding to user messages" so it's redundant. The aim of the other part is to forbid the situation where a topic banned user begins to wikihound his past opponents, finding "faults" elsewhere, trying to prove they are bad editors, etc. The problem is that sometimes the opponent is genuinely showing issues elsewhere, sometimes it's a WP:COATRACK to undermine ex-opponents without breaching the topic ban. Any ideas for improving the wording on this area? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

V2 looks better, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• This seems pretty clear and straight-forward. "Plain link" seems somewhat in need of explication, something on the order of "a plain link without editorial comment"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Added that. I also added a bit more in that paragraph (briefly: other users should not provoke engagement; if provocation doesn't cease then seek uninvolved administrator help rather than breach the topic ban). Such users may well be needled and tend to respond easily, a little guidance is sensible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the wording looks pretty good now, but a few additional comments:

1. "edits about the topic in unrelated pages" should be changed to "edits about the topic to unrelated pages". Unless I'm mistaken, by convention we speak of edits "to" pages, not "in" pages.
2. "sending or responding to user messages (including off-wiki canvassing)" seems to imply that engaging in off-wiki canvassing is covered by the topic ban. Or do you mean that only responding to off-wiki canvassing is prohibited? We may need to discuss this in more depth. Normally, topic bans (like any sanction) cover only on-Wiki conduct. I can see the argument for possibly making an exception here, but such an expansion would need a solid, broader consensus.
3. In "queries related to weather or its related dispute", I also think that we can lose the weather, because we have left the example. Also, not every topic has "its" dispute, but rather a great number of individual disputes. Thus I propose: "queries related to the topic or to discussions and disputes related to the topic".  Sandstein  10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1+3/ yes and I think it's now fixed ("queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes"), 2/ the mention of canvassing isn't new, it's already in WP:CANVASS under #Inappropriate notification and #Stealth canvassing:

"[C]anvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate";

"Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive";

"The following behaviours... are regarded as characteristic of canvassing (and may be seen as disruptive): ... Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions";

"Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason".

This doesn't add anything new. The users to whom topic bans are applied include a high proportion of POV warriors (by definition) and people who look for loopholes. It's worth the mention to avoid doubt.

One major ambiguity: "or to discussions about editing related to the topic on Wikipedia". This was a wording you suggested to replace "and [the topic's] editorial processes" but on reflection it's added more ambiguity than we realized. What about: "and communal discussions and processes directly related to editing of the topic"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing: okay, but then we might not want to hide that important aspect among the examples. We could mention it in the second paragraph: "... on unrelated pages. Off-wiki canvassing related to the topic is also forbidden. ¶ For example ..."

Ambiguity: I'm not sure that I see what the ambiguity might be. I'm not happy with "communal", because it's not clear what it means, and it might be read to imply that, e contrario, bilateral / "private" discussions are OK. Is there a reason to refer to "directly related" discussion here, whereas we use "broadly related" in the general definition? That might be another wikilawyering opportunity.  Sandstein  18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried that approach on canvassing, it didn't work well. Adding an extra bullet looks much better: "Canvassing weather related actions or soliciting weather related edits by other users, for example using wiki-email (this is forbidden whether or not topic banned)." I've edited this into v2.

The ambiguous wording added was "or to discussions about editing related to the topic on Wikipedia". This could be read two ways: (all discussions about (topic editing on Wikipedia)) or ((all discussions about topic editing) on Wikipedia). What about "...or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic..."? Better?

The reason for the "directly related" or "concerning" wording is that we definitely don't want a topic-banned user to wikilawyer that they can participate in a topic discussion (ie commentary which is clearly related to the topic), however we also don't want to prevent them from contributing validly to the many low risk discussions whose connection to the topic is tenuous but which could be construed as "broadly related" due to some very minor overlap. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing: OK, but I propose to remove the part between brackets, "(this is forbidden whether or not topic banned)", because it does not faithfully represent policy and is not necessary here. WP:CANVASS only says that "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged". Discouraged does not mean forbidden, but we don't need to go into that here; the link to WP:CANVASS should suffice. Instead we could write: "... using wiki-email or other off-wiki means".

About the ambiguity: I still don't quite see the difference between the two ways you think the provision can be read. Might it be avoided by just dropping "Wikipedia", as in: "... discussions about editing related to the topic, because ...", since it is understood that the scope of a Wikipedia policy is always Wikipedia itself? But your proposed wording, "...or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic...", would work as well, I think.

Relatedness: I think we should err on the side of caution here and stick to the "broadly related" standard. Any contributions that are in fact harmless will tend not to be sanctioned, but we should not encourage boundary-pushing. The core message should remain: Anything related to the topic is off-limits.  Sandstein  17:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

(unindent) Agreeing and adding 1+2 and noting 3 is also fixed by 2. As this seems to be closing in on a wording people are happy with, reposting as v3:

--Proposed v3 -- A topic ban means that the user may not in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic, because their previous involvement was too disruptive. Lesser or different restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated, if not then these will apply. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes on all pages (including project pages and their own userspace, not just articles), edits about the topic on unrelated pages, or efforts to shape Wikipedia coverage conducted off-site. For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" they may not edit or participate in: weather-related articles and their talk pages, weather-related project pages such as WikiProject Meteorology, or summaries of weather-related discussions or edits; weather-related wording and sections in other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as the section on "Climate" in the article New York; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist or an RFC on weather-related wording; on-wiki discussion of user conduct and disputes (including possible or past sanctions of other editors), engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages, on weather-related issues. Canvassing or proposing weather-related Wikipedia actions off-wiki. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means. The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to on-wiki questions and discussions about the topic or its related disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic. A suggested response is "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or similar, with an optional link to the relevant decision if wished (but without editorial comment). If engagement continues, ask for uninvolved administrator assistance.

Workable? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can perhaps transfer this to the policy page and fine-tune it from there ("participate in: ..." would read better as "engage in: ..." as applied to canvassing; instead of "wished" I'd have written "desired"), but these are stylistic details. Thanks for doing all the editing here. I'm still not very comfortable with "editorial processes" / "its editorial processes", for the reasons given previously, and because the emphasis on "editorial" might give rise to the impression (contrary to the examples) that we only prohibit engagement in content ("editorial") discussions, but not in user conduct discussions arising from editing within the topic area. Maybe we could omit "editorial"?  Sandstein  20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both your other points are okay and will be understood as intended. Participate works here because it covers both active and passive senses, one can "participate" in a canvassing matter by passively being part of a canvassing group as well as "engaging in" canvassing. It covers all aspects of "being part of". Also keeps the wording simple (same wording for all bullets). Editorial processes would be processes related to its editing. The wording is very strong here - this isn't the only wording ("contribute in any way to the shaping of the topic" and "discussions concerning the topic" as well). A user who tried to argue that a relevant AFD, mediation, arbitration, RFC, village pump proposal, manual of style discussion on topic-related infoboxes, dispute resolution, etc concerning the topic area was not an "editorial process" or were not "discussions concerning the topic" (the other criterion) would not stand a chance. I think it's fine and will be understood in the sense intended.

Would like to see if a couple more users will endorse a move before doing so. Some users have broadly endorsed and surely others have read it and not felt the need to change it - maybe wait till others have had a chance to read this and comment? I'm a bit wary that this was started due to a specific topic ban discussion and would like to be sure it doesn't look like an attempt to modify policy while it's being referenced in a case. I do agree it's broadly just affirming community norms and the discussion on the case broadly affirms the same norms, but let's be careful not to hit that possible issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor update - added "which topic banned users are reminded is forbidden" to the canvassing bullet. This is a reminder not a new restriction, it's important not to imply it is permitted to non topic banned users. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think we should do this: the canvassing policy can't be summarized as "it's forbidden", and there is no need for us to deal here with canvassing as applied to non-topic-banned users. Indeed, that's another loophole. What we want to say here is "all canvassing is forbidden to the topic-banned, even though not all forms of canvassing are forbidden to other users". But as a wikilawyer I might choose to read your wording as "canvassing is forbidden to the topic-banned in the same manner as it is to others" - i.e., not strictly. And the remaining sencence now reads awkwardly.  Sandstein  05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a preference between these wordings?:

1. Canvassing weather related actions off-wiki, which topic banned users are reminded is forbidden. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means.
2. Any canvassing on weather related actions (usually only some kinds of canvassing are prohibited). For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means.

(For me, the first seems better. Canvassing is usually read as "inappropriate canvassing" like its page says, so the second sounds a bit like it's encouraging canvassing to non-topic banned users. First is a reminder and reinforces the key issue. On-wiki canvassing is already handled under "user messages" in the previous bullet so no need to cover it again). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The first wording is inaccurate, as noted above. The following wording, which I prefer, doesn't sound like an encouragement to others to me: "Off-wiki canvassing of weather-related actions on Wikipedia, e.g. by e-mail." It is also more concise.  Sandstein  16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's almost identical to the first wording isn't it? "Off wiki canvassing" v. "canvassing.. off-wiki", "on Wikipedia" is redundant (actions are by definition on Wikipedia or else they aren't "actions"), and "e.g. by email" is effectively the same as "using wiki-email or other off-wiki means". The current draft states that off-wiki canvassing of on-wiki actions is "forbidden"; the point is taken that the actual wording is "discouraged", "inappropriate", and "regarded as characteristic of canvassing (and may be seen as disruptive)".

I've taken that phrase out, it's easier to remove than fix and strictly is not needed anyway (the rest is sufficient). Hopefully that's that fixed. I've left notes for the other past participants to this discussion to recheck the wording as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse v3 wording. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse as well. (I added a hyphen to "weather related" in the canvassing line) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

<-I'm concerned about possible over-reach restriction on "Canvassing weather-related actions off-wiki". While my first instinct was to reject any reference to off-wiki activities, I am now comfortable that we can include them. However, I believe the prohibition should be on Wikipedia related activities. So, for example, if user:foo has a weather blog, and conducts a poll to select the lamest weather article in WP, that is included as an activity in violation of the ban. In contrast, if user:foo conducts a poll to determine the optimal outdoor temperature in the opinion of readers, even though that is weather related, it should not be disallowed. (possibly, the definition of canvassing "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" with the implicit assumption that the reference is to Wikipedia discussions, rather than off-wiki discussions, is sufficient, but it might be easy to tighten this language and remove uncertainties.

I remain unhappy that exceptions, such as dispute resolution, remain outside the description, but, after looking, and realizing the exceptions cover more ground than just topic bans, I reluctantly concede they can be handled external to this definition.--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think these are covered. The restriction (in simple terms) is on involvement in the wikipedia editorship, shaping, creation, community decisions, dispute resolution, etc, on the topic. If they keep a weather blog or post a rant on their topic ban or the lameness of their opponent on their website, we might disapprove but we cannot control what they do there and don't try to. The exception is if they use these things to try and get into editing the topic by the back door (crudely worded) then we take that seriously and may extend their block/ban. I think the wording covers this. It's the canvassing of wiki-actions thats the key "not okay" thing. Off-wiki general discussion (eg on WikiEN-l mailing list or their blog) is not "banned" - we don't forbid that sort of thing. To underline this, the official site mailing lists have banned users quite active on them.

On your second point, processes such as dispute resolution are covered in several places: "may not in any way contribute to the shaping of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic" covers it well. So does "discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion... or an RFC". RFCs are a core part of dispute resolution. And it's explicitly covered under "on-wiki discussion of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors" related to the topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You've satisfied both of my questions, unfortunately, I have a third. The term Canvassing narrowly covers "sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". So for example, sending a notice to a mailing list about a weather related AfD is covered and prohibited. However, if I send an email to a list of people, pointing out what I think is a problematic edit, that doesn't sound like it fits the definition. Linking to a diff of an edit can't really be called "inform[ing] them about a community discussion". Yet this is specifically the example given. I don't see that the example is covered by the definition. In addition the point of the page is to distinguish between acceptable forms of canvassing and unacceptable forms. In this instance, we intend to prohibit both. I wonder if we ought to avoid the use of "canvass" and simply:

Prohibit off-wiki actions contributing to the shaping of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means.

--SPhilbrickT 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivial cavil: Ought we include a statement that this language refers to "full topic bans", and that the Arbitration Committee or the community may specifically apply topic bans which are less than total, but that where the prior language does not specifically except activities, that this language governs? Or thereabouts? Collect (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That language doesn't work well for me - there is a (full) site ban, and then various types of limited bans. The topic ban is an example of a limited ban. It would be confusing to call it a "full topic ban" given that it is an example of a limited ban.--SPhilbrickT 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem being that ArbComm has, indeed, used "topic ban" in differing contexts, and with differing stated restrictions, over the years. Not to make this clear would invite massive niggling. Collect (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is now resolved - see latest edit. Now says this is the norm for a topic ban, lesser restrictions may be applied but need to be stated explicitly if so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, and I catch your point. Ideally, Arbcom, when issuing a topic ban, will accept the wording we have devised and simply note a topic ban as defined on Banning Policy Page . If Arbcom wants a modified ban (presumably less onerous) they should explicitly note the terms of the ban as applied in that instance.--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding off-wiki communication, in a 2010 case the ArbCom posted two somewhat contradictory principles:

• While discussion of Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia itself is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external communication for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is improper.
• A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

They've cited the Eastern European mailing list as a leading case involving off-wiki communication. However, the ArbCom doesn't set policy. If an editor is totally banned, and then goes to an off-Wiki website and recruits meat puppets, there's nothing we can do (except block the puppet accounts). But if a topic-banned user goes off-wiki to recruit meat puppets or proxies then further enforcement remedies are available, such as blocks of the user's account. But that would be a major change from current practice.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I'm having with this is that the arbitration case that brought on this thought to change the banning policy made a clarification of what the wanted for the Remedy 3 banning of editors. Then as complaints came in further clarifications were added. How do we reconcile this banning policy to what the arbitrators are saying in any cases? A total topic ban is easily defined but when we get into the partial types of banning things then get less clear for this policy page. How do we write this up is what I want to know or are you all just trying to tighten the policy and not because of the Climate change case? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It's for tightening up - while prompted by the case it's not intended to reflect the specific case. The case has highlighted that the policy's not clear enough in this area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• A concern – "may not in any way contribute to the shaping of the topic" would imply that an editor whose normal off-wiki activities affected the topic itself, rather than Wikipedia coverage of the topic, would be banned from continuing these normal off-wiki activities even though they had no reference to Wikipedia. Propose "may not in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic". . dave souza, talk 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Various good catches here.

@Dave - yes and added

@Collect - Good call - two wordings I found that might work:

• "Lesser restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated, if not then these will apply" at the end of the 1st paragraph
• "Topic bans are decided case by case. If the ban decision states different or more limited restrictions then those will apply instead." as a final paragraph below the rest of the section

I tried other combinations, the first seemed to work best and is shortest. I tried to avoid using the term "full topic ban" - extra terminology and clumsy, not really needed.

Canvassing - still looking at this. Following Dave's wording I've tentatively added "or efforts to shape Wikipedia coverage conducted off-site". Any use? (diff). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :::Thanks for the clarification FT2, I now also support with your above changes. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Either choice looks pretty good. Collect (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On canvassing, the implication is that a topic-banned editor would be prohibited from making any contributions to a Wikipedia Review thread on the topic, given that the function of that website is to influence Wikipedia coverage or behaviour. Is that the intention? . dave souza, talk 14:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This one came up above (previous answer). Wikipedia norms are quite firm (though it's a well-known grey area that cannot be delineated with precision). As stated above, a user can post on their blog, rant about their ban or a website, or post on WR or WikiEN-L about how awful the weather section is. We don't control those and should not wish to. What they cannot do is attempt to get in the back door of Wikipedia topic shaping. Whether they have done so in a particular case is best left to the community if there was agreed to be a problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the room for a heavy handed response to any discussion of the weather section or complaint about their ban, more clarity would be desirable. As SPhilbrick pointed out at 20:46, 28 October 2010, Wikipedia:Canvassing specifically refers to influencing discussion rather than requesting edits. Perhaps "Canvassing or proposing specific weather-related actions off-wiki. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means." . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS refers to "the sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". As you say it doesn't cover requesting edits but the draft does. If you mean ensuring better clarity on proposing/requesting edits - which is not covered by WP:CANVASS - then that makes sense and is easy as you suggest - changed to "Canvassing or proposing weather-related Wikipedia actions off-wiki". ("Specific" would probably add room for wikilawyering and doesn't add much, proposing actions of a general nature is equally a problem). Resolved? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding prohibition of "on-wiki discussion of user conduct", is that intended to apply to discussion of the user's own conduct? Note that such participation in discussion after the editor concerned was notified of the on-wiki discussion was not sanctioned with any penalty or warning. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Banning policy already covers legitimate dispute resolution and appeal against one's own ban (#Exceptions to limited bans: "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"). It is a bit of a grey area in that a user could hope to wikilawyer this permission to rant on about their ban, how unjust it was, who else was evil, etc. But the proposed wording actually blocks attempts to move from that to ranting about the topic or other disputes of any kind, or responding to messages about the topic, so if all they can do is rant about their own conduct (and not the topic or other disputants) people will tire of it very quickly and it doesn't seem to have much potential to harm the debate. It's more likely to be seen as WP:STICK than anything. We also state they should not respond to messages about the topic so they know how to avoid if others provoke. So if there's a grey area here it doesn't seem harmful enough to block and would be tricky to find fair wording to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the subsequent clarification, but given confusion, it would help to be explicit about this. Suggest "possible sanctions of editors" could be changed to "possible sanctions of other editors". . . dave souza, talk 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I ended up moving that into parentheses: "On-wiki discussion of user conduct and disputes (including possible or past sanctions of other editors)..." which avoids subclauses and seems to be less loophole-y and flow better. Any further issues, or reasonably fit to go? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above of 15:36, 29 October 2010, about the canvassing clause. . dave souza, talk 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded above under that post - better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. Looking again at discussions at AE, this does seem to be in line with current arbiters views in relation to the climate change case. The question has been raised about whether it's such a good idea to overturn the previous tolerance of statements made by topic-banned editors on their own talk pages, and that's something I'd wish to think over before giving any support to that specific change. There's something to be said for allowing editors to make comments where they can be ignored. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the general sense of the final sentence ("something to be said..."). The concern is that such statements often comment on other editors, who then have to reply, which then lead to further threads, or an expectation of leaving such a thread in userspace (WP:UP: "...Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems..."). By the time a user is topic banned there's probably been many discussions and the proposal already permits them to provide a link (without comment) to the main discussion where anyone can form their own view. If we want such users to disengage then it's best to not make provision for adding a final statement against others. By the time this has happened it's probably not needed or useful. If they haven't said it before the topic ban they probably don't need to add it after it kicks in. Likewise we don't let community banned users post a valedictory speech after their ban commences either. The aim is pure and simple disengagement, dropping of the topic – not starting of a new thread or "blowing off steam" about their topic ban. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The point of a topic ban is to remove the banned people from the game, with the game being the topic and the personal/political disputes around it. Talk page commentary is a part of that game. Allowing it to some degree makes the topic ban difficult to enforce and leads to slippery slope issues. Bright-line rules are best: no involvement with the topic in any venue.  Sandstein  19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is the clearest and cleanest option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One last wording that I just noticed: "The banned user should not react to queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic". The actual meaning is they should not react inappropriately, otherwise this sounds like reacting on other websites, their blog, etc. Three possible fixes:

• "The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic" - accurate but wordy.

• "The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to questions, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic" - easy to understand but is it clear and firm enough.

• "The banned user should not react to on-wiki questions and discussions, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic" - more complete and direct but omits email.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited that sentence, not perfect but fixed [1]. Last calls for eyeballs before posting to the policy page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this. If we want a topic ban to be so restrictive, that's the way it should be drafted with reasons for why it is so restrictive. It should not be the default option just because of a single (climate change) case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what a topic ban should be, a complete separation of an banned editor from the topic at hand. The fact that it hasn't been that, has been the cause of continung problems. A topic ban should be serious, not a slap on the wrist, something that you got because you didn't behave badly enough to be blocked. It should be something that people will actively work to avoid; this hasn't been the case; as a result, it's been taken much too lightly, hence our problems not just in climate change, but in Eastern Europe, in Arab/Israel, and in other controversial areas. A topic ban should feel like one step removed from being banned outright.

NCMV, your view has been the reigning paradigm in the past, and it just hasn't worked. It is, I'm afraid, time to get serious; and just to be clear, this is not a philosophical choice, it is an empirical choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not good enough to say 'it just hasn't worked'. It is not the Community's responsibility to clean up after users who either draft things poorly or don't draft things properly in the way that they personally intended in the first place. In a lot of situations, you can go to the drafter for what he/she was intending, but if what they drafted resembles something else, that's not the Community's problem; that's the drafters problem. Topic bans don't just serve for the narrow situations you've referred to in those problem topic areas; nor are they always the next step away from an outright ban. Some users are just not capable of working in certain parts of certain areas without causing disruption but are more than capable of working in all other areas, and the other parts of that area. In those cases, I don't see this approach as justifiable. This project is run by humans, not bots. The extent to which you want to restrict someone should be provided in the restriction itself (especially if it involves the whole works). In other words, this version should be used by drafters who want to impose such a restrictive topic ban and they can go ahead and write the justification for why the whole works is necessary as opposed to a major chunk of it. If they're unable to provide that justification, then they can know what to expect from the Community. I'm not going to endorse a version of policy that misleads users as to what the Community will do if something is being done when it is NOT the right thing to do either by the project, or by the user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your comment is legalistic in the extreme, and in that respect antithetical to the concept of Wikipedia, which is more concerned with practicalities than it is with legalistic micro-parsing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to concern myself with someone who is unable to understand when another is referring to practicalities (and not some half-baked notion of antithetical legalistic crap that doesn't even make sense). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's good, just don't concern yourself, that'll be an improvement.

Hey! I've got an idea - how about editing an article and improving the encyclopedia? There's something new and different [2] you can do to help out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also noting "Lesser or different restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated". The default is that if someone has acted sufficiently disruptively to be topic banned, then unless told otherwise the topic ban is intended to completely remove them from that field on Wikipedia. If that's not the intention all the ruling or decision has to do, is say so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I did note that, but I don't think this is being given enough thought. If the default is that someone has acted so disruptively, then that much more evidence needs to be provided to prove that the disruption requires the editor completely removed from the topic ban rather than from the part of it. I see this as just presenting multiple opportunities for certain admins to submit a case to the Community (or otherwise) that there was part of a problem, and then the drafter is just going to put a default proposal rather than actively showing why the extra terms are required in a particular case. And as a lot of people clearly don't pay attention to the drafting, we're just going to have amendment nightmares. If we want to be able to use topic bans more effectively (including for shorter periods of time), then we can't be assuming the worst as the default. The onus is on the person submitting the case to present why the most restrictive stance is needed (you can't prove why the most restrictive stance is not needed when that presentation rests on the doctrine of AGF). I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense, but I hope you understand the message I'm trying to convey here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NCMV really has nothing to add, he's just annoyed that if this paases, the extent of topic bans will be explicitly defined, and there'll be no reason for him to insert himself into the discussion, and he'll be forced to actually edit articles and improve the encyclopedia, instead of playing at wannabee admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

<chuckle> (Still, remember to WP:AGF...)  Sandstein  12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand, but (along with everyone else who has spoken so far) I disagree. Not only is this already long-term policy but I think it's the right choice as Ken said. Other users such as SPhilbrick, dave desouza, Sandstein, Will Beback have already commented that topic bans should apply strongly and I agree with them. Existing policy is just as strong in this area.

Check the current wording both here or as used at ArbCom - "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area .... Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages broadly related to the topic [and] parts of other pages that are related to the topic". A user is already not topic-banned lightly. Those few who are, already get excluded from all edits "broadly related" to the topic. It's not new. Topic-banned users should understand it is intended to remove them from the topic area completely. If that's not required in a specific case, someone will say so during the discussion. But arguing in effect that when the community sets topic bans it expects some involvement to remain in the topic by default, despite both policy and AC wording suggesting the contrary, is a non-starter. If consensus agrees that lesser restrictions are needed in a specific case (due to AGF or other reasons) that's also not an issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FT2 is entirely correct. A topic ban is by definition and practice a full exclusion from the topic. It is any exceptions that would have to be explicitly noted and explained. Doing it the other way round is not manageable.  Sandstein  12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(response to same issue raised by Ncm again below) - Disagree with respect. A blanket definition is exactly what policy and AC rulings have both contained for a long time, nor is this "for arbitrators' benefit" as it merely reflects a community consensus that's been policy for a long time and is due for cleanup and tightening (as all policies are from time to time). The concern is that "banned from making any edit to, or about, X topic, anywhere on Wikipedia" does not "cover everything".

Again, if the intention is to ban less restrictively then the decision will say so, and existing wording has for a long time stated "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area .... Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages and parts of pages broadly related (etc)". This was discussed to death already. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Each time I look at the proposal, I don't see it clarifying policy; I see it creating new policy. Policy simply enables admins to block; it doesn't by default assume admins block indefinitely except possibly in the case of legal threats. Arguably, blocks mean that you can't edit anywhere on-wiki, but that's a tool rather than a restriction/ban. Restrictions are another ball park altogether because that's the whole point of them - to give a degree of flexibility. I still fail to see why a checklist cannot be developed for drafters if there is a lack in clarity generally, and why the current policy is unsustainable. The concrete examples are just not there which is why this continues to be the point of objection here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Apart from disagreement on the first point (policy talk pages being one correct venue for routine refinement of policies) you haven't addressed the main issue here, now stated 2 or 3 times. The existing wording states Is there some part of "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area" and "Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages and parts of pages broadly related (etc)" that you feel was not already categorical, or clear and established wording in the policy? If you wanted to scrap this existing consensus and replace it by a checklist for drafters, that would be "new" -- and I imagine, fairly widely opposed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This may be a bit difficult to follow, but I'm trying to stay as concise as possible here and point out where the objection lies (though maybe it's my communication which is suffering at this moment). Current policy states, according to the understanding of most ordinary editors, that a topic area "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". What I see your proposal doing is changing the basic to the extreme. Precisely why do you anticipate that such a checklist would be "fairly widely opposed"? I think editors would prefer to have specially designed restrictions based on evidence rather than harsh restrictions which change on the basis of this policy page (like the idea of "standard discretionary sanctions"). Going through your proposal now.... If an editor is too disruptive, they are blocked; they are not topic-banned. Making edits to a topic area and shaping the coverage of that topic on Wikipedia is another point which is easily circumvented, especially if the editor is in some way related to the topic. We AGF on who editors say that they are, but if they are a significant part of the topic, then it doesn't matter whether they make edits or not - they will still shape Wikipedia's coverage whether anyone likes it or not; enforcement is just not possible or necessarily fair, be it for the user or the project. The scope of user conduct and disputes is also vague to the point of meaninglessness, and unless an editor has had a history of disrupting user conduct/sanction discussions, that's likely to be interpreted in the wrong way by some enforcing admins, or editors with an axe to grind. (I've already touched on the canvassing thing earlier.) The last two lines are more of a guideline. Our current policy does what needs to be done (including the wording you quoted verbatim); that's more than enough for policy. I'm not against providing a bit more guidance to avoid drafting problems (in the appropriate form), but this policy change proposal is not the way to go about it. If there are issues, it's drafting, or matters where each restriction should be amended for the particular circumstances. See also below in relation to British Isles. Have I still not addressed something? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

I'm sympathetic to a point made by Ncmvocalist (or perhaps I inferred), that we should be careful about revising a policy based upon the experiences of one cases (even worse, a single participant in a single case). One can make an argument that an generic description ought to be crafted to cover the modal (most common) situations, then write exception language in cases where needed. (there are other options, not worth expounding upon now). If it were the case that we are writing the ideal topic ban for the CC case, and most "usual" situations will require different language, I'd be more supportive of Ncmvocalist's point, but I don't believe that is the situation. We aren't simply trying to craft language that would apply to the CC case, we are observing the problems occurring in that case and realizing deficiencies in the existing wording. In the view of some, this wording will represent a change from their current understanding, but interestingly, some of the arbs believe the current language does prohibit discussion of the topic on editors talk pages, so for them, this is just codifying what they always believed.--SPhilbrickT 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This was asked by CrohnieGal a while back in the discussion and answered here. To recap, it's tightening up generic policy wording as usually understood. While prompted by the case it's not intended to reflect the specific case; the case has highlighted that the policy's not clear enough in this area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Policy doesn't exist purely for arbitrators benefit nor does it exist to reflect the views of particular arbitrators in a particular year. Policy reflects the views of the wide community (a person's position doesn't give them extra weight). If a drafter writes a topic ban that states "banned from making any edit to, or about, X topic, anywhere on Wikipedia", that covers everything. When drafters do not learn from experience and continue to draft wordings which are problematic, or contain "deficiencies", or simply exclude things, then they are responsible for leaving that hole. Current policy provides enough in terms of guidance.

What we should be doing with the suggestions here is making a guideline as to what needs to be considered when drafting (like a checklist) rather than putting a blanket definition and potentially changing the effect of other topic bans in a way that was not intended by all drafters (I admittedly am one such drafter of a few such topic bans) or others in the Community. I'm certainly never going to propose banning an editor from talking off-wiki if there is almost always no means of enforcing it or showing sufficient proof of it (the exception is a single arbitration case where there was clear canvassing?) People don't respect topic bans just because of blanket statements. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Responded in previous section where same issue was already discussed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following why any of the objections of Ncmvocalist should result in different wording. Changing the wording now doesn't affect the terms of existing topic bans, it only affects bans going forward. I brought up arbitrators, not to suggest this is solely for their benefit, but to point out some users of the topic ban wording have different views of the meaning of the existing wording than some other editors, strongly suggesting that the wording could use tweaking, so it isn't subject to differing interpretations. As for prohibiting off-wiki discussion, please note it does not generally prohibit off-wiki-discussions, not even about the topic, but only such discussions where there is an intent to influence on-wiki editing. I don't see the harm in the inclusion; the mere fact that you might not be able to find proof is not an argument against it, and if it really still does trouble you, then you are free, in any specific case, to push for modified wording.--SPhilbrickT 18:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually does, given that administrators will not look to when a topic ban was imposed if it was indefinite. It's not just proof that is at issue; it's trying to regulate things that are not within the remit of Wikipedia. There's no way to sanction an editor for what they do outside of Wikipedia if that editor is already banned from Wikipedia; in those cases, we can only sanction users who act as puppets. That needs to be more carefully worded if it is going to be included. There are still the other issues with this wording which don't make it appropriate to include as Wikipedia policy without more thought, and I suspect we should invite more input. I came across this discussion by chance. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest wording still looks good to me, for the record.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

There could be a reason for more than one kind of topic ban to exist. See Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log for the definition of TB01 through TB04. Notice that that log of bans issued (at the bottom of that page) gives the code for each one. Being able to pick a type of ban from a list could save work for those issuing the bans, and reduce ambiguity later. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes - and already covered. We cannot provide for all types that could be needed. Best to provide for the standard "full type" which the majority of cases seem to reference, and allow that lesser or different ones are case by case. If a case like British Isles needs some specific provision or a selection of provisions, then that fits in well. Also gives the option to a drafter of saying "standard topic ban with the exception of" and not have to reinvent the wheel or create novel wording that is ambiguous or wikilawyer fodder. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really. I think the approach that is lacking lately is that editors are humans, and a topic ban is catering for them as individuals working with other areas for the project (that is, topic bans are not catering for the few admins who won't spend the time to look into a specific case when monitoring/enforcing, or for the drafters who repeatedly do not put in enough thought in their drafting). Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked if this was a tightening of the policy or if it had to do with the Climate change case and was told it was tightening up which I accepted. Then I accidentially come across this on my watchlist and now I'm wondering if all editors here are sincere about this being a tightening up. FT2 I am not doubting you but I have to say that I'm sorry but I have to ask, what are editor's thinking with the edits made adding Weather into the policy? It looks too much like continuing the CC debates here. Why use Weather when there are so many other article that haven't been at arbcom recently if an example needs to be given which I'm not sure is necessary? I am interested in an answer though to the questions because below the answers given just aren't good enough. Thanks in advance for your considered response, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No objection to the question and I hope this is enough to reassure you. The reason the wording states "weather related" is absurdly simple. The existing wording used that example already. That simple. If it's seen as "too close to a current case" then maybe change it to another example - chemistry or plot summaries if that would be seen as less topical. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes my apologies I missed it when I looked. With the recent case about CC yes I think it would help to change it to another topic that isn't so close to any arbitration case. I think it would help prevent errors like my missing this which I shouldn't have missed but I did. I do apologize to everyone for my error here. Thanks FT2, you did help a lot with your responses. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the proposed wording

I believe there are issues with this wording which do not make this good policy on any level, and it's the exact mentality that led to the failed CC probation.

1. Our present wording is "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." The proposal above tries to change it to "A topic ban means that the user may not in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic, because their previous involvement was too disruptive." It's really not possible to dicate whether an user contributes to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic or not if they are a significant part of the topic (be it as an expert, or as the BLP subject, a known commentator on the topic, or otherwise); doing so goes against our 5 pillars, and as such, it needs to be reworded before it can be put into force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talk • contribs)

   I don't understand this objection. Evidently we can and frequently do forbid people to edit Wikipedia with respect to issues that they are involved in in real life. I don't understand what this has to do with the five pillars.  Sandstein  15:20, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   We frequently forbid people from editing Wikipedia with respect to those issues, but that's not what the proposed amendment to policy suggests; it goes 'in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic'. Any comments that person makes outside of Wikipedia can undoubtedly contribute to shaping Wikipedia coverage, be it to the media or through academic writings. We need to get it right before just rushing it into policy - a discussion that has lasted under 2 weeks is not a 'long time' by any standard on what's obviously a serious issue. Ncmvocalist (talk) 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   You misunderstand "shaping" to mean "affect", whereas it means "effect", that is, act with the intent of bringing about changes to Wikipedia. Does anybody else see this as a problem?  Sandstein  15:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

   See my 3rd point below; we can't regulate that sort of thing (except in very rare and exceptional circumstances). We can certainly judge sometimes if an editor has brought about changes to Wikipedia or not (but I already covered why that would be an issue on the present wording and you've said I misunderstood). How do we see if an editor has intentionally brought about changes to Wikipedia? "oh by the way, I'm writing this academic piece to influence the content on a website I'm topic-banned from"? "Oh by the way, that piece I wrote 4 years back was to influence the content on Wikipedia, but it's a mainstream view now." The purpose of this exercise was to clarify policy? Not to make vague or meaningless statements which have the potential to make Wikipedia look like a joke, right? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

2. The above proposal also attempts to add an extra part (which is not in current policy): "For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" they may not edit or participate in on-wiki discussion of user conduct and disputes (including possible or past sanctions of other editors), engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages, on weather-related issues." This is vague to the point of meaninglessness. It's not enough to state that a banned user cannot engage in "discussion of user conduct on weather related issues" when such discussions very rarely are limited to weather-related issues. For example, recently, a discussion was occurring concerning general revert warring and then a single editor tried to veer the whole topic into being about edits in a single CC topic. It is excessive to demand that an editor refrain from participating in a discussion concerning general conduct (particularly if that editor was encountered in other topics) just because a single user has tried to change the scope of the discussion. This proposed addition needs to be revised before it will be ready for adding into policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talk • contribs)
3. The above proposal also attempts to add an extra part (which is not in current policy): "For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" they may not edit or participate in Canvassing or proposing weather-related Wikipedia actions off-wiki. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means." Again, we cannot regulate conduct that occurs off-wiki except in limited circumstances (and that's in the case such an user is still editing on Wikipedia where we might proceed to ban them altogether). If an editor who no longer edits Wikipedia is proposing an edit off-wiki and someone else makes the edit on their behalf, we can't really do much in regards to that banned editor; that's the problem in trying to regulate conduct that is not within our remit. In other words, what we can do is sanction the editor who is making edits on their behalf (as if they're engaging in puppetry), but we can't do anything about the proposals that occur off Wikipedia (they probably continue to have their legal rights of free speech etc). Still adding more on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ncmvocalist (talk • contribs)

• I agree with Ncmvocalist. We can't change this policy to read like it's written because of one arbitration case which this looks like. Seriously, you can't really want the banning policy to state what has just been reverted. Other than those who know the CC case, how is the comments about weather going to make any real sense? Just leave it as banning means banned, do not touch unless the banning says there are special situations to the ban. --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:46, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• And I agree as well. Actually, the current wording of the topic ban is already going (way?) too far '* weather-related summaries of edits to any page;' .. WHAT? Is a weather-banned-editor not allowed to add a wikibreak template to his talkpage with 'I am feeling under the weather' ... this is just inviting wikilawyering to the max here. I would suggest to revert back to a version of the beginning of Augustus. Old wording was good enough. This is going to result in exclusions of specialists in a form which is absurd, uninforceable and uncontrollable. What keeps any opposition from saying 'this must have been communicated off-wiki with the banned editor, and therefore the banned editor is indirectly shaping this subject'. Unworkable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist - With respect, this is all in existing policy. You've stated your concerns at length, but consensus didn't agree. You posted objections others have already opposed or failed to support and ignored the rest of the discussion repeatedly, then edit warred on policy against the close, then edit warred again over the re-close.

Policy continuity - The existing wording stated "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area" and "Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages and parts of pages broadly related (etc)".

Surely we would consider posting about other disputes in a topic area to certainly be edits "related" to the topic area. Existing policy already forbad such posts on "all pages and parts of pages" of the wiki. This makes it less ambiguous.

Existing policy and guidelines state that off-wiki attempts to improperly influence articles are improper and likely to be disruptive ("The following behaviours, on the other hand, are regarded as characteristic of canvassing (and may be seen as disruptive): ... Contacting users off-wiki... to persuade them to join in discussions") (WP:CANVASS). Again, nothing new has been added, merely existing norms clarified to reduce scope for misunderstanding and 'lawyering.

Climate change - The concern over climate change is also misplaced. The discussion was not a part of Climate change. For example I've had no prior connection with CC issues or their enforcement. It is routine that when an issue exposes problems in a policy (wherever that arises) we fix it. It's also routine that policy talk pages are where policy developments and wordings are discussed. Why do the examples state "Weather"? Because the original wording already contained that example and there was no reason to change it. Not because the change was CC motivated. Check facts please. It can be changed to any other example topic if needed. But that's "how" it came about. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh. In the original version of the policy, I chose "weather" as an example because I couldn't think of a more innocuous topic at the time... Feel free to change it to something else.  Sandstein  16:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@FT2 - with respect, if anything, you're among a very small group of users who is not listening to or comprehending the concerns and derailing the discussion with red herrings; you should think about what is being said instead of reading the words on the surface and typing back defensively because an issue is being brought up with your wording. Nobody has denied the fact that this is place to discuss policy wordings, but the issue here is that you don't have a consensus of the Community; you have agreement from a small group of users who followed this < 2 week discussion. Again, I'd be interested in seeing how many users were actually aware of it. When I came across this discussion, I raised a series of objections which you seem to have not addressed. Dirk just picked up on weather as an example; the sort of issue he's touched on can pop up with most other topic-examples that are used in lieu of weather, so again, you're missing the point - he's not really talking about the weather example at all; he's saying current policy is already sort of issue prone, but that your proposal is much worse.

I suggest you make a greater effort to comprehend each of the concerns that are being relayed. At first I thought it's my communication, but clearly others are seeing the issues here too. From the stance of someone who isn't looking at the CC dispute or the EEML dispute, much of your proposals aren't necessary, but more importantly, they're not helpful - they're opening a new set of issues which will undoubtedly prove unworkable with a bit of time, and per Crohnie, they don't make sense. They are, in my opinion, not doing what you say (clarifying) but instead, are overstepping what Wikipedia can actually regulate (let alone should regulate). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I put each of the concerns individually so we would not have this confusing back and forward that mixes the problems into something that is not comprehensible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist, I was not aware of this

Yes, weather was an easy one, actually. Example 'intelligence': I am going on wikibreak since I have a tumor in my brain' .. (whohoo .. dare to enforce that ban!) .. example 'date': 'I am sorry, I did not read your message until today' .. should I go on? Sandstein, or whoever, come up with any example, I am sure that I, or others, will find edit summaries, talk page discussions or other forms of edits which violate it .. This is really, but really, making no sense, really, you are trying to write rules that you can not keep up and which you should not even try to keep up, and yes, I know what canvassing is, I know what proxy editing is, really, I've seen that all. But if you are going to write rules which are too strict, then they will be used against editors. If there is an edit made to Climate change, and another editor is disagreeing, then the only thing one has to say is that the editor is proxying for a banned editor, no proof needed, the insinuation is enough to taint that discussion .. let the banned editors discuss on their talkpages, give them SOME free space (unwatch their talkpages or ignore them is easy!), and these type of situations get way less, and no, discussing with a banned editor on his talkpage is not 'shaping Wikipedia', it is NOT the banned editor who makes the decision to actually alter content then. Please revert this policy back to the beginning of August, and start rewriting properly (if it is really needed, which I do not believe). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a ban - whether community, ArbCom or topic - is to be strict. Their target is removal of an editor from a topic, or from the project as a whole, whose conduct has been badly disruptive over a long enough period and enough discussions that nothing less seems appropriate to ArbCom or the community. The subjects of topic bans are users who have usually tried every way possible to "hang on in" a dispute, so that forcible prying off it is required.

Existing wording - and not any new wording - states that "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area" and "Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages and parts of pages broadly related (etc)". That clearly includes on their talk page, on other dispute discussions, and anywhere on-wiki. ArbCom's wordings are just as strict. That's not new, it's documenting a very long-agreed consensus which can be found in ArbCom rulings years back.

Existing canvassing norms - and not any new wording - state that attempting to sway consensus by email or other off-wiki means is inappropriate and may be disruptive.

The purpose of a topic ban is to force disengagement. Bans are not trivial nor "nice polite requests". They are required by the community which has concluded nothing less will do. A topic banned user does not need a venue subsequent to a ban, to post views on the topic on-wiki, the community has already agreed their contribution to the area is disruptive. If that isn't so then the updated wording is also clear that lesser or different terms may be applied if decided appropriate.

The remaining substance of the concern seems to be two things:

1. "Weather" as an example makes it look like it's written just to target Climate Change cases. This was actually inherited wording from the existing policy, and can be trivially changed (would that help?)
2. If inappropriate off-wiki activity were explicitly covered then users could be hit by unfounded claims "just like that" ("then the only thing one has to say is that the editor is proxying for a banned editor, no proof needed, the insinuation is enough..."). I don't agree. Is there evidence that a poorly founded case like that would be taken seriously by the community?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of a ban is to 'force' an editor not to interact with the topic of the ban. That includes parts where the editor intends to change parts of text which are under the ban, it does not intend to keep the editor away from everything which can even remotely be construed as being under the ban.

1. No, FT2, you still don't get it. The problem is not the specific example, the problem is the wording. 'summaries of edits to any page;' .. NO .. that is way beyond the scope of any ban. No, it does not help to change it, it only helps to remove it. If the edit summary does not intend to change the content of the pages under the ban, then why ban the editor from doing so.
2. No, the intend of a ban is that the editor does not show any intent to edit within the ban, it is NOT that that editor can not be asked something which would be covered by the ban. As Ncmvocalist says, what if I ask a banned editor something else (outside the ban), somewhere on a talkpage. There is some discussion, and a third party mentions something that is vaguely related to the topic under the ban, then the banned editor is not allowed to talk further. It can even be used to force the banned editor out of the discussion of a topic if one does not like the opinion of the editor on the topic. And does it change the content of the pages under the ban? No, that might only be if the banned editor would pick up the topic and expand on it, but if the banned editor stays out of that, then there is no reason that they is not allowed to continue the discussion. There are even risks that the editor would violate core policies by not being able to say things, it is enforcing too much.

And all of this is outside of the scope of the ban, anyway, the editor is not intending to change the topic under ban with such remarks (if a remark by the editor are clearly of that type, yes .. but not genuine or neutral answers to questions, or unrelated edit summaries which could be construed as being in the field of where the editor was banned). If the answer would be 'that is wrong, it should be changed', then that could be construed as being inside the ban, if the answer is 'it is such and so', then the decision is by the editor who asked, and that is not a violation of the ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, you need to check. No new policy was added.

1. The purpose was as it was before ("to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area" and all pages or parts "broadly related" to the topic). That is what policy wording was, and what was worked with. What you are saying is a change to policy wording, not a statement of existing policy. You're freely able to propose it be changed but the reword did not make any changes or purport to do so.
2. "Summaries" was also not new, it was inherited wording from the existing policy almost verbatim as well, just cleaned up for ambiguity ("weather-related [[Help:Edit summary|summaries]] of edits to any page").

(apologies, back in a bit, interruption) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec with section below) No, FT2, you need to read what I was saying. It was not there in the beginning of August 2010, it was boldly introduced (by Sandstein), and has since grown to it that it even includes edit summaries (introduced by Ncmvocalist) .. no consensus was reached before that (in a way that is fine (WP:BOLD, WP:IAR and WP:RBI and such), though for policy changes of this importance and impact not what I would prefer). Now there are concerns raised to that text, and I think it is time to return to the status before that (this version, taking into account that maybe some other minor improvements were done) and discuss the whole change. At that time, talkpages and edit summaries were outside of the ban, and IMHO, they should need to be outside from the ban in this way. It takes it at least one step to far (not being able to say that you feel under the weather, not being able to say that the average temperature in London is XX degrees centigrade etc., when a topic ban is on weather because the editor is knowledgeable in weather, and has edited controversially about the causes of thunderstorms, hail and torrential rain .. if the statement in the page London would be about the cause of the forms of weather generally observed .. then that could be seen as a violation; anything stronger is pushing it).

Topic bans are to make sure that the editor does not show intent to change articles in the topic, not to keep them away from any possibly conceivable parts of the topic in every possibly conceivable form. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Substantial disagreements

Could we maybe establish what the substantial disagreements are that may be brought into focus with the proposed wording? If we can resolve these, we may be able to agree on the wording. So far I see the following points of possible disagreement:

1. Should topic bans cover off-wiki canvassing? (FT2 believes yes, Ncmvocalist believes no, I'm somewhat indifferent and think that current policy and practice is unclear)
2. Should topic bans cover edit summaries? (Dirk Beetstra believes no, FT2 and I believe yes)
3. More generally, should topic bans cover all aspects of editing (FT2 and I believe this is already policy and practice) or should some latitude be given in areas not directly related to article editing, e.g. user talk pages (as Ncmvocalist and Dirk Beetstra believe)?
4. Are topic bans all-encompassing by default and can be explicitly narrowed if desired, or should they be phrased as narrowly as they are intended to apply, and be applied no broader than written? (The opinions appear to be likewise divided.)

Is this a fair summary of the substantial disagreements, or have I missed any?  Sandstein  21:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist included the story of the edit summaries, so I think he is pro as well. I think this further sums it up, though I believe that for all of the points it should be worded in such a way that it encompasses the intend of the banned editor to change (or suggestion of such a change to) a page under the topic ban, that it then would be violating. If the editor is asked to give a neutral statement (and the answer is indeed neutral), or when the remark of the banned editor is in no way showing intend to change pages under the topic ban, then no, it should not be under this ban (and be lenient when the editor suggests changes to pages under the ban where the change removes grave violations of core policies (BLP/COPYRIGHT) - as long as the comments are only that). I think that is where I have most problems with the wording introduced since half August, that wording takes it too far. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Minor corrections and notes on mine -

1. WP:CANVASS states off-wiki canvassing is usually more inappropriate (or disruptive) than on-wiki. A user banned from canvassing on-wiki cannot then claim to still be allowed canvass edits off-wiki, when the community has forbidden them even from on-wiki canvassing that WP:CANVASS states is less disruptive.
2. Edit summaries aren't my writing. It's there mainly because the wording was directly carried over from the old wording. But it makes sense so I'd agree on keeping it.
3. They already do cover those pages - the default (WP:BAN and ArbCom]]) is "all editing, on all pages broadly construed (not just articles) related to the topic". There is no exemption in any previous wording to suggest edits to the topic on talk pages would remain still permitted. Indeed the previous wording excludes them explicitly ("discussions about [the topic] anywhere on Wikipedia").
4. 'All-encompassing by default and can be explicitly narrowed if desired' is already the existing default. The previous wording states "Unless otherwise specified, 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". ArbCom's topic bans are just as total.

Source for previous version.

In simple terms it looks like some users (not visibly a majority) are unhappy at the existing norms and want to change those. That's fine - consensus can change. My sole point is that the proposed wording is actually faithful to existing norms. Even the objections such as edit summaries and the example topic are evidence that the current wording was faithful enough to inherit those from the existing consensus wording. Each substantive point that's been brought up is already clearly in existing norms as one can see. My concern is that I have yet to see anything that is both a substantive change, and was not part of WP:BAN, WP:CANVASS, and WP:RFAR rulings already. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion on this.

1. My understanding has always been that off-wiki behavior is not enforceable here on the project. There are discusions going on at Wikipedia Review now about all of this but I don't see how it can be enforced to stop the discussion there by the editors who are under the Remedy 3's nuclear option that arbitrators set up in this last case. This last case is just an example of what I am trying to say. I am not saying we need to set up this policy though per this case or any other case and am only trying to show that enforcement will be impossible. That case also acknowledged that there was a lot of off wiki blogs being brought on to the project causing a lot of problems though the arbitrators didn't seem to do anything about this, this is something that should be addressed since it was brought on the project. I forget the number for the FoF on this and it's late for me so this is my last post for the night.
2. Edit summaries, right now I am undecided about my opinion on this.
3. It is stated that arbcom rulings on topic bans are just as total but as you can see here that is not necessarily true. The arbitrators were questioned about user's talk page and said they weren't covered on the PD talk page. This is now being clarified even though two editors are now blocked for 2 weeks.

What I am trying to say here is that not everything is so black and white like is being stated here. There are many colors of gray going on so this policy has to show these different colors of gray in my humble opinion. Again, just to clarify, I am using the CC case only as an examples to show that what we think are definites are clearly not so cut and dry. I hope this is clear enough because this was hard to try to say as is. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

#1 is well intentioned, but inaccurate. Off-wiki activity affecting on-wiki matters has consistently been considered enforceable within the remit of wiki policies. It is narrowly defined, but enough different examples exist to show it's intended and enforced, not mere accidental inclusion.

Three examples of off-wiki regulation from policy and ArbCom

Off-wiki inappropriate co-ordination (EEML) (ArbCom ruled that while off-wiki discussion is generally appropriate, "using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper") Off-wiki harassment and privacy breach (harassment policy) ("Off-wiki harassment will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases ... off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely") Off-wiki recruitment of editors (sock policy) ("Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you for the purpose of coming to Wikipedia and supporting your side of a debate")

#3 is also missing a key point - there's no inconsistency. Topic bans have always had scope for case-by-case conditions to be applied. The Climate Change topic bans you're referring to were deliberately specific and limited in scope, covering topical articles + talk pages, topical BLPs + talk pages, and "participation in processes" only. User page posts were therefore on the surface not prohibited in that case. Both existing and tightened wording say the same here -- that a topic ban is by default total but can be less or different and that a topic ban needs explicit statement of lesser restrictions if it's the case. ArbCom at CC made exactly such a statement.

Just to check (based on a thought by Sandstein) - is explicit mention of off-wiki activity the main point of contention? Are there any other major ones? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

@FT2 - the edit summary wording as it is now is too wide in scope, and was boldly introduced in the last couple of months. I still think that thát wording is too strict (to the absurd), but there may be middle ways, see my suggestions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I had a quick look here and I think two ideas have been mixed up. The wording is about summaries of discussions on the topic, but the link is to edit summaries. Not sure if that's part of the problem or not.

The thing to bear in mind is that topic bans are intended against people who are highly disruptive on a given topic. Otherwise they wouldn't be topic banned. If some user is warring or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-ing on (say) Macedonian history, then one of the last things intended is to leave an opening by default that they can continue to be disruptive on the topic banned subject through edit summaries. ("This is Greek history not Macedonian history numbnuts, all Macedonians are ethnically Greek!"). It's not the biggest or most critical opening for abuse in the world, but that's the kind of user topic bans have to handle. If the user is less disruptive then anyone has always been able to set lesser or different conditions.

By default, the point of a topic ban isn't just to forbid editing to the topic. It's to forbid engagement in discussions of the topic, cut short their involvement in supporting other advocates on the topic, and reduce drama on the topic. A lot of disruption can and does take place in discussions - look at some of the massive threads on talk pages, AN, RFAR and the like. The idea of a topic ban is not just to prevent edits on the subject. By default it's to remove the opening to be involved in or disrupt the subject in any way from an editor who has shown an inability to control themself or respond appropriately to community requirements on the topic - be it mainspace, talk page, dispute resolution, or commenting on the actions of others on the topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem in the first sentence:

"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."

The part I've made bold is what I find problematic. Topic bans can be imposed for all sorts of reasons. From the POV of ArbCom, if someone is e.g. seen to be a polarizing figure, but hasn't been disruptive, then getting that editor to agree to voluntarly stick to a topic ban could be an ideal solution. It then doesn't help if the very definition of topic ban assumes that the editor has actually been disruptive. Count Iblis (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And what I have a problem with is the point that the rules are now too wide. If someone is banned from editing 'subject X', then they is not supposed to edit 'subject X', they are not to edit talkpages in 'subject X', they are not supposed to discuss somewhere else 'subject X', and they are not to make comments that can be read as suggestions to change 'subject X' (yes, that also in edit summaries). But if that person is asked 'what is this', then they can answer 'that is subject X' (i.e., a neutral reference to the subject, no comments about it, no suggestions), they can by themselves say 'I have subject X' (e.g. if subject X would be a disease). But the wording, introduced in August forbids in any form or any mention of 'subject X', and that is, IMHO, wrong, it is a level of control that you don't have, and which you should not even think to have.

So, getting back to the example that is used: if 'subject X' here is 'weather', then the editor is not to edit Weather, is not to say 'I think that thunderstorms are formed over sea', they are not to say 'hail is a form of frozen water, not ice', whatever, but they can say 'I am feeling under the weather', or they can answer to the question 'what is a thunderstorm?' 'please look at Weather', heck, even 'could someone look at this diff in weather .. those do NOT change the subject, they are not an opinion, they are not remarks that would 'enforce' a change the subject (well, someone may do something about it, but unless the last one of these examples is followed by 'it should read "blah"' (and even then .. just ignore, don't feed the trolling), they do not change the subject by itself), and hence nothing that should fall under a topic ban. Still, the current version of this document, as it was introduced in the beginning of August contains wording that does exclude those. And that is going a step too far.

Editors that are banned generally do have 'enemies' on Wiki, and making this wording this strong enables trolling, it makes on-wiki life outside of the ban extremely difficult, and well, it just does not make sense to make it this strict. But if you really want a topic ban to include things so strong that a weather banned editor can not say 'I am feeling under the weather' then you are pushing the limits. Please rethink the current wording. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have boldly attempted to tone down the edit summary one, I think this is a bit more realistic. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

My take on the four major issues:

1. I'm not a big fan of restricting off-wiki but I accept that we can, and if we find that people are using off-wiki locations to attempt to influence on-wiki articles, I'm not opposed to including that in the ban.
2. By definition, the editor cannot be editing in the topic area, so this appears to cover a potential loophole, where some posts in another area, but uses the edit summary to make comments or proposed changes to the topic area. Of course that should be disallowed, even if unlikely to be very effective.
3. The point of a topic ban is to ban discussion of a topic by an editor. Allowing the editor to continue to discuss the topic on their talk page, which could include given suggestions to others about how to carry on what the editor cannot do personally is a major loophole. There may be examples of editors where we want to allow this, but it should occur as the result of an amended ban; it shouldn't be the default.
4. One can support either broad coverage by default, with narrowing as needed, or narrow as default, and broader as needed. One can also adopt a middle approach, and broaden or narrow as needed. There's no absolute reason to choose any of these over the other; it comes down to pragmatism. I see it as cleaner to start with broad coverage, and narrow as needed, simply because it is punishing enough for the recipient to be the subject of a ban, we don't need to compound it by needed a community consensus to increase the penalty. Far more humane to start with a broad penalty, and be in a position to argue for a lesser penalty when someone is deserving of a ban, but otherwise trying to contribute.--SPhilbrickT 19:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The point here is: is the user discussing, or is the user making suggestions or remarks about the subject, or is the user mentioning the subject. The first should be strictly covered here, in any form no discussing. The second one should be covered, but should be treated with a little bit of leniency (e.g. suggestions about solving copyright violations and/or bad BLP violations could be allowed, but there should not be any further discussion or anything there, just a remark otherwise indeed it falls under the ban). Cursory mentioning the subject does not change the the pages of the subject in any form, and such remarks are generally not even relating to the subject in such a form (the 'weather' - 'feeling under the weather' type correlation). If they do implicate an opinion on the contents of the subject, or similar, then indeed, again, they fall under it. And yes, this should be anywhere on Wikipedia (including talk pages and edit summaries). This should then, as SPhilbrick also suggests, the default situation, and then leniency can be granted either in the start of the ban where suitable, later after an adaptation of the ban etc. I think the current wording does that quite well .. but further tweaking will for sure be possible. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

@Count Iblis - Topic bans are only issued where a user is deemed to have been excessively disruptive. Can you think of any example of a user who was topic banned and the reason was being a polarizing figure but there was no evidence presented of them disrupting wiki processes? This was covered earlier in the matter. But I take your point, it's not strictly needed to assert why they are topic banned in the policy, even if that did happen to be the sole reason it happens.

@Beestra -

1. To take a non-weather topic, if a user is POV warring on Scientology and fully topic banned from it, then that covers even simple statements such as "Scientology is XYZ" or "Scientologists believe PQR", or "I believe in Xenu", or "I think Thetan levels are what determine your spirituality and not belief in any gods", or argue that auditing is needed for mental and spiritual health, or weighing in that their past wiki-targets should be banned due to <tendentious reason>. Why? To avoid disruption, provocation, and derailing of other discussions. Edit warriors often have a great sense how to provoke others or distract consensus seeking. That ends when they are topic banned. Often that is why they are topic banned.
2. If lesser ban is needed then it'll be explicitly stated.
3. If others troll them on-wiki the wording says exactly what to do - don't respond, stay completely disengaged, and ask for uninvolved help to address the trolls. The alternative is "dive back in and claim 'they made me do it!'," which doesn't help the project at all.
4. "Under the weather" is a poor example. The word as a word has a colloquial meaning. In Wiki context it might even be seen as POINTy. Virtually no topic banned subjects I can find have a colloquial meaning - nobody says "I'm feeling under the Macedonian" or "under the homeopathy".

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

@FT2 - Re. 1 - Yes. That is what I said. Re 2. Yes, also what I said. Re 3. I also agree (but I was mentioning non-trolling remarks/questions - I meant genuine questions, which then should receive a neutral answer directly related to the question). Re 4. .. well .. yes, you can use it pointy, and many subjects don't have direct examples. Sure, you can't say 'I am feeling under the Macedonian', or 'feeling under the homeopathy', but there WILL be other proverbs or common things that people say that can be connected to these (I hope that you will warn editors banned under the Macedonian case for every edit to apple, strawberry etc.); can the Scientology editor say things like 'Deo volente' (in a non-pointy way)? Can they say that they are not available between 10-12 on Sunday mornings (note: I am a n00b regarding scientology) - I see the point of it, and it is good to be written out .. but if the statements are not pointing to changing a subject but they are part of normal language, then those should not be so strictly covered. It will be just a matter of time that someone makes a neutral remark with no intentions, and someone else finds a way to make that remark being related to a ban. The point should be, is the banned editor intending to change the subject with their remark, or not. Please mind, that people can, and will, always find indirect things which do fall under too broad set policy rules. Murphy simply applies. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Beetstra. My thought is, yes, some expressions have colloquial or neutral use. But I'm imagining our topic banned editor. After edit warring on weather to the point of a topic ban, he starts writing about how he is "under the weather" instead. or after edit warring on fruit responds by posting about how something was the apple of his eye. Then claims "I'm not breaching my topic ban, I'm just making colloquial comments that happen to reference the topic". Especially when many topic banned users have targeted a topic for years or use innuendo or hints to "needle" those they target (some users are past masters at this). We have banned harassers whose modus is simply to post on topics they know their targets are watching and will get the hint, not even writing on the subject they were banned for. So the aim has to be strict. I cannot see a reason any topic-banned Scientologist/Cold-fusion-pseudo-ologist or apple/strawberry edit warrior needs to discuss or reference Scientology/cold fusion/fruit on Wikipedia or use expressions known to be implying the topic or strongly associated with it, for example. They take the risk themselves if they do. For such users it's best they are aware "if you take a chance then it's completely possible it will be seen as gaming". These are tenacious, tendentious users. Make it forceful, "no means no, and if you try taking a chance it's at your own risk". Then leave it up to the community in any given instance to agree if they were or not. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, my point was the Macedonian-case topic-banned editor editing apple (yours is better, is the Macedonian-case topic-banned editor allowed to say 'the apple of my eye' .. I'm playing devils advocate here: if a Weather-banned editor is not allowed to say, genuinly, that they is feeling under the weather, then it is just a small step to say that the Macedonian-case topic banned editor is not allowed to talk about apples and pears (or worse, compare them - heh, another one which our Macedonian-case topic banned editor can't use!) .. or .. how far do you want to push broadly construed, at a certain point it a) does not serve the purpose anymore, and b) makes live practically impossible for the banned editor on-wiki. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

And well .. my point violations start - yes, I know, the oldest trees bear the softest fruits, and indeed I do think that our Macedonian-case topic banned virtual editor typically is someone for who that is true. If the use is seriously pointy, sure, then it should not be done and fall under the topic ban - but also the trolls and other enemies do know that those trees bear the softest fruits, and could hence use it against our Macedonian-case topic banned virtual editor if they do decide to compare apples with pears when they say that strawberries are of the pineapple family. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

(Disclosure - if names of fruit happen to have a specific meaning in this topic I'm not aware of it, please let me know!) I don't see a reason why a topic banned user needs this permitted. A topic banned user could say "I'm unwell". "I feel bad today". "I've got a bellyache/flu/cold/headache/migraine". "I feel sick". "I can't concentrate". "I flunked a grade". "I'm just not in a good mood, sorry". These are wordings they can avoid. If they are choosing a weather based term, it's far more likely it was deliberately selected - such colloquialisms are very few and their choice very likely deliberate, especially if by a user who knows they should not reference the topic on-wiki and (in most topic-ban cases) has a previous record of provocation or tendentiousness for which they were discussed or sanctioned multiple times on the topic.

However I see a possible fix for this regardless. The proposed wording specifically discusses topical edits, such as "shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic", "editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic", "edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes", "[topic]-related articles and their talk pages", etc. The only wording that might catch what you're describing is: "weather-related wording and sections in other pages". The aim there was to catch all material, for example adding "Scientology" as a See also, or "except apples" in a sentence. So "wording" was added to catch things that were not sections of pages or entire pages. If that's the issue can you suggest a reword? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 13:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was my point, actually (I'll continue to play Devil's advocate). You are not aware of the link between Macedonia and fruits, I'll leave you there for a moment (sorry; thanks for bringing Macedonia to my attention :-) It may be an even better example than Weather ..). To explain the point: there are always, really allways things which are used in a colloquial way, things which are used in normal language, other very remote subjects which have somehow in a far far away way/distant past/whatever, some link to the subject. In most cases a topic banned editor will know that, but there are several others which will result in stupid situations. If our Macedonia-case topic-banned virtual editor is in a discussion on the weather in Canada (well outside of his topic ban), and he compares the flag of Canada with the flag of America (also well outside of his topic ban), and the other editor (well aware of the topic ban of our virtual editor!) says 'you are comparing apples with pears! .. then our topic banned editor can NOT say 'no, I am not' .. as that could (and if the editor with who they is in discussion is a bit trolling, it will be) designated as 'you are in violation of your topic ban - you are topic banned on Macedonia related topics, broadly construed - I'm on my way to WP:AE' (I hope/presume that the editor who reports to AE will be properly trout-slapped .. but it is a hole if things are too strict).

The solution is, that if the remarks or edits are NOT influencing the topics under the topic ban (and not used in a pointy way), then that should not be covered. The problem simply is, be careful with defining broadly construed in a too wide manner. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's a solution, but two possible solutions do occur to me if it's a real concern.

Reasons I don't think it's a problem -

1. The editor should be taking care after their topic ban to avoid anything that might be taken as breaching it. Given a past of disruption the onus is on them to take care to stay visibly clean and disengaged.
2. Requirements that make them think harder about the need to stay disengaged will benefit the project.
3. Even if they don't, the community as you rightly say will usually catch blatantly extreme cases of trolling or unfounded claims against them, especially if their other conduct has avoided the topic and their present post was some colloquialism that was natural in the context and not likely to have been intended as a breach, and trout the user who unreasonably tries to claim it against them.

Possible solutions if still worried:

1. Every reference in the proposal is about "shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic", "editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic", "edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes", "[topic]-related articles and their talk pages", etc. The only wording that might catch what you're describing is: "[topic]-related wording and sections in other pages". Perhaps you can think of some narrower reword that covers links, clauses, sentences, etc but not irrelevant mentions.
2. Use a footnote as many policies/guidelines do, to note exceptions/caveats/circumstances that aren't expected to be major issues but should be noted to be safe.
   Example of footnote - Non-POINTed use where it is clearly not intended to refer to the topic or its Wikipedia shaping or processes, for example colloquial use, or very tenuous connections where it is likely the mention or connection was unintended, is usually not considered to breach a topic ban..

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The footnote should cover it. And my main concern was triggered by the pre-last version (I removed "weather-related summaries of edits to any page;" which IMHO pushed it too far, pushing it partly into "discussions or suggestions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia (including edit summaries), for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist." (bolded is what I added to the latter - --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)) - I think the latter version gives leeway to non-pointy use, and the footnote can catch the rest.

Just to let you know, how a broadly construed topic ban on Macedonia would be linked to 'comparing apples and pears' .. A 'Macedonia' is a food salad. IMHO, clearly, that article falls under that topic ban (it really has something to do with Macedonia, even mentioning its past), however, apples and pears (or strawberries, all suitable to make a wonderful Macedonia) do not fall under the topic ban; this may have been a bit searched, but it is hardly further than a thunderstorm-related proverb would be to a weather ban, which is close to a weather-related proverb over a weather ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Wikipedia:Topic ban.

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 4

Discussed the wording with Beetstra, after previous posts suggested we might be closing in on a resolution to various concerns. Edits as follows:

1. Clarifying "summaries" (means edit summaries) and adding a footnote to reduce the scope for POINTy complaints due to colloquialisms etc (per above);
2. Giving topic banned users slightly stronger protection against provocation. Also noting and linking to the section Conduct towards banned editors which separately could be slightly improved;
3. Changing the example topic to something that hasn't been the recent source of RFAR action (eg, transport) (per above);
4. Clarifying topic-related templates and files (wording mentioned WikiProjects but not images, templates, etc which might lead to confusion)
5. Grammar fix in bullet 4 (discussion -> discussing: to match engaging, sending, receiving)

Reposting as v4:

--Proposed v4 -- A topic ban means that the user may not in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic, because their previous involvement was too disruptive. Lesser or different restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated, if not then these will apply. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes on all pages (including project pages and their own userspace, not just articles), edits about the topic on unrelated pages, or efforts to shape Wikipedia coverage conducted off-site. For example an editor banned from the topic "transport" may not edit or participate in: transport-related articles and their talk pages and transport-related pages in other namespaces (e.g., transport-related WikiProjects, images and templates); transport-related wording and sections in other pages or edit summaries, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as a section on "car manufacture" in the article Detroit; discussions about transport-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning a ship designer or an RFC on transport-related wording; on-wiki and transport-related: discussing of user conduct and disputes (including possible or past sanctions of other editors), engaging with other users or disputants, or sending or responding to user messages. Canvassing or proposing transport-related Wikipedia actions off-wiki. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means. The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to on-wiki questions and discussions about the topic or its related disputes. A suggested response is "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or similar, optionally linking to the relevant decision (but without editorial comment), or ask for uninvolved administrator assistance if engagement continues. Other editors should take care to adopt appropriate conduct towards topic banned users and not to provoke or engage them on-wiki in such areas.

Any further comments? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This addresses none of my objections; I think it's poor form to recklessly push this in the way that you have. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

With respect, right now and for most of this discussion it's been close to a consensus view.

• Sandstein Sarek Beyond my Ken, apparent support from Dave souza (no further objections visible) SPhilbrick and earlier positive comments from Will Beback and Collect.

• After other editors proposed updating the existing wording, I declined (line 296+) to allow a bit more time for other input -- so much for "poor form".

• Responses to your concerns were largely that you appeared to be beating a dead horse. They mostly gained opposition or non-support, eg Beyond my Ken Sandstein SPhilbrick and Sarek again confirming his endorsement. At that point the discussion was closed as evident consensus following which you reopened it despite lacking consensus.

• Following this Beetstra and I discussed matters, as did CrohnieGirl. The issues raised by them seem mostly (if perhaps not completely) resolved at this point. If not they will say so.

When discussing "form" this is the context to discuss it in. If any behavior in this thread seems to evidence "recklessness" by any users, then please show diffs of specific edits. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The amount of time and effort that is required to make you comprehend a small part but significant issue is unreasonable [3] [4] [5] so I can hardly imagine that the same could be said about more problematic parts of this policy amendment proposal. I'd have joined Dirk if I wasn't mostly unavailable during that period, though even then, it's fairly evident that you have a comprehension issue. I see no reason to believe Crohnie has endorsed your proposal or the same from Dirk. They both agreed that it should not be rushed which is what you are doing, and frankly, this sense of urgency is what is most worrying.

Let's pick up from your response to Crohnie, which you wrongly presumed was the end of the matter (much like your incorrect presumption of a community consensus based on such limited input). The off-wiki coordination you cite (solely in 3 arbitration cases) refers to incidents where the canvassing editor is still editing Wikipedia, evidence has been forwarded (in the form of an email or log) and/or there is someone who actually enacts those proposals. Where the editor is not editing Wikipedia, it is not enforceable on Wikipedia except in the case where an editor is editing on their behalf. It's not good enough to go "it shall be dealt with severely" and have nothing to show for it. It is misleadingly trying to exert authority over something which we don't have control over unless (1) the editor continues to edit Wikipedia and/or (2) an editor actually does something that the topic-banned editor asks for. This scope needs to be clearly defined if policy is meant to allow editors to have expectations as to how this behavior will be dealt with on Wikipedia based on our policies. That was essentially my third objection, and if that scope cannot be defined right now, it is not advisable to proceed with adding it in until that scope is.

My second objection is the same sort of issue that Dirk raised (and that I endorsed). It goes too far to prevent an editor from commenting on user conduct just because an editor has had partial or some involvement in a particular topic area that they worked on. If those editors continue to work together in other areas, it is not fair that their input should be excluded because of conduct in another area. This again requires more clearer drafting otherwise we're simply going to end up at arbitration on the matter in the future with those arbs glaring at you for not heeding the objections before proceeding (that's my prediction).

My first objection is again picking up on my third objection; there are too many cases where it's not possible to 'in any way' avoid shaping the Wikipedia coverage of that topic. It's not so much a matter of misinterpretation as it is a lack of clarity as to what it is we can do and cannot do. In the absence of these three objections being addressed, I don't see either Crohnie or Dirk dropping their objection either. Am I mistaken? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The post states: "issues raised by them seem mostly (if perhaps not completely) resolved at this point. If not they will say so". This seems to address your mistaken concern of any presumption of being an "end of the matter". If Beetstra or Crohnie feel rushed or insufficiently considered they will say so - there's no need to assume for them.
2. Far from being "solely in 3 arbitration cases" the cites are 2 from long-standing policy, and only one from ArbCom. As before check your facts. They show that both community and ArbCom already regulate aspects of off-wiki conduct.
3. By definition, all topic banned users except the few who voluntarily later (ie post topic ban) cease to edit, are editing on-site. If you want a statement to clarify that sanctions don't apply to inactive users unless or until they later try to return to editing, that's fine but a bit redundant. (Also be aware that inactive/past users showing clear and serious breaches of conduct have at times been sanctioned despite being inactive or non-responsive on-wiki.)
4. User conduct is worded as follows: "on-wiki topic-related discussing of user conduct and disputes... engaging [and] messages". There's nothing stopping the same editors working with or commenting on other users in areas unconnected with the banned topic. (Also see below #6 for some other tightening in this area)
5. Some examples of your final objection would help.
6. One clause I do agree could be tighter is "engaging with other users or disputants" (4th bullet). It's intended to catch people who hound or harass past disputants and topic editors, or try to contiunue the disputes by attacking the editors superficially for other reasons but mainly because of their connection to the topic and its past issues. Better wording here would be sensible.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

1. I don't assume for anyone; they agreed with my objections further above (particularly where I talked about the mentality in relation to CC probation - which was rushed)

2&3. I said The off-wiki coordination you cite (solely in 3 arbitration cases) refers to incidents.... That is, I am aware of the facts, but I think you're not comprehending what you're being told. There is no doubt that off-wiki coordination of certain sorts is enforcible and has been: I've admitted as much in saying that editors who continue to edit Wikipedia and editors who edit on their behalf can face sanctions (be it Community or ArbCom). My point is that users who do not edit on-site can continue to engage in that behavior despite sanctions being imposed on them (irrespective of activity or inactivity). That's an issue if we're just sanctioning in the name of sanctioning without effectively preventing them from doing what it is they're doing. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say it so that this makes sense to you (I've genuinely tried putting it in different ways but it seems you're not getting what I'm saying here).

4. I did read that but its still too harsh. I'm going to use a real example but without embarassing the users concerned. Once a sanction discussion was occurring relating to general behavior of a particular editor; several users commented. User A and user B who participated in a particular case then make posts wanting more stricter sanctions for the particular topic which the case focussed on. Then a topic-banned editor (User Y) comments (in relation to the general behavior) and ends up blocked. The reason for the block was that User A and User B had made the discussion related to the specific topic of the case (which User Y was banned from) and therefore he violated his topic ban. This was wrong on a lot of levels when User Y genuinely wasn't looking for violating his topic ban, and when User Y didn't even comment on the topic (he was talking about his interactions with the editor and the general behavior he saw). The user didn't have an axe to grind.

5. I've given an example further above which Sandstein thought meant I was misinterpreting, but that's not so much the case here. That I understand what you mean doesn't mean others will automatically; its not clarifying in the way that is intended is what I am saying.

6. Well you've understood that part of my point then! The tricky part is figuring out how to draft it in a way to address that (and the other points), and once that happens, then we're a lot closer to something which is ready for enactment so that users don't get caught in these traps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Wording of what constitutes a banned user

There seems to be something missing in the way wording has developed here over the years to decribe what a ban is, as it relates to other policies, WP:3RR for one.

• Firstly, what about editors who became banned under the old definition of "no admin willing to unblock" and are still up to the same tricks? There is an editor who has spent years trolling (fairly successfully) at the Reference Desks, spottable through various technical and behavioural cues. We deal with it as "block evasion", "long term abuse", "banned user" - but I don't think there is any single formal discussion to point to, as it goes back into the mists of time. As the de facto wording has fallen out of use (and probably should when considering new bans), was the intent to provide a blanket amnesty to these users, restoring them as members of the community until someone initiates a formal discussion? The practical effect is to remove the 3RR exemption for reverting edits by banned users, so I can block them but I can myself be blocked if I revert their edits, which doesn't make sense to me. Putting the onus on me to start the discussion is unfair as a) it would be an enormous job to go back and catalog the whole thing; b) it's not necessary, as those who need to know already know why it's done the way it's done (the troll exploits the discussion process itself, so quiet removal is necessary); c) it seems crazy to lay out the whole playbook for the troll to read and modify their behaviour. They just plain are banned, but if I'm going to risk a block or be forced to do a week of work to justify myself, I'll just let it happen next time and write my predictions down on a piece of paper.
• Similarly, what about the case where a term ban has expired but the editor has not yet returned to good standing, i.e. they are indefinitely blocked and have not asked for unblock, but are continuing the same pattern of disruptive behaviour. Specifically, say editor A has been community-banned for a year for disruptive behaviour including socking. A stays quiet for a year, then resumes disruptive socking in a recognizable way without asking for their main account to be unblocked. Editor B spots this and responds by reverting the bad edits and asking for A's socks to be blocked. But if B reverts A four times, B gets blocked for 3RR. This is perverse as it defends the right of A to have their bad edits stand and puts B at risk of a block for defending the wiki.

Normally I don't get too hung up on the exact wording of policy as I figure if I'm doing things right I won't have a problem, but these cases do revolve around precise wording. And editors not of my own awesome grandeur deserve to have some certainty about how they should proceed when they see disruption. So can anyone provide some clarity? Franamax (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Franamax, there needs to be a safety net for editors in good standing to be able to revert banned editors without fear of sanctions being imposed. This has been the way its been done now for as long as I can remember. When an banned editor comes to the project and socks, any editor can revert on sight, no matter how many times, to remove editing that is done by a sock. We need to be able to also make sure to follow WP:DENY and WP:RBI and WP:SOCK. I don't care how it's done as long as there is a section stating that editors protecting the project from sock puppets have protection from being blocked or sanctioned in any way. There are many serial socks at the project that editors can spot and take care of but that was with the knowledge that the policies were in our favor to do so. If you remove the safety net than there might as well be no blocking/banning because who in there right mind is going to jeopardize their own account to stop a sock puppet. I feel strongly that block/ban means you are not welcomed here at the project and may not edit until you become a member in good standing again. So lets figure out a way to return the safety net since the original wording that was up in this policy has been replaced. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the first scenario, the ability to revert only apply to users who have exhausted the patience of the Community to such an extent that "the broader problems due to their participation outweigh the benefits of their editing." So yes, the presumption is that an editor is in good standing unless the Community has found or there is conduct to suggest otherwise. Most administrators are sensible enough to realise that they shouldn't be blocking in some situations (like when reverting socks), but we always seem to have to specify the spirit of policy because of the handful of admins who act stupidly or don't fully familiarise themselves with the circumstances before intervening (there are some who have openly admitted that they don't look into who the filer is of a particular complaint - and have sometimes ignored if it was a sock or troll, but went ahead enforcing the request in the complaint - never mind the fact that doing so is in favour of another agenda...but I digress). It's not an easy task starting a ban discussion when it involves making the catalog as you say. But in regards to b, I think this requirement exists precisely because not everyone knows why something is being done. In regards to c, not all users who find themselves in those circumstances are 'trolls' (well, that's the view some will inevitably state).

In the second scenario, we have another issue. If a banned editor has complied with the ban, but then resumes editing under another account before a separate block has expired, that account should be blocked for evasion and the main account should be banned indefinitely. This really goes back to the usefulness of bans imposed for a particular period of time; they do work sometimes, and they are useful in some situations, but they are also not helpful in a lot of situations (particular when it needs to be constantly reset).

Anyway, I'm not saying all of this because I object to the spirit of what is being said here; I do agree that we need to explicitly extend our protection to users who revert edits by banned editors + inappropriate sock/meat puppets so that we don't have policy used as a weapon against them. However, it's a bit more complex than it appears on the surface. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

How realistic is it to ban anyone?

I notice discussion on Wikipedia often talks of banning. To me the technically ability to ban based on IP is about as effective as nailing jelly to the ceiling. It might be effective for the technically challenged user, but for anyone determined to return it would have little effect. Perhaps I am missing something and the world went to IPv6 one day. Can someone explain how banning is suppose to be a technical solution on Wikipedia? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I belief the banning is more on the type of edit done. I.e. if the community agreed to ban a person, this mean any kind of edit similar to the one done by the person will be removed by the community, not just by individual Admin. The said ban person can reregister as different and do other useful edit. Yosri (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So I'm using the wrong terminology and should be talking about blocking. My bad! ;) Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion FYI

There is a discussion on the G5 deletion criteria going on at Criteria for speedy deletion - Is G5 a "must"?. As it relates to both the banning policy and the blocking policy I had suggested taking discussions on potential changes to those polices there (here), but as it had not been done yet consider this a courtesy notice to those editors who do not visit Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion often. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Some syntax changes

Have made several changes to improve readability. Should be non-objectionable 22:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Modifying closed RFC's in which banned users participated to create a consensus

There appears to be a silly edit war taking place at, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Israeli settlements, a RFC in which a banned user participated to create a consensus. The !vote of the banned user was modified to signify that the !vote should not be counted towards a consensus. User:Malik Shabazz has reverted the modifications arguing that the RFC is now closed. My position is that since the !vote is currently being used to create a consensus it is only fair that the RFC be notated post-closure. Other input requested. Thanks,--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The sockpuppet of a banned user commented at an RfC. The sock was just blocked, and brewcrewer would like to modify a closed RfC to strike the sock's comments.

I think the words at the top of the screen are pretty clear:

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it.

(Emphasis in original) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes little very little sense for WP:BAN to support reverting the edits of a banned editor, which is not allowed for non-banned editors unless there is a good reason, but not to allow the reverting of a RFC, which is not allowed because the template says the "discussion is closed." I'm sorry if I am coming across as too harsh in this estimation, but the insistence on following the template's wording appears to violate 2,3, and 4, of the enumerated examples at Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

• You've both (to one extent or another) got it wrong. The edits of a banned user can be reverted or in the case of closed discussions, struck, if that user was banned from making the edit at the time. In fact, even open discussions require for their comments to be struck on some occasions. However, striking alone is insufficient - a clear note needs to be made that the user was banned and that is why the vote has been struck. The RfC is indeed closed, but it does not prevent an user from striking deceptive edits which were not permitted in the first place.
• Of course, sometimes it is worth considering whether a substantial difference is going to be made by striking the comment at a given time. In other words, there are some circumstances where it may be necessary to retry the original question in another RfC, and whether this is one of those situations.
• So, Brewcrewer, the general point stands, but it may be worth considering how much it is going to accomplish for this particular incident (I mean really). And Malik, a self rv and annotation of "Banned user" from you would be ideal (rather than someone else doing it for you). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban range inclusion

Does a topic ban include own talk page and sandbox/s?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, though topic-related material may be deleted or archived from one's own talk page without comment.  Sandstein  16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Including material that pre-existed the ban? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes.  Sandstein  11:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

And where does it say so? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Unless otherwise specified, 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." This does not distinguish between preexisting and new material, or between userspace and other pages.  Sandstein  14:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous user -> unregistered user

{{editsemiprotect}} Please change "anonymously" to "as an unregistered user". Thanks. 113.197.147.212 (talk) 13:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done —GƒoleyFour— 13:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Quarterly update

It would be helpful if, sometime in the first week of July, someone would add the changes to this page from April 1 to July 1 to WP:Update/1/Enforcement policy changes, 2011, which is transcluded at WP:Update. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin-imposed topic bans?

There's nothing in here about an admin imposing a topic ban on a user without the backing of ArbCom. I thought we could do that, and in fact have done it recently, and was looking to see if I should log it somewhere or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of discretionary sanctions by AC (or probation by the Community), there will always be a risk of an admin topic ban being overturned completely because admins can't (by themselves) impose a topic ban. The Community had a discussion about it (someone else will probably find a link for it quicker than I do), and weren't willing to come to a consensus to allow admins to do that (final warnings are sometimes logged at WP:RESTRICT, but I'm not sure how long that will hang around for). It's always best practice to get either the Community or AC on board, and set out the terms to be supported, where possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ncmvocalist. Topic bans usually can't be instituted on a lone admin's say-so, unless there are already ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or a clear and substantial community consensus in support of the admin's actions. If an admin is working in a non-discretionary area, and thinks that a topic ban is appropriate, one option is to bring it up in a central location, such as WP:AN, with a brief summary of the situation and the suggested topic ban. Even in egregious cases though, it's usually going to be a hard sell, because the discussions tend to get more participation from involved parties than uninvolved. In my experience, it's usually easier for an administrator to impose a block for disruptive behavior, rather than a selective topic ban. Which seems backwards to me, but for some reason that's the culture we're working with, that bans are seen as more disruptive than blocks. Beeblebrox raises a good point though, that if an admin does institute a topic ban, these things should be logged somewhere. I vaguely recall there was some discussion about this somewhere, like a new guideline page that was being worked on, but I don't think it ever got consensus. Beeblebrox, for now, my recommendation would be to bring up the ban as a fait accompli at WP:AN and see if you can get some uninvolved opinions. If the community is in support, you're golden. If not, you can reverse the ban, and life goes on. --Elonka 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The other option is to simply note it on the user's talk page. These things aren't in policy but they are frequently done. If I say, "you are being disruptive and obviously can't edit Foo in a productive way, if you continue to edit Foo I'm going to block you", I've effectively imposed an article ban, if I say "articles related to Foo" I've imposed a topic ban; though these are really not something that should be discussed in policy for the reasons stated above. However, there is another kind which are openly done: "I'll consider unblocking you if and only if you agree to a topic ban on Foo". These are real topic bans, even if they don't fit neatly in any policy. I think they should be discussed. After all, if I won't unblock you and nobody else will either then you are site banned by definition; so if the only way to get unblocked is to agree not to edit a certain topic, then you are truly topic banned - even a good faith edit in that topic may end you up indef blocked again and you aren't likely to find any help unless the whole issue is long since become stale. I've recently dealt with an editor who is under a "ban" imposed by a non-admin mentor. The ban is effective because he was unblocked only because the mentor took the hard student in and said "I"ll take responsibility for the editor and here's my detailed plan, but editor you need to do everything I say and strictly comply with my plan or you'll be indef blocked again". He makes him list his conditions on his talk page and the mentor controls in a real way what the editor may edit. This isn't a true ban, but it is a de facto one since the editing restriction requiring mentorship is so strict.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify that my comment dealt with involuntary and binding topic bans generally. Doug, if the topic ban you issued (or conditions for unblocking or staying unblocked) came to the attention of any other admin, the Community, or AC, and any one of those found an issue with what/how you've said/done something, then that could be amended/overturned. That is because the Community did not give it binding force and the user has not voluntarily agreed to comply with it. If the user accepted the topic ban/conditions (regardless of the reason), then it would be a voluntary topic ban. If the Community or AC enacted a voluntary topic ban formally (and listed at WP:RESTRICT), then that measure would be voluntary and binding. The short version is it depends on the circumstances, and there is a gamble where best practice isn't followed or where too much reliance is placed on something being de facto (note: from time to time, the Community prefers keeping things informal/de-facto as it offers this sort of flexibility). The mentorship restriction you're referring to is strictly speaking, a voluntary probation. Hope that makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

BTW, here's the page that I was thinking about. It was at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions, but that now redirects to the ArbCom page. The (failed) proposal for non-ArbCom sanctions was moved to here: Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions. Note that the discussion was actually encouraged by ArbCom as part of the Abd-William M. Connolley case in September 2009, but the idea never achieved consensus. Check Wikipedia talk:Community discretionary sanctions for the discussion. Since it's been a couple years though, maybe it's worth bringing it up again? --Elonka 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point Ncmvocalist, but I think it's a distinction without a difference. If ARBCOM says "thou shalt not edit the topic Foo henceforth" or if I say, "hey dude, you're blocked and there ain't nobody who's going to unblock you unless you are willing to stop editing the topic Foo, in which case I'll unblock you", it's the same effect. Actually the latter is likely harsher because if you violate ARBCOM's involuntary ban you're 99 times out of 100 going to get progressive enforcement if an admin who happens to notice that you've violated a ban, if you end up long term blocked you can ask to come back and ask ARBCOM for clemency and might succeed; if you violate my "voluntary" topic ban you are probably going to get immediately indef blocked and you are almost certain to stay that way. You are right though, circumstances mean everything. On your first point, the community can always amend/overturn what I do and every admin action is an act of applying my interpretation of community consensus, this is nothing special for admin imposed topic bans - under the WP:SILENCE theory, because they exist there is consensus for them. I should note, I have never as far as I recall imposed an ad hoc or de facto topic ban but I see them frequently and I don't oppose them.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the actual series of events: User has a history of adding spammy links. About 60 of their 100 or so edits relates to one particular company which they appear to have a COI issue with. They get blocked as a spammer. They requested unblock, and when reviewing the case I found they had not received sufficient warning that they would be blocked. After discussing with he blocking admin, I unblocked them with an admonishment not to repeat those actions. Their first (and so far only) two article edits since being unblocked were more of the same stuff that had helped lead to the block, so, in an uncharacteristic display of not blocking a spammer, I told them not to edit that topic for a year and to find something else to do or they would be reblocked. I'm inclined to just let it lie for the moment, but I will take on board everything that has been mentioned here and alter my approach in the future to the more simple "do that specific thing again and you will be blocked" as opposed to the broader topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, I think you are perfectly within bounds and by that I mean within consensus, you're just not within written policy. It's exactly what I'm talking about and I think it's fully supportable. Anyone who opposes you doing that is impractical at best.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Is this inconsistent?

Wikipedia:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad states

The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good

However WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors seems to allow unambiguously "good" edits to remain:

By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

"may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good " appears to mean "revert all edits on sight"; this seems not to be consistent with "this does not mean that obviously helpful edits ... must be reverted".

Either I'm missing something or some clarification would be helpful. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The key word between the two different sets of text seems to be the word "obviously".  I propose this approach to define "obviously helpful edits": revert the banned edit, and then re-enter the helpful part of the edit as your own.  In taking responsibility for the change as your own, there is no remaining possibility of unintended consequences that are due to the banned editor.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

By my read these are not really discussing the same issue. The first quote pertains to whether they are allowed to make the edits in the first place. They are not. Full stop. The second quote pertains to whether we must delete any edit they made upon detecting the ban evasion. We don't have to, but we err on the side of deleting them so as not to encourage them to keep evading the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any evidence that there is a single banned editor that has stopped editing?  Given the way that detecting socks works, my guess is that this is a game of how long can a sock hide from the authorities, the sock is detected and blocked, and within minutes the banned editor simply creates a new sock.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Three questions worth asking, and by extension, asking whether the policy clearly and decisively answers them.

1. Are banned users allowed to edit anything at all on Wikipedia?
   • No
2. Is it required to undo, revert, and delete revisions by banned users regardless of the circumstances?
   • No
3. Is it permitted to undo, revert, and delete revisions by banned users regardless of the circumstances (including usual restrictions like 3RR)?
   • Yes

causa sui (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

How can I ban a saboteur

During the past weeks, the page Hayedeh has been attacked by an unknown user (91.98.45.92). After sending him warnings, he is still continuing to enter false data. I wonder if I can put the block user tag on his page myself or it should be done via the administrators? Thanks Leo71538 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

First off a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN are not synonymous. A block may be used as a technical means to enforce a ban, but it is a separate process. And no, you cannot block or ban anyone yourself. A block requires an administrator, a ban requires either community consensus or a decision by the Arbitration Committee. If the user's edits meet Wikipedia's definition of vandalism you can report them at WP:AIV. Otherwise WP:ANI would be a place to ask for more input. If the disruption is limited to one article you can also request page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, did not respond here, I have protected two of the pages for some time. But it looks more pages are targetted (which I watchlisted as well). Maybe it is time for some blocks and some more protection as well, I'll keep an eye. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution exception

We have some disagreement over this text:

"Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason. "

As far as I can tell, the line originated here with Sandstein making a "WP:BOLD attempt to describe our practice concerning the various types of limited bans."

My interpretation of this is that there are actually three exceptions embedded in this descriptor. An essentially irrevocable privilege to have clarified and appeal a ban to other admins, the community, and the Arbitration Committee (this bit does not seem to be in controversy), and the leave to actually try to resolve disputes, including making sure a ban is enforced fairly.

If we take this text as binding prescription, I do not think the "that is..." shows an exclusive list of all "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" but rather a list of examples in kind that Sandstein thought of of. Persuing dispute resolution by mediation or by arbitration seems to me to be perfectly within the same general class, as all strictures are designed to end the dispute and have as much normal editing as possible.

If rather, we believe that this policy, as all policies, should be descriptive, descriptively, it is a standard reason to unblock, unban, or actually go ahead and bend any rules on Wikipedia in the service of a good faith attempt to resolve disputes. The goal of Wikipedia policies is not (and certainly ought not) to prevent disruption. (If it was, we'd site-ban a lot more than we do) Rather, minimizing disruption is a means to better resolving disputes, which in turn is itself a means to creating actual article content.

The goal, ladies and gents, is to create better article. Around here, we do that with more editors, rather than less, so by default, we should leave open paths to normal editing unless we have compelling reason to do otherwise.--Tznkai (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Most topic bans are imposed for battleground behaviour, incivility, personal attacks, POV-pushing, source falsification, edit-warring and the like. None of those behaviours are compatible with engaging in productive content-based dispute resolution. When that is understood it becomes clear that the general content-related dispute resolution is not a usual exception to a topic ban and should not be. When an editor is removed from a topic area, they are removed from all aspects of editing in that topic area: editing articles, talk pages, or otherwise discussing the topic. Of course, if a case is made for an exception to a topic ban to engage in a formal dispute resolution process (such as mediation), that can be asked for and considered, as is currently happening at AE. But to suggest that it is the general rule misrepresents the current policy position and would be a bad idea as a new policy position, and in either case would recklessly contract the scope of every topic ban currently in force. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

There needs to be a bit of context here. That aforementioned battleground behavior, incivility, personal attacks, etc., are usually dealt with via blocking. A topic ban is imposed when there is the belief that there are behaviors related to a topic area that must be controlled, but the editor as a whole has some usefulness on Wikipedia in general, or the topic ban is structured to allow them to participate within that same topic but in a restricted manner. That is to say, there is a belief that these people are capable of being productive. And, separately, the term "topic ban" has been through more evolution than you might recall. I believe it once referred, if not otherwise explained, only to article pages within the topic area, which as you might imagine, lead to some problems. I definitely remember having to read cases very, very carefully. And thats not even getting into WP:PROBATION. Since a topic ban is given on the belief that it is somehow more productive than a flat block, (or siteban, for that matter) it makes sense to assume that some sort of proper dispute resolution is available to blocked users.--Tznkai (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. A topic ban is narrower than a site ban because for topic-banned editors, it's accepted that they only get tempted to POV-push, etc, within the highly contentious topic areas about which they care. But if someone is POV-pushing, falsifying sources, or generally being disruptive, on an article or an article talk page, it should be presumed that they will also engage in same behaviour in an RFC or mediation. The topic ban should be construed with its usual breadth so as to stop it, unless the sanctioning admin is satisfied otherwise. Indeed, quite a few topic bans arise out of behaviour in or arising from an RfC, which is content-based dispute resolution. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The same logic would (does, really) carry for participation in arbitration, AE threads, community noticeboards and the like. Yet, despite both the likelihood and actual incidents of antisocial and disruptive conduct by topic banned editors in 'noncontent' dispute resolution, they are not default banned from that.--Tznkai (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

They are banned from those things to the extent that (a) the dispute resolution concerns the topic area, and (b) it doesn't concern an appeal or clarification about the editor's own topic ban. For example, an ARBPIA topic banned editor can't participate in an AE thread discussing ARBPIA sanctions against another editor. And as we all know, involved third party participation in AE threads is almost always disruptive and almost never helpful! --Mkativerata (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I've yet to see a non-sitebanned user eliminated from participation in Arbitration, or making a comment on a request for the same. Have you? There are plenty of administrative threads, AE threads in particular, where the complainant was someone who was then topic banned. And there are the bad reasons to allow this (continuing the battleground) and good ones (making sure that some partisan hasn't just gotten away with being able to tilt an article without being checked) and the mixture (no one else pays attention to these articles), but it is a fact that it happens. Hell, the language you restored refers to "a violation of an interaction ban by the other party" but somehow topic bans, by virtue of having the word "topic" include administrative threads?

For better or worse, we don't limit participation in administrative threads to the people we think are "helpful," probably in part because of the Orwellian nightmare of a slippery slope that threatens. It should follow then, if we tolerate that, we should at least default to giving people a shot actually solving their problems.--Tznkai (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Tznkai there is an explaination of topic bans at WP:RESTRICT that lays out the 3 types of topic-ban that are in current existence. Type 1: Page editting bans (ie the topic banned editor may discuss issues but not edit articles); type 2: page bans (usually referred to as narrowly construed); type 3: full topic bans (usually referred to as broadly construed). I've handed out bans of each kind myself. And there is a reason for going to the type 3 level of ban and that is that these users are using everywhere (not just article space) to carry on a battleground mentality, and that they are not engaging with WP:DR but rather frustrating it (as mentioned by Mkativerata). I've seen this multiple times in relation to various nationalist edit wars.
I would have no problem with this page reflecting the wording at WP:RESTRICT (i.e. spelling out that there are 3 types of ban), but it is not the case that all topic bans should have, do have, or need to have, the kind of exception you are suggesting. And thus I would object to such a change.
The reason an account may be topic-banned in a broadly construed fashion is so that they can learn how to conduct themselves normally outside of their apparent "hot zone". When they learn this they can come back to that area hopefully with cooler heads. Keeping ppl with a 'hot button' for a topic out of enforcement threads while toic banned (broadly construed) is not only logical but actually should help prevent them from lapsing back into inappropriate behaviour (which if it occured would defeat the purpose of a definite duration topic ban)--Cailil ^talk 01:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

And there is nothing that would prevent you from handing out such a ban. That isn't the issue, its what the default rule should be. AE admins (hopefully) are attentive enough to be sensible about constructing bans, being specific and AE as a whole tends to end up monitoring the bans they hand out. I'm not adverse to banning someone from dispute resolution if I have some reason to do so. But, it shouldn't be as a matter of course either. And what about community bans, which are less carefully constructed and left unmonitored? Resolving disputes is a Good Thing. Sometimes yes, users demonstrate that they have no place in an attempt, but why shouldn't a ban drafter have to go through the modest hoops of 1) saying so and implicitly 2) explaining why its necessary? --Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

For context the issue that brought this here is Mkativerata's ban of The Last Angry Man. Mkativerata's ban of TLAM is explicit[6] and in line with the third type of topic ban listed under WP:RESTRICT. There is no default setting as I see it and as far as I can see not only is Mkativeratas' ban endorsed by Arbitrators, and other sysops at AE, it is absolutely in line both with this policy and that listed at WP:RESTRICT. It is an appropriate action under discretiuonary sanctions and Mkativerata has explained his reasons for this at the ArbCom appeal.
However if as a seperate issue you want to highlight the possibility of there being other types of topic ban so that admins (who are not as explicit in their wording as Mkativerata was) don't cause confusion about whether an editor is topic banned from WP:DR or not, then I would suggest simply reflecting the wording of WP:RESTRICT here rather than adding exemptions. Highlighting the availability of lesser sanctions would IMHO be a good idea - as I agree sometimes it might be better to let users involved in disputes become part of the solution at MedCab--Cailil ^talk 12:32, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The TLAM issue isn't really relevant, except as it reflects policy preferences on mediation good/mediation bad. No matter what, we're going to have a default rule, the only arguments are what the default is/was/should be. I happen to be of the impression that the answer all three of those is actually much wider than you're construing it. What we "highlight" isn't really isn't the issue, since I'm not entirely convinced anyone this policy anyway. After all, I had made the edit nearly a month ago, pointed it out on a request for case not long after, and we're only now talking about it; and this isn't really about that ban in particular. And Sandstein's wording is definitely inadequate, unless you think that a topic ban prevents, among other things, participation in arbitration; and administrative threads; and appealing the ban for an other than "good" reason (presumably in the subjective mindset of the discretion of the admin);and asking for "unnecessary" clarifications (again, begging subjectivity); and responding to an accusation that does not implicate the ban itself by a third party in any forum. That is just off the top of my head. These aren't even weird cases, but actual things that come up with some frequency.--Tznkai (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbcom itself has handed out 'no talk' bans from time to time. The most severe of these probably happened during WP:ARBCC. The one common element that I'm aware of in the no-talk bans is that they always allow direct appeal to the Committee. There have been some bans from participation at AE which I might be able to find if I dig through the history. There have been bans that disallow participation at noticeboards about the specified topic unless the person's own edits are being discussed. A common reason for considering such drastic bans is that someone insists on beating the dead horse at noticeboards about a point of view that has not found consensus for inclusion in articles. A check of the WP:ARBPIA log shows a variety of types of ban. Some bans explicitly allow talk page editing while others do not. If someone thinks their ban is too severe, there is an appeal process that leads to Arbcom. EdJohnston (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed residual exception to partial bans

"A restricted editor may make any edit in good faith, if not making that edit would defeat the purpose of the ban."

Alternatively:

"Administrators are directed to NOT enforce bans, if so doing would defeat the purpose of the ban, and if the restricted editor violated the ban in good faith."

Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you give an example? EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Let's not go there. Generally, topic bans are deliberately made to be construed as broadly as possible. We don't want to go creating ways for topic banned users to wiki-lawyer their way around them. Half the point of a topic ban is to get the user to go do something else, if they are taking it seriously they won't even be watching the area they are banned from. In the extremely rare instance that enforcing the ban would be the wrong thing to do we already have WP:IAR to guide us. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Beeblebrox - plus such a wording creates confusion & loopholes that, in effect, "defeat the purpose" of the lesser restrictions themselves. Also "directing" administrators not to enforce restrictions handed down by arbcom (as many such restrictions are or are by proxy through topic probation etc) is in diametric opposition to existing guidelines for Arb Enforcement and restricted users' behaviour.
Besides, where a restricted user has 'accidentally' or in good faith crossed the line, the generally accepted practice is for them to self-revert immediately, otherwise they have, in fact, breached their restriction--Cailil ^talk 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There is more nuance to restrictions than you're giving credit. The overall purpose of a ban is to maintain maximum productivity from/freedom of a user while quarantining them from certain areas/actions/editors. For example, editor A and editor B have been constantly fighting over a range of policy pages, administrative notice boards, and user talk pages, and Arbcom lays down an interaction ban substantively along the wording of "Editor A is to avoid to avoid any unnecessary interactions with Editor B, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution." Then, not checking the edit history of the article, editor A edits kumquat about one hour after Editor B does. Is this a violation of the interaction ban? Given the wording of the restriction, possibly. Given the background postulated, preventing A from editing the same mainspace articles and forcing A to carefully examine all edit histories before editing an article would defeat the purpose of the ban.

The problem, as I see it, is that there are administrators who treat bans as Laws, and any failure to enforce bans strictly as destroying the Rule of Law, where in reality, general restrictions are much more like tools given to the administrator community to be exercised with discretion. Having a residual exception written into the ban policy makes it clear that in ban enforcement, intent. The general concept of the residual exception is actually already found in IAR, common sense, and implicit in the nature of proper ban enforcement - but invoking any of those things during an argument with an administrator over ban enforcement is toxic, and adds a high probability of wheel warring.

The nature of bans, especially arbitration originated ones, is that they create a nearly insurmountable first blocker bias regardless of the underlying merits of the action. A residual exception wouldn't stop that, but it would balance the scales slightly.--Tznkai (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed residual exception is so unclear (at least to me) that it would be harder for an admin to interpret than the interaction ban itself. It is known that interaction bans have problems, but they are nonetheless useful. In your Kumquat example (above), party A is in fact violating the interaction ban, but asking him to self-revert would be the best plan. (Unless editor A does this kind of thing frequently). We assume that the typical admin enforcing an interaction ban would have this much common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Tznkai Ed's correct. Restrictions are broadly or narrowly construed for a reason. A sysop's inability to enforce bans (or not enfoce them) when and where appropriate is their problem and is a) one of the reasons we have RFA processes to test the common sense and discretion of admins, and b) why sysops who make ... unusual arb enforcmenet decisions are asked to stop or are desysoped. If an editor is under restriction they should understand they need to be careful and if they are in dodgy territory they should simply walk away from it, not doing so is their problem and is not something that can be legislated for--Cailil ^talk 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The proposed cure is worse than the disease. Essentially per EdJohnston. T. Canens (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the de facto ban?

With WP:AN on my watchlist, I've been seeing discussions of really obvious ban proposals where someone who has been socking for months after their block and an annoyed editor is requesting that they be formally banned so they can revert them without consequence. Since when has the fact that someone who will never have their indefinite block removed become no longer a de facto community ban? Do we really need to define who is banned long after they have been determined to no longer be a constructive member of the community?—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The historical definition of a community ban was something like "an indef-blocked user whose behavior is so obviously beyond recovery that not a single administrator will unblock or shorten the block". This practice seems to have been supplanted by the ad-hoc firing squads you now see on AN and AN/I at some point during a period of inactivity on my part between 2009-2010. I don't know what the rationale for it is either or what the process was, and have raised this question a few times without much light being shed on it. I'd be interested in hearing what you find out. causa sui (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that I got chewed out for closing this discussion by essentially saying "no one is going to unblock him after a year and a half of socking; stop wasting time on WP:AN". I think we need to get rid of the firing squads when it is absolutely obvious that the original definition of a community ban is in force.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely agree. The only reason that people are proposing bans for indef-blocked users is to be able to get around 3RR for their socks, and such a thing smacks of bureaucracy. Let's return to how it used to be done and record such individuals as being de-facto banned. Nyttend (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying that the only purpose of community bans has to do with 3RR makes no sense.  If the evidence exists that a sock is the sock of a banned editor, then the evidence exists for an admin to indefinitely block the sock, and identify in the block the name of the banned username.  At this point, continued 3RR edit warring by the sock is impossible.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR is a big part of it. I can't remember where it is stated anymore, but the only way to revert someone who is editing without running afoul of 3RR is if they are officially banned. It just seems to me that without going through the proposal process, we will end up with kilobytes of arguments and drama on AN/I when someone eventually gets blocked for 3RR for reverting the edits of someone blocked byt "not officially banned". For what it's worth I agree with de facto equalling official, but I can still tell you that without going through the motions there WILL be unnecessary drama in the future. Again, I can't find it, but I know there have been multiple fights in the past regarding WP:BLOCK versus WP:BAN, whether socks of one or the other can be blocked and reverted on sight, etc. If De Facto is to have force of policy though we should amend the BAN policy so it's crystal clear (to prevent the sure-to-follow drama). (edit: I think I've found the specific language at Wikipedia:BLOCKBANDIFF, specifically the language that says May only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation (or uninvolved users specifically authorized by one of these), or by community consensus., with the link from community consensus spelling out that there needs to be a discussion.)Night Ranger (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That still sounds like nonsense, if they are banned they are blocked, blocked editors don't engage in 3RR edit warring.  Only editors that are not blocked engage in 3RR, do you agree?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The 3RR avoidance appears to be with the banned/blocked user's socks.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, socks.  How many unblocked socks do you know of?  I don't think you'd know of any, because if you did know, you'd get them indef blocked, and then they'd be blocked socks.  Banning and 3RR don't seem to come into the picture.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, this I guess is in the window before confirmation and the account/IP remains unblocked.—Ryulong (竜龙) 04:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Correct, and as we all know that window can be fairly large, especially if nobody is around at the time to block the sock. It's not so much an issue with blatant childish vandals, but can become tricky with clever POV pushers or edit warriors who also happen to have supporters on Wiki. Also, the language at Wikipedia:BLOCKBANDIFF doesn't currently allow for De Facto bans. Night Ranger (talk) 06:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if we did label them as banned, there's still that window of no proof that it's a sock. And BLOCKBANDIFF looks like a bunch of garbage.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Requiring discussions to formally ban editors who are not and are never likely to be allowed to edit anyway seems to me to be one of those technicalities that rules like WP:SNOW and WP:BURO are designed to avoid. An indeffed user should be considered community-banned if no admin is willing to unblock - because at that point, the difference is (or at least should be) academic anyway. Pfainuk talk 17:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Why do people ask for bans for indef-blocked people? The point with 3RR is this: imagine that I've been blocked but not banned, and I create a bunch of socks to start tag-team edit warring in a way that's not blatant vandalism. If you revert me, I can say that it's an editing dispute and get you blocked for 3RR. You may be able to prove that some-but-not-all of the accounts are mine; unless you can prove that all of my accounts are mine, you may not be able to avoid the block. Once you establish that even one of the accounts is a banned editor, everything is different, since the 3RR policy explicitly disregards reversions of banned editors. Nyttend (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So any user who agrees with a sock is automatically designated a sock? And of course an editor can avoid a 3RR block -- don't revert the third time. This gist of this discussion seems to be SPI is too slow/imperfect so we're gonna let individual editors decide other editors are socks before SPI finishes. Gerardw (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is to eliminate the superfluous discussions on WP:AN for which the ultimate goal to formally community ban people who have been already pretty much banned from the project. We need to reincorporate wording onto this page that restores the "if no one is going to ever unblock this editor, consider him banned and be done with it" definition of a de facto ban from the project.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification. So why not change "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. " to "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban or block."?? Wouldn't that make the point essentially moot in the context of AN? Gerardw (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that would work, but would that cause issues for users blocked for 24 or 48 hour periods (even though if they evade that block, it's pretty much a one-way ticket to banville anyway)?—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked is blocked, I don't get while the length of the block is a factor? Gerardw (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Why not just change the policy for the following cases?

• More than 20 confirmed socks or 30 suspected socks
• Has a long-term abuse case
• More than 5 confirmed socks or 10 suspected socks, and always making very very disruptive edits through those socks

In any of these, I think the de facto site ban should be put in place.Jasper Deng (talk) 06:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No. The point of the de facto ban is that no one is ever planning on unblocking them and there doesn't really need to be any framework other than that.—Ryulong (竜龙) 06:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not like an admin can block a VoA and declare that user banned (since the user may have been simply making test edits), for instance.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ryulong - the de facto ban was simply: "If a user has been indefinitely blocked and through community discussion it is determined that no administrator is willing to lift or reduce the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been community banned."[7] - it was that simple. No-one willing to unblock = de facto banned. There's no reason to complicate things with an arbitrary numbe rof socks or violations etc--Cailil ^talk 19:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's that thing about "community discussion" again. Ryulong proposes that the community ban discussions, which have been taking place, are unnecessary and a waste of time and that accounts should just be tagged as banned without the discussions. So that language isn't quite right. Night Ranger (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where he is saying that at all. The way the de facto system worked was that during the initial indef discussion if nobody was willing to offer anything less than the standard offer then they were 'for all intents and purposes' banned, even if they're not formally listed & described as such with templates etc. It seems to me that Ryulong is addressing the issue of ban discussions for users who've been indef blocked for significant periods already, users that nobody is going to unblock.
The fact is that if no sysop is willing to unblock an account it is effectively banned. Listing them and templating them as 'banned by the community' however is different and always required (and will require) consensus through discussion. Ryulong's point as I understand it is along the lines of WP:BURO - he seems to me to be saying that it's excessively bureaucratic to suggest a ban for an account that nobody will unblock anyway.
I don't believe he is suggesting bans without discussion rather that discussion of formal bans for those who are effectively banned is overly bureaucratic--Cailil ^talk 23:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

1) Not all blocked users were blocked following an indef discussion, actually I'd say the vast majority were just blocked indef by an admin at some point for being disruptive. So then how does a block become a ban? 2) How do we know nobody will unblock an account unless we ask everyone? 3) If that's what Ryulong is suggesting then, again, it raises the question as mentioned elsewhere on this page as to what we do for people who are reverting socks that have not yet been blocked and then have to stop so they don't violate 3RR. That is a legitimate issue for users in good standing. Wikipedia whould not have to endure the POV pushing edits of sockpuppet armies just because of 3RR and because official ban discussions are seen as unnecessary bureaucracy in some cases. Not all admins on the project will be imemdiately familiar with every longstanding POV pushing edit warrior/vandal, so the second someone violates 3RR with an obvious sock they're going to end up with a block on their record because the admin didn't see "this user has been banned" on the master account. Then a days long argument will take place at AN/I, complete with retirements, haughty language and plenty of hot air. How do we avoid that? Because really, nothing sucks as much as that. Night Ranger (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Nobody's talking about any of that. The old wording is simple - if nobody will unblock an indef'd user then they're effectively banned and at that point there is no need to go through further discussions to enact a ban. Yes obviously this is only for those who've had block reviews at AN and ANi (hence no need for a second discussion). Long term abuse is a separate issue - users who are long term abusers (and sockers) should be listed there to avoid the situation you describe. Socks of this type should simply be reverted and reported to ANi (listing the LTA report) they will then be blocked and ignored. There's no need to break 3RR if there is an obvious Ip/Sock attack pages get protected--Cailil ^talk 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support I would support that. There has to be a way to determine what is "blocked" and what is "banned". BLOCKBANDIFF may be garbage, but it's part of the standing policy so we'll have to deal with it somehow, whether amending it or rewriting it entirely. There's a reason for codified laws, after all. Without them people are left to fight over the details each and every time, tagging as banned and then untagging, adding to and removing from the list of banned editors, cliques warring over whether some edits of a serial sockuppeteer should be kept because they may be marginally useful... this stuff is much more disruptive and time wasting than going through some bureaucratic ban proposals. So let's figure out how to codify the de facto ban and we'll all be happy. Night Ranger (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I don't get it. If a user is blocked they can't edit. If a user socks, the sock gets blocked. What am I missing? Gerardw (talk) 15:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: In my opinion, there should be no difference between "blocks" and "bans" (why make it complicated), and just have escalating sanctions: 1, 2, 4 days, 1, 2 weeks, 1, 2, 4, 8 months, 1, 2, 4 years, that are applied to a user and all their socks. (Previous Community banned user) --Iantresman (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose, due to unclear technical meaning.  "Suspected socks" means nothing, as no one should be banned based on suspicions, nor should they be banned based on the existence of a "long-term abuse case".  Likewise, the word "very" is almost never useful in technical writing and "always making very very disruptive edits" is always deniable.  However, at the same time, I'm puzzled that we would even consider allowing an editor with 20 confirmed socks the benefit of the doubt.  Just how many confirmed socks does it take to believe that a de facto ban exists?  So I'm making a counter-proposal below.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Ryulong. We're trying to simplify the process, not complicate it. These bright lines also create the impression that a disruptive sockmaster who has fewer than the proscribed number of socks cannot be banned, which is unacceptable. And before you try to add a caveat to account for that, I oppose that too. We want to empower the community and give interested editors the tools they need to get it done, not a paralyzing lawbook of bureaucratic codes to memorize. causa sui (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- seems like instruction creep to me. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a new criterion for a community ban

At WP:Banning policy#Community bans and restrictions, insert between the two existing bullets a third bullet:

*An indefinitely blocked editor with six confirmed socks can be banned by any administrator, this is a de facto community ban. The count of socks does not apply to socks found at the time of the indefinite block.

• Support as proposer.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that these socks have to be accounts created after the original account was blocked. A user who's been socking, and finally gets caught with 20 socks, shouldn't be bannable on the spot by a single admin. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to reword it accordingly.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I support this version. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Per my comments to the previous version. causa sui (talk) 05:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose- I think this one is needless instruction creep as well. Reyk _YO! 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose These bans shouldn't be limited only to sockmasters. A ban means "you, the human, are not allowed to edit". It does not mean "you, the human, are not allowed to edit, even though you have wrongly created a bunch of extra accounts". If all of your accounts (no matter how many or how few there are) have been indef'd and you cannot find anyone to unblock a single one of them, then you are, in practice, banned: you, the human, are not allowed to edit, because nobody is allowed to edit while 100% of his or her accounts are indef'd. You don't need to engage in block evasion efforts to achieve the "not allowed to edit" status of a ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as completely missing the point. Once all accounts are indefinitely blocked, a de facto ban is the usual result. There isn't a reason to codify it it.—Kww(talk) 02:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about the proposal for a new criterion for a community ban

Again, you are missing the point of the de facto ban. If no admin is willing to unblock a user, they are de facto banned. We should not require a framework for this.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you have some new idea on how to know "if no admin is willing to unblock a user".  Do you want the Wikimedia foundation to send each of the 1500 admins a letter and ask them to reply in 15 days?  Or maybe you want to come up with a robot that posts on each of the 1500 admin user talk pages, and again, the admins have 15 days to respond?  So, no, I think that either we come up with the wording for an operational definition of "de facto" ban, or we keep the existing policy which has no de facto ban.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that if someone has been denied an unblock request on their indefinite block, and the arbcom does not look into his case should it be requested, then it is pretty much clear that he is banned. We should not set up a minimum number of blocked socks, because one sockpuppet used to evade a block is too much.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't get these proposals either. We're looking to make this less complicated, not more complicated. causa sui (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ryulong has a good point: there's no reason to belabor the distinction between "indefinitely blocked and no one has unblocked him" and "banned". The 3RR argument doesn't wash: "Reverting actions performed by ... tagged sockpuppets of indefinitely blocked accounts" is already contained in the exemption list, and any user can tag an account as being a sockpuppet: the policy doesn't require waiting for admin confirmation.—Kww(talk) 12:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If I don't like another editor's revision I can just tag them sockpuppet and revert? Gerardw (talk) 12:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd get blocked for invalid tagging if you weren't doing it in good faith.—Kww(talk) 12:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try it and find out? :-P causa sui (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I tagged and reverted socks for a long time before becoming an admin. Filling out the SPI reports to get the socks blocked was such a pain that I went through RFA just to avoid it.—Kww(talk) 19:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I respect WP:POINT Gerardw (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

free example

At Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ratel with a user who was indeffed, and multiple socks indeffed, who has on the order of ten admitted socks, but whome ArbCom apparently allows to use "only one sock" for some reason (no posting of that decision anywhere), but who has clearly reverted to behaviour which had led in the past to many blocks. Cheers - what is the opinion thereon? Collect (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits

I've corrected the table detailing reversion policy against blocked and banned editors.—Kww(talk) 13:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've also added some language to explain de facto bans [8]. Night Ranger (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Why can't individual admins issue topic bans instead of blocks?

There is a clause on this page that states "Except as noted above, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans.". The proscription regarding indefinite site bans may be defensible, but if individual admins can issue definite or indefinite blocks, why is it inappropriate for them to issue definite or indefinite topic bans? Geometry guy 01:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

More concretely I propose something along the following lines.

Individual uninvolved administrators may impose time-limited (at most 48 hours) and specifically focused topic bans in place of blocks in cases where they believe a more refined sanction would be more beneficial for the encyclopedia and/or the editor than a block. Administrators should apply such topic bans with the same impartial care and consideration as they would when making blocks, issuing warnings before taking action, providing detailed rationales on the editor's talk page, and noting the topic ban in the editor's block log by making a short (e.g. 1 second) block. As with blocks, such topic bans are subject to appeal and community review.

Geometry guy 00:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC) PS. Other mechanisms than the block-log (such as a dedicated community page) may be preferable for recording actions here.

I'd support this, but we'd probably need a wider consensus than is available just on this talkpage. --Elonka 03:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

It has been very quiet, even given the season. I would encourage (and have been seeking) refinements to the wording, but after that I would propose an RfC. Geometry guy 04:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

On my talk page, it has been suggested that "time-limited" should be made more precise. I'm inclined to agree with that, and suggest that community consensus should be sought before imposing topic bans for more than 48 hours. Geometry guy 21:55, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, this puts the cart before the horse. The policy follows practice, not the other way around. causa sui (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  Forgive me if I am being dim, but I don't understand: how can a policy follow practice, when it forbids a change in practice? Geometry guy 22:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  This can seem contradictory, but it isn't really. :o) If it were a good idea, people would do it. See WP:IAR. We don't do it, not because policy forbids it, but because it's not a good idea. If it were a good idea, we would do it, regardless of what policy says. causa sui (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

  I might have agreed with you 3-4 years ago, but with passing time, I have seen a much greater adherence to policy, and indeed an increasing tendency to wikilawyer (i.e., quote and follow policies verbatim, sometimes out of context) to win an argument, even where this conflicts with improving the encyclopedia. If it is not a good idea to topic ban an editor for a day or two instead of blocking them for the same period, why is it not a good idea? Geometry guy 00:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

• See also: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive_5#Admin-imposed topic bans? The conclusion reached there seems to be that if an admin makes a topic ban part of conditions for unblocking and the user agrees to it it constitutes a valid topic ban. This is done in practice all the time with little fuss so that would seem to have community support already. As far as unilateraly imposing one instead of blocking, I suspect that is going to be tough to get agreement on but it is worth discussing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
• There was extensive discussion of this following an arbitration case - possibly the Climate Change one in 2010 or maybe the Cold Fusion one in 2009? Part of the problem is that there is no real facility to log topic bans, and hence no way to track admin abuse on this issue. The only way round this, IMO, is to require topic bans issued by admins to be 48 hours or less, with a noticeboard discussion required for longer ones and for longer topic bans resulting from noticeboard discussions to be recorded (maybe in the block log despite resistance to using block logs in that way?). Another problem is that some will see admin-issued short-duration topic bans as an equivalent to cool-down blocks. In effect, a topic ban would be no different to a warning. Ignore a warning and carry on with the same behaviour, you get blocked. Ignore a topic ban and carry on with the same behaviour, and you also get blocked. The only difference seems to be venue. Carry on with the same behaviour in a different venue and if you've been warned then you get blocked, but if you've been topic banned then another topic ban would need to be issued (which seems bureaucratic). Part of the problem is also a tendency to warn, and warn, and warn, and precisely when a block descends after multiple warnings depends mostly on how lenient admins watching the issue are. Carcharoth (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  Making a change like this workable needs thought, and comments like yours, based on the wisdom of experience, are vital. I agree with the 48 hour principle, and would note that the proposal includes block log registration of topic bans (what is the minimum length for a block to register such a topic ban? I have no idea!) As more positive responses, I would note that a topic ban is not equivalent to a warning, as it should in almost all circumstances be preceded by a warning, but at the same time this proposal might address the warn-warn-warn culture, because after a warning and a specific topic ban, Wikipedia has been committed to a course of action: any further violation is blockable by any administrator. Geometry guy 01:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  I know 1-second blocks are possible. Probably zero-length blocks are also possible. Not sure about that. Some admins are willing to experiment with their own block logs. Anyawy, as others have said, what is needed is far more people giving input here, and, as you said on your talk page, a gradual change in attitude if this turns out to be workable. In practice, admins with clue giving warnings tend to phrase it like a topic ban anyway. Something like: "please don't do that again, and it would be best if you stayed away from there for a day or two until things are calmer again". That is a warning and informal topic ban rolled into one. Trouble is, independent thinkers and/or troublemakers (take your pick) will ignore polite warnings like that, and react confrontationally to sterner warnings because anything else is seen as submitting to an 'authority figure'. Something that might work in some circumstances (when trying to calm two editors head-butting on a heavily trafficked page) is something like "That thread is getting out of hand. I'm trying to calm things down here, and to achieve that I've placed archive tags on the thread and want you and the other editor to stay away from that page for the next 24 hours, apart from any retractions or strikes you want to make that may help de-escalate matters. I'll leave a note there explaining what I've done here. Anything that needs saying can wait until then, or you can take it to your user talk pages." Trouble is, on very heavily trafficked venues, by the time you've written the above (unless you are very quick to post placeholder comments), the arguing has spread, and you've edit conflicted half-a-dozen times with other editors in all three venues you are trying to post at. meatball:ForestFire can apply. But for slower moving incidents, the approach I've detailed can work well. BTW, I think the 'topic ban' opposition is mainly to topic bans in article space (on the grounds that admins would be influencing content matters). Topic bans for non-article namespaces should be easier to get consensus for. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It occurs to me that a more reasonable first step in thios direction might be for interaction bans. It's the equivalent of a teacher pulling two kids apart in the schoolyard. Imagine if every time a teacher wanted to do that they had to bring it up at a Board of Education meeting first. I also think this is the form of informal one-admin issued banning that already goes on here the most, so it already has at least tacit support. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that, unless there is a discretionary sanction or similar remedy, admins can only issue blocks. Those blocks may become de facto bans if it is not overturned by another admin, hence receiving tacit approval. There's no comparable mechanism for "topic blocks" to be converted into topic bans, but there's no reason it couldn't be created.   Will Beback  talk  03:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

More on de facto bans

A user is de facto banned when they are indefinitely blocked and no administrator is willing to unblock. A user is consensus banned when a community discussion results in a consensus to ban. Individual administrators may overrule a de facto ban by unblocking, but may not overrule a consensus ban. A consensus ban may be appealed to Arbcom, or may be lifted by a community discussion that results in a consensus to unban.

This is what the policy used to say. What it says now

In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the editor. Editors who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Seems we want to ban more editors. Ultimately, perhaps, there will be only Arbcom and the vandals. Rich Farmbrough, 09:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

(That last bit is a joke, let me clarify, for the hard of humour, but the change in policy is deeply disturbing.) Rich Farmbrough, 09:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC).

• I favour the old language. I don't like the way this is written up - it completely removes the concept of de facto which is a bad this and borderline disruptive requiring a discussion for every case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think we just need to introduce language to avoid unnecessary lynchings of indefinitely blocked sockmasters on WP:ANI. If they've been indefblocked, there's no need to set up a community ban on them. Community bans in my opinion should only take place if editors are actively being a pain in the ass but the ArbCom hasn't decided to deal with them the way the community wants.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes indeed, also the current wording makes any indef blocked user banned, on certain readings, but in particular one user who was subject of significant unblock discussion, including I guess some "not-now" opinions and some unblock opinions has been declared banned. Not healthy. Rich Farmbrough, 10:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC).
      

Advice from Blocking policy

WP:INDEF reads:

Only in extreme cases would there be no administrator who is willing to lift the block, which would effectively make the uncooperative editor banned by the community.

I don't know how we could improve on that language, or why we shouldn't use it in WP:BAN. causa sui (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. That seems like the best way to put it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 22:32, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

So is the specific criterion then that an unblock request from an indef-blocked editor has been discussed at a noticeboard and found lacking? I can live with that. Anything beyond runs into the problem of who can actually determine that no admin is willing to unblock. Franamax (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly easy to determine that no admin has been willing to unblock. In general, we actually tend to agree which editors shouldn't ever be unblocked. The only value of a formal ban discussion is to handle the cases where a truly bad editor has managed to get an admin as an ally. I wish that didn't happen, but we all know that it does.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

My perspective

I was asked specifically to come here by Franamax to give my perspective on "defacto" bans. First, I don't see any use in any distinction between a "community ban" and a "defacto community ban". Either a user requires the permission of the community to begin editing again, or they do not. If they do, they are banned. If they do not, they are not banned. It is as simple as that. Secondly, there is no need to start a discussion on a noticeboard to formally declare any user banned who is not currently allowed to edit Wikipedia. This does not mean that every user that is indef blocked is banned, but it does mean that there isn't much point in starting a discussion to ban a user who is defacto banned to simply formalize that ban. Perhaps some clarification is needed, maybe this would help. Consider this a first draft of something we can add to the definition of a ban:

A user is banned from Wikipedia if:

• There has been a community discussion which has enacted such a ban
• There has been an ArbCom decision which has enacted such a ban
• The user has been indefinitely blocked and multiple adminitrators have declined unblock requests over a considerable period of time
• The user has been indefinitely blocked and they have also created multiple sock puppet accounts to dodge their ban over a considerable period of time

Users who are defined as banned by any of the above criteria (except the ArbCom ban) may appeal to the community to discuss their ban and the community may lift their ban. All banned users (including those banned by ArbCom) may appeal to the ban appeals subcommittee of ArbCom as outlined at WP:BASC. In such a discussion, the community may decide to lift the ban completely, to partially lift the ban, to impose their own further restrictions upon lifting the ban, etc. In practice, most community discussions go best when the banned user obeys the terms outlined at WP:STANDARDOFFER, i.e. the banned user stays away from English Wikipedia for an extended period of time, with no participation at all, usually a minimum of 6 months, the user demonstrates good behavior at a sister project where they are not currently banned, and the banned user is able to communicate that they understand the reason for their ban and how they intend to change their behavior if unbanned. Users who do this stand a much better chance of being unbanned than those that do not.

Being indefinitely blocked is not the same thing as being banned, though a user may effectively ban themselves while indefinitely blocked. A user who is merely blocked can appeal to the blocking administrator, or another administrator, using the {{unblock}} template. Users who immediately indicate their understanding of why they were blocked, and an intent to change their behavior stand a better chance of being unblocked. However, users who repeatedly file unproductive unblock requests may effectively become banned as no individual administrator is likely to unblock them; in these cases they are defacto banned in the sense that they would effectively require a community discussion to allow them to edit again, as no administrator seems to be willing to unblock them using the unblock template. Additionally, users that create multiple sockpuppets to dodge a block are also defacto banned. This is because, in practice, the community views such actions as highly disruptive, and evidence of extensive sockpupptry while blocked causes the community to treat such a person as banned, even if a formal ban discussion has never occured. Because of this, users with a history of sockpuppetry require a community discussion to allow them to edit, and thus are clearly considered banned.

I hope the above makes sense. It is quite long, but it does capture what I believe a defacto ban to mean: Any user who is treated by the community as though they are banned are banned. It isn't the need to discuss enacting a ban that makes a user banned (though that is one avenue) it is the fact that we need a discussion to allow a user to edit is the fact that makes a user banned. If such a discussion should be required, the user is banned even if no discussion enacted such a ban in the first place. --Jayron32 20:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't think I was specifically asking you to comment (I meant the collective "we"), but anyway... The preamble and bullet points look great to me, not so sure on the extended wording, so long as we (a consensus of a reasonably large group of editors) agree here on the talk page that those are the principles behind the wording, extended verbiage in the policy itself is usally (IMO) best avoided. I do take particular exception to the Standard offer bit though. Participation in sister projects should never be required by en:wiki. They are standalone projects which almost uniformly do not have anywhere near the resources we have to deal with disruptive editors, and we should not be using them as a rehabilitation colony or penal farm. Advice perhaps that good behaviour elsewhere will be considered an encouraging sign, but a requirement, never. Franamax (talk) 20:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My wording, I thought, never mentioned requirements, but rather outlined past practices. There is no absolute, and I never spoke in those. People who have demonstrated good behavior elsewhere have been unblocked more than those that have not, those that have avoided socking and have stayed away from Wikipedia do better than those that have not. We don't set rules, we describe existing practices. That's my perspective here. If the explanation bothers you, delete it. Consider only those parts that make you joyous. Try the following revision on for size:

A user is banned from Wikipedia if:

• There has been a community discussion which has enacted such a ban
• There has been an ArbCom decision which has enacted such a ban
• The user has been indefinitely blocked and multiple adminitrators have declined unblock requests over a considerable period of time
• The user has been indefinitely blocked and they have also created multiple sock puppet accounts to dodge their ban over a considerable period of time

Being indefinitely blocked is not the same thing as being banned, though a user may effectively ban themselves while indefinitely blocked. A user who is merely blocked can appeal to the blocking administrator, or another administrator, using the {{unblock}} template. Users who immediately indicate their understanding of why they were blocked, and an intent to change their behavior stand a better chance of being unblocked. However, users who repeatedly file unproductive unblock requests may effectively become banned as no individual administrator is likely to unblock them; in these cases they are defacto banned in the sense that they would effectively require a community discussion to allow them to edit again, as no administrator seems to be willing to unblock them using the unblock template. Additionally, users that create multiple sockpuppets to dodge a block are also defacto banned. This is because, in practice, the community views such actions as highly disruptive, and evidence of extensive sockpupptry while blocked causes the community to treat such a person as banned, even if a formal ban discussion has never occured. Because of this, users with a history of sockpuppetry require a community discussion to allow them to edit, and thus are clearly considered banned.

This new version avoids giving any explanation of how to be unbanned. How does that sound. Or we can try this on for size:

A user is banned from Wikipedia if:

• There has been a community discussion which has enacted such a ban
• There has been an ArbCom decision which has enacted such a ban
• The user has been indefinitely blocked and multiple adminitrators have declined unblock requests over a considerable period of time
• The user has been indefinitely blocked and they have also created multiple sock puppet accounts to dodge their ban over a considerable period of time

What does everyone think of this? Does this work for everyone? --Jayron32 00:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

• This is being over complicated. The number of socks has nothing to do with a de facto ban. It's really simple go back to last wording "If a user has been indefinitely blocked and through community discussion it is determined that no administrator is willing to lift or reduce the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been community banned."[9]. If nobody will unblock an indef'd account it is de facto banned that is the actual situation whether we include it within policy or not. Giving an arbitrary number of socks is pointless. Giving sysops power to "declare accounts" banned outside discussion is a new power and has nothing to do with de facto bans--Cailil ^talk 18:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The problem is that people feel the need to initiate pointless discussions to "ban" users who stand to chance of ever being unblocked, given their current pattern of behavior. This is an attempt to "head off" those discussions. In other words, there's no need for a discussion at WP:ANI to start "Randy in Boise just created his 150th sock. Can we start a discussion to ban them." We need to establish that, by his 150th sock, Randy in Boise is already banned, so don't bother. There doesn't have to be a discussion to formally "make" them banned. Bans should be considered to exist against long-blocked and highly-disruptive users without the need to have a vote. We need to make that explicit, because it apparently isn't. --Jayron32 18:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

1st mover advantage means that one admin decides BANs?

I noticed that when astute administrators block someone controversial they immediately bring the block up for for discussion at ANI, where predictably the community is split so there is no consensus to overturn the block, effectively allowing such admins to ban anyone under the working definitions here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The real advantage goes to he second mover, overturning a reersal of an admon action is almost always a violation of WP:WHEEL and even a single offense can lead to a desysopping. I have seen more than one occasion where a self-requested block review resulted in the block being overturned or at least shortened. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)