Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 26 March 2014

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.

Shortcut WT:BAN

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Seeking clarification

First up, I'm a party to a recent mutual WP:IBAN, and I'm still feeling my way as to where the limits are. The other party is not important here, and I talk of generalities and hypotheticals, but still let us keep the proprieties in mind, and I mention it for that reason. Under WP:BANEX, I may ask for necessary clarifications about the scope of a ban, and that's what I am doing here.

• Hypothetical. Let's say that I begin a discussion on the talk page of an article. Maybe I'm looking for sources for statistics on firefly fatalities. Several editors jump into the discussion, and we discuss reliable sources, the role of spring and seasonal impacts. A free and wide-ranging discussion as one often encounters here. Suddenly I notice that the other editor in the interaction ban has participated in "my" discussion topic. He is responding to another editor, and I am not mentioned directly or indirectly. There is no interaction, but still it is my topic goddammit. Am I entitled to knock on an admin's door and demand they drop a block on the other guy?

• Clarification. Under WP:BANEX, I'm allowed to ask an admin to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once). So when an admin states that You are welcome to seek redress elsewhere, of course, is this truly the case? I can take my complaint from admin to admin, or to ANI?

Any guidance gratefully accepted. --Pete (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me that User:Drmies adequately addressed the issue at User talk:Skyring#IBAN, Talk:Operation Sovereign Borders. He declined to block you, but he warned you not to continue. Surely you aren't challenging his decision not to block you? Since User:HiLo48 opened that particular thread at Talk:Operation Sovereign Borders I don't see how one would think that it's your topic. Also the request came from HiLo48, not from you. You did not complain that *he* broke the interaction ban, and it's hard to see a case for any such complaint. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us consider the hypothetical raised, if you please. I am not seeking to review the past, but to find illumination for the future. I mentioned fireflies, as a shining hypothetical example. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not complicated. If two users are banned from interacting with one another they should not both be participating I the same discussion. So if a user sees a discussion that was started by the user they are banned from interacting from they should stay out of it. Period. I hope that's clear enough for you. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Skyring, if you want to raise a general question, you must be asking about the two things you mention:

1. 'Am I entitled to knock on an admin's door...' Yes, once.
2. 'seeking redress elsewhere'. User:Drmies must be offering HiLo48 a chance to appeal to ANI if not satisfied. The policy as currently worded does not encourage appeal from the single admin's decision, although Drmies is willing to allow it in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm looking for general wikipolicy here. One appeal to an admin on a perceived IBAN vio, then possibly bump up to ANI and I guess an appeal to ArbCom is theoretically possible. But no admin-shopping, yeah? --Pete (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Beeblebrox. The wording I'm puzzling over is this: Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other…. Perhaps the wording on the page could be modified to include your clarification that discussion topics are owned by editors? --Pete (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You are asking about things that are not in the policy as written. Admins will probably use common sense. Like treating a change in another editor's section heading as being a violation. And your appearance in HiLo48's thread as being injudicious. As always, feel free to propose changes in the policy, etc. etc. EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Let us consider the hypothetical case, if you please. I'm asking about the precise wording of the policy for my own future guidance, and that of others, including admins. If discussion topics are owned by editors for the purposes of identifying violations, then that should be included. For clarity. --Pete (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'll give you a less-than-hypothetical case. User A and B have an IBAN. User A starts a thread on a talk page, user B stays out of that thread. End of case. I really don't understand the complications here, and I detest this kind of wikilawyering: it suggests not a difficulty with any kind of policy, but rather a willful ignoring of common sense for the purpose of...what? EdJohnston's comment, above, is absolutely on the money. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for guidance, and I will accept guidance. That's the way things work best. My interpretation of Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other… was that two editors with a mutual IBAN could edit the same page. And that they could edit the same discussion. The question of who creates a page or who commences a thread is not mentioned in policy. That's why I responded to an uninvolved editor on the talk page for the purpose of improving the article. We negotiated an included table with some useful figures taken from a reliable source. If the consensus here is that editors "own" discussions, and it seems to be trending that way, then I will observe that consensus. There are very few in this community in a position to say, "well, I'm going to ignore consensus developed by senior editors and follow my own interpretation," and I am certainly not one of them. I came here for clarification and I used a hypothetical case for that purpose. Simple as that. --Pete (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that this is old territory for some admins in this discussion, but it's new to me. Browsing through the archives of this page I note that this point has been raised before. One such admin offers his opinion that, "We should try to make IBANs work, if we can, allowing some slack in the enforcement when people appear to be genuinely confused."

Well, that's how I started off - confused over the imprecision of the wording - but on looking through the archived discussions I can see why the wording of the policy is not made more explicit and prescriptive. It allows some common-sense latitude for all parties. On that note, thank you to all involved for their advice. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, this is really all about me. I think I have a right to comment. Pete/Skyring has created what he calls a hypothetical, but it just happens to be the reverse of what actually happened (so hardly a hypothetical), with one major difference. He also claimed "The other party is not important here." Well, it is important. He has been stalking me for years, hence the IBAN. What actually happened is that I began a discussion on an article Talk page. Pete/Skyring joined the thread. But he didn't just contribute to the thread, which I regarded as a breach of the IBAN in the first place. He changed the name of the thread, to something more controversial and confrontational, without even an Edit summary explaining why. Now, the title of the thread was my words. I am the first poster. To anyone looking at the thread later it would inevitably look like I wrote the new title. And I didn't. After having the problem pointed out to him, Pete/Skyring changed the title back, with an incredible edit summary of "I shouldn't have changed the heading title. Please forgive honest mistake." This is all from an editor who is constantly claiming an in depth knowledge of policy and rules here, and fighting battles on that front. (That's really what he's doing here.) One cannot change a thread title accidentally. It was obviously deliberate. The absence of an Edit summary may have been a mistake (that's surely questionable for a person of his experience and claimed expert knowledge), but changing the title I wrote wasn't. Readers can possibly guess my opinion without me having to state it. I wrote on Drmies' Talk page about it, Pete/Skyring copped nothing more than yet another warning, and now we're here. (Riddle: When is a warning not a warning? When it's a Misplaced Pages warning. You can repeat offend, and get just another warning, then repeat offend, and get just another warning, then repeat offend, and get just another warning, then....) I guess I'm seeking clarification too. I kept my side of the IBAN. Pete/Skyring didn't. Why is he even allowed to come here seeking more rights to hassle me, with still no further consequences? (I sit here patiently awaiting the chance to see Pete/Skyring receive yet another warning.) HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

A PS to that: Pete/Skyring claims that in contributing to the thread he "negotiated an included table with some useful figures taken from a reliable source." At that point, having seen him post, I felt unable to respond with my thoughts on that matter without breaching the ban myself. An IBAN cannot allow one of its subjects to take over a discussion commenced by another. Could I have disagreed with his proposal without breaching the ban? I don't think so. His claim is actually evidence of a breach of the IBAN. HiLo48 (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• An interaction ban is not intended to establish "justice"—who is right and who is wrong does not matter. The purpose of an IBAN is to stop the drama, and there is no possible way to misinterpret WP:IBAN other than plain obstinancy. If someone inadvertently breaches an IBAN, they back out quietly and quickly, and they do not start threads debating the issue. Pete/Skyring should probably be blocked, not for an inadvertent IBAN breach, but for the WP:NOTHERE mentality exhibited at User talk:Skyring and above. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point here. I think the IBAN is a good thing. It did, for four weeks, stop the drama. But now it's been breached. (After only four weeks, of course!) That where the justice issue comes in. (I guess a warning will be issued, as always...) HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

• • Skyring, if all this isn't enough guidance for you then I don't think there's anything else that could be done. The best thing you can do right now is bow out of this conversation, let's say "per Johnuniq". Further disruption (yes, this qualifies as disruption) is blockable, and I will not hesitate to block you for any infraction of the IBAN's letter or spirit, or for any further wikilawyering about the boundaries of envelopes. My cup of GF is nearly empty.

    HiLo, I have no easy answer for your quandary. If you chose to reply to that comment, once, purely about content, in neutral terms without naming names and whatnot, I couldn't fault you for it--as long as you don't in turn start pushing boundaries. Well, I might tell you to not do it again, but I just did, really. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't reply, and I think I that was the right thing, and don't intend to reply, but I still object to Pete/Skyring claiming credit for something he did while, IMHO, breaching the IBAN. And so, he's got his warning again, again, again....? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

How long should community ban discussions run?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Survey

• At least 7, and preferably 14. Anything less is unlikely to gather the diversity of opinions needed for such a long-term and difficult decision to reverse. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Ooops An RfC based on the wording above is not going to resolve anything. It is quite common for discussions at WP:ANI to reach consensus on a community ban in a short time because 24 hours is plenty for the experienced lurkers at that page to come to one of three conclusions—yes, CBAN is appropriate; no, it's not; or, more time needed. The latter occurs when someone says "but what about X?", where X is a factor that had not previously been discussed, and which seems pertinent, but where ANI is not a good place to examine the issue because it involves more detail than is suitable for that noticeboard. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying the discussion should have been moved somewhere else before being closed? In this case it only took 48 hours for a pile-on to convince an experienced ANI lurker of a "consensus" that 7+ days would certainly have shown to be a much more equal divide, if not an entirely opposite picture. Since User:TParis has declined my request, how will we ever know? I suppose it's only a matter of time before it happens to any of us. What's the point of investing time and effort into editing at all, if a political railroad pile-on can end it at the whim of the mob in 24 hours? EllenCT (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

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

• Sounds like we need a version of Listen To Misplaced Pages that has popcorn sound effects and can be pointed at specific sections of specific noticeboards. The on-duty uninvolved closer for that particular ban discussion could then leave it running in the background (while working on other things) so that they'd know when the popcorn was ready. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion

Yes, I know about WP:SNOW. Yes, I should have asked the question with WP:SNOW in mind. Yes, this is a Wiki so I would be glad if you would close this RFC and open the correct one. No, I don't think it is a waste of anyone's time. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Which "you" are you referring to as for closing this? And who'd be the editor to open a new one? – S. Rich (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Any one with the competence to ask the question formulated well enough to take account of WP:SNOW. EllenCT (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that leaves me out. – S. Rich (talk) 23:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, what should probably be WP:SNOW'ed and closed is this discussion. More seriously, EllenCT is correct that ban discussions should go on for a reasonable length of time given all the circumstances. But for all the reasons discussed above, interposing a defined time minimum isn't the best way to ensure this. (Not commenting here on any specific discussion.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Historically, this came up before, when we made CBAN a procedure and established length recommendations. Both a longer dueation ("bare minimum 48 hrs" and no-SNOW were ideas I pushed for. Shot down.

The idea of not letting it run longer and build up more of a disruptive discussion (largely, damaging to the bannee) was the main counterarguement.

As written, there is something left to be desired. The MM case did comply with my original preferred practice.

Ellen and MM both point out that, unlike arbcom cases, ability to defend onesself is limited with CBAN. One can identify CBAN as akin only to the 'proposed decision' at Arbcom cases - community members already having seen the history and having opinions about activity. There is still some disparity. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that the community prefers quick knee-jerk lynch mobs, but I don't know how to formulate the question to accommodate both WP:SNOW for e.g. clear vandals and enough time for political railroad pile-ons to be resisted. But a lot of the survey respondents above are simply following my contributions here, and probably hoping to do the same to me some day soon. Someone else should re-open this with a reasonable question accommodating WP:SNOW to get less response from people who don't like what I have to say. EllenCT (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, when you voted at ANI, were you basing your vote on your previous interaction with the editor, or did you read the links I and other editors posted? I saw nothing actionable in his contributions to the articles where you had contact with him. However, in the Rothbard article, he insisted on using an article (or opinion piece, depending on your perspective) which claimed Rothbard in his newsletter had supported David Duke when he ran for governor of Louisiana. Even when it was pointed out to him that the newsletter did not mention Duke during the campaign, the editor continued to insist that we include the claim. And there are examples of similarly unhelpful discussions. TFD (talk) 21:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think re-discussion of a specific editor is helpful here and it was a mistake to be so particular in the RFC statement. Regarding the issue of WP:SNOW closes, I would like to point out that CBAN is not typically the means for dealing with obvious vandals. They get blocked by admins without the need for any significant community discussion. SNOW closes for turning down obviously bad ban proposals ought to be allowed for, but we don't need to provide for rapid positive closes to ban vandals. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is that evidence was presented and most of the 40+ editors who responded read and accepted it. Some even provided evidence of their own. The reason for this proposal I assume is that the proposer assumes the editors who replied did not consider the evidence. TFD (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Evasion

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

Sometimes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Involved/Uninvolved editors in Community ban

• Community bans and restrictions section reads in part:

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (preferred) or on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response.

• In the close of this WP:ANI the closing Admin wrote:

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

This issue was a couple editors repeated complaints that involved or allegedly involved editors "voted" with "Oppose" or "Support". (The discussion was not divided into "involved" and "uninvolved" sections.) Questions:

• If this is the policy, don't we need to explicitly say "involved editors" can't actually "support" or "oppose" a banning?
• Do we need to define "involved" better? Some may claim having commented on a previous ANI or having made one comment on a talk page of one of many articles in question is "involved."
• Do we need to require that there be involved and uninvolved sections?

Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Related to the quote by me above is this able which outlines how the consensus would've looked given my interpretation above, given the "not involved in underlying dispute" interpretation, and given the "never involved with subject" interpretation.--v/r - TP 21:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think it is impossible and unreasonable to force involved editors not to participate in community ban discussions/votes. For starters, there are some people whom are so active at AN/ANI that it is very hard to find editors who are completely uninvolved with them, and yet are likely to participate in a CBAN thread. Secondly, those involved in the situation are those who have witnessed things first-hand; sometimes that makes them unreliable, other times it makes them more reliable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear, assuming I have it right, the idea is just you can't say "Oppose" or "Support" but you can say "Comment" and say pretty much the same thing without drawing a conclusion - maybe not that big a deal? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter how you phrase it, this is not a sensible road to go down (the other flip side is that uninvolved editors may not understand the subject area well enough to make a call, or simply won't care enough - both are common occurrences). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Evidently somewhere - on ANI among Admins? - there was some consensus to change this. But it needs to be confirmed here. If we can't find where this consensus happened, I guess we should do a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There is discussion about the wording in the talk page archives. The intention is to prevent a group of POV editors guarding an article from getting a new editor banned over a content dispute. But unless the meaning of "involved" is defined, and editors are separated in discussion threads by whether or not they are involved, it seems pointless. TFD (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

In any event, I suggest that CANVASS be applied strictly on all !votes, and that anyone CANVASSED by a person soliciting a specific position by wording or clear inference ("you have had problems with xxx and he is being discussed at AN/I" or the like) in any way by discounted in any !vote counts where the !vote was made in accord with the !vote of the CANVASSER . This will not solve the entire problem, but it would prevent vote-stacking or pile-on situations a bit. Collect (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC) (appending per comment below) Collect (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So canvass your enemies before the vote to nullify their votes? That'd be a slick tactic. NE Ent 04:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- append !votes in accord with the !vote of the CANVASSER would take care of that small piece of potential wikilawyering <g>. Thanks. Collect (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Any proposals on specific language that would help on any of these issues? I'll come up with some in a day or two myself. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Confusing article

This page is highly confusing. It doesn't right-out tell me where to go to propose a ban of any kind. -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 00:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in there. It's a bad idea just to "go ask for a ban" without understanding the circumstances under which bans are generally issued. NE Ent 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I still couldn't find a link for ban proposals. Please redirect me there, thanks. :O -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is under WP:CBAN. Discussions take place at AN or ANI. ARBCOM can also ban editors. TFD (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

open ended bans

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

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

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

Ambiguity as to Appeal of Community Ban to ArbCom

The policy is ambiguous in one detail. It has sometimes been stated that English Misplaced Pages community bans may be appealed to the English Misplaced Pages ArbCom, but there is no explicit statement to that effect. May community bans be appealed to the ArbCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

In theory, yes, any ban may be appealed to ArbCom. Community ban appeals are heard by BASC. In practice, however, we're generally very reluctant to disturb sanctions placed by the community, and generally would do so only if there were serious questions about the validity of the ban discussion or its closure. It's not really our place to substitute our judgment for a genuine community consensus. Seraphimblade 06:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

And I would emphasise that community ban appeals are usually dismissed and referred to the community, because – as Seraph. says – we don't need to substitute our judgement for the community's. Most appeals we hear are of users blocked, usually for sock puppetry, by a single administrator. It would be best if the policy didn't direct community ban appeals to ArbCom at all. AGK 12:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I added notes to that effect. NE Ent 02:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"generally very reluctant to disturb sanctions placed by the community" is inconsistent with the acceptance of the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics case. NE Ent 02:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The principle that guides the Arbitration Committee in these situations is here. (That case involved a community sanction short of a site-ban, but the relevant principles and the reasoning behind them are the same.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Has the committee ever completely overturned a community ban? I recall one or two instances of arbcom re-instating a talk page so the user could appeal it themselves, or arbs opening an unban discussion at ANI, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone go from banned to unbanned with no community involvement. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes; there have been some (very rare) instances when a community ban was overturned directly by Arbcom, and a few other situations where Arbcom actively sought out community opinion before overturning a community or Arbcom ban. The results have been mixed, but perhaps no worse than when the community directly overturned bans. It's happened maybe 1-2 times a year on average. Risker (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:BMB - further enforcement measures

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

changing appeals procedure

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

Says who? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

One example Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256#Ban_Appeal_of_AKonanykhin NE Ent 11:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've taken it back to the non BASC version. I made the edit based on what the block template and the top of that section is about. From my reading the section is about appealing to ArbCom and they don't accept appeals by proxy so they'd have to email BASC. In any case I think emailing BASC should be there as one of the options (probably replacing "an arbitration clerk, or a member of the Arbitration Committee" with the text I added). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've made a suggested edit that I think covers both cases. NE Ent 13:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Proxy editing for banned users

KoshVorlon BOLDly removed the section that previously allowed making edits suggested somewhere by currently banned users, if an editor took responsibility, had substantial reason to believe it was productive and otherwise proper within Misplaced Pages policy, etc. I have reverted that. I believe there is the beginnings of a lean towards that position (ban = no proxy at all) in the community, however there has been significant discussion on noticeboards that supported being able to do so in some circumstances with some specific banned editors. I therefore believe that this is too BOLD for a simple BOLD change to such a serious policy.

I would like to request discussion at least here, ANI, possibly VP on whether a consensus can be generated on changing, if it is felt that the change should go forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the content of the bold edit (although I agree that discussing it is in order). A banned editor is not a member of the Misplaced Pages community (which anyone else in the world may choose to be) and may not edit. Removing the special exception is reasonable. An editor in good standing may make an edit that is the same as that suggested by the banned editor, but only because it is his or her own edit. I see no need for the weird special language that sometimes permits proxying for a banned editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the issue is that, if a banned editor suggests something, without the special language that suggested edit now becomes verboten. Even if it's actually made by another editor as their own edit. However, I would welcome KoshVorlon's explanation of his intention with the change to clarify how he interpreted the current and his proposed versions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

That's always been the purpose of the "independent reason" clause. That people abuse the independent reason clause is a separate problem.—Kww(talk) 01:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Concur with revert, policy is good as is. NE Ent 10:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• One issue seems to be whether or not the community knows that the banned editor was the source of the suggestion for the edit.  Why would a banned editor be making requests for edits public, unless it includes the idea of circumventing the ban?  On the other hand, is it really possible for a banned editor to continue to participate on a long-time basis using proxying?  So perhaps this clause is really only useful in exceptional cases, and is supported by WP:IAR.  Without either an example of abuse, or an example of where the clause has been useful, the clause is verbiage.  Perhaps we could change the clause to read, "...except under WP:IAR."  Unscintillating (talk) 08:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with the change because the removed provision is redundant and can be omitted without changing anything. Even if the clause is removed, editors will not be sanctioned for making edits similar to a banned user's if they are able to show that they are not in fact editing at the banned editor's direction. Also, the part about "verifiable or productive" is weird and should be removed in any case. What does "productive" even mean here? We're not producing anything.  Sandstein  10:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• The idea to produce an encyclopedia. NE Ent 10:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
• A correction of table syntax would fall under the umbrella of "productive", but would be hard to describe as "verifiable".—Kww(talk) 15:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I did make a bold edit in the section labeled "Proxying". If someone is site banned, allowing them to contribute in anyway on-site is a violation of the spirit of that ban. Banned means banned. If someone is Article or Page banned, allowing them to contribute to that page or that article would also be a violation of the spirit of the ban. If someone is under an interaction ban, to allow someone to proxy a message to the person they're banned from interacting with is , again, a violation of the spirit of that ban.

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

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

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

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