| Revision as of 14:40, 28 October 2007 editJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →Request for comments: Community bans: expand← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:13, 1 November 2024 edit undoIsaacl (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,421 editsm Undid revision 1254656314 by 45.229.178.3 (talk) revert apparent test editTag: Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Policy-talk|WT:BAN}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 11 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 4 | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| |algo = old(90d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy/Archive %(counter)d | |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archivebox|auto=long}} | {{archivebox|auto=long|search=yes|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=3|units=months}} | ||
| == |
== Explicit policy on third party "appeals" == | ||
| I propose two changes/additions to the page to reflect how policy is actually being enforced: | |||
| # Explicitly state somewhere that third-party appeals are not entertained, similarly to the ]. | |||
| # From the table in ], change: "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion (unless needing ArbCom review)" to begin with "After appeal, bans imposed by community consensus ...". | |||
| Background for this can be found ]. Having these two statements would have saved me time, and the time of some very annoyed administrators. ] (]) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| In ], a general consensus seems to be emerging that the wording of this policy regarding the enforcement of bans by reverting posts to user talk pages needs to be clarified. The current wording says (emphasis mine): | |||
| :I've made this proposal about a month ago, with no feedback, I'm extremely hesitant to just make the changes to such a high profile policy page. Is this a be bold situation? Do I need to get an administrator to make a change to a policy page? ] (]) 02:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{cquote|Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves (this includes article talk pages, ''reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner''). As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. Other users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take complete responsibility for that content by so doing.}} | |||
| ::The AN section you linked is now ]. Sorry, I don't have an opinion at the moment but people are generally reluctant to change long-standing wording that has generally worked. Also, there is always an ] possibility that a third-party might have a good reason to ask for an unblock of someone and that should not be shut down by more wording here. ] (]) 04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Addition to PROXYING == | |||
| The (immediate) problem is that the emphasized wording is ambiguous. At least the following interpretations seem possible: | |||
| # Edits by banned users to user talk pages should not be reverted except by the owner of the talk page, and may be restored if reverted by someone else. | |||
| # Edits by banned users to user talk pages should not normally be reverted except by the owner of the talk page, but, if nonetheless reverted, should not be restored. | |||
| # While edits by banned users to user talk pages may be reverted by anyone, the owner of the page may restore them if they wish. | |||
| # Edits by banned users may by reverted by anyone, even on user talk pages, and should not be restored. However, the choice of whether or not to revert should usually be left to the owner of the talk page. | |||
| # Users are required to revert edits made to their talk pages by banned users, and may be requested to do so if necessary. Others should generally not revert such edits. | |||
| # Users are required to revert edits made to their talk pages by banned users, and should not restore any such edits reverted by others. | |||
| ], part of this policy, limits what actions editors can take at the direction of banned or blocked users. We don't currently have any constraints placed on the banned/blocked users themselves. I'm suggesting that we add such constraints, though I don't have a draft in mind. Is there any interest in proscribing, possibly with some exceptions, directing others to edit on your behalf when subject to a site ban or site block? ] (] / ]) 02:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| While I personally find the interpretations 3 or 4 the most reasonable ones, the comments made during the discussion referenced above make it clear that this interpretation is not shared by everyone. Of course, it's also worth asking whether the emphasized part really means ''anything at all'': the first half of interpretation 4 above is pretty much what the policy would say if no special mention of user talk pages was made at all. | |||
| :Directing others to edit on your behalf while banned is ban evasion, which is discussed in {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Banning policy|Evasion and enforcement}}. One potential consequence is discussed in {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Banning policy|Reset of ban following evasion}}. ] (]) 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”? == | |||
| So I'd like to ask for opinions on how to clarify this policy. In particular, I'd like to ask whether any special mention of user talk pages in that section is required at all, and, if so, what form should it take? While considering this, a few things may be worth keeping in mind: | |||
| If it does that seems to create problems for both the editor and any Admin trying to enforce it. Note this is not a hypothetical question as it’s based on a ban from gensex with this exception. ] ] 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * Even if an edit to a user talk page is reverted, the user is still notified and may still read the reverted comment in the page history. | |||
| :The standard set of restrictions described at {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics|Standard set}} includes {{tq|page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic)}}. So admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. As a matter of practicality, they should be very clear on the boundaries of that subset. ] (]) 17:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * It is not really possible to engage in meaningful two-way on-wiki discussion with a banned user, due to the simple fact that they should not be editing in the first place. | |||
| ::I agree with isaacl. ] (] / ]) 17:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * ] says that users don't ''really'' own their user and user talk pages. We generally go pretty far to allow users to freely make their own decisions regarding pages in their user space, but no such requirement actually exists. | |||
| :::I also agree with Isaac but want to note that Contentious topics rules are set by ArbCom so we can't really come to a binding consensus here. Best, ] (]) 18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree it's not a matter for community consensus, but I also don't think we should read something into the contentious topic procedure that isn't there. As currently written, it doesn't specify that editing restrictions under the scope of the standard set must be on a broadly construed set of pages, and as far as I can recall, there is no context in the procedure that implies this. ] (]) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It seems to me that if "broadly construed" were automatically required, it would go without saying. In the vast majority of instances, it's beneficial to say "broadly construed", so it gets said the vast majority of the time. But the fact that it gets said implies that, if it had not been said, then it wouldn't necessarily be the case. We now even have page blocks, so in theory it should be acceptable to ban, explicitly, from a clearly defined narrow set of pages, if that is the chosen sanction. --] (]) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::The CT topic, broadly contrued, is where admins have these rights. Within which they may restrict a user from editing "entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic". The topic, narrowly construed, would certainly qualify for this. It may be argued that "specified" requires giving a better definition than this, but the admin is still permitted to issue such a restriction. ] ] 10:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Restricting them from the ''entire'' topic appears to effectively be a restriction broadly construed. ] (]) 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unless otherwise stated, yes. But an admin can restrict a user from any subset of these pages, including by making the restriction be narrowly construed. ] ] 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I would agree but there seems to be some ambiguity here. {{Ping|Doug Weller}} can you specify whether this is a ban from the whole topic area or a subset? ] (]) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::@] it is presumably from the entire topic as no exceptions are mentioned. ] ] 17:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::So a whole topic ban... Which isn't broadly construed? I would agree that doesn't make much sense ] (]) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Requesting a topic ban? == | |||
| Please discuss. —] <small>(])</small> 08:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Is there a way to request a ban from a certain topic? ] (]) 14:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The intent of the policy on this point seems clearly to have been to allow the user to decide whether they want to retain the comment or not... likely on the assumption that the comment would be directed to and/or about them. If a banned user posted a screed about how evil 'User A' is on the talk page of 'User B' then it ''might'' (depending on the severity/nature of the comments) be reasonable to remove it as personal attacks/disruption/harassment/posting of personal info even if 'User B' happened to agree with the complaints or just felt they should remain. However, that is all covered under other policies and practices... 'User B' doesn't get to keep personally identifying info of another user on their talk page - regardless of who posted it. Most personal attacks get left in place, but in extreme cases (death threats and the like) removing them is seldom controversial. Thus, I'd say that the only thing this section ''might'' need would be a caveat that, "reversion of user talk pages can be left to the individual page owner ''unless the comments should be removed for violation of other policies''"... or somesuch. Of course, I think that kind of disclaimer is generally assumed rather than specified for every possible conflicting situation. Id est, Misplaced Pages is 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit'... not 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit ''unless'' they have been blocked, or are an IP user looking at a semi-protected page, or are a non-admin looking at a protected page, or the server is currently down, or their IP address is auto-blocked because of another user, or...'. --] 12:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :For whom? {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Banning policy|Authority to ban}} describes who is able to enact editing restrictions (such as topic bans) and the circumstances for each case. ] (]) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Myself? ] (]) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Admins don't have power to issue TBANs based on editor request, though I guess you could request a block and then request a TBAN as an unblock condition. TBANs are not enforced by any technical measures, so they depend on the banned editor governing their own behavior, in addition to scrutiny by other editors. If your goal is just to engage in that sort of voluntary restriction with some limited accountability to others, you could put something at ]. ] (] / ]) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::A topic ban is a restriction enacted due to problematic behaviour, so the community normally won't enact one without actual poor behaviour. In any case, the most general form of a topic ban can't be enforced by a block, so if you're just trying to keep yourself from succumbing to temptation, a topic ban won't help. If there is a specific page from which you want to be blocked, see {{section link|Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy|Self-requested blocks}}, which has a link to a list of administrators who will consider your request. ] (]) 16:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Default unban appeal terms == | |||
| I think you missed one interpretation. | |||
| {{moved|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Default unban appeal terms}} | |||
| :7. Edits by banned users are not welcome here, period. While there is no obligation to do so, any user MAY revert any edit by a banned user, anywhere. Reversion of that to restore the edit as written is not permitted and can be viewed as editing on behalf of a banned editor, a blockable offense. For edits to a user talk page by a banned user, customarily it is left to that user to revert but if that user does not do so, anyone else can, and as with any edit by a banned user, the edit should not be restored as written once removed. While this is true in the general case, there are certain banned users for which this is enforced quite strictly. | |||
| Obviously I don't agree with CBD's interpretation, above, as per usual. ++]: ]/] 12:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, in the recent example of the Amorrow sock, the sockpuppet reverted vandalism and was rolled back by Dmcdevit. Dmcdevit quickly realised his mistake and reverted himself, but what if he hadn't? Would reverting the anonymous vandalism again count as "editing on behalf of a banned editor"? I don't think this should be a policy violation (let alone a blockable offence) if it was obviously a constructive edit and you reinstate it while taking full responsibility for the edit. It's like re-doing the edit as if the banned editor had never made the edit. <b>]</b> (]) 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Our administrators are empowered by the community (and the Arbitration Committee through our decisions) to use good judgment when using their administrative tools. (Clearly, Dmcdevit did so here.) This sometimes means that an administrator will ask an user to modify their conduct if it is causing a problem even if they are not breaking a specific rule. If they do not comply with a polite and clueful request by an administrator then an user could be blocked. In the recent incident, an user was blocked because he was not working well with others in a way that had the potential to cause Misplaced Pages harm. After he agreed to do so, he was promptly unblocked. There was no rigid application of rules here but thoughtful and knowledgeable administrators doing needed work. Truly, I don't see any issues that need to be sorted out here. ]] 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Past discussions on these issues ], ], and ] might be worth consideration. I believe those show that the intent has always been that edits by banned users MAY be reverted, but do not have to be, and may be restored if someone feels they are worthwhile. That is also my recollection of past practice in this regard. --] 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :] ArbCom case is also relevant. There it was again found that restoring the edits of a banned user was allowed and could be beneficial. The view that, "Reversion of that to restore the edit as written is not permitted", is inconsistent with past practice and IMO not a good idea. --] 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::OK, that may be a bit too broad, yes. But the examples given seem to apply to things in articlespace that are minor corrections, or vandalism reversion and the like. I think the prohibition should remain broad when we are talking about any other space, but especially any talk space. Because while useful edits are... useful, the opinions of banned editors are... not wanted. And most especially, if someone removes a talk page comment, there should be no latitude whatever to restore it. ++]: ]/] 11:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Conversely I'd argue that talk space is where we should be most open to contributions from such users. There is a reason after all that the ''one'' page a blocked user can edit is their own talk page... to help keep lines of communication open. I recall a minor wheel war over the reversion of talk page edits by Daniel Brandt which was squashed with the edits allowed to remain and Brandt engaged in discussion. If the edits are abusive then they can (and will) be nuked and kept gone without controversy... but we shouldn't be stating absolutes about never allowing banned users to communicate on Wiki. It isn't consistent with past reality and it sets restrictions ''against'' resolving old disputes. --] 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Edits by banned users are '''always''' reverted, and the good changes put back at leisure. The reason is to save querulousness from the banned. Morrow is an unusually unwelcome editor on Misplaced Pages, and this definitely applies to him - ] 13:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed, I've to the wording that I believe could have been mistaken as granting permission for reinstating the edits. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Factually, that just isn't true. When someone has been a contributor for an extended period and we discover that they are a banned user there is not a campaign to go off and reverse every single one of the hundreds or thousands of edits they have made. Such would be a tremendous waste of time and hugely counterproductive... for the same reasons that we don't go and reverse everything the banned user did with their ''original'' account before banning. As noted above, Brandt made edits and participated in ongoing talk page discussions while banned. Changing this policy to state such absolutes is inconsistent with past practice and encourages rigid 'scorched earth' application even in cases where it does more harm than good. --] 15:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Any policy here, even one stated in absolutist 'scorched earth' terms, is always subject to reasonableness testing, to IAR, to clueful admins doing the right thing. Brandt might well be a special case. But Amorrow is not a special case (except perhaps in the other direction). There is no useful purpose in having any of his talk page edits stand as written as there is no likelihood of resolving our dispute with him, and no dialog we wish to entertain with him... and I believe everyone who is here to help build an encyclopedia knows that. ''He is not wanted here. '''Period.''''' Certainly there was no need to let the talk page edit that precipitated this discussion stand. I suggest that the guideline be changed, but that it be simplified rather than elaborated. Strike the italicised section completely, simplifying away the special case for user pages, and rely on common sense to guide us in those rare cases where there is valid reason to let edits stand... for the main, if someone deletes a talk page edit that deletion should not be reverted, instead if there is disagreement, discuss... bring the points made up in one's own words. That's our general principle anyway, don't revert war, discuss. (using Larbot for IE related reasons) ++] - run by ] - ]/] 18:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Agreed, and there's always the rule of reason here. If a banned user reverts vandalism, it would be unreasonable to insist that the vandalism be put back in place just to accomplish a revert of the banned editor. On the other hand, 99.9% of a banned user's edits can and should be reverted, as generally they have come back to troll, cause trouble, or continue to engage in the same disruptive behavior that got them banned in the first place. The idea is, banned users are ''not'' welcome to edit, because of the fact that they severely abused that privilege. While in rare cases it may indeed be appropriate to keep a banned user's edit despite this, in almost all cases it is not. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 07:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lar, you say that Amorrow is NOT a special case... and then go on to describe all the ways in which he is uniquely unwanted. That's the very definition of a special case. This policy describes normal practice and should not be re-written to apply the standards conceived for the worst of the worst to '''all''' banned users. You say there is no point in even trying to discuss things with Amorrow. That is not true of every user who has ever been banned and thus NOT what this page should say or support. That said, I'd agree with you that the separate wording for talk pages isn't really needed... the general statement that users restoring edits take responsibility for them should be fine. That's every bit as true for talk page comments as it is for article edits. --] 11:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, either Brandt or Amorrow is a "special case", I guess (or both). Per Seraphimblade, I'd rather it be Brandt only, with Amorrow covered by standard interpretation, and that some of Brandts hypothetical future edits are allowed to stand because we're all being clueful in applying exceptions to a policy statement that is narrowly defined (the way you yourself just narrowed it, CBD, thanks for that), rather than Amorrow is the special case and that none of his edits are allowed to stand because we have to wrangle about whether he's an exception to a rather lax and imprecise, wikilawyerable rule. There are always going to be opportunities for ruleslawyering, it seems, and those that relish the chance to do so... but we have some control over which edge the lawyering occur on. The default ought to be, we don't want contributions from banned editors, period, subject to rare, clueful exceptions. In the triggering situation, if the policy had been this narrow way (and apparently it actually was this way, prior to 1 October) Everyking would have had to make a case that this particular edit was valid... I think that's a hard case to make, but I'd much rather see a case made, or the edit restated in Everyking's own words, than see revert warring... if the case was made successfully that would be that. If this edit of yours to narrow things is allowed to stand, I think we're done here, the policy got successfully revised/clarified. So thanks. ++] - run by ] - ]/] 15:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| This seems to be a case of the "two party system" of Misplaced Pages politics rearing its head again, where the two parties are the "Live and Let Live Party" and the "Scorch the Earth Party"... the philosophical divide is over whether the default condition should be in favor of maximum freedom and tolerance, with narrow exceptions being made in rare cases where justified, but the burden of proof being on those making them; versus one where the default condition seems to be a rigid, fortress-like mentality where all the "good editors" are hunkered down in a bunker, circling their wagons against a horrible enemy against whom they should shoot first and ask questions later. ] 16:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Scorch the Earth? Gimme a break. Even by your classification, banned editors would be those rare cases where exceptions would be made and their freedom restricted. These users are banned for a reason and aren't allowed to edit, full stop. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well DanT has a point you know, there is a dichotomy in possible philosophy, and Misplaced Pages has chosen the "live and let live" approach... The English Misplaced Pages has what, 5M editors? Out of those, how many are banned? I'd say the default condition is indeed "in favour of maximum freedom and tolerance", and the project has "made narrow exceptions in rare cases, where justified", by banning a very small handful of the very most disruptive editors outright. And it has even allowed for appeal and exceptions. | |||
| ::So then... I'd say the "rigid fortresslike mentality" is what you find elsewhere... you know, WR, Citizendium, places like that, where it's quite hard to contribute without making quite a bit known about yourself, where you might get banned without warning, without any process at all to getting banned, and there aren't arbcom members, a Jimbo, and 1000++ other admins you could plead your case to. So I absolutely agree with the point DanT actually made. (although perhaps not with the point he thought he was making!) ++] - run by ] - ]/] 16:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yeah, those are some good points you're making about DanT's point. ;) I guess any disagreement would center around how much slack to cut users. At what point does the assumption of good faith get overwhelmed by evidence of bad behavior? I would say that Misplaced Pages is remarkably lenient and gives users plenty of chances to reform. Some tiny percentage of users are either unwilling or unable to behave properly and end up getting banned. It's at this point where philosophies will differ. Everyone see the phrase "''''", but one side favors the "free" part and the other favors the "encyclopedia" part. The former tends to argue that reform is still possible, while the latter is more inclined to consider them a detriment to the project. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Misplaced Pages was clearly ''founded'' on the "live-and-let-live" philosophy, but it seems like with every passing day its prevailing attitude gets further and further away from it. ] 17:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Amorrow is a disturbing individual who should not be tolerated on this site under any circumstances. As far as I can ascertain he has no redeeming qualities and his behavior and interests, which largely revolve around stalking women online and off, are of a level of distastefulness that should not be permitted here. ] (]:]) 21:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Instruction creep == | |||
| I understand your thinking for opening this discussion but I think we need to remember that our policies and guidelines are never written in stone. An one size fit all policy is not desirable when dealing with complex issues. We trust our administrators to use good judgment. A legalistic, rigid enforcement of policy or guideline in this area is not correct, I think. ]] 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :In fact, I agree. Actually, my intent was to ''simplify'' the policy: I'd been kind of hoping that there would turn out to be consensus to just remove the special mention of user talk pages as unnecessary. Alas, the responses have probably gotten too heated for ''any'' consensus to emerge, except perhaps by someone being ] and not reverted. | |||
| :I think you're also right about a rigid one-size-fits-all policy being impossible: even among "hard-banned" users there are many kinds, and it just doesn't make ''any sense at all'' to act as if there was no difference between someone like ] and, say, ]. The best we could achieve, really, is making sure the policy won't recommend applying rules more suitable for one when dealing with the other. —] <small>(])</small> 07:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't disagree with removing the special wording for talk pages (and have just done so). It was only recently added and based on an off-hand AN/I comment at that. I just didn't want to see any of the more restrictive, 'we never ever leave edits by banned users un-reverted and anyone restoring them should be banned themselves', type stuff that people have been advocating added in. That'd be detrimental to the project and contrary to the history and purpose of this policy. --] 12:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with the removal of the wording concerning talk pages, but I strongly disagree with any addition that implies that edits can be reinstated based on one editor's idea of what might be beneficial. Including this type of language in the policy only benefits Wikilawyers. If an edit is indisputably beneficial (vandalism revert, typo correction), there isn't going to be anyone challenging it. Thus, the only real effect would be to provide ammunition to those attempting to justify reinstating rants and tendentious edits of banned users. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And who is actually harmed if somebody chooses to retain, on his own user talk page, some rant from a banned user (assuming it doesn't contain otherwise-banned material such as personal attacks or "outing" info)? Do we really need to go the ] or ] route? ] 17:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::How would retaining such a rant improve Misplaced Pages? ] <sup>]</sup> 17:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Giving any banned user a forum for ranting is likely not a good idea. Giving this particular user a forum is unacceptable since we need to make it clear that he is unwelcome to edit here. Banned means banned from editing. Period. Calmly removing his post with little fanfare is the approach we need to use. We can not expect support from law enforcement if we do not make a good faith effort to enforce his ban here. ]] 21:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about community bans == | |||
| Aloha! A community ban has been defined (in one variation) as a user blocked indefinitely where no administrator is willing to unblock. (In the policy page as, "he or she has been blocked long term (usually indefinitely) by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them.") | |||
| Now, my question is, Is this too strict? (Or perhaps, does it need re-worded for clarity?) I'll explain. | |||
| My concern is that it requires just one admin who is willing to unblock (and effectively, unban). What happens if there is a (or a few) long-time, non-admin editor(s) in good standing that dispute the block? If adminship is really "no big deal", as has been said, then shouldn't a user in this position also have some say in the outcome of the ban? If admins are really not a higher "caste" than non-admins, and adminship is just getting a few "janitorial" tools (like a mop), shouldn't they be equal in these regards? | |||
| In full disclosure, I have thought about this in terms of the on-going arbitration case regarding Ferrylodge. However, I do not want to discuss the details of ''that'' particular case here. I am asking a more general question. I am not disputing that community ban here, and I request others do not either. | |||
| I don't necessarily dispute the definition either, I am just seeking clarification. Is being an administrator that big of a deal that it places more value on your opinions concerning a community ban? Or can a couple of (non-suckpuppet, obvously) editors in good standing carry the same weight? Does the definition of a community ban need reworked to explain the difference (or even reword to make it stricter, and more difficult to unban someone)? Mahalo nui loa. --] 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :We are a forgiving community and do not often permanently ban users. (That is the reason that a community ban is one that last only until another admin unblocks so not permanent.) There are more than 1000 administrators that were chosen because they are thought to be trustworthy (at bare minimum meaning not a vandal, a banned user, or a troublemaker.) If not a single one of them will unblock then there is a serious problem with the editors conduct. We know that some banned user attempt to cause trouble here by coming back as sockpuppets to support users that are causing problems. For that reason while administrators listen to the opinion of editors, we can not let a small group of editors over ride the opinion of the more experienced administrators. ]] 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, that I understand that, but what makes you think an administrator is more experienced than a non-admin longtime editor? And I would doubt that you saying editors that are not admins are not trustworthy. So is it the fact that being an administrator ''is'' a big deal? Thanks for helping me walk through this. :-) --] 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::In my opinion, using administrative tools to indef block an established user is a big deal. After the community gave this responsibility to administrators, instead of Jimbo or arbitrators alone, the community became more selective about choosing administrators, I think. The community tends to shy away from promoting editors that are controversial. And administrators that use their tools in controversial ways frequently are pressured to give them up or have them removed by the Arbitration Committee. That said, being an administrator should not be a special class or status that is out of reach of most established users. In that way, we should think of it as not big deal since most established users can be one if they want to help out with the work that administrators do. Hope that helps. ]] 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Clarity == | |||
| Given the importance of this page to the project we need to ensure that it's clearly written. Some of the writing is wordy and ungrammatical, so I'd like to fix it. I most definitely '''do not''' intend to make any changes in meaning at all and if I accidentally do so please ]. Here's an example of what I have in mind. ] 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Community Bans == | |||
| The community ban wording is hopelessly confused. Surely we don't mean to give each of 1400 administrators the power to veto a ban. That would reduce Misplaced Pages's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop. That's clearly not what we want. For community bans, I propose the following wording: | |||
| Version A: | |||
| {{quote|A user is community banned if (1) no administrator is willing to unblock, or (2) there is a community consensus that the user should be banned. Administrators may '''not''' unblock to overrule a consensus to ban. However, they may appeal a ban to Arbcom, or they may attempt to generate a community consensus to unban if circumstances have changed.}} | |||
| This is in direct response to the Sadi Carnot case which is now heading to arbitration. See ]. This revised wording would save us a lot of time and trouble and help prevent wheel wars. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Isn't point 1) contradictory to the second sentence you propose? --] 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :: The two cases are connected with an "or". The second sentence specifically clarifies that administrators may not unblock in order to overrule a community consensus to ban. Feel free to suggest better wording. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::The wording could probably be tweaked for clarity, but I think there's basically two types of community bans: ] and consensus. A de facto ban is when no admin is willing to unblock. The other is when there's a community consensus that the user should be banned. A de facto ban would be terminated when any admin decided to unblock. A consensus ban would have to be overturned by ArbCom or the community, not a single admin. This is how I understand it anyway. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Version B: | |||
| {{quote|Community bans: A user is '''] banned''' if 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. }} | |||
| I think this says what we actually practice. With compliments to ChazBeckett. - ] <sup>]</sup> 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Something to that effect would be an excellent idea. The policy also has a serious omission: it conflates all community bans with sitebans. The community can and does issue article bans and topic bans, usually by consensus discussion. Wherever feasible, these lesser restrictions should be preferable over the extreme measure of sitebanning. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Check the talk page of {{user|Tony Sidaway}}. We're actually in complete agreement. We should work with him to hammer out the wording so this policy will be clear to everyone. I think it's being misunderstood badly by a couple of admins. - ] <sup>]</sup> 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::Further discussions have been going on at ] and at ]. There's broad input. We need to fix this ambiguous and internally inconsistent policy so that it reflects the consensus that we practice. Let me try a few edits and see whether anyone dislikes enough to revert.- ] <sup>]</sup> 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Request for comments: Community bans== | |||
| <div class='messagebox' style='border:thin solid blue'>] Fixed RFCxxx template - changed section param in template to match section heading. ]/]/] 05:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)</div> | |||
| {{RFCpolicy|section=Request for comments: Community bans !! reason=How are community bans created? !! time=23:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)}} | |||
| The current wording of the community ban section is confusing, and seems to encourage administrators to revert each other. Bans are serious. Shouldn't they always be discussed to achieve an overt consensus? I don't understand why we would allow a block to automatically become a ban. Also, do we really want to give each of our 1400 administrators the power to overturn a ban without discussion. That seems wrong. If a ban needs to be undone, it should be discussed, and there should be a consensus to reverse. I think this policy needs to be rewritten for clarity and common sense. - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually, I tend to agree. That particular language seems a relic of the days when "everyone knew everyone", so to speak, and a long-term ban of an editor would be a big deal and involve discussion among tons of people. Anymore, we indef-block people all day long. Most of them are just vandal-only accounts that no one in their right mind would object to an indef block on, but in other cases the situation is more complex and bears some discussing. If a reasonably well-publicized discussion occurs, and no admin indicates willingness to unblock, I think we can safely assume at that point the community has expressed that the editor in question is no longer welcome here. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 04:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::What if there are one or two hold outs, but there's still a consensus to ban? What does that mean? Do we run by consensus, or does that case go to our already overloaded Arbcom? - ] <sup>]</sup> 05:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Comment''', I've already discussed this with Jehochman, but I am completely opposed to (from a ban being when no admin is willing to overturn to a the definition of two types of bans—de facto and consensus). There have been problems with abusive use of "consensus" bans, leading to the MfD of the Community Sanction Noticeboard, and two cases before ArbCom now. I don't believe this change should be put into place without broad input from ], ] and ]; has this change been proposed and notified to all of those places? When changing important policy pages, broad consensus should be developed. ] (]) 15:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| **No change has been made. I reverted that because you objected. Instead, I opened this RFC. - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ***ah, thanks, Jehochman, that's a relief. I'd just like to see broader consensus and input before changing policy, particularly with two very different situations before ArbCom right now. Best regards, ] (]) 15:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ****You're welcome. Arbcom can't write policy. We have to do that here. - ] <sup>]</sup> 15:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *****I know, but it seems premature to change policy without broad input while they are looking at what (if anything) went wrong where. ] (]) 15:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ******NewYorkBrad and Daniel have both said they are confused by this policy. This discussion is going to last a long time, I think. The sooner we start, the better. We don't want to write policy based on specific cases either. That can lead to bad policy.- ] <sup>]</sup> 16:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::I want to see if I understand the current policy, and the issues being raised here. An indefinite block has the same ''effect'' as a ban, but it can be overturned by any administrator if the blocked user can convince them to do so. A community ban can not... it can only be overturned by the community, ie through arbcom. Is this correct? If so, I can see the potential for conflict, where a blocked user has convinced one admin to unblock him, against the wishes of the admin or group of admins who placed the block... Is this what people are concerned about? ] 20:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::That in a nutshell is the concern. This policy appeals to conflict with ] which is one of the ]. - ] <sup>]</sup> 20:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I don't think that summarizes my concern, but I could be messing up on the terminology involved, so please bear with me. My understanding is that there is a difference to begin with between an indef block and a community ban; that a community ban could only be imposed certain ways (and consensus as we understand it in most contexts was *not* one of them). One of those ways (aside from ArbCom, Jimbo, etc.) was that a community ban was an indef block that no admin was willing to overturn. As soon as any admin disagrees and is willing to overturn, there can be no ban. Yes, one admin has veto power, to use Jehochman's terminology. | |||
| ::::I was directly affected by this principle, in a situation where there was overwhelming consensus to community ban a user harassing and severely attacking me (beyond anything I've seen in any of the recent ArbCom cases), but *one and only one* admin agreed to mentor, so there was no ban. Please read; it's instructive as to how the AN noticeboard should work in discussing community bans. Although I was on vacation, the discussion took four days, and I was able to weigh in and be heard even with limited internet access. It was carefully deliberated. Even though I continue to deal with this situation, I have become convinced over time that the person offering to mentor was completely right in terms of preventing longer term damage, and that I and Wiki would have been dealing with more damage over time if the user had been community banned. I understand that if I tire of the situation, it is up to me to bring an ArbCom case. That used to infuriate me (that I, as a completely innocent party, wasn't more protected), but having observed recent events, I now understand that the converse—the abuse that occurred at the Community Sanction Noticeboard—results in much more harm to the project and has the potential to chase off good, productive editors. Groups of editors should not be able to band together with one admin to declare a super-majority and site ban another editor ''when other admins disagree and are willing to overturn''. If any admin disagrees with a ban, the block should be lifted and it should continue to go to "higher powers" as it always has; that is, ArbCom. This prevents abuse of "consensus" (which lately seems to be any WikiProject that can get a large enough membership to wield their power against users they don't like); I'd rather deal with the situation I live with than see editors banned by super-majorities without a "fair trial". | |||
| ::::We need checks and balances when it comes to site bans, and they should not be handed out "like candy". And I say that as an editor 1) whose Wiki-life would be much easier if the consensus version of site bans had prevailed a year ago and 2) who fully agrees that Sadi Carnot should be site banned by ArbCom. I just think the greater danger is in having no ArbCom check and balance on site bans. The person who harassed and attacked me will never chase me off of Wiki; witnessing abusive bans will make me no longer want to give my time and effort to this Project. Yes, Wiki is larger than it was a year ago and there are more problems; there is equally more potential for users to band together and abuse of bans. | |||
| ::::I've been wrong before <shrug>. ] (]) 21:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::::OK, if that's what we do in practice, and many people seem to want this level of protection against an angry mob, the guideline should state clearly that any administrator can veto a community ban by agreeing to mentor the troubled editor. That said, an administrator should not unblock a user against consensus, because ] takes precedence over this policy. The administrator should say, "I am willing to mentor this person, will you please unblock them," to the blocking admin. If the blocking admin refuses, then the case goes to Arbcom, as any situation where administrators can't resolve their disagreements. Remember, block and bans are different. A single administrator could veto a community ban, but that doesn't give them carte blanche to revert a block without discussion and consensus. Is this formulation workable? - ] <sup>]</sup> 21:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Agree with you on the mentorship, disagree that consensus applies to ban and on no unblocking in the interim. Consensus should not be a means of imposing a community ban or indef block; AtbCom, Jimbo are. If one admin disagrees on indef block, discussion should ensue, perhaps the block can be left in place for a month while discussion ensues (as in the case I was involved in above), but there is no indef ban by definition when one admin disagrees. It's not fair to those how are convicted without a trial to remain indef blocked. (Separately, IMO, PS62 still should have discussed *before* unblocking SC to avoid wheel warring, even though s/he was in the right to unblock according to policy then. Discussion should have proceeded on AN as it did in the link I gave.) If SC is unblocked now, plenty of eyes are on him; we can deal with this. Abuse of super-majorities imposing site bans is a more dangerous problem. ] (]) 22:00, 26 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Shall we say: When an estalished user is blocked indefinitely, the blocking admin usually reports the block at a central place, such as ]. Any administrator can propose conditions for unblocking, such as mentorship, probation or topic bans. If the community and the blocked editor agree on terms the block may be lifted. If not, the case may be appealed to Arbcom. Sometimes, no administrator is willing to propose conditions for unblocking. In those non-controversial cases, where there has bee broad notice, the indef blocked user is considered banned by the Misplaced Pages community. How's that? - ] <sup>]</sup> 00:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Are you following the Miltopia case on AN/I? <sheesh> Anyway, no, I still think that's a bit backwards and that the Z case I linked above was done correctly. You block for a week, extend to a month if the abuse continues while you're discussing at AN, and *then* bring up the possibility of an indef block/ban at WP:AN, exactly as was done in the case I linked. If no one agrees to mentor or if no one opposes the block, then you can call it a ban. If an admin opposes the ban, you can't ban, it may end up at ArbCom. But based on the Miltopia case on AN/I right now, no one seems to respect policy anyway, so what the heck, all bets are off here. ] (]) 00:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Miltopia is another mess caused by this stupid notion that admins can unblock each other without discussion and consensus. If an admin does something wrong, talk about it, get agreement, and then act. If you can't agree, go to Arbcom. Sandy, your proposal about one week to one month to indef is the same as my proposal in practice. Indef means, "until unblocking arrangments are made." We can talk about the block and see if anybody can suggest reasonable conditions for unblocking. If nobody even makes a case to unblock, the user is effectively banned. If somebody makes a case, we either come to an agreement after trying for a while, or we go to Arbcom. The length of the underlying block really makes no difference. Any case that can't be resolved with less than seven days of discussion is going to Arbcom anyhow, and they'll deal with the length of the block. We need not worry about the details when the effective result is the same. - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:23, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is where we may differ, but I'm not sure: it should be spelled out that indef blocking a user when another admin is willing to unblock should never be done. If another admin is willing to unblock, you either don't indef block to begin with, or reduce it to a finite period while discussion ensues. Do we agree on that part? ] (]) 02:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I am a computer scientist, so I hate degenerate cases. A one month block is logically the same as an indef block if we are going to spend 7 days discussing and then either lift the block or make it indefinite. There's no difference, so why add the extra complexity to policy. | |||
| ::::Perhaps you would be happy if we don't specify the length of the block at all. How about: "after blocking a user for an appropriate length of time per ] the case can be discussed at WP:AN to see if any admin is willing to propose conditions for unblocking. If no admin is willing to propose conditions for an unblock, the block is extended to indefinite, and the user is considered banned by the community." - ] <sup>]</sup> 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I see no reason to "strengthen" the community banning process, and indeed I would recommend abolishing ] althogether. Any member of the community may request an admin block either directly to any admin or on one of the many noticeboards. The admin may block in accordance with ] or, in exceptional cases, outside of ] on the basis of general WP principles. In the second case, the block should, at the very least be reported on ANI. If no one overturns the block, the block stands. If someone overturns, there is a discussion as to how to deal with the problem, at any reasonable forum including ArbCom. There is no need for a voting process which has been shown on multiple occasions to degenerate into a pile-on witch hunt (see the MfD discussion for CSN for more details on this point) and would actually make it more difficult to police WP because of the consequential erosion of the concept of fixed, written policy. ] 10:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC) <small>For technical reasons, I appear to have lost my login before that edit was processed. It is mine. ] ] 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :Consensus supports some form of community banning. The policy will almost certainly be changed, because the current wording encourages non-consensus admin reverts, sometimes called wheel warring. One admin should not revert admin without discussion and consensus. If consensus isn't achieved, then the case can be referred to Arbcom. As an IP user you might have an undeclared interest in this matter. If you login any connection would be visible, giving people a fair chance to judge your remarks in context. - ] <sup>]</sup> 12:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Community consensus has rejected the Community sanction noticeboard. Policy allows a single admin to stop a <s>witch-hunt</s> "community ban" by unblocking and taking the consequences. These are the points that you're forgetting, not to mention any philosophical questions as to the "]", or to put it another way, how can we get users to abide by policies which can change at any minute. ] ] 13:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :::If you read the MfD, you will see that the decision was to move the discussions to a more central place, not eliminate the process. The objection to CSN was that it was a poorly watched venue where users could have their fate determined by a small number. I've alerted the arbitration committee about your comment, because it's troubling that you still support the idea of administrators reverting each other without discussion. That's very troubling. - ] <sup>]</sup> 14:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:13, 1 November 2024
 | 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 |
 Archives | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Explicit policy on third party "appeals"
I propose two changes/additions to the page to reflect how policy is actually being enforced:
- Explicitly state somewhere that third-party appeals are not entertained, similarly to the page on blocks.
- From the table in WP:BLOCKBANDIFF, change: "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion (unless needing ArbCom review)" to begin with "After appeal, bans imposed by community consensus ...".
Background for this can be found here. Having these two statements would have saved me time, and the time of some very annoyed administrators. Epachamo (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've made this proposal about a month ago, with no feedback, I'm extremely hesitant to just make the changes to such a high profile policy page. Is this a be bold situation? Do I need to get an administrator to make a change to a policy page? Epachamo (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The AN section you linked is now archived here. Sorry, I don't have an opinion at the moment but people are generally reluctant to change long-standing wording that has generally worked. Also, there is always an WP:IAR possibility that a third-party might have a good reason to ask for an unblock of someone and that should not be shut down by more wording here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Addition to PROXYING
WP:PROXYING, part of this policy, limits what actions editors can take at the direction of banned or blocked users. We don't currently have any constraints placed on the banned/blocked users themselves. I'm suggesting that we add such constraints, though I don't have a draft in mind. Is there any interest in proscribing, possibly with some exceptions, directing others to edit on your behalf when subject to a site ban or site block? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Directing others to edit on your behalf while banned is ban evasion, which is discussed in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy § Evasion and enforcement. One potential consequence is discussed in Misplaced Pages:Banning policy § Reset of ban following evasion. isaacl (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?
If it does that seems to create problems for both the editor and any Admin trying to enforce it. Note this is not a hypothetical question as it’s based on a ban from gensex with this exception. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The standard set of restrictions described at Misplaced Pages:Contentious topics § Standard set includes
page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic)
. So admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. As a matter of practicality, they should be very clear on the boundaries of that subset. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)- I agree with isaacl. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also agree with Isaac but want to note that Contentious topics rules are set by ArbCom so we can't really come to a binding consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it's not a matter for community consensus, but I also don't think we should read something into the contentious topic procedure that isn't there. As currently written, it doesn't specify that editing restrictions under the scope of the standard set must be on a broadly construed set of pages, and as far as I can recall, there is no context in the procedure that implies this. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if "broadly construed" were automatically required, it would go without saying. In the vast majority of instances, it's beneficial to say "broadly construed", so it gets said the vast majority of the time. But the fact that it gets said implies that, if it had not been said, then it wouldn't necessarily be the case. We now even have page blocks, so in theory it should be acceptable to ban, explicitly, from a clearly defined narrow set of pages, if that is the chosen sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The CT topic, broadly contrued, is where admins have these rights. Within which they may restrict a user from editing "entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic". The topic, narrowly construed, would certainly qualify for this. It may be argued that "specified" requires giving a better definition than this, but the admin is still permitted to issue such a restriction. Animal lover |666| 10:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to me that if "broadly construed" were automatically required, it would go without saying. In the vast majority of instances, it's beneficial to say "broadly construed", so it gets said the vast majority of the time. But the fact that it gets said implies that, if it had not been said, then it wouldn't necessarily be the case. We now even have page blocks, so in theory it should be acceptable to ban, explicitly, from a clearly defined narrow set of pages, if that is the chosen sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree it's not a matter for community consensus, but I also don't think we should read something into the contentious topic procedure that isn't there. As currently written, it doesn't specify that editing restrictions under the scope of the standard set must be on a broadly construed set of pages, and as far as I can recall, there is no context in the procedure that implies this. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I also agree with Isaac but want to note that Contentious topics rules are set by ArbCom so we can't really come to a binding consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Restricting them from the entire topic appears to effectively be a restriction broadly construed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unless otherwise stated, yes. But an admin can restrict a user from any subset of these pages, including by making the restriction be narrowly construed. Animal lover |666| 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree but there seems to be some ambiguity here. @Doug Weller: can you specify whether this is a ban from the whole topic area or a subset? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back it is presumably from the entire topic as no exceptions are mentioned. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- So a whole topic ban... Which isn't broadly construed? I would agree that doesn't make much sense Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back it is presumably from the entire topic as no exceptions are mentioned. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I would agree but there seems to be some ambiguity here. @Doug Weller: can you specify whether this is a ban from the whole topic area or a subset? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Unless otherwise stated, yes. But an admin can restrict a user from any subset of these pages, including by making the restriction be narrowly construed. Animal lover |666| 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with isaacl. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Requesting a topic ban?
Is there a way to request a ban from a certain topic? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- For whom? Misplaced Pages:Banning policy § Authority to ban describes who is able to enact editing restrictions (such as topic bans) and the circumstances for each case. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Myself? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Admins don't have power to issue TBANs based on editor request, though I guess you could request a block and then request a TBAN as an unblock condition. TBANs are not enforced by any technical measures, so they depend on the banned editor governing their own behavior, in addition to scrutiny by other editors. If your goal is just to engage in that sort of voluntary restriction with some limited accountability to others, you could put something at WP:RESTRICTIONS#Voluntary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- A topic ban is a restriction enacted due to problematic behaviour, so the community normally won't enact one without actual poor behaviour. In any case, the most general form of a topic ban can't be enforced by a block, so if you're just trying to keep yourself from succumbing to temptation, a topic ban won't help. If there is a specific page from which you want to be blocked, see Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy § Self-requested blocks, which has a link to a list of administrators who will consider your request. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
- Myself? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Default unban appeal terms
Moved to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § Default unban appeal terms