Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:52, 1 September 2009

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.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Banning policy page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 14 days

• 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 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Discussion about the banning policy

I think I want to initiate some kind of community discussion on the banning policy. Specifically I would like more input about the following points. I would appreciate if other editors would comment and supply the points of the policy that they would like to have clarified through community discussion.

• Guidelines for proposing a community ban and for determining consensus. Specifically:
  • In which forum such a proposal should be made? Is ANI good enough? Should banning discussions be restricted to being a possible outcome of an RfC where arguments and the any opposing sides present their viewpoints (as suggested by Abd).?
  • Which arguments should count most in favour of banning?
  • Possibly the need for establishing objective criteria for when a users disruption has reached a point where initiating a banning discussion is the best option. (I don't think "has exhausted the community's patience" is a sufficiently objective criteria) ***Establishing criteria for which venues of remedy should have been tried before proposing a banning.
• The degree to which a consensus for a ban should be composed of "uninvolved" editors. Specifically:
  • What it means to be involved vs. uninvolved.
  • The weight that should be given to involved editors opinions (from full to less to none).
• Guidelines for how an admin should weigh arguments vs. numbers of editors "votes" when closing the discussion.
  • The way in which arguments in favour of banning should relate to the banning policy.
• The distinction between community ban and an indefinite block. Specifically:
  • Whether an indef block does in fact become a ban at any point (and if yes how to determine that point) - or whether the two are distinct.
• Should there be a "record" of which users are banned so that a banning is made official only by being adduced to that record? (suggested by GoRight)

·Maunus·ƛ· 21:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Lots of questions, and I have something to say about all of them. I'm going to put my entire response in collapse, and I'll ask that any one who wants to discuss any aspect of it bring what is necessary out of collapse, I give permission to refactor, provided the paragraphs are kept intact. I'll follow with a summary of my basic conclusion.

There need be no specific standard, rather, determining the "consensus of uninvolved editors," required for a community ban, is up to the closing admin. It is a separate determination from a block decision, which is made based on preponderance of arguments, consensus isn't the issue with the block decision, and by making the declaration of consensus, if that is done, the closing admin is certifying that involvement was considered and that consensus of uninvolved editors was adequate for such an extreme remedy.

--Abd (talk) 01:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the existing rules for determining when a community ban is placed and how it can potentially be lifted are at least somewhat troublesome. I cannot see, for instance, why a community ban must necessarily go to the Arbitration Committee to be lifted. That would seem to give, somehow, the ArbCom a form of "veto power" over the community, and I'm not sure that is something that many/most of even the frankly very limited number of people who vote in Arbitration elections consider. I'm not sure how to fix it, but I do think that there is a need to change, somehow, the means by which a community ban is determined and the ways of reversing it. John Carter (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

A community ban can be lifted in one of three ways: 1/ appeal to the community resulting in a consensus to unban, 2/ an appeal to ArbCom if the first process does not yield a consensus, or 3/ theoretically, an appeal to User:Jimbo Wales, that is almost certain to be referred back to ArbCom. I think it is a mistake for ArbCom to step in and process a bona fide unban request without first seeing if the community can sort it out. Jehochman 15:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with you, but the Banning policy page only indicates the appeal to ArbCom option. If, as you I assume correctly say, there are other options, why aren't they included in the accompanying page? John Carter (talk) 15:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

See , that type of community ban can be lifted by an uninvolved admin, and the others can't? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Its a quality inherent in the wording of the policy it is just made clear. The policy says that an indef blocked user whom no administrator will unblock is de facto community banned - it logically follows that any administrator can unblock and in this way reverse the effect of the de facto ban. ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording Enric refers to could be improved. An uninvolved administrator "can" reverse a community ban, i.e., one founded upon a consensus of uninvolved editors, but is likely to face an uproar; the same is true, in fact, for a Jimbo reversal. Administrators can do anything the tools allow, under IAR, but the flip side of IAR is accountability. This is the point: there are bans, alleged to be such, where there was no discussion and consensus of uninvolved editors, but these are, properly, administrative bans, not community bans. I've been on the side considering that administrators may unilaterally issue specific bans, but when I examine the implications in detail, it's a can of worms. It's probably better to call them, simply, "warnings" instead of "bans." "Your edits to the project have been disruptive; in lieu of blocking you, I am allowing you to continue to edit for the purpose of finding a mentor. If you continue to edit as you have, see (diff) and (diff), I will block you." This is effectively an administrative site ban, with specified exception, and an unstated exception: the editor may continue to edit, if it is not disruptive. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but after exhausting the community's patience, and no admin being willing to unblock, an admin shouldn't just go and unblock without giving a good reason (like a mentorship, or good work in other wikis). And he should really make sure that he addresses the problems raised by the community. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Enric, your comment is self-contradictory in part and obvious in the rest. If an admin is willing to unblock, the "patience of the community" has not been exhausted, and the condition "no admin is willing to unblock" is demonstrated not to exist. Of course an unblocking admin should consider the welfare of the community and the project, as should any blocking admin, and all of us at all times. Nowhere has anyone suggested that the "problems raised" by involved editors should be disregarded; on the contrary, they should be addressed, with appropriate measures to prevent unnecessary disruption. --Abd (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Past after the community's patience is exhausted, and long time after it's clear that no admin informed of the situation is going to unblock the person, an uninvolved admin could appear there (for whatever the reason, like the user requesting unblock by private email or via the admin's talk page) and unblock without first informing himself of why that person was banned in the first place and without asking him not to repeat his behaviour. Fun ensues as the editor inmediately restarts editing with the same behaviour that had previously exhausted the community patience. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this shows that there is every good reason to start a wider community discussion about what we actually want the banning policy to be. If thee can be so much confusion and differing opinion about what the policy actually says it simply cannot be a well written policy. However I also see that the policy is controversial and discussing it without passion is difficult for too many editors. I have spoken my opinion of the current policy and will leave the discussion for now. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not weighed in much because I believe that you have been doing a perfectly fine job of representing the issues and so my commentary would only have been redundant. I agree with you that the core issue here, exactly WHAT should the banning policy be over-all and in this instance specifically, deserves a much wider audience than it is receiving here. Where would be the appropriate place to raise such a discussion? The village pump? Others? We could simply point people here to drawn in a wider caste of opinions. Thoughts? --GoRight (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

@Maunus. The wording is good because it agrees with current practice. It allows the community to ban disruptive users without having to go throught bureaucratic steps of opening a formal discussion, etc, even in cases where the community patience is clearly exhausted. Also, anyone disagreeing with such a ban can simply open a review at a noticeboard. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The wording is bad because it is fundamentally misleading. Your point would be more properly worded as "It allows administrators to ban disruptive users without having to demonstrate an actual community consensus upholding those bans." If you want to give administrators this level of power, and I don't, then at least don't try to call it a community action because it is not. It is an administrative action and it should be termed as such. --GoRight (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of a random thought, I hope it is constructive. It is my sense that the need for this discussion comes out of the fact that the idea of a community ban was developed long before many of our policies and guidelines. I think there was a time (yes, even before ArbCom) when there were situations where an editor was so disruptive at so many articles that after discussion on the listserve and at article spaces it became clear that many people wanted the person banned, and no other editor could reasonably defend him/her any more. At that point it was just a question of an admin (who had the technical means) using his or her own judgment that there was a general community consensus, to block the user indefinitely. This, in my mind, is still how community bans should work: a random (i.e. univolved admin) notices that a vast amount of talk space centers on discussion about how and why x is not doing anything to build the encyclopedia and on the contrary is doing a great deal to disrupt it, and the uninvolved admin blocks the person "per discussion at x, y, and z." Believe it or not this kind of ban was possible in rather uncontroversial ways back in 2002 or even 2003. Two things have changed since then. First, the community now numbers in the millions. Second, we have much clearer policies and guidelines.

I think the "community ban" has morphed into something a litle different: an admin using his or her own judgment to enforce a particular policy or guideline through a block. We call this a "community ban" when there has been a fair amount of discussion, usually at AN/I, that the person in question has violated policy or guideline x and something needs to be done about it. I'd rather call this an "administrative ban" thn a "community ban." I think in the former case, one administrator takes the initiative of blockin someone after there has been some consensus reached among other administrators at AN/I. In the latter case, it really is a bunch of interested editors (meaning, editors, working on the same articles as editor x) who really really really want to see editor x banned, and an administrator who reviews the talk, concludes that all the other editors are being reasonable, and is acting as an instrument of their will. We could still call this a community ban, even if the editors who want to see x banned are just a fraction of the community, if they nevertheless constitute the active editors at the articles x has ben editing. But for me the key thing about a "community ban" is that an admin is simply acting on the behalf of a segment of the community.

I do think that x should always have an opportunity to appeal, the question is "how." For one thing I think it is important that whoever enacts the block puts a link to the discussion leading up to the ban on x's talk page. There is a problem when AN/I discussion gets archived, the link breaks. How do we deal with this? Should the blocking admin cut and paste discussion to x's talk page? Future admins need to be aware of the discussion that led to the block. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly.

P.D.: About broken ANI links, I posted here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite blocks being considered community bans

It would seem that User:Sarah and User:William M. Connolley disagree with the discussion found here, since they have reverted the text of the policy back to:

• If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has indefinitely blocked the user and no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user may be considered community banned.

I would respectfully ask that they express their concerns here on the talk page rather than simply reverting. The text as you seem to prefer it relies on the notion that when "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" an indef blocked user may then, and only then, be considered community banned.

For the purposes of determining the point in time when this transition from merely being indef blocked to being fully community banned actually takes place, how do they propose the community would actually determine that "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" in any specific case? --GoRight (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any effective distinction between the two states? An indef-blocked individual is barred by technical means from using his own account to edit Misplaced Pages, and barred by policy from using an alternate account until the issue that caused the indef block of the primary account is resolved. Whether or not we choose to apply a particular label ('community banned'), an indef-blocked individual who cannot persuade any admin to unblock him faces the exact same treatment as any other banned editor: his edits (made under an alternate account or while logged out) can be rolled back without question, any new accounts can be blocked on sight.

What distinction in practice would you like to draw? An editor banned in this way is welcome to request the review of an uninvolved administrator through the {unblock} template. Further, an indef-blocked editor who makes a reasonable request can often anticipate a ban being brought to AN/I or another venue for broader consideration. Saying 'you're not community banned, but you can't edit and no one will unblock you' seems to be splitting some very fine hairs indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if the label doesn't matter, then why are people arguing so strenuously in favor of calling them community banned when they weren't, in fact, banned by any community discussion to that effect at all? Let's just have indefinitely blocked people be referred to as indefinitely blocked and people banned by community discussion be referred to as community banned. As you point out, the effect on the project is essentially nil and no one has disputed that.

Although Abd has pointed out, and User:Sarah has reverted his change, that administrators can unilaterally overturn indefinite blocks. They generally are not able to unilaterally override a community ban (at least not one imposed by clearly demonstrated community consensus). So, I wish to know the point in time when a merely indefinitely banned user transitions to being a community banned user so that I know the point in time when a single administrator loses the authority to unilaterally lift the user's restrictions. This seems to be a practical matter and one that will avoid any potential arguing that might ensue, correct? And avoiding such disruption is generally a good thing so why not try?

In any event the current policy seems to be ambiguous on these points and I would like to see the policy made more explicit in this regards. Do you object to having clearly stated policies which are not ambiguous? For example, should all indefinitely blocked individuals be immediately considered as community banned until they have their block lifted? If not, how do we sort out the two subsets? --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also seek clarification on how this method of banning is being reconciled with the following statement on the difference between block and bans:

• A site ban can only be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo Wales, or by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The first and third bullets in the community ban section clearly address how the community consensus will have been determined and there will remain a record that you can actually point to where the discussions and the decisions were made. In the case being discussed here, however, there does not appear to be any record of where the community consensus was demonstrated or of where the actual decision to ban was consciously made. Should this not be covered clearly in the policy? --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We're in the middle of an arbcomm case (have you heard of it) which turns, at least in part, on how these bans work. Attempting to edit-war it back to Abd's version shows poor timing at best William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it to be the height of administrative arrogance that adninistrators like Adjustshift, William Connoley and Sarah repeatedly revert edits arrived at through discussion without even being willing to participate in the discussion! If the ongoing arbcomm case meant that the bannign policy is protected form editing then it should have been ptrotected and a notice about the ongoing case should have been posted on the talk page to inform other editors that the policy cannot currently be discussed or edited - it has not been. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@ WMC : Heh, that's funny. The evolution of this policy in no way affects the deliberations in the ArbCom case. This policy said what it said at the time the events being discussed at ArbCom occurred, and subsequent changes made here to improve the policy are not retroactive by any stretch of the imagination. Ergo they have not affect whatsoever on that case. Not to mention that the changes being discussed here have no bearing that I can see on the ArbCom case at all. Abd was not an indef blocked user, was he?

As for edit warring being badly timed, let us note that you have edit warred here as well to keep what I presume is your preferred version. --GoRight (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• Multiple editors who have posted here don't have a strong understanding about how bans are conducted. Admins like Sarah, WMC, and I have analyzed multiple banning cases. Banning is done on a case-by-case basis. The banning policy page gives a general overview about how bans are conducted. I would strongly advice certain individuals who have posted here to study the history of some banned users. See Category:Banned Misplaced Pages users. One has to do lots of analysis to understand the banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you then please ammend the banning policy to say that bannings are done at administrators discretion on a case by case basis, because that is not what it says now. the banning policy is not "a general overview" it is a policy - that is it is the rulebook by which admins and editors alike have to play. And could also please show me where in policy it says that what non-administrator editors have to say about the banning policy holds no weight because they have never had to ban anyone. This attitude is about the most grievous example of administrators arrogance I have ever seen. Misplaced Pages is NOT run by Adminocrats but by editors! The fact that you have some funny tools does not mean you have any special knowledge or that your opinion weighs more.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have "special knowledge" because I have analyzed multiple banning cases, not because I'm an admin. I've not shown any "arrogance". The banning policy page can't be a "strict rule book" because banning is done a case-by-case basis. The manner in which Ecoleetage was community banned is different from the manner in which NYScholar was community banned. Ecoleetage stalked someone in RL, and was indef blocked. No admin was willing to unblock him, and the indef block turned into a community ban. In NYScholar's case, there was a discussion at WP:AN, and there was a consensus to community ban NYScholar. Please analyze the history of some banned users. The Misplaced Pages:List of banned users page is a selected list of banned WP editors. One can analyze the history of different banned editors, and develop a strong understanding about the banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to convert practice into policy by saying this is how we have banned people before so this is how banning should be done. This is not how an open democratic community like wikipedia works (and don't spit out wikipedia is not a democracy here before you have Jimbo's word that he wants administrators to be able to ban user with out observing any kind of due process). A democracy works by having the community creating rules which the administrators then have to follow. If we were to say that how to ban someone was done on a case by case basis there would be only a ruling class of administrators who can ban anyone they please just as long as they have enoug admin friends to agree with them. I certainly do not want to be part of such a community, this is not the ideals of the wikipedia I know (and I've been here since 2005 - much longer than since you became an admin four months ago). So please stop using the banning practice as an argument to keep the policy as it is. It doesn't work. The fact that people were banned without due process in the past does not mean that we have to continue doing it in the future. Your special knowledge of how banning policy has been administrated so far does not mean that your opinion about how it should be administered in the future counts more. We are not adressing the past here - we are trying to have a banning policy that is clear and that allows editors to see before hand whether they are doing something that they may be banned for. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive not proscriptive. What we actually do has precedence over what the policy says we do. Spartaz 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why bother to have a policy if we don't intend it to express the ideal way of dealing with different aspects of editing? an why bother to have apolicy if we don't try to keep it in tune with what we actually do? Please notice that we are not trying to change admins' behaviour here, or trying to clear currently banned users, but discussing how to get the policy in tune with how it is actually administered. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is often said. Now, if what we do is different than what the policy says, should we amend the policy to what we actually do? Do you realize, Spartaz, that this would mean openly stating all the various quirks of actual practice, such as how administrators sometimes back each other up and circle the wagons when actions are challenged? If any administrator can ban, keep a low profile on it, and the banned user can then be considered community banned, without there ever being a discussion and a consensus of uninvolved editors, then, fine. So state in the policy, clearly. But the problem is that the community would not allow it to be so stated. Actual practice is not in accord with actual consensus. That's the problem. The policy pages represent a kind of consensus, and actual practice deviate from that. So which prevails? To assert that actual practice prevails is to dismiss community consensus. I'm not proposing the reverse: that the text of policy pages becomes strict law. I'm simply suggesting that the matter is a bit more difficult to dismiss than can be accomplished with "Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive." Not proscriptive, by the way, though some policies do proscribe. --Abd (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz - and note that although it is of great application in a consensus-driven environment where bureaucracy does not rule (at the end of the day we have a job to do), it is actually like almost every real world workplace I have worked at. For instance, I teach students occupational health and safety and how it applies in their workplace. They learn about analysing hazards, risks, what forms to fill out, lines of authority, occupational health and safety representatives in each department and so on. They then go out into the workplace. Do you seriously think if they see a toilet roll holder balanced precariously on the 2cm-wide booth divider above someone's head (I've seen this done in at least two workplaces, believe it or not) they'll fill out a form and alert their OHS representative and attend meetings to discuss how it should be placed? No, they'll most likely remove it and place it on the floor behind the toilet where common sense says it should be placed. If they're *really* proactive, they might scribble out a quick note, "Please do not place above the booths" and stickytape it to the base. They'll probably alert their supervisor, who will not care now that the problem is fixed because they have a gazillion more important things to worry about. Policy has been wantonly, maybe even purposefully ignored, the person certainly knew the policy (they'd done a training course in it!) but the right thing has been done and the problem remedied. Of course, if you have a flickering light in your office giving people headaches and it needs specialist attention, you probably would follow the policy, although whether the person above you (OHS rep) would follow policy to the letter and wouldn't just get their boss to call up purchasing and maintenance and ask one to buy a new tube and the other to install it, is a good question. Policy is a protection to ensure things don't get completely out of hand, but it's not meant to bind one foot behind our knee and both hands behind our back when obvious action is necessary.

PS Funny story, when I was 23 and in a particular workplace, I used an OHS form as a means to get an OHS committee to consider the actions of the CEO of my company (400 employees) who kept smoking in his office and who, thanks to the distributed A/C system, had been responsible for at least one of his employees having an asthma attack. I was a very junior night shift employee and was certifiably allergic to the smoke. The OHS committee was, strangely enough, headed by the HR manager and was the only body in the entire company capable of ordering the CEO what to do because it was, apart from the Audit Committee, the only committee required by, and empowered by, legislation - i.e. the CEO would cop a $10k fine if he persisted. That is why we have policy, and why it needs teeth. Orderinchaos 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, GoRight. Manus, I don't refuse to discuss and I find your accusation insulting. I responded to messages on my talk page and I even self-reverted my edit to the page, even though I didn't agree with it, in response to your message on my talk page, but I'm terribly busy at the moment and don't have a lot of time and I haven't even been on Misplaced Pages since (check my contributions) to be able to participate so please try to assume good faith. I reverted the changes for a few reasons. The main reason I object to these changes is that it seems like you're screwing the terms of the policy in so tightly that it can only lead to wikilawyering. There's always going to be exceptions and unusual circumstances but such tightly screwed conditions leave no room whatsoever for that. I don't think it's helpful to require multiple unblock requests to qualify a block as a ban. Though that may be the usual case I think there are unusual and even unforeseeable circumstances that it doesn't allow for and it just seems like inviting wikilawyering to explicitly state that multiple declined unblock requests are required.

I reverted Abd's changes because he's trying to expand the meaning of "not involved in the underlying dispute" to such a broad extent that anyone who has ever disagreed with the user could be discounted. The phrase "not involved in the underlying dispute" simply means "not involved in the underlying dispute", not "has never previously disagreed with user" or "has never participated in any previous administrative discussions about this user". I mean, I can really imagine, for serial problem people who have had a succession of complaints about them, that we would actually run out of experienced, interested and available people who qualify in Abd's eyes as "not involved". The idea that people who handle OTRS emails about a user and who investigate complaints to ANI (such as myself, OIC and others) or who mentor the user under a community imposed mentorship (Shell), should then be discounted in subsequent discussions is absurd and it will discourage people from investigating and commenting on ANI complaints. Why bother taking the time to investigate and comment on an ANI complaint that doesn't look like an immediate community sanction proposal if your opinion will subsequently be discounted in any future community sanction proposals - arguably the more important discussion to have your comments fully weighted in. The last discussion about NYScholar closed pending mentorship. So when a new report was made to ANI, Shell naturally returned to report on the progress of the mentorship. And Abd wanted her opinion discounted, endlessly berated AdjustShift, then tried to expand the policy from "dispute" (i.e. the dispute that led to the complaint) to "disputes" (anything in the past involving this user and in SlimVirgin's case, it was a dispute from three years ago when NYScholar was socking) in order to roadblock editors, mentors and admins who had previously reviewed and commented on prior incidents. That's just crazy wild-eyed wikilawyering and I don't think it's in the project's best interest. And, most importantly, this is not our usual practice and therefore is not appropriate for the policy page because policy is, as Spartaz and Orderinchaos point out, meant to be descriptive of our usual practices. Abd is trying to introduce new practices, not describe what we already do. By all means, write a user essay about it but it shouldn't go into the policy until or unless it is our usual practice. Plus, I think Abd's position is flawed in fundamental ways, lacks balance and will pervert the results in favour of the person being discussed, but I won't get into that now as it's not really about these policy changes. While this wasn't why I reverted, I also want to note that I don't think it's appropriate for someone who is at the center of a number of disputes that center on the ban policy to be making changes to it that back up his own position. That seems to me like an obvious and blatant conflict of interest. Please do not be offended if any needed replies are slow at coming because, as I said at the start, I'm very busy and don't have a lot of time at the moment. Thanks. Sarah 04:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Appeal Committee

There is a proposal to create an Appeal Committee for sanctions imposed by administrators or the community, responsibility held until now by the Arbitration Committee. The proposal is related to a recent discussion on this talk page. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Cenarium (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to create an Appeal Committee sounds like a nice idea, but I think multiple editors will oppose it. AdjustShift (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording of policies does not agree

The Community ban section of this policy states:

"If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has indefinitely blocked the user and no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user may be considered to be community banned."

This is different than the Indefinite blocks section of the Blocking policy that states:

"If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community."

The bolded phrases are different in that one says "uninvolved administrator" and the other does not specify the involvement. Also, one says "willing to unblock", which is a little different than "will lift the block". --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will change the wording to make the policies consistent. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating edits of banned users?

As a result of discussion at , we seem to have ended up with . This looks like a change of policy. It isn't really clear to me that CHL's interpretation (etc.) is correct. I would have thought it should be discussed here rather than policy being apparently made on the hoof William M. Connolley (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the old policy as written clearly did not have consensus support, as seen from multiple recent discussions. The problem then, is how to describe a complex problem in a pithy sentence. There are many reasons why an editor might reinstate the edits of a banned user. To give two examples, a) because he wanted to create drama and piss off the people who are enforcing the original ban, or b) because he honestly believes the edit is procedurally and factually correct and he would have made it himself if had thought of it sooner. And there are lots of in-betweens. a) is almost certainly actionable, b) is almost certainly not actionable. Hard to describe in one sentence. Thatcher 18:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Agreeing with William M. Connolley. This is longstanding policy; the place to discuss a major reversal is here and not the admin boards. Administrators do not control policy. Procedurally, I will be reversing that edit and urging those who endorse it to seek consensus for change here. Per WP:CONSENSUS, no consensus defaults to status quo. Durova 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Small correction for the record. It was Boris that starting making these changes, not CHL. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  Nobody said CHL made the first change, so your "correction" is puzzling. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  "It isn't really clear to me that CHL's interpretation (etc.) is correct. I would have thought it should be discussed here rather than policy being apparently made on the hoof" - For some reason I took those two sentences as being tightly coupled and together they seem to indicate that it was CHL trying to change the policy, not you. If that was not the intent then I stand corrected (back). --GoRight (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Madness. Tens of thousands of words have gone into this at the Abd-WMC arbitration case and at who nows how many noticeboard thread involving GoRight and Abd, and the support for the strict interpretation wouldn't fill a thimble. But by all means, let's discuss it some more. Thatcher 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Depends on the size of the thimble. ;-) My argument is that policy should reflect how the place actually works. At the moment we have a policy that states "users are expected to refrain from doing X." Someone does X, not just on occasion but dozens and dozens of times. Someone else pops up and says "he did X, in fact he did X eleventy-zillion times, and policy says we shouldn't do that, so let's put a stop to it." They're met with a chorus of voices that say "How dare you! It's perfectly fine to do X, as long as you have a good reason." What I'm proposing is to say "you can do X provided you take responsibility for it." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

      "he did X eleventy-zillion times ..." - When can I expect to see those eleventy-zillion diffs?  :)

      "policy says we shouldn't do that" - No, it doesn't say that. It says you shouldn't do that without having your own reasons for doing so and if you do you take full responsibility for your action. People have been making the common sense interpretation that "take full responsibility" is referring to the content of your edit. Any other interpretation clearly says that your actions are subject to being restricted by the behavior of others. Common sense rejects such a view, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

      The change I'm proposing clarifies the policy to state that edits of banned users can be reverted if the person doing so is willing to take responsibility for them, which is the case you're making here. So I'm at a loss to understand why you're objecting to my proposal. Unless it's just habit... ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

      I objected to your proposal? Where? My comments were clarifications of the description and the rationale that preceded the proposal ... which I took to be a biased representation of the events that brought us here. I also threw in some analysis of why the recent discussions have gone the way that they have (all in my opinion, of course). The proposal itself is fine, which is why I didn't mention it, but since I am now welcome aboard. --GoRight (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

      • There is considerable support for the existing policy, and its enforcement. However, that support does seem to be largely polarised. I think Durova may have somewhat misinterpreted my point; I supported the text of the policy and its implementation. The two should be aligned. If we really have consensus for it not being implemented, then it shouldn't be. But I don't see why people reading this policy are supposed to be aware of stuff burined inside that arbcomm case, because (alll together now) that case is utterly unreadable even by those involved (proof available upon request). Various people (notably CHL; perhaps others; unsure of Thatchers personal opinion) oppose the now-restored policy's implementation (and possibly the wording too) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
        • My opinion is that it's complicated. The policy should not be interpreted so as to tolerate editors who are deliberately pushing boundaries and being pests, but it should not be interpreted so strictly as to effectively ban a particular editorial point of view. Thatcher 18:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Agree in principle, but in practice it's virtually impossible to distinguish editors who are deliberately being provocative from the others (even moreso when there are outside agendas and personal conflicts that enter the situation). Better for the policy to be as simple and unambiguous as possible.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I like the wording "Users may reinstate edits made by banned users in violation of their ban as long as they take complete responsibility for the content of those edits." If reinstatements prolong edit wars, repeat personal attacks, or are otherwise disruptive, they should be sanctioned. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That appears like a reasonable standard, although I would suggest a recommendation that it is preferable to declare the intention publicly and ideal to do so in advance (i.e., as legitimate and public proxying). During Privatemusings's siteban, for instance, he took photographs of athletes. I announced an intention to add those photographs to several articles and when no objections arose did add them. That transparency reduced the drama to zero. If everyone took a similar approach the site would operate much more smoothly. Durova 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not sure about requiring advanced notice. It seems like that just shifts the discussion to a pre-discussion rather than a discussion of the actual restoration. I don't see much value in that. I have no problem with a suggestion that when making such restorations that you announce your intention explicitly. I have done so in the past to highlight that I was aware of the policy and that I was explicitly taking responsibility for the content. At that point I consider the edit to be my own and I accept that I am responsible for its content. --GoRight (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

    • The value is the preventative against subtle POV pushing and manipulation. Also the preventative against drama. Banned editors who have nothing to hide about a proposed edit should have no fear of advance scrutiny. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Durova 02:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: we have a straw poll, to gauge support for the existing wording and its implementation (something like: do you (1) support the existing wording and (2) its implementation and (3) is this an example of blockable proxying, where "this" should be some test of the cases - perhaps one of GR's that Raul has proposed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Counter suggestion: How about we actually discuss this rather then having a vote because votes polarise positions and make compromise and consensus building much harder... Spartaz 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would support any policy that discourages reinstating edits made by a banned user, preferably with some kind of enforcement suggestions attached. IronDuke 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a statement that such restorations are "generally discouraged", but I do have a problem with a blind interpretation that says you can never again utter the same idea that some banned user once said. That is ridiculous on its face.

The only reasonable view is that the user making the restoration has to take personal responsibility for the content. It becomes as if that user had made the edit themselves and the banned user never existed. Then, if that content is damaging or otherwise problematic administrators have the full range of tools available to them to address THAT user's OWN behavior. --GoRight (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At AN/I Raul described this as "Nathan's interpretation" but honestly, I think it is and has been the standard interpretation. I don't think it is all that unclear as previously written, but to keep it from being a football in future disputes perhaps the language advising editors to refrain from reinstating edits by banned users should be removed. A warning might make sense as an alternative, e.g. "Edits made by banned users should reverted on sight; any editor reinstating such edits should be aware that they take full responsibility for the content and context of those edits and may be subject to sanction if either violate Misplaced Pages policies." Nathan 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable wording to me, although I would change "should" to "may be" since such reversion is not necessarily required. I could be convinced that "should" is appropriate, though, given the banned status of the user in question if the intent actually IS that people are expected to do such reversions as a matter of course. I only raise this as a point for conscious consideration in this discussion, not because I have an objection to such a requirement. My only objection is with the notion that constructive content cannot be restored as some people seem to feel the current wording suggests. CHL's wording also seems acceptable to me. --GoRight (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the subject interests me in that I've been the target of a stalker, on and off, a long banned user, who recently came back with an obvious sockpuppet. Editors who disagreed with me in the past made use of the obvious sock's harassing reversion of my edits, reinstating the reversions, even when I indicated this was a banned user. So... special pleading, if you like, but I'd like to see real consequences for that sort of behavior as opposed to absolutely no consequences whatever, which is what ended up happening in my case. IronDuke 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke isn't the only Wikipedian who has been abused that way. The difficulty is in what constitutes "constructive". Among the editors who get sitebanned there are a considerable number of subtle POV pushers and grudge-holders; it would open a door to abuse both in terms of the site's content and of its policy-abiding editors if we introduce an assumption that a banned editor's edits are constructive unless proven otherwise. When a banned editor has truly constructive edits to make, it is usually not hard to gain the assistance of reputable editors who are willing to put their reputations behind the edits by disclosing the intention to proxy and obtaining the consent of the community or of ArbCom, depending on where the ban originated. That was how we handled the optics improvement drive. Durova 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to your examples, the alternative is to allow Raul to ban me and every other AGW skeptic because of one banned user, Scibaby. We all know he will do it. He is already trying to do so with me. Given the choice, therefore, I obviously favor the path the leaves me not banned.

"it would open a door to abuse both in terms of the site's content and of its policy-abiding editors if we introduce an assumption that a banned editor's edits are constructive unless proven otherwise." - This introduces no such assumption. The community will either agree, or disagree, that the content being restored, in context, is either helpful or damaging using the same tools and criteria that they would if the edit were being made anew instead of being a restoration.

The fact that some banned editor said X some time in the past (and it may not even have been something that got them banned) should not be used to prevent me from saying X later as long as X is within policy both content-wise and behavior-wise. --GoRight (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I support this phrasing too. Thatcher is right that intent is an important component, which is hard to capture concisely. Durova also points out a good way to keep everything above-board. That said, I think a phrase like this one should open the paragraph. In broad strokes, this is our current practice. Other considerations can be elaborated after this statement (facially productive but insidious contributions from Amorrow spring to mind). Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If we add an explicit statement that Wikipedians are not required to assume good faith of editors who are already banned, that would be a workable compromise. Durova 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this further because this seems a curious statement to me. Why would anyone ever be required to AGF regarding a banned user's comments or edits? They may be reverted on sight with no questions asked. There is no question of good or bad faith there.

As long as an editor takes responsibility for anything they restore, all assumptions of good or bad faith should be made based on the editor making the restoration and the banned editor should be considered as completely out of the picture. It should be like the banned user never existed or at least like they never made the restored comment at all, IMHO. This insures that people are judged based on their own actions and not the actions of others. --GoRight (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To combine a response with your earlier point, these are matters where a balance has been struck: the reverting editor is obligated to demonstrate reasonable assurance that an edit being reverted is actually that of a banned user. One danger in making edits too easy to reinstate is that banned editors often frame their ban evasion in ways that look superficially reasonable. You edit global warming; I don't. Suppose someone who had been sitebanned added a sentence that cited Scientific American, and somebody reverted the edit. So I check the link and it looks legitimate, and reinstate. This is entirely hypothetical (and it makes no difference which POV is represented), but six pages back in the archives there was a long discussion about that source, which concluded with the determination that Scientific American had withdrawn that article after publication and it would not be allowable as a source. The banned editor knew about that discussion--and had vigorously argued for its inclusion. As a passerby I know nothing about it. So unless we're careful, a change to this policy might either bring us back to square one indefinitely or mistakenly place the attribution of bad faith on the passerby who reinstated an edit that looked reasonable on its surface. If global warming has had no such dispute, other subjects have. It's not atypical for people to get banned, and then attempt to reinstate a disallowed reference to the topic that precipitated their siteban. Durova 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, can we think of a banned editor who has repeatedly returned to argue the same points on global warming articles? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that in the last year, there have been 500 new editors advancing a skeptical point of view on global warming, and that 475 of them were blocked as Scibaby sockpuppets. That tells me that 25 new editors have had their editorial point of view reverted, ignored and quashed. Thatcher 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the solution then? For my own part I have pledged to stop reporting and reverting Scibaby edits (see my post to CHL's talk a day or two ago). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing our discussion so far: Restoring edits made by banned users or proxy editing on behalf of banned users is permitted, as long as the editor doing so takes responsibility for those edits. Correct? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to the term proxy editing here. When I have restored such an edit I have never thought of myself as making the edit on the other user's behalf, which is what proxying would imply. I am making my own judgment regarding the content of my edit so it is NOT the other user's edit at that point it is MY edit. If it is MY edit it is not proxying. --GoRight (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, pardner. Mention of "proxy editing" does arise from time to time so we have to address it. By giving it the same status as other edits in concurrence with banned users we have a level playing field and avoid drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would support a policy that was more strict rather than less strict in dealing w/ reinstating edits from banned users. I'm not too keen on the provisions of WP:BAN that suggest that admins should or could delete material added by banned users in violation of their ban (deletions and edits like that tend to cause a bigger dust up than they are worth), but another editor reinserting edits isn't a dead issue. If someone is site banned or topic banned and edits in violation of that ban, other editors shouldn't act to further those edits on the page. All that does is make the banning more porous and offers more incentive for banned (and still active) users to sock in order to make edits to articles. GoRight has a point that if he makes an edit, then it is his edit. We shouldn't see reinstatement as editing by proxy (unless it is editing by proxy or via direction, but that is awfully hard to prove one way or the other), but I still think we should see reinstatement as disruptive. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Under what circumstances may banned users contribute? Tom Harrison 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with watering down this provision. Since we can usually only identify the socks of banned users after they've made significant edits, allowing those edits to remain gives banned users a strong incentive to sneak back and see how much they can get away with. Editors who support them repeatedly by edit warring to restore the verbatim material should be strongly discouraged and ultimately banned themselves. One or two such edits are excusable, a dozen or more are evidence of intentional circumvention of the banning policy.   Will Beback  talk  22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• People are not banned lightly. If an editor is evading their ban, we should not assume good faith of their edits. If another editor checks the statement and any references thoroughly themselves, that other editor could potentially make the same edit themselves, but they are fully responsible. The reason people get banned is that they generate too much noise and not enough signal. Edits from such people should be assumed to be noise, and removed, until proven otherwise. The burden has to be on the editor seeking to restore the material to show that it is in fact proper. If anybody restores edits without checking them, that would be disruptive, sanctionable behavior. Jehochman 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

  "Edits from such people should be assumed to be noise, and removed, until proven otherwise." - I have no problem with this principle. But the one way that a given edit is "proven" to be acceptable is that someone else takes the time to review the material, remake the edit, and then take the heat if there is a problem with it. As with any editing, if you generate too much heat you get banned ... not because some banned user originated the material but because YOU caused the disruption. This is what I mean by taking responsibility for the content.

  "If anybody restores edits without checking them, that would be disruptive, sanctionable behavior." - Again, I have no problem with this principle. If you restore a given edit you will be expected to justify yourself just as if you had made the edit originally (i.e. as if the banned user never did). Nothing being proposed changes this as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

  What we're acknowledging is that edits by banned editors are the same as edits made by anyone else. Edits that someone agrees with will be allowed to stand (perhaps by first reverting and restoring, though that seems unnecessarily cumbersome). Only edits that are blatantly disruptive will be permanently removed. This is exactly the same as with non-banned editors. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  "What we're acknowledging is that edits by banned editors are the same as edits made by anyone else." - No, that is not the case. The edits of banned editors can, and most likely will, be reverted on sight with no questions asked. Any editor is free to revert the edits or comments of a banned user at any time. This is not true of non-banned users. If you feel better about it state that there is a presumption that the edits of a banned user are EXPECTED to be reverted each time THEY (the banned user) are the ones to make or revert them.

  What we are seeking to acknowledge is that simply reverting a small subset of the edits of a banned user is NOT prima facie evidence of proxy editing and is not therefore sanctionable based on that evidence alone. Proxy editing is more than simply reverting a single edit or even multiple edits over time. It requires that there be a collaboration and some level of direction between the banned user and the one reinstating the material.

  As long as another editor accepts responsibility for anything that they reinstate (i.e. the validity of any references, the appropriateness of the content, and accepting any consequences that they would face with any other such edit), then such reinstatement should be allowed without prejudice to the editor making the reinstatement. Any reinstated edit should no longer be considered as having been made by the banned editor, but should instead be considered solely as having been made by the one that actually made it. If such reinstatement is sanctionable based on its content, then the editor making that reinstatement can be sanctioned based on their own actions as related to the content they actually submitted taken in context. If the edit is NOT sanctionable based on its content then, obviously, no harm was done. --GoRight (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  How would you express this in terms of policy? It seems that the main substantive distinction is that reverting edits by a banned editor would not count toward 3RR, correct? Otherwise content added by a banned editor is the same as any other content, and may be restored at will by anyone taking responsibility for the edit's adherence to the usual policies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  "How would you express this in terms of policy?" - I am happy enough with the proposal by CHL and Nathan above, but if you want yet another stab at it how about this: Any edits made directly by banned users can and should be reverted on sight and without regard to 3RR. While the reinstatement of such edits is discouraged and provable cases of true proxy editing in collaboration with a banned user are not permitted, any user may reinstate all or part of an edit made by a banned user as long as they accept full responsibility under Misplaced Pages policies for any content that they actually reinstate. Once such material has been reinstated it shall no longer considered the work of the banned user, but rather it shall be considered the work of the user who reinstated it. --GoRight (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  On the right track but a bit too convoluted to make useful policy. "Discouraged" - what does that mean? "Provable cases of true proxying on behalf of a banned user" - in practice how could we ever "prove" such a thing? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  You don't know what discouraged means?  :) It means we would prefer that it not be done but not so much so that we consider it a sanctionable offense. I agree that true proxy editing would be hard to prove, but if you somehow managed to do so I have no problem with it being disallowed. The alternative of viewing any reinstatement of an edit made by a banned user as de facto evidence of proxy editing which is subject to indefinite blocks is unacceptable since that, in effect, is banning the content and not merely the editor. --GoRight (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  But banned editors aren't the same as everybody else. It sounds as if you're saying that banned editors may edit as much as they like until discovered, and then only those edits which are individually provable as disruptive should be removed. If so, that'd be an invitation to sock puppetry and block evasion. With a provision like that, I don't see what the point would be of having a banning policy at all.   Will Beback  talk  01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Well, the prevailing view as expressed by Cool Hand Luke, GoRight, and others is that edits by banned editors may be freely restored as long as they're not disruptive. What we're acknowledging is that edits by banned editors are the same as edits made by anyone else. Taking out the middlemen (the editor who reverts, and the editor who restores) wouldn't be much of a difference. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  This is, of course, a mischaracterization of what is being said. There is still a presumption that any editor may revert any edit of a banned editor on sight, whether that edit was disruptive, or not. This is NOT the same policy that we have for non-banned editors. Under the proposed scenario only edits which other users take it upon themselves to research and validate will be reinstated. This is likely to be a very small subset of any such banned editor's modifications. Your presumption here that all of non-disruptive edits will be restored is totally groundless. What percentage of Scibaby edits have been restored to date? Totally insignificant as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please respond to what I actually wrote: I was talking about adding content, not reverting it. Other than the first sentence, everything in your response agrees with what I have been saying. It's beginning to sound like you won't take "yes" for an answer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  I did respond to what you wrote. You wrote that banned editors are allowed to add non-disruptive content. I wrote, in effect, that no they aren't because their content can be reverted on sight with no questions asked. This is obviously NOT the case for non-banned editors. Banned editors are NOT allowed to add content. Period. But if they manage to get something in, and it is justifiably reverted because they are banned, that does NOT prevent some other editor in good standing from being able to reinstate it if it has value to the project. It was the editor that was banned, not the content.

  This is not that hard of a concept. Look at it this way, everything done by a banned edit should be reverted and only content which other editors in good standing deem beneficial to the project CAN BE (not must be) reinstated. Where's the harm to the project? --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  According to whom is that the prevailing view? Based on this thread, it seems to be a controversial view. One of the problems with this policy proposal is that many editors are banned for overall POV pushing. Their individual may not have been disruptive per se, but taken together they formed a disruptive pattern. So by inviting socks, we are making the pPOV pushing pattern harder to spot. If editors, admins, and the ArbCom have already dealt with the banned user, and presented often exhaustive evidence about their abusive beahvior, must they now be continmuously watchful for soskc, and then spend time going over theiur edits one by one to show they are indivudally disruptive? That places a huge burden on the community, which allowing the banned user to simply move on to the next sock and do more editing. Any identifiable editing by banned users is disruptive because it already necessitates work by other editors - this proposal would increase that disruption. The community has already made the decision that these editors' disruption outweighs their contributions, we shouldn't have to re-argue that decision over and over again.   Will Beback  talk  02:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  No one is advocating the use of socking here, so I'm not sure what to make of your comment. If they are banned and they are socking the socks are blockable as soon as they are identified, no questions asked. In the case of Scibaby the admins typically go through an revert all of their edits on a routine basis and no one is arguing to change that process. Nothing changes there so where is this huge burden? It does not exist. --GoRight (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  The effect of placing the burden of dealing with edits by banned editors onto editors in good standing banned editors creates an unequal situation, in which a banned editor has every incentive to game the system by using socks to make his or her desired edits. The edits shouldn't have to be determined to be disruptive in order to delete them. Editors who wish to restore those edits should have the entire burden of justifying their edits, just like they would if they made them originally. And editors who make a practice of restoring edits by banned users should be seen as disrupting the integrity of the system. Restoring an edit here or there is not necessarily a problem, but restoring dozens of edits, and edit warring over them, tends to show that the "good standing" editor is acting as a prxy for the banned user.   Will Beback  talk  04:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  "The edits shouldn't have to be determined to be disruptive in order to delete them." - You appear to be arguing against a position that no one is advocating. If an edit was made by a banned editor, revert it on sight. By all means. No one has a problem with that.

  "Editors who wish to restore those edits should have the entire burden of justifying their edits, just like they would if they made them originally." - Absolutely agree. This is just another way of saying what was meant by "taking full responsibility" for the restoration of the edit.

  "And editors who make a practice of restoring edits by banned users should be seen as disrupting the integrity of the system." - Here we begin to part ways. (a) "make a practice of" is unenforceably vague. (b) If the edits being restored have to be justified as being within policy as we are agreed they should be then the integrity of the system is not being disrupted. Therefore, (c) there is no inherent reason to view such editors as disruptive.

  "Restoring an edit here or there is not necessarily a problem, but restoring dozens of edits, and edit warring over them, tends to show that the "good standing" editor is acting as a prxy for the banned user." - First, I don't believe anyone is arguing that this scenario should be considered acceptable. Second, I don't believe that we can state and exact quantity of edits for distinguishing between a "good faith editor" and a "proxy editor". If anything it should be expressed as a loose percentage rather than an absolute number. As for edit warring, that is a sanctionable offense in and of itself against the editor actually engaging in it so if that occurs the editor in question can certainly be dealt with. --GoRight (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• Another thing worth mentioning: as a supporter of Misplaced Pages:Standard offer, I'm not going to encourage socking by turning it into a pretext for removal of a ban. Each time a ban evasion happens, that resets the clock by my account. Regardless of whether someone decided to reinstate it after the fact. It's a matter of respecting the social contract. So if a banned editor finds a willing proxy who declares the intention in advance and gains approval, that's an entirely different (and much better) scenario. Durova 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

  Except in my case I have my own reasons for taking up a topic that was introduced. I am not acting as a proxy for the banned editor in any sense of the word. I neither know nor support them. I am adopting the content because I believe it is beneficial to the project. To prevent me from doing so is to ban the content as well as the original editor. We shouldn't be banning content, just bad behavior. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a page where banned users can post their contributions for approval. Tom Harrison 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can create a blog for that purpose.   Will Beback  talk  00:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not hire a bunch of monkeys to type at random and assign editors to pick through and find the good edits? Likewise, I think it is a bad use of time to scan banned editors' contributions to separate the signal from the noise. It is more beneficial to the project to either (1) remove all the edits on the basis that there's a high probability that they are not helpful, or (2) if an editor wants to be unbanned, let them demonstrate a willingness to work constructively. Oh, we already do both of those things. Maybe we need more editors working on rehabilitation, and less energy spent debating point #1. Jehochman 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here was the text back on August 27:

• Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.

Here it is now:

• Wikipedians may post or edit material at the direction of a banned user as long as they are able to confirm that the changes adhere to Misplaced Pages policies.

That's a significant change in the policy and I don't think there's a consensus for it. One thread on ANI does not mean that a key policy should be altered so drastically. I propose we restore the previous text. I also propose we replace "at the direction of" with "added by" or something similar. There is no way that anyone would be able to establish communication between a banned editor and his proxy. All we can see is the on-Wiki behavior. Further, instead of saying "...they are able to confirm that..." it should be stronger, "...they confirm..." "Able to confirm" means that they could if asked, or if a fresh dispute arises, but it requires other editors to go out of their way to deal with what started as an edit by an banned individual. Those changes would result in something like:

• Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material created by a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they confirm that the changes are verifiable and give independent reasons for making them.

These changes to shift the burden back onto the editor re-adding the material.   Will Beback  talk  06:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Very interesting. Cumulatively the non-consensus change from the 28th has been reinstated, even though I reverted it procedurally with a request to seek consensus at the talk page here. No consensus for that change has been established at banning policy talk, either before or since. Yet a series of edits that purported to be minor wrote a major change back into policy. Not digging through the history at a quarter to midnight to see which editor did that, but very poor form (and wholly reversible although I won't be the one to do it again). Durova 06:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay, contradicting the above. Bing. Major change, mismarked as a grammatical double negative correction. Performed two posts after the procedural restoration. Not good at all. Durova 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

      I think that this is a case of Boris editing to make a WP:POINT. By stating things in their most extreme he hopes to sway opinion away from allowing good faith restoration of constructive material which may have at some point originated from a banned user. I'm not certain why he objects to that, but apparently he does. I assume it is related to his close association with User:Raul654 and User:William M. Connolley. Raul's intent in this respect is quite clear. -GoRight (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

      GoRight, if you're not able to assume good faith and treat editors as individuals (who sometimes disagree, BTW), I would appreciate that you stop participating in this debate. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

      I agree with CHL, GoRight. SBHB has generally been taking the right approach here, it seems to me, and your comments seem to be assuming something not matched by SBHB's present proposals and suggestions. You have some substantial experience with the bottom, so to speak of this problem, so your participation here should be valuable, but not if you don't drop prior disputes and the impressions left from them. Please do so.

      SBHB, on the other hand, it's not true that edits by banned editors become "much the same as edits by other editors." The policy says that such edits may be reverted, generally, with no consideration as to content, that's not true about edits from others. However, the restoration by a responsible editor is then treated like all other edits, that the content came from a banned editor is moot; if there is a problem with the edit itself, it is now a problem with the restoring editor, who is responsible for the problem. To clarify this in terms of 3RR policy, both the routine reversal of the edit as being by a banned editor and the restoration by another editor are not reverts for 3RR purposes, but further reverts would be. (Exception: if the banned edit was a revert, the restoration would also be a revert. Not the removal.) --Abd (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One must never lose sight of the fact that your banned user is a veritable criminal mastermind. He changes IP addresses with the greatest of ease; he laughs at geolocators; no technical security feature can stop him. Yet there is one thing he cannot change, one tell-tale, DNA-like feature which will inevitably trip him up: his POV. Try as he may to change his spots, the banned user's POV will always surface, sooner or later. Therefore, we must not shrink from the only viable solution. Ultimately, we must publish an Index of Prohibited POVs. This will of course take time to prepare. In the meantime, we should instute a new feature, similar to the Village Pump, to be called the Misplaced Pages Post Office Wall. We will produce of gallery of known POVs attributed to banned users. Restoring, or creating, material that reflects these POVs will be considered prima facie evidence of guilt. Admins who represent the forces of righteousness must be empowered to take all necessary measures against these marauders from the outside world, including the ability to execute "spot bans" whenever a telltale POV is detected. Can we do any less to protect the project? --McWeenie (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Account clearly set up to mock Will Beback. I've blocked it. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you respect us enough to have a civil discussion, McWeenie? Jehochman 10:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First off three edits Jehochman with McWeenie. I'm sure someone will know what to do if it hasn't been already. Now my opinions follow Will Beback and others. There should be absolutely no reason for a good faith editor to revert a banned users talk page comments back after they have been reverted. (corrected this sentence thanks to Thatcher below correcting me, thank you.) If something is said that you agree with you need to research it anyways so then put it in your own words. Article edits are different if it's just a realiable source be entered, it's impossible to put in your own words except the edit summary which common sense should tell an editor to use their own words yet there is still is no reason to use the revert button other than it's easier. Other than that, I don't see why a revert of a banned user would be needed. Treat it like trying to come to terms with other editors with a different POV, change the wording to something of your own. When an editor is banned or blocked s/he can't be rewarded in any way or the socking will continue. It wouldn't make sense to have a banning policy if editors can still make edits because editor in good standing are willing to just revert to what the banned editor writes. I really can't think of too many times when an outright revert should be used. So policy needs to state that banned editors are banned and as such they do not make edits. If an editor in good standing reverts a banned user they had better be able to explain why they couldn't use their own words to make the edit or severe sanctions could be imposed. Saving time isn't in my opinion a good reason since reverting and signing others comments just verifies to the banned editor to continue to stay involved. --CrohnieGal 11:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be absolutely no reason to revert a banned users talk page comments, never. Except that sometimes there is. There is at least one particular banned user who edits articles, then contacts the subjects in real life to try and meet them and talk about their articles. Very scary. This person should have every edit reverted without question, no matter where it is posted. There are editors banned for harassment; when their talk page comments continue the harassment they were banned for, they should also be reverted. As I noted above, the situation is complicated. It may be impossible to describe the proper response to every situation in a single pithy sentence. I am very concerned that the proxy editing policy has been or may be used to attempt to silence a particular editorial point of view. But there may even be cases where this is permitted. For example, Arbcom has ruled that Lyndon LaRouche and his organization and publications are not reliable sources on topics other than LaRouche himself. So an editor trying to add the LaRouchian point of view to an article on Obama, say, may be reverted whether he is acting on behalf of a banned user or is just a noob (in which case of course he needs to be gently informed of the history, not bitten and blocked). It's complicated people, and the presence in this debate of people with strong political interests in particular episodes is not encouraging either. Thatcher 12:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I mean that banned editors posts should not have to be returned to a discussion. Yes they should be reverted on sight though, no questions asked. I said this poorly and my apologies, you are right in many ways. Let me repeat, if a banned editors posts something, an editor in good standing should still not have to use the banned editors posts, they should be able to write their own. Again, my apologies, I read this befor posting it but after reading what Thatcher wrote I realized I didn't use enough words to make my points clear. Yes I can see exactly what you are saying and I agree. --CrohnieGal 13:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. Thatcher 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd add to the above that, while there is a case to be made for verifing and taking responsibility of a banned editor's edits to an article, we can't take responsibility for a banned editor's comments in a discussion. The former is presumably factual and potentially verifiable, while the latter is an opinion. I, as an editor, can't verfiy or take responsibility for someone else's opinion as expressed in a talk page discussion, so I can't reinstate a banned editor's talk page comments. That said, if I wish to express a similar opinion that I happen to hold, doing so is my choice. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems right to me. If the banned user makes a good talk page point, you're free to restate it. But allowing their original comment to stand with signature and everything doesn't seem necessary. You could argue that it's against the WP:DENY principle. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

When I asked above, "Under what circumstances may banned users contribute?" I hoped the obvious answer - they may not contribute, at all, anywhere - would clarify things. Banned users may not participate in the project. No one may edit for them by proxy. A ban is an absolute thing. As Boris shows, a minor change or exception can easily eliminate bans all together. If I undo a banned editor's work, all I need to say is "undoing banned editor" (granted it's usually better to say more.) Restoring a banned user's edits puts the burden on the editor to demonstrate good faith, and to show the edit entirely satisfies our policies. The new wording, "Wikipedians may post or edit material at the direction of a banned user as long as..." unwisely relaxes the rule against proxying, and invites people to continue to carve out exceptions. Tom Harrison 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned users may be reverted -- I agree completely. The problem is that the previous policy was being used to justify banning editorial viewpoints that were advocated by banned editors, even when those edits were being reinstated by others. The policy can either say "Edits by banned editors may be reinstated if..." or "Edits by banned editors may not be reinstated unless... " I can see why the permissive version would bother people. But what is important is what comes after the "if..." or "unless..." and how it is interpreted in practice. Thatcher 14:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Previous policy was being used to justify banning editorial viewpoints..." That shouldn't be dealt changing the policy. Nothing can be written that can't be gamed. Tom Harrison 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Restoring a banned user's edits puts the burden on the editor to demonstrate good faith, and to show the edit entirely satisfies our policies. But how is this different from any other edit? Don't we have to demonstrate good faith and satisfy policies anyway? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that in general an edit is presumed good unless it can be shown bad, and an editor is presumed to be acting in good faith unless it can be shown otherwise. When someone restores an edit by a banned user, the presumption is reversed - bad unless proven good, malicious unless shown to be in good faith. Tom Harrison 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is policy being change because of the situation at Global warming and associate articles? If so, maybe it needs to be dealt with just there and not on the policy page. I don't know the situation over there except for comments thrown from opposing sides so I am at a disadvantage with some of this conversation. But reinstating a banned editors posts should be the exception not the rule, is it? --CrohnieGal 16:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a "2+2=4" Rule to cover whether it's legitimate to mention the sum of 2 and 2 if your answer to such a math problem is equal to that which was stated earlier by a banned user? Are you proxying for the banned user if you don't change the sum to 5 in order to avoid any taint? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There are various aspects to that question. First, why is this equation being added to an article? If an editors wants to restore it he should have a good reason for doing so, and not just because he sympathizes with the banned editor. But if he does, and if he has independently confirmed the sources, then it would be acceptable. OTOH, even with those qualifications if he does it a few dozen times, and/or edit wars over it, then the concern over proxying may be legitimate.   Will Beback  talk  18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight. Hypothetically, some vandal (or a hopelessly misguided editor) comes along and changes "2+2=4" to "2+2=5". Then a banned editor changes it back to "2+2=4". The vandal returns and changes is again to "2+2=5". If an editor in good standing then reverts it back to "2+2=4" are they proxying for the banned user? I don't think so and you seem to agree. Then the editor in good standing ends up edit warring with the vandal to keep it at "2+2=4", are they NOW proxying for the banned user? You seem to favor "yes" whereas I still think that the answer is "no". --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No GoRight, what you describe is vandal patrol. I think you understand what editors are saying in this thread that describes proxying. Will Beback, a few dozen times? I think we also need to think about how frequent this happens. Personally I've never seen it. As NYB says below, I am interesting in what he and Thatcher can put together since they obvious have information that average editors do not have esp. in regards to sock/meat puppets. --CrohnieGal 09:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can reliably source "One and one and one makes three" to The Beatles, unless one of the Fab Four is actually a banned user. Adding another one to make four might be original research, though. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, there is nothing secret going on, it just depends on how frequently you hang out at Misplaced Pages's various battledomes. I am aware of an issue involving contentious edits involving Lyndon LaRouche (where Will Beback is often involved) and an issue around global warming and cold fusion (involving SBH Boris, Raul654, GoRight, William M Connelly, and a few others). There are other, less recent and less prominent cases as well. In these cases it is alleged by one side that certain editors are proxying for other banned editors and should likewise be banned, while it is alleged by the other side that the policy is being used to block certain points of view on content. I think there is a case to be made that the previous version of the policy was misused to try and block unpopular points of view for the reason that they were advocated by banned users, as if the only reason other users would advocate the same point of view is because they were disruptively following the banned user, and failing to assume good faith that the editor might actually believe the same things independently. Frankly, I think it would be better if this discussion did not involve so many people with current or recent vested interests in the outcome. Thatcher 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher, I don't know where you hang out but vandal patrol sounds more fun.;) Ok, I can see both sides view with just what has been said at the Abd/WMC arb case. In my opinion limits on using banned editors posts are important to enforce yet we can't be blocking any side of a POV or we lose balance. So this policy has to say with teeth that ban means no editing and if socking it will be reverted and not returned. So we have to use more than a sentence here. I've never attempted to write policy, just follow it so I'm going to leave that to others. But it needs to say that an editor in good standing should be able to state their own opinions in their own words. If talk page posts of a banned editor are being used to me it would say proxy edit. An article is a bit different only if there is a reference being used. Other than that there is very little I can think of that can't be put into one's own words for the most part. There will be exceptions of course and here is when common sense is needed. So I would leave the original statement in the policy and expand it into a short paragraph if necessary. Just a thought but thanks for taking the time to answer me. --CrohnieGal 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher's input above summarizes my position on this issue as well. There are several nuances and complexities here, and it is probably not possible to address all of them in one sentence. I will give some thought to crafting a paragraph that would address the various aspects of this issue, and hopefully post something for comment in a day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I needed here, to produce for us a very workable solution, or are you guys and gals having more fun bickering back and forth about it? -- Thekohser 16:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone can propose new wording. In cases like this I usually post the proposed wording in a new subsection and put it in a {{divbox}} so people can clearly see what I'm talking about, then see what people think. Thatcher 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

...sigh... I'm not talking about a "new wording", Thatcher. It's a forest rather than trees sort of thing. You may want to review the "that anyone can edit" wording, if proposed wording changes are your thing. Ooh, and there's also this. -- Thekohser 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I support CHL's interpretation in most instances. Seeing as how we have turned to mass burning people at the stake instead of normal blocking policy, there is a strong possibility for people to merely start a loose proposal to ban another and then, after 24 or 36 hours, they are banned and everything they may have contributed destroyed. If another user wants to take responsibility for those edits they should have ever right to. Unless we fix the corrupt system in which people can instant ban others based on a mockery of consensus guidelines, then there is no possible way that the original wording can stand in any kind of "encyclopedia". If the original wording did stand, then we are tossing out our ethical standards and encyclopedic integrity and handing over control to a mob that may possibly just want to destroy others and everything attached to them simply to destroy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Ban discussions always do tend to remind me very much of lynch mobs. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• If there's a problem with how bans are placed (whether by the community or the ArbCom) then that's a separate issue. This concerns enforcement of the bans. If the community continues to feel that a banning policy is worthwhile then it needs to be enforceable. Allowing banned editors to edit makes the policy unenforceable.   Will Beback  talk  19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Will Beback, don't you dare claim talking about the banning policy on the talk page of the banning policy is off topic. Your comments further up are questionable, and your response here makes it seem like you would rather cause trouble than actually discuss anything. Furthermore, my comments are 100% about what CHL did, so your statement is highly inappropriate. I suggest you strike your comments immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Furthermore, strike your mischaracterization. No one said anything about allowing banned users to edit. What was only stated is that if someone wants to vouche for the edit as correct it should stand instead of people abusing the system just going around deleting things without checking. That makes two highly inappropriate comments in your above entry. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Let's stay calm, please. I wrote in response to Dtobias' statement that banning decisions are like lynch mobs. I don't think that's relevant to the matter of how to deal with people once they been blocked. If the block policy is changed to say that edits of blocked user should be kept unless someone can identify them and argue successfully that they're disruptive, then that change effectively invites banned editors to see how much they can get away with and places the burden on those who've acted in good faith rather than on those who wish to re-add them. Let me ask you, Ottava, do you think that Misplaced Pages should have a banning policy, and do you think banned editors should edit despite their bans?   Will Beback  talk  19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't care if Dan used my image or not, but I used it because from what I've seen, there is a mob like approach to banning people. As such, the wording can be used as a tool of persecution and POV pushing. Editors would no longer be required to justify removal of text. They will simply say "well, we managed to ban this guy so clearly everything connected to him is worthless". If people want a fast track to "correcting" information, then Misplaced Pages is not the place. Everything should be justified and everything should be thorough. I don't like the flash mob approach Misplaced Pages has turned to as of late. Now Will, seeing as how there are a few people that call for my banning quite often, I think you can figure out if I believe Misplaced Pages should have a banning policy. Seeing as how I have been the lone voice in many of the recent bans, I also think you can understand how I feel. There is a difference between someone who is criminally problematic and the rest that fall under banning. Banning as of right now is simply "I don't like you". To allow such to continue and to dominate is 100% against what this encyclopedia needs. This is not a popularity contest. This isn't a mob. The cool kids don't run things. This is about writing an encyclopedia. I have seen better stuff written by those like Peter Damian than I have from many people who participate at ANI. If all things were equal and we focused on building an encyclopedia, then Peter would be editing and at least 100 people I could easily point out who have frequented ANI over the past year would be gone. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I may be mistaken, but it does sound like you're saying that Misplaced Pages should not have a banning policy, and that people should be able to contribute without any personal limits. If so, I think that's an unworkable approach.   Will Beback  talk  19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• How do you get from saying I am against the banning policy to saying I am against limits? The first part is absurd, but the second doesn't even connect to the first. My statement would be equivalent to saying there are abusive admin and this should be fixed to you claiming that I want to get rid of admin as a whole. Claims that something needs to be fixed does not mean that the system needs to be removed nor can it be assumed as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• If the banning mechanism needs to be fixed, then I suggest starting a separate thread for that. I believe there is a strong consensus that it is necessary to ban editors from Misplaced Pages who have repeatedly disrupted the project. And that, due to the ease of creating sock puppets to evade those bans, when they are identified as having violated their ban their non-trivial edits should be removed. And that editors should either work to overturn the ban or respect it but not assist the banned user's evasion. Anyway, we all have our opinions. Let's see what NewYorkBrad has to say.   Will Beback  talk  20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Will, I am not asking for the banning proposal to be fixed. That is merely the -premise-. You are the only one talking about fixing the banning proposal. I am merely stating that one of the ramifications of the banning proposal needs to be fixed, and that it is fixed in CHL's change. That is the topic of this thread. I gave a pretty good reason why CHL's change is necessary. If you have nothing to add on the matter, then fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

call for wording

If someone (Thatcher?) has a proposed new wording please do put it in a div box and let's see it. Something that captures the sense that in general edits from banned users are not wanted, because the users are banned, but that there are extenuating circumstances, and that edits "from" banned users really are "from" the person who reinstates (or restates, in the case of a talk page) would be a lot better than what we have now I think. Some wording that notes the shift of the burden of proof (most editors we AGF and thus edits are presumed good. Banned editors we no longer AGF, and thus edits are presumed bad unless shown to be good) would be helpful too. The wording, at best, ought to actually recognise what we actually do here (most policy being descriptive, after all) and thus won't need a giant wikiwide discussion to be acceptable to all. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The current policy language on this subject is as follows:

and

To add my alternative:

1. Note that "due care" is not enforceable, and is meant to be advisory only.

The purpose of this change isn't to aid banned users, or provide relief to non-banned users engaged in disruptive behavior. The idea is to protect useful, good content no matter who contributes it; that's the reason we're here, and the source of content should not be as important as its nature. I understand that seriously disruptive people need to be sent away, and definitively - what this allows isn't their return, but the "claiming" of useful edits by willing (and not banned) editors. Nathan 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost there. The first sentence is admirably clear and direct. The second sentence should be deleted as unenforceable in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't enforceable. Its mean to be advisory, and to incorporate some of the nuances described by folks above (or at least, allude to them). Nathan 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Boris that the first sentence is admirably clear and direct. I also agree that the second sentence is unenforceable, and I will highlight that this fact is likely to be lost on those who wish to use this policy as a means of banning a specific POV. Therefore I am concerned about leaving it as is. Either strike it entirely, or alter it to make it explicit that it is meant to serve in an advisory capacity only and is not directly sanctionable in its own right. I don't have any particular problem with what you intend by the second sentence, I am only concerned with how it may be misconstrued in the future. --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related matter I still have trouble with the sentence Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Again, it is impossible in practice to determine whether an editor has "independent" reasons for making proxy edits. There's no way that we can psychoanalyze people at a distance to determine their motivation, so this should be left unsaid. Also I still don't like the double negative, but can accept that some people don't see it as a double negative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe the intent was to replace both of the current bits highlighted above with his single proposed alternative. So the sentence you are worried about would no longer exist. Or am I wrong on that, Nathan? --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the opposite concern, perhaps, as SBHB. I think we can see if two editors have independent reasons for including something. I a sock of a banned editor says he is adding material for reason A, and if another editor restores the material giving the same reason, then that isn't an independent reason. If he has a different reason, or the same conclusion with different logic and words, then those are independent. My concern is that we cannot know if the restoration was made at the direction of the banned user or if it was done simply due to sympathy with the banned user or their POV. Nathan's proposal doesn't include that language, and I hope any final version leaves it out too.   Will Beback  talk  02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"...we cannot know if the restoration was made at the direction of the banned user or if it was done simply due to sympathy with the banned user or their POV" - false dichotomy. There is a third possibility, which is that an editor regards the information as well-sourced and neutral, and therefore helpful to the process of building and encyclopedia, and doesn't give a fig about the banned user. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, my intent was to replace both pieces of current text with my proposed language. Nathan 12:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that Nathan's choice of wording can potentially cause a lot of harm. Those who convince a banning of a user can then convince the community that someone rightfully protecting verifiable and strong encyclopedic editions is a POV pusher. Thus, a group of POV pushers can not only effectively stir up problems and ban one member of their opposition, but effectively stop anyone who cares about preserving the encyclopedia. This has happened many times in the past and should not be acceptable according to our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • For excample?   Will Beback  talk  02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two examples of deletions you made which appear to me to harmful to the project, and possibly done as part of a personal conflict with a banned user (which should take a back seat to building an encyclopedia): Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Lautenbach and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov (both deletions reversed by the community.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • There have been multiple ArbCases and the rest. I don't really think any example would be necessary as it would give yourself or others an opportunity to escape into minutiae then have any real discussion of change. Furthermore, from many of the things I've seen about you and your past actions, I would think that the above would prevent you from harming the encyclopedia with inappropriate deletions. That alone would be worth the hassle of changing the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • So you're saying we should base the changes to this policy on previous incidents but those incident can't be named because if they were theyd be subject to analysis and might not be found to support the proposed changes? If so, then that doesn't appear to be a strong argument in favor of altering this policy.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Why do you desire names? You preached above about going off topic, and yet here you are begging for it. Why is that? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I must say, that is an intensely unconvincing argument. causa sui× 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Like SBHB, I think Nathan's proposal is almost there, and greatly prefer it to the current text. I agree that banned contributions should normally be reverted as a matter of course. The objection I have to the current policy is that these edits can be used as a blockade or bludgeon against unrelated good faith editors who are not proxying for a banned editor. This proposal fixes that problem. Anyhow, maybe there's a way to indicate that Nathan's proposed second sentence is explanatory advice and not meant to enforced? Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"I agree that banned contributions should normally be reverted as a matter of course" Why? Why would we, as an encyclopedia, condone any blind reversion? There are many examples of where the community disagreed with the practice and thought that such practice was absurd. A banned contributor does not mean that items are bad. We work off a system of verifiability and evidence. We should not have any shortcuts that allow people to ignore these. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In many cases editors are banned because of their individual edits or because of a pattern of pushing POVs. Once it's been determined that their disruption is greater than their contributions, the burden shouldn't be on good faith editors to re-prove that over and over again, which just multiplies the disruption. If banned editors want to edit again there are several routes back that don't involve subterfuge.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See the tweak I made to my proposed language above. Would that work as a solution to the "enforceability" problem? Nathan 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we retaining the idea that someone who has actually established a pattern of proxying for a banned user is in violation of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets?   Will Beback  talk  18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone proxying for a banned editor will also have violated the meatpuppetry policy, so it is probably not necessary to include this information here. Even so, the second paragraph of "Editing on behalf of banned users" isn't modified by this proposal, and could be kept as a helpful restatement of WP:MEAT in the context of bans. Nathan 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to offer my own proposal, but perhaps the following might be considered as possible alternatives to Nathan's second sentence:

(a) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions."

(b) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions which may subsequently become sanctionable based on their own merits."

(c) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions (which may subsequently become sanctionable based on their own merits)."

(d) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions (which may subsequently become sanctionable based on their own merits or per WP:MEAT)."

I am certainly open to other options as well. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be completely honest - if someone like Peter Damian writes a good encyclopedia page and someone else posts it up, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the page stays up. The above proposals would only bring harm to the encyclopedia in such a situation. And this situation is not uncommon. There are many experts that are chased out simply because of politics and not because of article writing. As long as content contributors are treated like crap and bullied into submission, then the above proposals cannot be seen as anything other than a tool used in order to bring harm to the encyclopedia in order to protect a myspace mentality. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am actually somewhat confused by your commentary in this thread because the changes being proposed are intended to protect someone like yourself when doing just what you indicate. Good faith editors including good faith content should not be hampered by banned users who hold a similar point of view. Or is this not what you are in favor of? Or are you arguing that we shouldn't be banning people at all? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GoRight here - the purpose of this exercise is make it easier (or reflect the fact that it is already easier than the current language implies) for editors to reinstate edits by banned users that add useful content to the mainspace. You're either arguing against this more relaxed approach, or arguing against banning people at all; it's not clear which. Nathan 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Then take my word and see that the language will actually make it easier to discriminate against those like Peter Damian and keep any good contributions written by him from making it onto Misplaced Pages. We need to banish language that connects in any way a banned user with a banned content. The two are completely different. We must instead make it clear that we either ban a user, ban content, or do both, but must make it clear when doing so that both are banned. Instead, the language above continues to push the idea that a contribution = a contributor. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This line cannot be used in any regards if you want to get rid of a potential damage to the encyclopedia: "Edits made by banned users are reverted as standard practice". That is 100% wrong. Only edits that are proven to cause problems can be removed (i.e., it is unsourced, it is a strong POV, it violates BLP, etc). It does not matter -who- the source of the edit is. There should be no fast tracking removal of edits and processes should always be upheld. We operate off of verifiability, reliable sources, and consensus. To have such language as the above in any form is to say that the above no longer apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: There are many experts that are chased out simply because of politics and not because of article writing. Name three.   Will Beback  talk  20:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Three? I could simply direct people to any banning of a user that you happened to be involved in. It isn't a secret, you know. However, it is expected, especially since you are unable to, according to your contribs, to operate outside of that area. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground, yet you used the policy above in order to turn it into one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid making personal remarks in this venue. We're just here to discuss policy. If you have examples of editors who've been banned for their political views, please list them. I've never banned anyone for their political beliefs.   Will Beback  talk  21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal remarks? There were already two AfDs that had community consensus declaring that your glee for deleting articles of banned users were completely inappropriate. You have no room to even be discussing this as your actions have been incredibly destructive. You are a single topic editor with an agenda. That is not what Misplaced Pages needs. It is not encyclopedia. It is myspacing at its very best. I bend over backwards every day to write high quality content and improve this encyclopedia, and not once have I seen something from you that I could consider positive. The last thing we need are users like you crafting policies to help further your actions that only bring harm to this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)