Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:11, 26 March 2013

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

Shortcut WT:BAN

Archives

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

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

Single-person interaction bans

Can we make it clear whether the WP:IBAN guideline allows single-person interaction bans? The wording alternates between plural and singular. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean interaction bans that are not mutual? Yes, those have always been possible, and as far as I know several are currently in force. The latest was the one imposed at AE on a couple of editors restricted from interacting with User:Mathsci. That AE decision was subsequently challenged at Arbcom, where some Arbcom members voiced concerns that such non-mutual bans were usually not a good idea, but they explicitly did not overturn it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the present wording which even hints at IBANs being exclusively mutual, and the example plainly makes sense for one-way bans as it's presently written as one. The present ANI kerfuffle is simply a case of certain editors being deliberately obtuse. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The IBAN wording could be made more overt, specifically allowing non-mutual IBANs. Binksternet (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Explicitly codifying every case in which a rule can and cannot apply leads to guidelines turning into legalese. The important thing is that the community understands and approves of the concept, not the exact wording of the policy, which already seems to be clear enough for a majority of participants. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere, I think a reasonable solution would be to clarify that one-way interaction bans can be temporarily revoked to allow a right of reply should the person not banned directly contact the other. Kansan (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The history of one-way bans is not good. In fact, it is terrible - with "gaming" being common. And where both editors have edited on an article in the past, there is no good way to say that the "banned" editor can no longer edit on articles the other has ever edited, whilst the "not banned" editor is free to extend his territory of articles (presumably even up to the entire range of articles the other person has ever edited), and call for blocking of the "banned" editor who is simply doing what he had been doing before. In "real life", folks who get a restraining order against another person are not free to "go after" that other person in any way with the intent of getting them in trouble. I.e. some parts of a "restraining order" are, indeed, "two way." Collect (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly the same thing happens with mutual bans. It's a difficult area of policy in general. If you've a better way to resolve long-term interpersonal conflict then I'm sure the community would love to hear it. For now, what matters is that one-way bans are an accepted tool. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

In general, if we have a problem with "certain editors being deliberately obtuse" about a point of generally accepted policy, I think it better and faster to solve the problem by clarifying the written description of the policy, than to say that people shouldn't be obtuse and shouldn't try to twist the words of the policy pages to be most favorable to their situation. In this case, a short footnote or a "defining the terms" statement ("A one-way ban is...") would likely be adequate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, something brief and to the point. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added the footnote that defines the terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Standard offer

Misplaced Pages:Standard offer should probably be linked somewhere, either in the "review and reversal" section or as a see also. Peter James (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem with SO is that it applies to a specific, limited number of indefinite blocks. It really ONLY works in the following sequence of events:

1) A person is blocked for disruptive behavior of some sort, either indef or of finite term.

2) The person creates a new account to dodge the block, and continues the same behavior

3) The new account is blocked for socking, often leading to an escalation of an original finite block to an indefinite block

4) Repeat steps 2-3 a few dozen times.

The key to making the standard offer work is that it is contingent on the fact that the primary reason a person is not welcome at Misplaced Pages is their refusal to abide by their initial sanctions. It is merely a reminder that we expect people to abide by their blocks, and that they need to prove they are willing to follow the rules regarding their block before we'll reconsider their participation at Misplaced Pages. Now, there are lots of people who are indefinitely banned at Misplaced Pages that don't fit this mold: they aren't a minor annoyance that escalated their status to indefinite by repeatedly socking (which is what SO really works for); instead they are usually a well-established user who has exhausted the community patience. That's a very different sort of thing. Yes, people can earn their way back into the community's good graces, and that does take time, but that's not exactly what the Standard Offer means. By trying to overextend its applicability, we run the risk of making the SO seem universal and automatic, and it is neither. It has limited applicability, and it still requires community decision. --Jayron32 18:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Good points! Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Binding voluntary restrictions

I have added a provision for "binding voluntary restrictions". This idea came out of a rather bitter RFC/U and banning discussion at AN. There were editors who wanted to work out an agreement with the editor whose behavior was being discussed, but the discussion was delayed because there was no specific provision for doing this. The discussion took place on the AN noticeboard with some favorable comments and no objections.

A binding voluntary restriction has been entered into before, in consensus between the community and an editor here , the close is here: . I understand a block was also issued in connection with this agreement. So basically, this is a procedure that has already been tested, and this provision just makes it more public and more accessible to others who are trying to resolve disruptions, to give a less punitive and vindictive taste to conflict resolution.

There are several advantages to this type of resolution to disruption, if it can be realized. The Project is less likely to have to waste time chasing down socks, as was seen at Arbcom MOS decisions recently with one particularly persistent sock, PMAnderson. The editor with the conflict has the opportunity to save face, and demonstrate a willingness to cooperate with the Project, also a firm motive to edit in a different area. This is particularly valuable in cases where the editor has done productive work before, and truly believes they are doing something to benefit WP, however misguided. I would suggest that an agreement might also be entered into even after a formal restriction has been decided on, in addition to it.

—Neotarf (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Perhaps create or expand an essay about voluntary actions: Perhaps write an essay "wp:Voluntary restrictions". Because a policy needs to be kept simple, for easier long-term analysis, then all tangent actions which could avoid sanctions, should be documented elsewhere, as a guideline or as recommended steps. My concern is that there might be "57 varieties" of actions to avoid an edit-restriction ban. For example, a problem might be someone flooding wp:PUMP with a rare concern, where the voluntary restriction would be to limit debates as an isolated RFC page, or other limited venue, until wider interest could move a focused discussion into a system-wide PUMP page. Another example might be someone attempting to change 50 templates, for an unproven "improvement" where the voluntary restriction could be agreement to change just one template, with discussion there, and try results for 2 months before widening the scope to later change more of the other 49 templates. Hence, an essay (or essays) to explain "57" other ways to reduce frustrations would allow more space to outline the alternatives, rather than over-complicate a policy page. That does seem reasonable? -Wikid77 (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Any editor can voluntarily decide to not edit in some area, but this option was rejected in the case of RFCU/APTEVA because the restriction was seen as unenforceable. This proposed change would make it clear that an editor can enter into an agreement for a voluntary restriction with the community, and the agreement can later be enforced with a block. —Neotarf (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note: I've been working on an essay regarding the subject at User:DCI2026/Voluntary restrictions. dci | TALK 22:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Gender neutrality

I changed three occurrences of "his" to "his or her", but it was reverted by Kww with this comment:

unnecessary. "His" is the possessive for people of unknown gender, not exclusively males

That view is decades out of date - see Singular they#Gender-neutral language movement. Additionally, the text "himself or herself" already exists in the article, so my change was consistent with that. Our participation rate for women is extremely low, and language such as that which I attempted to change only serves to reinforce that situation. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So why not change the pronoun to singular they? NE Ent 12:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

That works for me - if anything, I prefer the singular they. I'm just sticking to BRD here rather than undoing Kww. — Hex (❝?!❞) 12:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

As there's been no objection, I've restored the "his or her" wording. There were already instances of it and "he or she" throughout, anyway. If anyone wants to switch it to use the singular they, I won't object. — Hex (❝?!❞) 10:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO, deliberate use of the "singular they" is poor writing style. In the particular context of user accounts, though, I worry that it might confuse people (e.g., people who don't speak English natively) about our WP:NOSHARE rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point; "his or her" is unambiguous. — Hex (❝?!❞) 19:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed this, and I disagree that my view is "decades out of date": "his" remains the possessive pronoun for people of indeterminate gender. "His or her" is clumsy, and "their" is painful. "His" is grammatically correct. I quote from Hex's link: "One solution in formal writing has often been to write he or she, or something similar, but this is considered awkward when used excessively, overly politically correct, or both". I lean towards "both".—Kww(talk) 02:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

A question

Can you change policy that all edits of banned editors can be reverted? That policy can be misused by opponents of banned editors who revert their edits only because of personal vendetta. Why Misplaced Pages should not keep good edits of banned editors and delete only bad ones? 62.80.253.2 (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Highly unlikely especially with the disruption you've been causing. Just as an FYI, persistent use of proxies will likely keep you perma-banned. Elockid 01:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all edits made in defiance of a ban can be reverted, unless doing so would re-instate obvious vandalism, BLP violations or copyright violations. No one, however, is obligated to revetrt a specific edit just because it was made by a banned user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Temporarily banned editors soliciting edits by others

Currently, WP:PROXYING does not actually prohibit banned editors from soliciting others to make edits that are covered by the ban. This may be because the policy may have been written with indefinitely sitebanned editors in mind, to which no further sanctions can be applied. However, in a WP:AE context, I'm now faced with a temporarily topic-banned editor who is apparently soliciting others per e-mail to make edits that are covered by the topic ban. Intuitively, this strikes me as an inadmissible attempt to evade the ban. But the policy does not explicitly prohibit it. Should it? If yes, we could add the following to the second paragraph of the section "Edits by and on behalf of banned editors":

"... they have independent reasons for making such edits. The banned editors themselves are forbidden from attempting to circumvent their ban by asking others to edit on their behalf. Any such attempts may be grounds for an extension of the ban's duration or for other sanctions."

What do others think?  Sandstein  07:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

The grey area "unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits" seems to almost nullify a ban. Unless who is able to show the changes? Those acting under the direction of a banned editor? Remove everything after the parenthesis, and include your addition in its place. That's my take right now. 24.190.49.71 (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly proxying, and I would support your addition.—Kww(talk) 14:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. Instruction creep for one thing, can of worms, the other.

If the user solicits onwiki, that may, or may not be violation of the topic ban (depends on wording of particular ban). If the editors solicits offwiki, how would the community know? We're not privy to the contents of emails sent between editors, or, as I understand it, emails sent through the Wiki interface (only that an email was sent is my understanding.) NE Ent 22:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If solicitation occurs onwiki, then we have clear evidence of proxying. If if occurs offwiki, we may or may not have evidence, but that's not a reason not to prohibit proxying for the cases in which we do have evidence.  Sandstein  08:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it unenforceable, it's potentially problematic. What if the solicited changes are actually important? Consider the case of someone being topic-banned from BLPs for being too aggressive about removing contentious matter. Do we really want to prohibit that user from saying "There's a problem at this underwatched BLP; someone needs to remove the unsourced libel in the second paragraph". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

What editor has been topic banned from BLPs for that reason? --Jayron32 06:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Bans apply to all edits, good or bad. Certainly that has some effects that are less than ideal, but that's the nature of a ban.—Kww(talk) 07:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans already excepts clear BLP violations from limited bans, so the same would apply to edits suggested by editors with limited bans.  Sandstein  08:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for help/clarification

2 quotes from this policy:

"The Misplaced Pages community can decide, by consensus, to impose a ban. Community banning discussions generally take place at the administrators' noticeboard or a subpage thereof." and

"If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Misplaced Pages, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments."

So, if this is right, I could use some input from uninvolved editors (you?) at W:AN#User:J._Johnson_-_hostile_environment to review some diffs and such and help achieve consensus on action against a disruptive editor. If not, this policy needs editing; I'm being told doing this is not allowed! Thanks.--Elvey (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification needed

I noticed this with regard to the analogous statement in the blocking policy, so mention it here too. The sentence "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." What do we mean by "either verifiable or productive"? Why not AND? And what do we mean by "independent reasons" - reasons other than the reasons that the banned editor would have? This all makes little sense to me, if it's intended to be restrictive at all. Victor Yus (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

No replies, so I'm guessing no-one really knows what it means to say. I propose, instead, something like this:

"Wikipedians are not expected to post or edit material at the direction of a banned editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying). If edits or comments are made at the suggestion of a banned editor, the user making them takes full responsiiblity for them and should be able to justify them independently. If such actions in any way continue the disruption for which the previous editor was banned, the user making them can expect to have similar sanctions applied."

Is this the right idea? Victor Yus (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Imagine that I'm banned, and I suggest that you fix a typo on some page. Fixing a typo would be "productive", but not "verifiable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Indefinite sitebans for repeated sockers

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I'd like to see the banning policy expanded with something such as the following:

Indefinitely-blocked editors who are caught times operating sockpuppets are to be considered formally and indefinitely sitebanned by default. They may be unbanned through the same processes as all other banned users.

It seems that most siteban discussions at WP:AN are for permablocked editors who continue editing through lots of sockfarms; apparently lots of people don't trust the idea of de-facto bans, and thus we're left with ban discussions that WP:SNOW into the well-deserved official siteban. If we declare that such editors are banned by default, we'll have the same results without needing to bother with as many discussions.

If you support this idea, please indicate your opinion on what number(s) should be inserted in the brackets. As well, if you support the idea but have a better idea for some of the wording, please spell out what you'd rather see proposed.

• Support as proposer; no opinion on the brackets. Nyttend (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• What about "Editors which stand no chance of being unblocked are considered banned." or something similar. That used to serve us well, and was removed a while ago for unknown reasons; such a statement would subsume the above case. --Jayron32 03:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's still there: "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, they are considered de facto banned." People don't seem to trust that idea, however; I wish they did, but I don't think I can change that. Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't want to get into discussions over whether the threshold should be three, six, or seven. I'm sympathetic to the goal of getting rid of those silly formal ban discussions, but this doesn't help.—Kww(talk) 04:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'm trying to translate this into practical effects. The practical difference between being indefinitely blocked and indefinitely site-banned is - what? That in the former case an admin might unilaterally decide to unblock you, but in the latter case any proposed debanning would require wider discussion? So the effect of the proposal is to forbid admins from unilaterally unblocking someone who's been caught sockpuppeteering n times? Or is it more than that? Victor Yus (talk) 08:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• There's always going to be a "rogue's gallery" of banned users here. Blurring the lines between indeffed users and banned users in an effort to make the "de facto = banned" thing fly is pointless. Banning is not an archaic practice that needs to go because all admins think alike. They don't. One admin indefinitely blocking a repeat sockmaster does not mean that the community has decided to ban them. It's along the lines of "checks and balances". Doc talk 09:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Insufficient rationale is provided for by-passing process. The rationale provided says, when appropriate proposals are made they are accepted. How often is the user not banned? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the community decide. Bans are generally decided by the community or by ArbCom through a formal process, not by an administrator imposing an indefinite block. If a user is repeatedly operating socks, an administrator should subject that user to the banning process, but a ban should not be automatic without community consensus. — DragonLord 15:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, the vast majority of bans come about by there being no administrator willing to undo an indefinite block. Hard to get precise numbers, but I would expect that well over 90% of bans happen that way. That's what de facto bans are all about. I understand the motive behind the original proposal here: people unwilling to recognize de facto bans as being legitimate keep insisting on having formal ban discussions when they serve no point. I just don't think this is the way to address it.—Kww(talk) 18:50, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your statement "hard to get precise numbers" is evidence that there is no operational definition for the term "de facto ban".  A corollary is that since an indef blocked editor per se does not have an admin who has unblocked him, all currently indef-blocked editors might be considered to be "de facto banned".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• You missed a part of that... The phrase "has continued to be disruptive" is part of a de facto ban. Users who are indef blocked and do not continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages are not de facto banned. --Jayron32 01:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• A de facto ban is ended pretty easily: one admin convincing himself that extending a second chance is in order and unblocking the account. Until that time, though, there's no operational difference between an indefinitely-blocked editor that is evading his ban and a banned editor. The purpose of a community ban is to prevent disruptive unblocking: the kind of thing that happened with Science Apologist, MartinPhi, A Nobody, and other editors that had a group of supportive admins that would unblock them no matter how disruptive they had become.—Kww(talk) 01:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - most community socks are non-abusive and hence legitimate, whether admitted to or not. Persistent abusive socking will eventually be met with a community ban anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 05:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC).
  
• Oppose - I see no real purpose in that - no admin would unblock a recently-socking user without community approval. And I think that many of our worst sock farms are operated by teenagers, who will be ready to be truely constructive Wikipedians in a few years. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support. I suggested something along these lines during some previous ban discussion for a prolific sockmaster. I think Nyttend hits the nail on the head when he says that the issue is that we no longer trust the informality of the de facto ban system (not that I think this should replace it; rather, it should supplement it). What this would do is put a stop to the endless re-hashings of past debates every time someone tries to ban an already d.f.-banned user. For those of you questioning the reason for this, that's the reason: Every time someone suggests such a ban, there's a contingent of users (who in many ways I agree with) who oppose the ban on the grounds that it's redundant with the d.f. ban. A measure like this would be a compromise between the two points of view.

However, I think the important thing to note here is that this should only be done for users where a formal ban would be nothing other than a formality (i.e. the only "oppose" !votes would be on the aforementioned procedural grounds). For that reason, I would only support a measure like this with a threshold of 50 or more confirmed sockpuppets. These are the users for whom it seems – to steal a term I've seen used in the past – "tribal" for us to ban. These are the users who are virtually never making constructive edits (re Rich) and virtually never turn good (re Od Mishehu). — PublicAmpers& 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

If something like this is accepted, the threshold needs to be closer to two than to fifty.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? We often don't even indef sockmasters until the third or fourth offense. — PublicAmpers& 18:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Because someone that is blocked on their third offense is usually de-facto banned at that point. If this rule got passed and written as 50, we'd be dealing with people arguing that we shouldn't ban somebody "because he only had 49 socks". Socking is a serious offense: in my eyes, the only thing worse is knowingly inserting false information. By the time someone has done it three times, there's no reason to ever trust them again.—Kww(talk) 19:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support, but prefer the site ban be a one- or two-year site ban, not indefinite  Whether it is one or two times caught using sockpuppets, this has an operational definition, unlike the concept de facto ban.  Looking at the article, "de facto" includes the meaning "...not officially established".  Functionally, there is no difference between an indef block and a de facto ban, as either status only requires one admin to remove it.  A WP:AN discussion in October 2012 was closed early arguing, "There's not going to be a consensus for a community ban, nor is any admin going to be dumb enough to unblock, so we can all move on."  The editor was unblocked in less than a week, without community discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment  De facto ban should be moved from policy to an essay.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Disagree with that. The idea that we have to have a formal discussion for every disruptive user to ever come across Misplaced Pages is unnecessary bureaucracy. Yes, for users with a well-known history at Misplaced Pages, with a history of positive contributions where it isn't a cut-and-dry case, ban discussions are useful to establish where the community stands. For users that have made no useful contribution to Misplaced Pages, who have shown no interest in making Misplaced Pages better, and whose entire history consists solely of trolling and vandalism and creating new accounts to dodge blocks, there shouldn't be a need to hold a tribunal to say we don't want that kind of person around. --Jayron32 03:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a single thing you've said that is not consistent with moving this concept to an essay.  What is it that you disagree with?  Unscintillating (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Moving the concept to an essay would remove it from the realm of official sanctioned policy and would instead make it an idea that everyone would ignore. I don't see the benefit of downgrading this concept, it should be part of official policy. --Jayron32 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• But what does it practically mean? That no-one's allowed to be unblocked unless there's an admin who's willing to unblock him? That sounds like a tautology. I would rather introduce some kind of standard for admins whereby you don't unilaterally undo another admin's block unless it was a clear error (if it's true that we have admins who make a habit of unblocking their "friends"). Victor Yus (talk) 08:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• It prevents Wikilawyering around some of our policies about banned editors. Over the years, our treatment of indefinitely blocked and banned editors have merged to the point of being indistinguishable, but there are some sections of policy language that have not caught up.—Kww(talk) 15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• So maybe we should tweak those sections, if the intention is that the two situations are to be indistinguishable (except, I assume, that a formal ban means that a single admin shouldn't simply unblock the user)? Victor Yus (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've got no problem with that. Still won't solve the base problem of people bringing up pointless formal ban discussions, though. The real goal is to get people comfortable with the idea that unless there's a real risk of a disruptive unblock, there's no need to was time on WP:AN with a formal ban discussion.—Kww(talk) 17:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification in the interaction between site and interaction ban

I have added the following clarification. I presume it is non-controversial? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I've rephrased it as "A ban from interacting with an editor remains in effect if the editor is later blocked or sitebanned, unless the interaction ban is explicitly lifted".  Sandstein  11:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It should be discussed. It is more than a clarification, as there was originally nothing about the concept to clarify. The timing is highly suspect in that it favours the position of a specific editor currently in conflict with another using this "clarification" as the rationale. This is not just policy by fiat but more distressingly policy by personal perspective. Please delete until it can be discussed. Bielle (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment