This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 11:22, 16 July 2009 (Discussion on topic bans). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:22, 16 July 2009 by Thatcher (talk | contribs) (Discussion on topic bans)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Discussion on topic bans
Admins can topic-ban individual editors without prior arbitration guidance, because I've done it. The most recent case is here, with the notification to the editor User_talk:Grundle2600#Topic_ban here. Like site bans, topic bans are enacted when one admin places the ban and no other admin is willing to lift or reverse the ban. I placed the ban after a long discussion on the Admin noticeboard in which a ban was proposed and endorsed by multiple uninvolved editors and admins. In the case of Abd, Hipocrite, and Cold Fusion, the ban was placed first, and then posted for discussion to the Admin noticeboard here, where it was broadly endorsed. It might have been better if WMC had himself posted the ban for review, but that does not invalidate the review itself.
If topic bans are not described in the current version of the banning policy, then that is a result of the fact that written policy often lags, rather than leads. New policies are sometimes developed by discussion first, then changing the written policy. But new policies are sometimes developed by editors and admins doing things that work, and that are broadly endorsed, and then eventually written into policy. It is telling that in neither the topic ban discussion for Grundle2600 referenced above, or for Abd and Hipocrite, did anyone (other than involved parties) argue that the ban was invalid because admins can't place such bans. Thatcher 11:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)