Misplaced Pages

talk:Editing restrictions: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:36, 3 November 2009 editOttava Rima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,327 edits →Inappropriate restriction← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:40, 19 December 2024 edit undo331dot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators183,143 editsm Reverted 1 edit by 98.175.105.252 (talk) to last revision by BeeblebroxTags: Twinkle Undo 
(397 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ split article|collapse=yes|
== Organization ==
| from = Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions
| to = Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee
| from_oldid = 799198701
| diff = 799231602
| date = 6 September 2017
| to2 = Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Misplaced Pages community
| from_oldid2 = 799232016
| diff2 = 799232807
| date2 = 6 September 2017
| to3 = Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Voluntary
| from_oldid3 = 799232820
| diff3 = 799233002
| date3 = 6 September 2017
| to4 = Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Unblock conditions
| from_oldid4 = 799233089
| diff4 = 799233495
| date4 = 6 September 2017
}}


{{hatnote|For the list of restrictions on users that are currently long-term blocked or inactive, see ]}}
Is listing primarily by case the best approach here? I would think that a listing by user:
{{archive basics|counter=7}}
{| class="wikitable"
{{archives}}
|-
| rowspan="2" | UserX
| Case1
| Restriction1
|-
| Case2
| Restriction2, Restriction3
|}
would be more useful to people trying to determine what a particular editor was subject to. ] 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


== Moot? ==
:Also, the expiration date may be of more immediate interest than the date when the restriction was imposed. ] 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Apparently, ] ; as such, is there any point to keeping the Abd/] interaction ban on here? ] (]) 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::Done. What about restrictions on use of alternate accounts? Where do we want to record those? ] <sup>]</sup> 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
:It is a two-way ban, meaning that ''neither'' one can discuss the other (barring ]), even if one is dead. Connolley is welcome to make a request at ] to have it lifted should he so choose. ] (]) 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


== Iimitlessyou restriction ==
:::Here is probably as good a place as any. ] 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I reverted as I broke the table (Thanks @] for flagging!) and I have no idea how to fix it. Their topic ban remains in place and I'd very much appreciate any help in logging it properly. Thank you! ] ] 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I've done December and November 2007, and will resume working on this tomorrow. ] <sup>]</sup> 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
::::September and October 2007 are done.] <sup>]</sup> 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC) :Um... you didn't break the table? You just had an extra --> in there. ] (]) 11:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
::oh good. @] was reporting that ''second half of the page has been moved into a cell on iimitlessyou's table row.'' which I assumed was my error. Thanks for restoring it for me @] ] ] 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

:::Huh... I guess there could have been something that got weird when it was transcluded (and I'm not saying that Bugghost ''didn't'' see anything) I just didn't find anything immediately obvious. Odd. ] (]) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
==Expiration date==
::::I think the problem was that in ] the final <code>|}</code> of the table was removed (the edit just ended the table with <code>}</code> instead) which meant the table wasn't "closed", so when the table was transcluded into WP:ER the rest of the article was visually placed ''in'' the table, rather than after it. Either way, looks like it's all fixed now! ]] 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm working on adding the list of users from ]. How should I handle expiration dates, when none was specified? Just leave it blank? --]]] 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
:::::Yup, that would do it. ] (]) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

: Indefinite. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

==Armenia-Azerbaijan 2==
I went ahead and added in the list of editors from ]. It was a complex case with many editors, and sanctions listed in two different cases, so I'd appreciate if someone could doublecheck my list and tweak as needed. --]]] 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

: Good work. The names of some of the remedies have changed. The list of possible values is at the top. "Supervised editing" is now "Probation". The other ones you want to use are "Revert limitation" and "Civility restriction". I can make adjustments later, but I am heading AFK right now. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is much duplication in the Armenia-Azerbaijan remedies. Can an arbitration or clerk look at that and confirm if we can collapse those to just the three point list? ] <sup>]</sup> 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

:Please feel free to trim older restrictions in cases where they're superseded by more recent ones. ] 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

==Status==
Everything back to April 2007 appears to be done. As we go back to 2006, the workload will be less because only indefinite sanctions will still be in effect. ] <sup>]</sup> 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==Bug==
Sort table and rowspan are incompatible. We must decide which feature to lose. I am not so fond of sorting because it is easy enough to search for a particular username with the browser. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

:I would think that the sorting would be useful to grab subsets by type and expiration date, though. ] 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

::Yes. We can remove the rowspans and the cells, there aren't many of these, and then everything will work. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

==2007 done==
All restrictions from 2007 are now logged. Before making effort to log 2006, I suggest determining whether it is worth the additional effort. I recommend that the committee consider placing a sunset date on all remedies. Of course, if an editor returns to old ways, a quick appeal to the Committee should be sufficient to reinstate any lapsed remedy. Perhaps the Committee can agree to terminate all remedies more than one year old, subject to speedy reinstatement if problems resume. ] <sup>]</sup> 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

== Organization (2) ==

Three items relating to organization of this page:
* As noted ], how about combining multiple sanctions for the same editor?
* This page does not appear to be in any useful order. Is there a good reason for that, or do we all just have better things to do with our time than alphabetize?
* There are a couple of red-linked editors. Is it worth maintaining them on this page?
<br>] (]) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

== Old community sanctions ==

Please see ]. There is an old sanction there for ] and disagreement over whether the sanction is still in place or not. I suspect if it is, then it should have been moved to ]. Since it wasn't, what should happen? My view is that the sanction is now very old (18 months) and is no longer needed and should be formally lifted. The underlying problem is that it is unclear who should lift an indefinite sanction placed by the community. Does it require another full community discussion or what? I can dig up links to the old history and the current mini-flare-up of this dispute, and will notify Gene Nygaard and Husond, but want to get this uncertainty sorted out one way or the other. Current state of the discussion (as of this timestamp) is . There was also an ANI thread archived ]. ] (]) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
:Some old ANI threads are ] and ] and ]. ] (]) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

::It certainly doesn't belong here.
::Nothing should happen; it is what that pages says it is—something kept for historical purposes only, a historical record of a failed '''procedure''' with no consensus, and one which had no basis whatsoever at the time of the original action:
::{| class="messagebox"
|-
| style="font-size:36px" | ]
| '''This Misplaced Pages page is currently inactive and is retained for ''historical'' archive.''' ] is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the ] of the ].
|}
::Furthermore, Husond, who remains the only one making these claims, has already unsuccessfully made his claims and they have been answered at ANI. ] (]) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. I'd view sanctions as surviving the obsolescence of the process that put them in place. ANI no doubt is the proper place to discuss whether they should still be in force or should be lifted, but I would not be so cavalier as to dismiss them purely on legalistic grounds as you appear to have done. ++]: ]/] 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
::::In this case, it isn't even a matter of surviving obsolescence; that process was both after the fact and rejected. And no, ANI is not the proper place in any case, and even if it were, it has done so last November. ] (]) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

::::Responding to Lar: it certainly seems this is the wrong place. Husond has seemingly ignored or forgotten my note, Lar arrived very late, Gene took a day or so to arrive. I suspect no-one is actually watching this page. What should be done? I would like to petition for Gene's sanction to be formally lifted, but that is a weakness of the community sanction process. Blocks can be undone by single admins. Bans and topic sanctions seemingly require a full debate, unless the sanctions are limited by a time period. No productive editor (as Gene is) should be under indefinite sancions forever. At some point they should be reviewed and lifted. ] (]) 10:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

:::::Actually I've just bumped into this, I hadn't noticed your message on my talk page. In my view, Gene's probation is still in force unless lifted by the community. Gene keeps bringing on the "this page is inactive" sign at the top of the community sanctions page, but he forgets that "historical" does not mean "revoked". In fact, as he should have pasted along, his probation is under section "'''Current sanctions'''" (not "former sanctions") and as one reads "Gene Nygaard is banned from non consensual article moves '''until further notice'''". Further notice has not occurred, therefore the probation remains unchanged. It can only be lifted following community consensus for such, most likely at ANI. <strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
:::::::ANI really ''really'' is the place to take this for resolution. This sanction IS in place at this time as far as I am concerned. I would certainly look favourably on a request for a lifting of this sanction if the request acknowledged that the sanction was in place, and that there was a valid matter of concern, and if it demonstrates that things have changed, and that the behaviour that caused the sanction to be imposed has changed. On the other hand, if the argument is advanced that "the sanction is not in force" or "there was no basis for it", or "ANI isn't the place to discuss it", or "the behaviour never occurred" I'll be among those voices arguing strongly that the sanction be maintained in force without change, or strengthened further. Because, make no mistake, the revert/move warring that was occurring was disruptive, and needs not to recur. That's the basis to discuss this... that the disruption isn't going to continue, not any procedural wankery. Any ruleslawyering will hold zero (or less) water with me. I am but one voice and perhaps others will feel differently but somehow, I suspect not. ++]: ]/] 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

==Expired restrictions==
How are we handling expired restrictions? Just delete them off the page, or move them to an archive? Also, one of the affected editors, Skyelarke, recently changed names to {{user|Scott Free}}. They're no longer under their initial 3-month ban, but other restrictions continue to apply even after the original ban. How should this be notated? --]]] 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

== User OrangeMarlin ==

Since the decision was made vacant, shouldn't his name be cleared from the ArbCom enforced ones? Or moved to Community after compromise with jpgordon? ] (]) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed. I've removed him from the list. ] (]) 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

== Responsibility for "declaring" consensus and logging restrictions ==

To firm things up a bit here for the "community" enacted restrictions, could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page? This seems to be how things are done at the moment, but some confusion has arisen recently on whether responsibility for enacting/lifting bans and dealing with appeals and other paperwork lies with a particular admin, or with the "community". I think it is better to have an individual deal with things once the discussion has ended (and be a point of contact), but that the "community" should be the one to overturn any restrictions or discuss any appeal. With the proviso of course that the editor in question can still appeal directly to the community (if they feel the "point of contact" is obstructing them) or direct to ArbCom (who will, I believe, hear appeals against restrictions that both they and the community hand down). I'll leave a note at ]. ] (]) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

:I agree that no ban is properly effective until there has been a close, a responsible administrator. However, requiring that a closing admin return to the community if the admin, presumably based on new evidence or analysis, determines that the original decision was faulty, is a problematic (read highly inefficient) departure from how we make other decisions, including block decisions, and I see no reason why a topic ban should have more complicated requirements, and more stringent process, than a block or, say, an AfD. We undo decisions, routinely, by appeal to the person or body that made the decision, and the community does not make decisions, directly. It makes them through a process that collects evidence and analysis from members of the community, and which then results in a single individual who makes a determination presumably based on that. Typically, the community comment includes !votes in both directions, but a closing admin is free to decide differently than indicated by any !vote count, this is the meaning of "We do not vote," and the closing admin typically, as well, closes the discussion. And what an admin is free to decide in the first place, it vastly increases our efficiency if the admin may, on his or her own discretion, reverse that decision or set conditions that may not have been clear in the original decision, which would include, for example, the term of a ban. I agree that if the closing admin cannot be persuaded to reverse the decision, or directly refuses to discuss it, it would be wheel-warring for another admin to reverse the decision, and a new comment process would be necessary. If, however, the admin withdraws responsibility, then there is no close, effectively, and any admin could make a new close, if desired, which could consider new evidence, which should be specified, and which ''might'' be accompanied by a courtesy notice to the body which made the original decision.
:There is an actual case which precipitated this, and sometimes discussing "rules" in the abstract can fail to be understandable; judges, for example, do not generally issue rulings on law absent a specific case where existing rules are possibly deficient. But I'll leave it to others to decide if the case should be mentioned.
:We don't face this problem with blocks, because blocks are self-enforcing. With a block, we consider and give the unblocking admin full discretion to reverse the block, even if there was full consensus for it in a preceding discussion. There are exceptions, but the norm is that the blocking admin may lift the block without consulting. For any other admin to lift the block requires the consent of the blocking admin, or a new discussion overruling the block or, at least, showing lack of consensus for it. Thus, by analogy, lifting a ban would require the consent of the closing admin who certifies it, or further process. That certification includes listing the ban in Editing restrictions, which is equivalent to listing a user in the list of blocked users that Misplaced Pages maintains (or setting a blocked bit, same thing). What the admin may list, the admin may unlist, or may permit another to do so. This is really very simple, consistent with other process, and should bypass much convoluted and contentious process that some seem to think necessary for lifting a ban based on a discussion, say, at AN/I.
:It might seem there is an exception, blocks based on an ArbComm decision. But with ArbComm, the "body" actually makes decisions by actual vote, hence ArbComm is the place to go to change a ban, and it makes itself readily available for that purpose. Bans or blocks are routinely undone by ArbComm, sometimes based on private email to the Committee. ArbComm does not necessarily reopen a case to alter an outcome, in fact, I can't recall ever seeing it. ArbComm, through vote, takes the place of a single administrator in the rest of our process. --] (]) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)<small>I'm under a self-imposed general ban from editing outside my user space, but there are some listed exceptions, and this issue is one covered by them, though I don't intend to debate here, I just wanted to put this view before the interested community. I was, in fact, recently blocked because I strongly asserted this view, plus other complications.</small>

:::In my observation, once one has passed judgment on an issue one becomes personally involved to a considerable degree. Matters involving any challenge or modification should be heard by someone else. For continuity , there is no harm in the original person coordinating things, but there should be ready appeal. ''']''' (]) 22:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
::::I agree about the involvement issue. But we don't have that in place, anywhere, except with unblock requests, but a user may also negotiate unblock with the blocking admin, and that's common. Ready appeal is a different issue, essentially the second step in dispute resolution. The first step is discussion with the admin who has taken an action. The issue I've raised is quite simple. If an admin closes a discussion, and takes action based on that closure, may the admin reverse the decision without reopening the discussion, thus taking the situation to where it would have been if the admin had made a different close in the first place? We do this with blocks and XfDs. Why not with bans? It's less fuss, not more. --] (]) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that ] and I did much of the early work putting together this page. The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct. The admin who closes a community discussion should record the result where the discussion occurs. It is then a mere secretarial task for that same admin, or another editor, to copy the restriction here, verbatim, with a link to the discussion. Please read ] and let's not have solutions looking for problems. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

: So in your view, a ban becomes a ban when an administrator closes the discussion and not when it is listed here, correct? I think either would be satisfactory from a process perspective since either demarcates a specific and objective point in time. Is this a formal rule already in place, or merely customary practice at this point? ] is all well an good but some of these procedural ambiguities cause a lot of disruption. Take, for example, the entire WW flap at ]. --] (]) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::Now, let's not argue over mere procedure. Sanctions come into force as soon as an administrator closes the relevant discussion, "confirming" the consensus of the community. As suggested above, ] is nought but a convenient index. When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus ''at that instant'' is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect. ] 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
::::(edit conflict)I don't think that a user could properly be blocked for violating a ban that the user was not notified of, so courtesy and common sense would suggest that the sequence would be (1) close of the discussion, (2) notification of the editor, and (3) logging of the ban, here, and, I just learned, creation of the log file in the user's space. The latter does not create the ban, the close does, but it only takes enforceable effect upon the notification of the editor. (That's the "warning" that must precede block.) The logging is, as described, doable by anyone, but if it isn't done, the ban is less effective. Logging here is just to make broader enforcement possible. It's possible that the closing, notification, and logging could be done by three different editors, but it's also simplest to assume that the responsibility for doing them is with the closing admin, just as it it normally the closing admin who actually deletes an article from an AfD. If there is nobody with the responsibility, then it might not get done, and I don't see anyone else who would have the responsibility. It should be, simply, part of the close, as with deletion.--] (]) 04:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
:::The point is that in the case that prompted this, it seems that initially no-one bothered to close the discussion (at least not formally), and it was assumed that a community topic ban had come into effect, but it seem and the first they heard was someone complaining about them breaching the ban. Fritzpoll then closed the new ANI discussion (implying that the ban had come into effect, even though the never got closed and is still there in the archives, unclosed) and , and things went from there (the later dispute concerned a different-but-related point about where an appeal should be made and who should be taking responsibility for the topic ban). The point is that for future admins dealing with the topic ban, there needed to be a permanent record, preferably both here and in the editor's userpages, but as far as I can tell, that never happened. You can have too much bureaucracy, but you can also have too little. Let's try and get the balance right. There should be a minimum of paperwork needed for something as serious as a community-based ban to take effect, whether it is total ban, a topic ban, or something else. Arbcom and the clerks can cope with the paperwork for the Arbcom-sanctioned restrictions. The community should at least do the same with the restrictions they come up with (and to be fair, someone does most of the time). One more point. Jehochman says: ''"The admin who closes a community discussion should record the result where the discussion occurs."'' This is not sufficient for AN and ANI discussions. Once archived, they are not visible enough unless a link is recorded somewhere else. The reason it is good practice to record an entry here, and to record it on the user talk page and in the userspace of the editor concerned, is because that: (a) shows that the editor has been made aware of the restriction; and (b) this page is a more visible and more easily found record of such discussions compared to trawling through the AN archives. Arbcom is higholy structured and its decisions can be found easily. The community is not so organised, and its decisions can be harder to find unless recorded properly. That is not ]. It is ]. To get more specific, if any of the editors on this list at the moment wanted to appeal their restrictions, where should they do so? Blocked editors get detailed instructions on how and where to appeal. I see no such instructions here. Where is the first port of call for someone wishing to appeal a community topic ban, or to say they will agree to conditions needed for a topic ban to be lifted? ] (]) 04:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

===Example of unlogged community ban===
See . Can anyone here say that if the same problem comes up again in the future, that they would know where to look to find the previous discussions? The block log summary says ''"Community request by multiple editors on ANI & elsewhere"''. It would be nice to have a link for that, wouldn't it? Or maybe an entry at ]? Possibly I'm misunderstanding this, and it was an indefinite block for something specific, and not a community ban. I've asked the blocking admin if they can remember where the discussion got archived. ] (]) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

:It was an indefblock that, three weeks later, turned into a community ban. I've responded in more detail on your talk page. Best, ]<sup>]</sup> 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

::Might I suggest someone takes responsibility for this and logs it at ]? ] (]) 11:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

:::OK, I've done that, though I've no idea who closed the ANI ban discussion - my only real involvement in all that unpleasantness was to issue the initial indefblock. Maybe there should be some guidelines on closing threads at the top of ] somewhere? ]<sup>]</sup> 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::Mangojuice closed the discussion as "ban" with . The question of ban maintenance is worthy of discussion. Normally, we appeal a decision by first contacting the person or body that made the decision. The community, I know of only one exception, does not actually make any decisions, rather they are made by individuals, often after advice from the community, but the individual actually is responsible for the decision, and, I'd suggest, an individual should never make a decision based purely on the number of editors giving advice, but on the evidence and arguments. This, then, is the go-to person as the first step in any dispute over the decision, which is very simple and which can resolve many issues with practically no fuss. The exception is ArbComm, which makes decision according to formal rules as a body, so to reverse an ArbComm decision requires, just the same, going back to the actual origin of the decision, and ArbComm reverses its decisions, even privately sometimes. No new community discussion. A new, broader discussion of a community ban decision should not be necessary unless, under the new circumstances -- which may include new evidence or arguments not previously considered, somebody disagreeing with it wants to bring it up and discuss it. The point is that this is a highly efficient process, if followed, one likely to maintain consensus efficiently, compared to discussing everything over again in a larger group. We do it with AfDs, we do it with blocks, so, I suggest, we should do it with bans including topic bans. I've seen drastically disruptive results from this not being clear. --] (]) 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::I'll point Mangojuice here. Would be good to get some more opinions. ] (]) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::More opinions on what? Is CarolSpears trying to appeal? There's an entry on the list now, it looks correct, looks like everything is fine. ]]<sup>]</sup> 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, I thought it was obvious. We are trying to get people to remember to add entries here. It gets confusing if people forget to log things here. See my comments above about the relative efficiency and organisation of ArbCom (which has clerks) versus the community (which doesn't), as regards logging and recording bans. I know, I know, sounds horribly bureaucratic, but some functioning level of bureaucracy is needed to ensure things don't take ages to look up later if needed. And no, as far as I'm aware, CarolSpears is not trying to appeal. It was just the closest example I had to hand of a recent community ban. ] (]) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Eh. Honestly, I don't know about that list, it seems to flirt with ]. IMO, as long as the ban is clearly noted, with relevant links available, on the user's talk page or user page, we've got what we need to enforce the ban and easily handle non-starter appeals that might be made. In extreme circumstances, it's good to have a summary, but that's what ] is all about. Plus, this is unachievable anyway: many users are "de-facto" banned since they are blocked and no admin is willing to unblock them. ]]<sup>]</sup> 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::I think in principle it makes sense to record these somewhere central, though I hate unnecessary bureaucracy. It's only formal (ie community-decided) bans that are being discussed, if I've correctly understood the comments above. De facto 'bans' - those indefblocks that no-one has challenged or expressed a willingness to undo - would be wildly impractical to revisit to see if there's community consensus for a formal ban; I'd bet the vast majority by far are vandal-only accounts with half-a-dozen edits and issued via AIV or somewhere similar. However, I think this issue of an indefblock that later becomes a formal ban (as happened with CarolSpears) is worth examining. I certainly wouldn't have thought to record the ban here had I closed that discussion, although I was peripherally aware of the existence of this list. Is the suggestion that ''all'' such bans be recorded here, or would a link in the block log be sufficient? (in which case, it would be fairly straightforward for the closing admin to re-block to update the log). Either way, some guidelines would be helpful on the relevant noticeboards. ]<sup>]</sup> 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
We don't need additional bureaucracy, but ] I see as a way for a closing admin to ask for help enforcing a ban. It is entirely possible that an admin doesn't consider this necessary, and is willing to take full personal responsibility. There is no harm from not listing here, and some benefit, I'd say. A topic ban is a bit like a block. It can be imposed by a single admin with no consultation at all. Or it can be imposed, after discussion, but it's important to recognize that we don't make decisions by vote, period. Discussions here are purely advisory. The actual decision is made by an editor, but in cases involving the use of tools, an administrator, who, in the case of a ban, makes the decision through, most importantly, warning the editor of the ban, it is not in effect until then. If any admin warns a user against editing a topic, that user can be blocked based on that warning. Here, though, normally, only "community bans" are listed. (ArbComm bans being somewhat different). These are bans that resulted from a discussion and close. Given that any admin could close such a discussion, with any decision, no matter what the vote, this admin can also handle -- and in analogous situations does often handle -- any appeals or requests for clarification. And that admin can, here, ask for help enforcing the ban, and any admin can block for violation of what is properly described here, without personal investigation other than verifying that the violation took place. The original closing admin remains responsible for it. As I have described it, it is a nonbureaucratic process, and it isn't broken. The problems I see with it, in a recent case, have to do with the responsibilities of the closing admin. Is that admin simply a rubber stamp for the community, with no personal responsibility for examining the evidence and arguments, making the decision based on preponderance of the votes? If so, we have devolved to a voting system for making decisions, and, indeed, bureaucracy and rules and enforcement of rules and all the rest will be required. I see no need to move away from the concept of decisions being made by closing admins. It's when a closing admin thinks, "I didn't make this decision, the community did," that problems arise. Can I RfC the community for an error? Whom do I notify? But if an AfD close is incorrect, in my opinion, I can simply discuss it with the closing admin, it is very simple, it takes place without a rush, we can go back and forth a few times, it's highly efficient. Wider discussion is only needed if, several steps down the road, we come to an impass. And we need to keep it that way. --] (]) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
:That makes a lot of sense, although I think in the case of an endorsed community ban proposal the only real decision the closing admin has to make is ''when'' to close the discussion. As I understand it, support for such a ban has to be unanimous anyway - if even just a single admin expresses a willingness to unblock, the editor in question isn't banned (and then interpretation may be needed, because a range of options could come into play). In practical terms, I don't believe an admin who regularly goes against community consensus is likely to hang on to their tools long either ;) However, even though there may not be much room for interpretation sometimes, I fully agree that, once given the tools, admins accept personal responsibility for their use and the consequences thereof, and by closing ''any'' discussion, an admin is indicating a willingness to take responsibility for its outcome. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

::Abd, you have a few things wrong there. First, discussions are advisory, but it's not the conclusion of ban-or-no-ban that they advise... that conclusion is advisory too (and would have no effect if it was plainly wrong, other than to confuse people). What they advise is the actions taken to enforce the ban: e.g. the actual block placed on the user or their sockpuppets, or the reverting of their edits, or handling subsequent unblock requests. Also, admins do not have the power to topic-ban people, except in areas where ArbCom has set up "discretionary sanctions." I think what you're saying is that in some cases, bans need to be actively enforced: blocks, deletions, et cetera, over a long period of time. In such cases, if they're bad enough, I agree with having a description of the user and the cause for the ban; having reviewed LARGE numbers of sockpuppetry blocks for banned users, I would definitely find this helpful. However, I think there's no reason to suggest that this be done in all cases. Decisions should be transparent, so relevant links about the ban should be easily available, but that's enough unless the user's disruption has gotten to the point where we can call it ]. ]]<sup>]</sup> 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
:::I may have some details wrong, but what I wrote is, I think, confirmed by what you wrote, Mangojuice, i.e., discussions are advisory. All discussions. It may well be that admins, by tradition, don't have the power to topic ban, but, actually, I've seen the opposite, i.e., I've seen, for example, an admin condition an unblock on a topic ban. If the admin could condition an unblock on it, they could refrain from blocking based on conformance to it. It may well be, though, that it isn't done, ordinarily, except for ArbComm "disretionary sanctions," but that doesn't change the essence of what I've written: that the one who makes the decision, is the one who is responsible for enforcing it, generally, that nobody else can, ordinarily, reverse that decision without discussion. The truly important point I'm reinforcing is that responsibility for decisions rests with individuals, and that, if an individual can make a decision, they can also reverse it. The only decisions that are not made by an individual are ArbComm decisions, which are made by vote. So an individual can't reverse an ArbComm decision; but they could reverse an enforcement action, i.e., if an admin blocks a user based on an ArbComm sanction, they can unblock at their own discretion.
:::It may seem like this is much fuss over nothing, but we just saw a situation where a topic ban was voted upon at AN/I. There was no close, though there were a majority of !votes for the ban, though suggested length varied widely. Later, when the user edited contrary to the presumed ban, which had never been declared, the user had not been warned, there was a complaint, and an admin warned the user; however, when the user complained about the ban, the admin said something like "Don't blame me, it was a community decision, I'm just the messenger." This was not an admin taking responsibility for a close decision. He was just telling her about the ban, ''but nobody had decided to ban.'' When I approached him about it, he decided, okay, he was the closer, but when I asked him for the evidence underlying the ban (i.e., diffs showing improper behavior repeated after warning), he turned out not to have that evidence, and it had not been presented at AN/I. Typical AN/I case, unfortunately, lots of editors !voting, but very little actual investigation. The now-closing admin said that he could not reverse the ban without going back to the community that decided upon it. Hence my point: the community doesn't make decisions, individuals do, and elsewhere, our process is pretty clear; when a closer makes a decision, presumably based on evidence and arguments, not on votes, the closer is the responsible person, the first person to go to if one wishes to appeal the decision. Object to an AfD close? First stop: the closing admin. It's a lot more efficient than DRV, particularly if one has new evidence or can show that the AfD process was flawed. Closers will ''normally'' decide in the same lines as rough consensus, but they are free to decide differently, and, indeed, they should if they see that the welfare of the project requires it. The closer can then decide on specific terms, conditions for lifting the ban, and whether or not those conditions have been fulfilled, and can also lift the ban based on new evidence or arguments. It shouldn't be necessary to discuss it. We have no procedure for automatically notifying those who voted Delete on an article, for example, that the closing admin reversed his or her decision. The new decision, just like the original one, can be challenged at DRV, and, as well, a DRV close can theoretically be challenged by various means. When it works, it works very well. The vast majority of decisions made in the project, editorial and behavioral, are made with minimal group discussion, when there is discussion it isn't binding on anyone, though certainly those who have the tools to implement ''their own decisions'' may consider, and should consider, any discussion that has taken place.
:::Is there any place which describes our decision-making process? I don't really recall reading about this, I've only come to understand what I've said here by observing examples. Given the possible damage done by decisions with major import (an improperly blocked or even topic-banned user may simply disappear, many people don't respond well to coercion or threats, I've come to understand the system of individual responsibility to be one that can allow rapid review, if it is recognized.
:::Community topic bans seem to be pretty uncommon, to look at the list here. --] (]) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

::::No, admins really don't just place topic bans. I have seen several cases where a user ends up topic banned, or under parole or probation, as a condition of an unblock but in all cases, those were proposed to the user and accepted by them as a compromise. ]]<sup>]</sup> 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
== RFC on Civility restrictions and other questions ==

I have started a RFC, available at ], about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to ]. Comment is appreciated there. ] (]) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

== Topic ban ==

I suggest that a guideline is created for topic bans as the instrument appears to be applied more often. Currently, ] redirects to here where there is just a single sentence, apparently open to multiple interpretations as well. ] (], ]) 10:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
: I've clarified the wording slightly. I don't think this extends the definition at all, but will hopefully clarify some recent misunderstandings. ] <small>]</small> 08:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:: (ec) Please don't do that. You are not the owner of this policy.

The current text reads:
* '''''Topic ban''' The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so.''
For now, I suggest to change this into:
<div style="border:2px solid black; background:#FFEE99;">'''''Topic ban''' The user is prohibited from editing any article related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so. The user is furthermore not allowed to discuss the topic except in cases where the user's conduct or the ban itself is addressed. A topic ban does not extend to user (talk) pages but, when asked by another user, the user should withdraw from discussing the topic on that other user's talk page.'' ] (], ]) 09:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
</div>

Is this page policy? It's not tagged as such. The topic ban should extend to discussing the topic anywhere. You should be able to discuss the ban without discussing the topic. I would suggest:
* '''''Topic ban''' The user is prohibited from making any edit related to a particular topic to any article or talk page, and may be blocked if they do so.''
or
* '''''Topic ban''' : The user is prohibited from making any edit related to a particular topic and from any page related to the topic. They may be blocked if they do so.''
it is the edits on certain topics that are restricted, not pages. That's why it's called a topic ban. I don't like the introduction of unnecessary caveats in your version. ] <small>]</small> 09:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:Surely if someone's banned from editing articles relating to a particular topic, they need to have access to the talk pages, so they can propose changes that they themselves are not allowed to make? Unless those imposing the ban have found it necessary to forbid the user from even discussing the topic, which I would have thought would be over the top in most cases.--] (]) 10:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:: Well the current text includes talk pages of a topic, and editors are often topic banned because of their disruptive talk page behaviour. In Guido's case his toic ban specifically mentions talk pages for that reason. Again, they are banned from the topic - so shouldn't be posting about it anywhere. If we are going to have different levels of topic ban than that should be made clear, but the general definition should be the simplest - a ban from the topic. ] <small>]</small> 10:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::: Please stop commenting on my case everywhere in Misplaced Pages. ] (], ]) 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, it ought to be made clear one way or the other when the ban is made. I would expect the default to be a ban from editing articles, but not from discussing. If there has been disruptive talk page behaviour that necessitates the ban being extended to discussions, then that ought to be explicitly stated.--] (]) 12:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::: So perhaps we should say that generally topic bans ban the user from discussing the topic anywhere, but specific bans may be more lenient? Therefore the default is strong, and as the definition used and my calcification above, but a topic ban could be restricted to ''only'' article space if the person enacting the ban so restricts it (explicitly). ] <small>]</small> 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Why is that better? You doubtless have more experience of this area than I do, but is it really more common for bans to include discussion than not? I would have thought in the case of simple edit warring bans, we would ''want'' the user to engage in discussions as a way of returning him/her to good standing, since it tends to be a failure to so engage that's the initial problem. Surely if you're imposing a ban and you want to extend it to discussions, then you must have specific reasons for so doing, and those specific reasons need to be stated, so you might as well state the extended scope of the ban at the same time. If you don't, then we assume the ban doesn't cover discussions.--] (]) 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::: {{ec}}We're talking about topic bans, not bans for editwarring or anything else. The current text includes talk pages. We should expect the topic ban to include all edits about the topic - it's simply what topic ban means. ] <small>]</small> 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::How are topic bans "not bans for editwarring or anything else"? Presumably bans are not handed out for no reason, so they must be for something. If it really is WP custom that the phrase "topic ban" is understood to include discussing the topic, then fine, but since it goes against my intuition I'd appreciate at least some authority for that besides your personal statement.--] (]) 13:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::If anything it should be the other way around, I have never seen a case where a user is barred from discussing a certain topic outside pages that are directly associated with it (articlespace and related talkpages). Even 'broadly construed' refers to articles and talkpages that involve the topic, not discussions elsewhere that touch on it. ] (]) 12:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::{{ec}} Hello Unomi, odd to see you here. You have seen such a case, the case of Guido (above) and the case Science Apologist. What bit of "topic ban" is unclear? ] <small>]</small> 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::I think you should stop alluding to hounding, this is a fairly high profile discussion and you have tried to make sweeping changes to policy, of course I am going to comment. I am not particularly conversant regarding SA's topic ban, but I believe that he tried to edit policy and it was somehow not covered by his topic ban, whether those edits contributed to his later sitewide ban, I do not know. As for the exact wording of Guidos topic ban, I could not find it, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link to it? Regardless, most topic bans specifically list talk pages if the ban indeed covers those, this means that the standard topic ban is fairly narrow and requires explicit broadening when appropriate, I believe this is sound. ] (]) 13:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::: The current text "The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so." includes articles and talk pages. I have not tried to drastically alter policy (or this page, which isn't policy). Guido has removed the terms of his topic ban, but here is a . Maybe it should be added to the list here, it's an arbcom ban. ] <small>]</small> 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::: Thank you for the diff, I agree that it should be added to the restrictions list. ''Topic ban on CFS topics on all articles and talk pages for one year.'' certainly reads as though it was meant to be interpreted as broadly and restrictively as possible. ] (]) 14:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::: Without the email exchanges, the information is not complete. Regards, ] (], ]) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::In fact, relevantly or not, looking at the list on this page, I see that quite a lot of the topic bans explicitly include talk pages, quite a lot explicitly exclude them, and some don't say one way or the other. This leaves me confused as to whether those in the last group are supposed to include them or not.--] (]) 12:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

'''Comment''' topic bans are not page bans. If an account is banned from a ] it is banned editing and/or commenting on it anywhere in wikipedia - not just an article page. A page ban is where an account is banned from a particular page. A site ban is where an account is banned from the site. These are 3 distinct bans all that the disposal of the community (see ]. Furthermore, if a banned editor is unclear about where their ban extends to they should seek clarification either at RfAr (in the clarification section) or on ANI depending on whether the ban is from the community, an admin or ArbCom--] <sup>]</sup> 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:The actual topic bans listed on the page contradict that. Kotniski is right, in practice there seems to be a variety of possibilities all under the header of 'topic ban', so my text above is not accurate. I still suggest it to be the standard, but the text should indicate that variation is possible. ] (], ]) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:: No, some are given leeway. A topic ban (like yours) is in general a ban from the topic. ] <small>]</small> 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::Look GdB it's very simple a topic ban is called a "topic ban" because it's a ban from a ''topic''. Page bans are bans from pages. The only group of people usually disqualified from editing articles but suggesting/commenting on material on talk pages are editors with a ]--] <sup>]</sup> 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::You're kinda contradicting yourself here. ] (], ]) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::No I'm not GdB. Accounts with a COI are usually asked not to edit pages (but they aren't banned unless they violate policy) - see ]. But people who are topic banned are banned from topics - in every and any article, talk page, category, portal, wikiproject, thread in user space and/or noticeboards, etc related to that topic on wikipedia. People who are page banned are just banned from particular pages. It's very simple--] <sup>]</sup> 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::Cailil, while it could make sense to explicitly distinguish between topic bans and page bans, there is currently no definition for page ban, but the term topic ban is also used in such cases. How do you suggest we proceed? ] (], ]) 21:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::::] is the best way to proceed GdB - the current definition of "topic ban" is quite explicit. The number of page bans is small comparatively and are obvious, also I have never seen a topic ban imposed in the place of a page-ban. And as verbal says some topic bans are qualified either by ArbCom or the sysop imposing them. Seriously GdB a 'page ban' is exactly what it says on the tin - there's no need for ] when ] will do - if a definition was to be added it would simply read: 'Page ban: a ban from editing a specific page' and that's so clear from the term that the definition is itself redundant. Besides page bans come under 'discretionary sanctions' imposable by admins and may vary (it's up to the admin imposing such a ban to specify it)--] <sup>]</sup> 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
::::::::This is all a new area to me, but if what you say is true, then I'm concerned that we might be being manipulated by our own terminology into imposing sanctions that are inappropriate. If there are two basic sanctions: "page bans" (on editing specific pages) and "topic bans" (on addressing specific topics), then there's a huge gap: there's no term for a ban on editing ''content'' (not talk) pages ''on a specific topic''. And this is just the sort of ban I would have thought to be appropriate in many cases (where the behaviour leading to it did not involve talk page incivility etc.). I wonder whether people on observing aggressive editing (but not uncivil) behaviour don't think "oh right, good case for a topic ban", and fail to take into account that there are no grounds for the ban to include discussions.--] (]) 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Good point. There seems a good case in principle to have a "topic editing ban" and a "topic ban". The former would permit discussion. However I'm not sure in practice how useful that would be; I suspect most cases of "topic editing ban"s will quickly merit "topic ban"s. Still, it may be worth having a distinction, it may help in some cases. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
→(outdent) In practice that would be rather difficult though - usually people who 'edit aggressively' end up breaking 3RR and wind-up being sanctioned for that (and get placed on 1RR or 0RR). I'm not aware of a case of a topic ban that didn't arise from ] and disruption of talk space usually happens first. One of the things that must be borne in mind is that a page ban has been discretionary sanction that developed through practice and that topic bans were the more lenient form of community bans. Both of these sanctions developed from practice rather than theory. Could you point me towards some topic bans that would/should allow talk page involvement. Also it's worth bearing in mind that all sanctions (whether imposed by the community, ArbCom or an admin) can be unique (in terms of scope, length etc) and that ] might not help the situation--] <sup>]</sup> 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well, there are many topic bans listed on this page that explicitly allow talk page involvement. As I say, I don't have much experience of any of this, so if those who are involved in this area are happy there's no problem, then I won't complain further. I was just a bit surprised coming here finding how it's done (perhaps because most of the DE problems I've personally encountered have ''not'' involved disruption of talk space, but rather failure to use talk space).--] (]) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::I don't think it's particularly ]y to clarify current practice in policy. Some topic bans extend to talk pages, and some don't. In some cases this is explicit, in others it isn't. It shouldn't be that hard to find a formulation that encapsulates these issues and clarifies what tools are available; it's not like we're giving guidelines on when/how these should or should not be used. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I am mostly in agreement with Cailil that it is unhelpful to wikilawyer on this. A topic ban usually involves a ban from a topic (that is, a set of affected pages). We don't waste our time listing each and every page explicitly (nor do we go about fortune telling on what potential new pages will also fall under the topic) - instead, we expect the sanctioned user to use an amount of common sense, follow the terms of the restriction, and effectively comply with the topic ban to avoid being site banned altogether. If he/she is unsure about something, then seeking clarification is encouraged, and important - but where a topic ban is broadly construed, this means avoiding editing on pages that could possibly fall under the topic ban, unless expressly given clarification/allowance to do so before-hand. Some "topic bans" don't involve an entire topic, and involve just specific pages, but due to the nature of enforcement (i.e., if you edit on the set of affected pages, you will be sanctioned according to x y and z), it's put under the category of topic-ban - the other categories simply don't fit. Sometimes, restrictions that fall under the category of topic ban will include/exclude either certain specific pages (like a particular article) or certain types of pages (like all talk pages in the topic). It really is a case-by-case thing, but I hope that help clarifies the underlying point. ] (]) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
::::So to clarify things for newcomers to the topic like me, would there be any objection to changing the sentence from ''The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so.'' to ''The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, '''often including talk pages''', and may be blocked if they do so.''?--] (]) 17:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::yes there would I'm afraid: 'often' is not accurate. And talk pages is not broad enough. Seriously, look at the definition of the word ] - it's quite clear. There is a common sense issue here. if you are banned from a topic that means anything about it anywhere in wikipedia (not just talk or article space). And I would like to see these topic bans that should be called page bans - It would be helpful, because we make rules on WP to reflect practice. The reason teh definition of topic ban is left to common sense is simple: its a ] sanction adapted to fit the particular situation by those imposing it--] <sup>]</sup> 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Sorry, it's getting late here; I didn't understand any of that. Will look again in the morning.--] (]) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)
This conversation is confusing me. I'd suggest distinguishing between (a) a general topic ban - ban from editing or discussing a topic, wherever it appears on WP; (b) a topic editing ban - ban from editing articles or policy pages only. I think we're agreed that both cases do and should exist; so can someone explain how establishing some recognisable terminology for these is a bad thing? We're not talking about either summarising current practice or setting up guidelines for it - just recognisable ''terms'' which can only (a) aid clarity of discussion and (b) make it clearer that these distinct options exist, and that a general topic ban isn't the only option. This (obviously) doesn't restrict in any way the sanctions that may be imposed, which can be tailored on a case-by-case basis as appropriate as before (is that the concern?). ] <sup>]</sup> 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Are you familiar with the ArbCom rulings re: ]? If not please do take a look at them - it should clear things up a bit. <br/>I stand over the position that the wording currently reflects a) ] and b) the necessary flexibility needed for discretionary sanctions, and c) that further qualification borders on instruction creep (I also agree with NCMV that such qualification may retro-actively open the door to ]). <br/>Secondly, if we rally have to have an explanation of page bans: I suggest we use the word from the arbcom rulings re: ''discretionary sanctions ie: A page ban restricts a user from editing any page or set of pages''. Again Topic bans are from the 'topic' (that means ''everywhere'' that topic comes up: talk pages, noticeboards, categories, portals, articles that mention the topic, the articles about or related to the topic etc) - we could put that in a glos if we must be it is really redundant if you look up 'topic' in a dictionary. The distinction you draw between topic and topic-editing rd232 is redundant no ruling has ever used such terms and such a qualification would really be at the ''discretion'' of the imposing admin or the community. <br/>Thirdly, if there are topic bans that don't include the talk space please show them to me - I'd be interested to see them, it would also ''show'' a material reason to change the policy--] <sup>]</sup> 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:That's quite an impressive display of not listening to a word I said; perhaps the most egregious example being that I haven't mentioned page bans et all. One constructive point you made was on wikilawyering, but only insofar as I can disagree with it: I don't see much danger in retrospective wikilawyering, because anybody foolish enough try to that will soon get the issue clarified for them by whoever imposed the ban, or else by the community. As to examples (a) I don't know any, but I'm sure they exist (b) the fact that policy doesn't provide a terminological handle for it (or mention it) is surely a contributory factor to under-use of it. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
:Firstly I don't think this page is policy, just explanation, so no-one need feel threatened by any attempt to make the explanation clearer (in fact I see someone has already made such an attempt, which looks pretty good to me). Secondly, if you want examples of topic bans that don't include talk page, you can find some on this page - OK, they are a minority (though we might ask ourselves whether they should be), but they don't seem totally exceptional. See the sanctions for TallNapoleon, Snowded and Idag, for example.--] (]) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you for giving some examples Kotniski. I'll look at them and if there are reasons given for the talk page exemptions we can discuss them. <br/>Rd232, if someone is banned from editing a single page (ie article or policy pages) but allowed to edit the talk space then that's a page ban - that's why I mentioned it. The 'terminological handle' already in use for a ban restricting a user from a page or pages is "page ban". You'll also see that the distinction between the two is the point I was making to GdB from my first post here. <br/>Finally if you want to change the definition of a topic ban (or insert a definition of a page ban) then I suggest you use the wording from the ArbCom rulings that I listed above--] <sup>]</sup> 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::"if someone is banned from editing a single page (ie article or policy pages) but allowed to edit the talk space then that's a page ban" - OK, now I see why you were on about page bans. I disagree with that definition, it's quite unintuitive, and I see no evidence in your Arbcom links that it's used that way (though I may be missing sth - if so, give me a quote). I've understood "page ban" as being a ban from a particular article (or policy page); essentially a limited-scope topic ban, which covers a whole subject across many articles. And looking again at the Arbcom links, I don't see what wording would be helpful for the distinction I wish to draw between talk+edit bans and edit-only bans; those links are generally not explicit on the matter. In sum, I still don't see why establishing two new terms - "general topic ban" and "topic editing ban" seem reasonably clear - in addition to the existing vague "topic ban" is such a bone of contention and confusion. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

::::This is a lot of discussion for what seems to me to be a simple matter. Guido den Broeder suggests a guideline for topic bans, and then notes that topic ban redirects here, where there is only one sentence: The current text reads: "The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so." It seems to me that we do have a guideline, and it is a good guideline, and I do not see how it admits to multiple interpretations. "Any" means any. Of course it must include talk pages - people who are so banned are often banned not only for multiple reverts but also for being disruptive on talk pages. A ban is a ban is a ban. It means: edit Misplaced Pages, but no edits at all relating to topic x. Arbcom wording sometimes deviates from this boilerplate, by being more specific, but that is because ArbCom is ruling on a particular case based on the particulars of that case. If someone feels an ArbCom ruling is ambiguous, the remedy is not to edit this page, the remedy is to consult with ArbCom and ask clarification. ArbCom has the freedom to rule as they wish based on the specifics of a case and this page will neither constrain them, nor be a subsdtitute for asking them to clarify a ruling. But when ArbCom or a community consensus develops that simply bans someone from any edit related to a topic, there is no ambiguity and no need to say anything more. ] | ] 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Your reply neatly illustrates the problem. Were it not for your sentence "it must include talk pages", the problematic ambiguity would exist throughout your reply: is "editing" limited to editing mainspace article content, as in Editing The Encyclopedia (a common meaning on WP generally, I think; see eg ]), or does it mean the technical operation of Edit This Page (on the wiki)? It may be that Arbcom rulings are clear (or they may not) - but if the issue were specific Arbcom rulings or Arbcom rulings in general, this conversation would be taking place elsewhere, and have a different character. The issue is, quite simply, looking to the future (not the past, not to existing Arbcom rulings, etc) would it be helpful to establish additional, more specific terms for a topic ban that includes talk pages and one that doesn't. I'm mystified how this could be seen as a bad idea. It will have no impact on existing rulings which do not use the new terms. Even if there turns out to be no need for edit-only bans (and there seem to be existing examples that use that, and your reference to "often" rather than "always" implicitly acknowledges that), the term will do no harm, and eventually disappear. If we create the terms and nobody ever uses them, they'll disappear harmlessly. ] <sup>]</sup> 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Okay, I think we agree that the current guideline is unambiguos. You are proposing a second guideline. Frankly, I just disagree. The only result I see is allowing the person to use the talk page as a soap-box. Disruptive editing in my experience has always manifested itself on both the article page and the talk page. Talk pages exist ''only to improve the articles''. If we believe that an editor is capable of improving the article, that person should not be banned at all! If the person is banned, look, banning is our heaviest sanction, and a topic ban is just under a general ban. If a person is not capable of making constructive edits to the article, then they are not capable of discussing constructive edits. If they are capable of discussing constructive edits, then don't ban them. But if they are banned, that means: "no." ] | ] 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::OK, that's clear - but I disagree. It is unsound in principle - it is perfectly possible to imagine editors who have edit-warred without disrupting talk pages being banned only from editing - and also in practice: see the current sanctions for TallNapoleon, Snowded and Idag (]). Just because an editor can't restrain themselves from edit-warring doesn't ''automatically'' mean that they can't constructively contribute to talk pages, especially once they're in a situation where disruptind talk would get them banned from having ''any'' input to the topic. Plus, once they're banned from editing, it almost forces talk page input to be constructive, because the editor can only edit by persuading others (and being disruptive will get them banned from talk as well). ] <sup>]</sup> 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans are the most underutilized admin tool around here. Many editors who are just too passionate about particular topics to edit constructively in those areas could otherwise help the project. And if people are really here to help, and not to grind a particular axe, I don't see a topic ban as punitive in any way. I hope any expansion of the policy recognizes that. ] (]) 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the other issue, talk page input can sometimes have the potential to be just as unconstructive as the actual editing, which is why they are banned from talk page input - especially tendentious problem editors. However, there are occasions where either the community or ArbCom are ready to allow editors to use the talk page because they can provide constructive input there, which is why talk pages are excluded sometimes. In any case, I hope I've clarified the definition of topic ban now, on the page. ] (]) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yes, that seems to be an improvement, thanks :) --] (]) 08:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

== Civility parole/restrictions ==

Could someone confirm that the last time a civility restriction was placed was October 2008 in ]? If so, is there a reason they are now out of favour? --] (]) 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
:Any thoughts? --] (]) 10:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
::They work only as well as the admin corps is unified.--] (]) 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

== Humiliating process ==

The process of placing a community restriction page in the user's userspace is potentially humiliating and should be stopped. The relevant information should be placed on this project page. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:Shouldn't the user have thought about that before doing whatever it was that got them restricted? --] 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::Indeed. But there's also another matter. Jehochman himself initiated this so-called "humiliating process" back in March 2008 (when he logged the details of a sanction at this project page, and then created ]). Now he wants what has become common practice, stopped, due to one objection raised at ]. I'm at a loss as to why more thought was not given prior to initiating such a practice, and why block logs were thought to be inadequate for a simple topic ban. Can someone address these concerns please? ] (]) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Would you please stop repeating the same argument, which suggests that Jehochman is a hypocrite. You're starting to get on my nerves. At the time, somebody else suggested creating that page as a place to log blocks under the sanction. I believe it was in fact an arbitrator who suggested doing it that way. Since then, another editor raised an objection that the user space page is a ]. I agree, and think those pages should be removed. Instead, we should create a central mechanism for logging. ] <sup>]</sup>
::::Perhaps when someone begins to get on one's nerves it's better to withdraw. It's perfectly reasonable to point out a discrepancy and request discussion. If that hits a raw nerve then discussion can be postponed. No one is calling names other than Jehochman. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::::: What hits a raw nerve is that the question is being repeated after I already answered it at another venue. I have not called anybody any names, Durova. Please correct your post. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::The trouble with using quotation marks and no diff is that it can give the mistaken impression that a person has actually said something they haven't. Of course I've read the surrounding discussions; I initiated the ANI thread that led to it. Please be more careful in future. And the suggestion about taking a breather when someone gets under one's nerves is sincere advice. Nobody's out to get you; we're just trying to manage a bad situation without making it worse. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::But you've made it worse by sidetracking a thread. We're here to talk about this page, not my behavior. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Jehochman, if your answer to my previous question was adequate enough to address my concerns here, I would not have raised them. I echo Durova's comment. Also, I don't think it's very nice to personalize a discussion by writing 'you're starting to get on my nerves' and then accuse a neutral third party of sidetracking the discussion when they suggest stepping back. ] (]) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::They're my nerves. I know how they feel. I feel like you are trying to annoy me on purpose. I feel like you are not listening to me, and that you are arguing for the sake of argument. Maybe those aren't your intentions, but that's how I perceive them. Why are you sidetracking this discussion? We're here to talk about better ways to handle this project page. Please address the substance. If you want to talk to me about your perception that I'm a hypocrite, go to my talk page and we'll clear it up. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Hello? Trying to discuss substance. I don't care who may or may not be a hypocrite. If you feel that part of the discussion should be elsewhere, stop replying here and move it. --] 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::Yesterday I got yelled at for moving a thread. Anybody else here can move this wherever they like. I won't do it. As you suggest, I'll not reply further here. Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::(ec) Jehochman, please review ]. Ncmvocalist has never called you a hypocrite. I don't know his intentions, but neither of us can read his mind. The default assumption is that he simply wants to discuss why you had a change of heart about a practice, or perhaps whether there's a nuance that he's missed. Either way, your focus on your nerves suggests this is a discussion best delayed. ] are going to break down the door and trample our computers. Have a break; this can all be discussed later. Best wishes. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'm aware that Jehochman would like to reverse the original action, but I think he seems to be repeatedly missing the crux of my concerns. Below are substantive questions that are relevant and need answering prior to putting the issue to bed. These concerns of mine were brought up at the right venue, and should firmly stay here without modification. On the other hand, the perceptions he suggested up until now (which I believe are unfounded), perhaps do not belong here. In the meantime, none of this is urgent - so I think we can all do with a breather for now before we discuss more. Cheers, ] (]) 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

=== Concerns ===
Below I've raised some concerns - answers to which would be appreciated. Firstly, the objection raised was not unforeseeable. ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

* ''Which arbitrator made the suggestion?'' ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


* ''Where was the discussion that went alongside the action?'' ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


* ''Why was more thought not given? What happened to the block log when enforcing topic bans?'' ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


* And of course, Kbdank71's question: ''shouldn't the user have thought about that before doing whatever it was that got them restricted?'' ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


* ''Can we avoid such after-thought actions in the future? How? What should we do?'' ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
**I'm going to go out on a limb and say the above questions (except mine) really don't matter. In fact, asking them smells like a witch hunt. We don't flog people for making mistakes or changing their mind. I've put forth many ideas that I've later wanted to be changed, for a variety of reasons. It's part of life. What's done is done, constantly badgering about the "why did this happen and make sure you don't repeat it" isn't going to go back in time to change anything. How about we give it a rest and move forward? Do we change the process or not? --] 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
***That really isn't a helpful reply. In the Navy we used to do exercises called 'lessons learned' after a situation went wrong. The aim was to get the key people in a room and look at the overall dynamic for weaknesses, to come up with better solutions for similar situations in the future. A defensive reply along the lines of ''you're just trying to make me/him feel bad'' would be unthinkable in such a setting: people are expected to prioritize the mission. If such a thought does occur, people keep it to themselves because it generates nothing useful. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
****That's great for the Navy. Where I come from, we don't grill people for the equivalent of "Hey, let's do it this way." "Hmmm, that doesn't seem to work, let's do it a different way." As I said, it's called changing one's mind, everyone is free to do it, and shouldn't feel like they are wrong for it. Seriously, I get the distinct impression that the two of you only got in a crazy because the same person who came up with the idea is the one who said it might not be a good one. Would you have been so insistent on looking for a lesson to learn if it were I who said "You know, maybe we could do this better"? If we had all put the same effort in figuring out a solution as we did in pointing fingers, this would be resolved already. --] 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
****], the Navy certainly is. Let's not adopt their practices. (The only grilling I will participate in is one that involves red meat, or seafood.) ] <sup>]</sup> 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
*****That's a pretty ''non sequitur''. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
******I am glad you noticed my attempt at humor. There are two ways to deal with somebody who tries to pick a fight: (1) fight back, or (2) tell them a joke and see if they lighten up. I prefer a joke, but sadly, you're not laughing. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
*****Kbdank71, one would hope that you would at least have the courtesy to stop insisting that the answer to your question is all that matters, when the reality is, it has no more priority than the others posed. But sadly, perhaps that is false hope - given that the paranoia and toxic suggestions of a witch hunt have not stopped. All this exercise does is attempt to find ways to improve and avoid making mistakes, particularly the same ones again and again. This does involve looking at how things were thought out in the past, and brainstorming on better ways for the future. However, you may as well continue with this approach of yours, if you would like to make ill-considered practice (including the same avoidable mistakes) even more commonplace and standard across Misplaced Pages - you are doing a great job of furthering that cause with the other. ] (]) 07:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
* ''Subpages are necessary to log enforcement-actions that aren't blocks, such as page bans - this is only necessary for probationary measures. Where a log is not fixed in the sanction discussion, should we continue to leave them in the userspace, or should we move it to a subpage under this project page?'' ] (]) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

== New structure for community sanctions ==

I propose using a format similar to . Thoughts? ] (]) 06:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
:No objections here. Looks good. ], ] 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
::A centralized list? Sensible. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

== Organization, again ==

I notice a lot of discussion above about organization. The current sanctions seem to be in no particular order at all, is that right or is there something I'm missing?--]<sup>(] <small>•</small> ])</sup> 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

== Inappropriate restriction ==

This was placed there inappropriately. Three people - Durova, NW, and ChildofMidnight have stated that there was no authority to lay such restrictions. Only Edison and BWilkins supported them. There was clearly no consensus and the ArbCom case filed about Jehochman being an involved, so the placement here by the user without any consensus was inappropriate. I ask that this be immediately removed as there was no appropriate consensus. ] (]) 04:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:It has nothing to do with alleged involvement or bias. Individual administrators are not empowered to assign broad sanctions unilaterally, except in the context of certain rare arbitration decisions. If community action is going to take place, it needs to happen via consensus decision of the community. Individual arbitrators aren't empowered to impose restrictions unilaterally--they have to hold a majority vote. So it would be nonsensical for an individual administrator to hold more power than an arbitrator. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 04:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::Durova, please recuse yourself from matters related to me. This restriction is broadly supported by the community. Your persistent wikihounding of me is both obnoxious and disruptive. If Ottava does not like the restriction, he can appeal it. ] <sup>]</sup> 11:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:::And anyway, under a realistic interpretation this 'restriction' works just as a formal warning to Ottava that some admins are ''really'' losing patience and that he had better try to behave like an adult because from now on he will be treated like one. It's not in Ottava's interest to give him the impression that there is no support for this 'restriction', when there is plenty of support for it as such a warning. He might get the message that his behaviour is OK. (Now where did I get this absurd idea from?) ] ] 11:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:::Jehochman, -you- were involved with me so your statement applies to yourself. Furthermore, there was no community consensus. You had two supports and three people saying you had no right. That is clear consensus against. ] (]) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

* I am inclined to agree with Hans Adler, but Jehochman, I don't think you should be flinging accusations that there is something obnoxious, or that which rises to the level of wikihounding disruption, merely because an user has criticised you or the way you've exercised your judgement on more than one occasion. I'm not sure why you'd respond to a comment Durova made at a discussion 3 months ago, within a few minutes of making a wikihounding claim - if you want wikihounding to stop, you should stop having much interaction at all. But I'm more curious as to what you considered constituted obnoxious and disruptive wikihounding, when Durova has consistently maintained a position at more than one discussion, that admins cannot individually impose restrictions without broader support first. Whether sanctions can be implemented unilaterally, or not, remains unclarified by policy, and ArbCom clearly noted that in a recent decision - so the only useful way to respond ot that issue is to be working on that, rather than calling anothers criticism as obnoxious, disruptive and wikihounding. You are welcome to disagree with feedback and justify it as you did below. But the remainder of your response above did not appear to help (another example, Ottava Rima clearly indicated that he does "not like the restriction" by opening this thread). <small>Ironically, some may consider much of this as feedback too.</small> ] (]) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, I did not just drop in out of the blue and sanction Ottava Rima because I'm an angry, power-crazed hooligan. There was a community discussion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Sanction. I read the discussion, thought about it, and decided that the restriction represented the consensus of thoughtful editors. Here are some remarks for those who can't be arsed to read the whole thread:

* "I would love to see some official recognition that Ottava Rima's interactions with other editors are excessively combative, supercilious, threatening, and unacceptable" - Akhilleus
* "Something MUST be done to stop this editor from getting away with such problematic editing."--Sky Attacker
* "his constant aggressive bullying an violent abuse of editors is wholly unacceptable and needs to be stopped." -- Paul B

Don't believe me? Go read the discussion. You'll see that this isn't a lone administrator acting on a whim. There was a substantial discussion, and a strong consensus to do something. Should Ottava not like this sanction, which is really just a formal warning and some cover for the unfortunate admin who actually dares to block him, Ottava may appeal to ] for the restriction to be lifted. Rattling around on other pages forum shopping and stirring up trouble is disruptive and needs to stop (or be stopped). ] <sup>]</sup> 12:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:"I did not just drop in out of the blue and sanction Ottava Rima" The ArbCom case verified that you did. The only reason it wasn't taken was that it was at 3/3 and there weren't any other Arbs around at the time. You are an involved user, had a long history with a group of users that were proven to have a long history of antagonizing me, and you had no right even within any of our policies to do what you did. Three strikes against you, Jehochman. ] (]) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:And Jehochman, not one said that they agreed with a restriction in your quotes above. If anything, they may have said a block or a ban, but not one endorsed your restriction while multiple people said you didn't even have the authority or was there a right to do such. ] (]) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::So you are complaining about Jehochman because he gave you an out-of-process slap on the wrist instead of following process and blocking you? I hope that will be a message to all admins who deal with you in the future. ] ] 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:::If he would have blocked me, there would have been stronger reason for the Arb case and he would have thankfully be desysopped, as his history of antagonizing, intimidation, and bullying on the behalf of his friends just against me has violated all ethical standards. ] (]) 15:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
::::Guys, this is not the venue. Even if Jehochman took this action as an individual admin (in which case there will obviously be a lot of debate), the appeal needs to be put in front of the community to sort out. Even if Jehochman took this action after a community consensus, the appeal needs to be put in front of the community to sort out in line with normal practice. It is therefore a community matter either way, because it was placed at ]. Ottava Rima, have you appealed this formally at ANI? If so, or once you have, can you please provide a link to that discussion? ] (]) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
:::::Actually, this is the venue because there was never a certified independent ability to determine consensus nor was the procedures followed appropriately. We have protocol about this. ] (]) 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 11:40, 19 December 2024

Material from Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions was split to other pages. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter pages, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter pages exist. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
Page splits
For the list of restrictions on users that are currently long-term blocked or inactive, see Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions/Archive
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Moot?

Apparently, user:Abd has died; as such, is there any point to keeping the Abd/William M. Connolley interaction ban on here? DS (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

It is a two-way ban, meaning that neither one can discuss the other (barring the usual exceptions), even if one is dead. Connolley is welcome to make a request at WP:AN to have it lifted should he so choose. Primefac (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Iimitlessyou restriction

I reverted this edit as I broke the table (Thanks @Bugghost for flagging!) and I have no idea how to fix it. Their topic ban remains in place and I'd very much appreciate any help in logging it properly. Thank you! Star Mississippi 20:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Um... you didn't break the table? You just had an extra --> in there. Primefac (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
oh good. @Bugghost was reporting that second half of the page has been moved into a cell on iimitlessyou's table row. which I assumed was my error. Thanks for restoring it for me @Primefac Star Mississippi 12:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Huh... I guess there could have been something that got weird when it was transcluded (and I'm not saying that Bugghost didn't see anything) I just didn't find anything immediately obvious. Odd. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the problem was that in SM's edit the final |} of the table was removed (the edit just ended the table with } instead) which meant the table wasn't "closed", so when the table was transcluded into WP:ER the rest of the article was visually placed in the table, rather than after it. Either way, looks like it's all fixed now! Bug Ghost🦗👻 13:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Yup, that would do it. Primefac (talk) 14:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)