| Revision as of 23:41, 7 May 2004 view sourceMartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 edits various← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:46, 10 May 2004 view source Angela (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users45,368 editsm sp. etc.Next edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| == What is a ban? == | == What is a ban? == | ||
| A ''ban'' is a formal revocation of editing |
A ''ban'' is a formal revocation of editing privileges on Misplaced Pages. Such a ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitations Misplaced Pages extends to over six billion people worldwide to "edit this page" do not apply to banned users. Banned users are simply not authorised to edit Misplaced Pages. | ||
| Bans are to be distinguished from ''blocking'', which is a power sysops have to prevent IP |
Bans are to be distinguished from ''blocking'', which is a power sysops have to prevent IP address or user accounts from editing Misplaced Pages. The various types of blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, but they are used for other reasons too (such as dealing with rogue bots), and they are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans. See ]. | ||
| If you are hard banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Misplaced Pages while it applies. You can still contribute indirectly by publishing GFDL or public domain articles and images elsewhere on the web that Wikipedians can use as resources. Alternatively, you may contribute to one of our forks, or set up your own. | If you are hard banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Misplaced Pages while it applies. You can still contribute indirectly by publishing GFDL or public domain articles and images elsewhere on the web that Wikipedians can use as resources. Alternatively, you may contribute to one of our forks, or set up your own. | ||
| Line 42: | Line 42: | ||
| '''Reverts:''' All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. | '''Reverts:''' All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users. | ||
| As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere - is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Misplaced Pages. If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to be biased on some subject, you should be especially careful to check such text for |
As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere - is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Misplaced Pages. If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to be biased on some subject, you should be especially careful to check such text for bias. | ||
| If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing |
If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Misplaced Pages community. | ||
| '''Deletion:''' It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are a ]. Non-sysops can list such pages on ] instead, adding a <nowiki>{{msg:delete}}</nowiki> header. | '''Deletion:''' It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are a ]. Non-sysops can list such pages on ] instead, adding a <nowiki>{{msg:delete}}</nowiki> header. | ||
| If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on ]. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or because you feel it is off sufficiently high quality (see note for reverts, above). | If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on ]. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or because you feel it is off sufficiently high quality (see note for reverts, above). | ||
| == Reincarnations == | == Reincarnations == | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| A reincarnation is where a banned user has returned to Misplaced Pages under a false identity. This is a difficult issue, where we have to try to take account of all the competing concerns above. Blatant reincarnations are easily dealt with - accounts can simply be blocked and reverted, as discussed above. | A reincarnation is where a banned user has returned to Misplaced Pages under a false identity. This is a difficult issue, where we have to try to take account of all the competing concerns above. Blatant reincarnations are easily dealt with - accounts can simply be blocked and reverted, as discussed above. | ||
| The issue normally arises where a few users start to suspect that some new account is being run by a returned banned user. The first thing to do in this situation is to ask. Where there's been a case of mistaken identity, the victim of the mistake will normally |
The issue normally arises where a few users start to suspect that some new account is being run by a returned banned user. The first thing to do in this situation is to ask. Where there's been a case of mistaken identity, the victim of the mistake will normally make efforts to prove to you, by a whole series of means that they're not the person you're looking for. This invariably sorts the issue out, and everyone can mutually apologise and carry on working on the encyclopedia together, in a renewed spirit of trust. This slight inconvenience is much better than working in a climate of suspicion, so it's a good thing. | ||
| Sometimes, the suspected reincarnation doesn't give a straight answer to the question, and instead comes out with a rant about the right to privacy, or a rant about being innocent until proven guilty, or just stony silence. This is clearly not very helpful, and tends to be good evidence that the suspected reincarnation is a reincarnation. This evidence, together with a few |
Sometimes, the suspected reincarnation doesn't give a straight answer to the question, and instead comes out with a rant about the right to privacy, or a rant about being innocent until proven guilty, or just stony silence. This is clearly not very helpful, and tends to be good evidence that the suspected reincarnation is a reincarnation. This evidence, together with a few paragraphs of explanation by the user who have suspicions, is ''normally'' sufficient evidence to justify blocking the account, though there will always be edge cases that provoke discussion. | ||
| The closest Misplaced Pages has got to making a mistake on this issue, and blocking someone who wasn't in fact banned, was when one banned user tried to impersonate another banned user. Aside from that, this rough policy of '''ask politely, show evidence, consider, block''' does not appear to have caused any collateral damage. If it does ever cause problems, naturally that's something we'll have to review. | The closest Misplaced Pages has got to making a mistake on this issue, and blocking someone who wasn't in fact banned, was when one banned user tried to impersonate another banned user. Aside from that, this rough policy of '''ask politely, show evidence, consider, block''' does not appear to have caused any collateral damage. If it does ever cause problems, naturally that's something we'll have to review. | ||
Revision as of 23:46, 10 May 2004
This is (still!) not hard policy, but is perhaps closer to it.
What is a ban?
A ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on Misplaced Pages. Such a ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitations Misplaced Pages extends to over six billion people worldwide to "edit this page" do not apply to banned users. Banned users are simply not authorised to edit Misplaced Pages.
Bans are to be distinguished from blocking, which is a power sysops have to prevent IP address or user accounts from editing Misplaced Pages. The various types of blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, but they are used for other reasons too (such as dealing with rogue bots), and they are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans. See Misplaced Pages:blocking policy.
If you are hard banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Misplaced Pages while it applies. You can still contribute indirectly by publishing GFDL or public domain articles and images elsewhere on the web that Wikipedians can use as resources. Alternatively, you may contribute to one of our forks, or set up your own.
Decision to ban
The decision to ban a user can arise from three places. Bans from all places are equally legitimate.
- The Misplaced Pages community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. The quickpolls policy was/is one example of this.
- The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy following an arbitration request, or following a violation of parole.
- Jimbo Wales retains the theoretical power to ban users, though he does not intend to use it.
Appeals process
Community-derived bans may be appealed to the arbitration committee (via a request for arbitration). The arbitration committee would decide such a case based on whether the ban followed a genuine Misplaced Pages policy, whether the process for that policy was correctly followed, and whether the ban conflicted with any other Misplaced Pages policies.
Decisions of the arbitration committee can be appealed to Jimbo Wales. Jimbo can in any case overrule all decisions of the arbitration committee.
Enforcement
Misplaced Pages's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:
- Maximising the quality of the encyclopedia.
- Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation of any victims of mistaken identity.
- Maximising the number of users who can edit Misplaced Pages.
- Avoiding conflict within the community over banned users
- Dissuading or preventing banned users from editing Misplaced Pages.
As a result, enforcement has a number of aspects. Note that nobody is obligated to help enforce any ban.
Long term blocks: Misplaced Pages will typically block the IP address of banned users who edit from a static IP address, for the duration of the ban. In extreme cases, IP ranges may be similarly blocked for the duration of the ban.
Account blocks: The primary account of any banned user, if they have one, is blocked for the duration of the ban. If the banned user creates "sock puppet" accounts to evade the ban, these may also be blocked. However, see the note on "reincarnations", below.
Short term IP blocks: Where a banned user edits from a range of addresses, it is normal to use short term IP blocks if that user tries to edit Misplaced Pages. 24 hours is a typical length, but times may vary depending on the size of the network, etc.
Reverts: All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.
As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere - is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Misplaced Pages. If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to be biased on some subject, you should be especially careful to check such text for bias.
If a user does knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user, they have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict amongst the Misplaced Pages community.
Deletion: It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are a candidate for speedy deletion. Non-sysops can list such pages on speedy deletions instead, adding a {{msg:delete}} header.
If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on votes for undeletion. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or because you feel it is off sufficiently high quality (see note for reverts, above).
Reincarnations
A reincarnation is where a banned user has returned to Misplaced Pages under a false identity. This is a difficult issue, where we have to try to take account of all the competing concerns above. Blatant reincarnations are easily dealt with - accounts can simply be blocked and reverted, as discussed above.
The issue normally arises where a few users start to suspect that some new account is being run by a returned banned user. The first thing to do in this situation is to ask. Where there's been a case of mistaken identity, the victim of the mistake will normally make efforts to prove to you, by a whole series of means that they're not the person you're looking for. This invariably sorts the issue out, and everyone can mutually apologise and carry on working on the encyclopedia together, in a renewed spirit of trust. This slight inconvenience is much better than working in a climate of suspicion, so it's a good thing.
Sometimes, the suspected reincarnation doesn't give a straight answer to the question, and instead comes out with a rant about the right to privacy, or a rant about being innocent until proven guilty, or just stony silence. This is clearly not very helpful, and tends to be good evidence that the suspected reincarnation is a reincarnation. This evidence, together with a few paragraphs of explanation by the user who have suspicions, is normally sufficient evidence to justify blocking the account, though there will always be edge cases that provoke discussion.
The closest Misplaced Pages has got to making a mistake on this issue, and blocking someone who wasn't in fact banned, was when one banned user tried to impersonate another banned user. Aside from that, this rough policy of ask politely, show evidence, consider, block does not appear to have caused any collateral damage. If it does ever cause problems, naturally that's something we'll have to review.