Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:13, 17 February 2010

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

• WT:BAN

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:Banned user and Template:Blocked user

Those templates do not not to be mentioned in any policy, yet they are often used. The first one carries a powerful suggestion: This template adds articles to Category:Banned Misplaced Pages users. It should not be used for normal blocks; rather, it is for legitimate accounts that have been banned after due consideration. The second one doesn't seem to have any explanation on when it should be used. I wonder if we shouldn't clarify it better (here?) as to when they are used, who can add them, and what is their function (informative? punitive (ex. branding)?). Should a userpage of editor blocked for a few hours be tagged with either of those? What about a user blocked for a few days, weeks, months, a year? Can a blocked user request removal of such a template from his or her userpage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the only time I see these used is in cases where it is abundantly clear that the user is never going to be unblocked, and this is the only thing on their page or pages. Although the blocked user template does have parameters that can be set to reflect the block length. These are mainly used in my experience on the user and talk pages of uses that have been hardblocked with talk page editing disabled. It is my understanding that blocking notices are the exception to the rule about removing content from one's own talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct venue for a community or topic ban proposal?

One school of thought holds that it should be Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard, as it is not archived as aggressively. (This is the current instruction given at the top of ANI, btw)

Another holds that it should be at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Personally, I think WP:AN is the correct venue. It's typically a more calm and rational discussion there (for whatever reason). Also, a topic/community ban proposal is not an incident, it is often the result of many different incidents. ANI moves too quickly and often attracts far more drama.

Thoughts? –xeno 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that ANI is better, for a number of reasons. ANI is set up to deal with disputes. The admins who get involved in blocks/bans/article deletion/etc. probably work with that noticeboard more than with AN. I don't get involved in any of that, and watch AN (but not ANI) so that I can view topics of note to admins (for example: ArbCom results, adminbacklog notices, important RFCs, etc.). ANI should be for disputes and the like; AN, for general announcements and discussion intended for admins.

Has a ban discussion been held recently on ANI? Perhaps it would be no different than from on AN. ANI moves quickly because that's what much of its current discussions need; a ban discussion needs more time, and I think it won't be "rushed" on ANI or anything. Nor do I think it would attract any more drama (but maybe that just shows what I don't know about dealing with blocks and bans).

AN was restructured a few months ago so that all of the user disputes, etc., go to ANI. I'm guessing that the ANI notice just wasn't changed at the same time. AN would be a lot more useful to me if it didn't have block and ban discussions... that may be a selfish reason, but I think that most people's opinions here will just come down to their own preferences. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

None of sysop-only boards qualifies as "community". Drop this fake "community" hypocrisy, call it what it is. NVO (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not a sysop-only board, so that's covered.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... Anyone is free to comment. Though we could certainly bring back the ill-fated "Community Sanctions Noticeboard!" –xeno 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll stop asking questions now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
• Ban discussions are infrequent enough that they can go to AN without reducing it's usefulness. The standard is much higher than blocks and the like. I frequently check AN but rarely go to ANI, unless I catch wind of something particular going on there, because for one I'm not a "vandal fighter" and two it's just way too crowded a board, I suspect the same is true of many others. --Doug. 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Individual incidents including these should go to AN/I. If interested parties are notified, they'll see them. If added visibility is needed, they could be announced at ANB. We've done fairly well recently keeping the volume at ANB down, and we should keep at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A closely related discussion is now at the RfC talk page, about whether the RfC/User process can impose involuntary sanctions on editors. It appears that (as of a week ago, at least), WP:BAN said that it could, and WP:RFC/U said that RfC/User discussions were solely voluntary and consensus-driven. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• The correct venue is a Request for Comment. I think community ban discussions on AN or AN/I take place far too quickly, which gives disproportionate power to whoever happens to be awake at that time of night. causa sui× 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, definitely not at a request for comment. That's explicitly outside the scope of RfCs, and past suggestions to run proposals there have always failed for good reason (too out of the way, likely to bring in partisans instead of the uninvolved editors who should be making these decisions. Durova 22:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

  I can see how that would be problematic, but right now I can't think of any better way to slow these discussions down. Do you have any ideas? causa sui× 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

  Request for comment can be an important dispute resolution step before requesting a ban. If a matter is complex, for instance a long term pattern of improper editing, this should be documented and carefully reviewed by the community at RfC. Once an RfC has concluded, and if the subject's response did not resolve concerns, a subsequent thread on WP:AN could establish a ban or editing restriction. In the alternative, if a matter is relatively easy to document with a few diffs, such as an egregious violation of WP:NPA, a community ban could be initiated at WP:AN. We should avoid using WP:ANI for ban discussions because things get archived too quickly there. Jehochman 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  There have been a couple of high profile misfires recently with siteban proposals that started at ANI and closed in a few hours. Unless the matter is very clear cut (physical or legal threats), better to take it to a slower moving board. AN seems better. Durova 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  The problem, as I see it, is that the "community ban" option is so easily implemented that it has become a first resort for people who have problems when they first start editing here. There's a certain breed of particularly troublesome newbie who is not only ignorant of how things are done around here, but actually thinks that she knows better and is going to do things her way. Instead of doing the hard work of cleaning up after such an editor and winning them over to our way of doing things, we simply host firing squads on the Administrator's Noticeboard and ban them for life, because it's much easier to do that than deal with problem editors. I think that's a Bad Thing(tm) and it ought to be a lot harder to get people banned than it actually is. causa sui× 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

Hello. I'm asking this question for the purpose of User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back. What's the story of Willy on Wheels? ₉₁Pa (chat me!) 14:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I seem to have found it from Boot Camp. I withdraw my question. ₉₁Pa (chat me!) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Difference between de:Benutzersperrung, WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK

OK, Benutzersperr in German literally means both block, lock, and ban, but the problem is, is that I overcame an issue of language difficulties. Normally, I would prefer de:Benutzerverbot, as verbot also means ban, and that it differs from Sperr. In the German Misplaced Pages, the banning policy is also applied. However, the difference between "sperr" and "verbot" is yet to be seen. I think , that de:Misplaced Pages:Benutzersperrung must be moved into WP:BLOCK so as to match the ideal definition. I'm about to go back to dewiki and request a separate page for their WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. 7107delicious 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what point you're trying to make, or why. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a language translation, that's all. 7107delicious 01:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your language issue has no relevance to en:wp; if you wish to take this up with, uh, volk, on de:wp, do so there; bitter. Jack Merridew 04:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for "lesser" restrictions than a block

I think there may be a way to reconcile the two viewpoints described above—the view that a finer grained restriction than a total block from editing would be useful in some cases, and the viewpoint that calling this a ban would be inappropriate if they were imposed in a similar manner to blocks due to what a ban represents. Both of these are valid points. Given this, I would like to propose a new type of terminology—I'd propose the name "restriction" or "editing restriction", but a better name may be possible as well. Such restrictions would be imposed like blocks by administrators, would be enforceable by a full block if violated, and would generally be time limited (an indefinite restriction would be more of a ban, and probably should be discussed first). Overturning a restriction would be done in a similar manner to overturning a block: either by consensus that it was improperly imposed, or on the editor making a reasonable showing that (s)he understands what led to its imposition and agrees not to repeat the problematic behavior. I would also see such restrictions imposed in lieu of blocks or as a condition of an unblock (this happens sometimes anyway, "Alright, I'll unblock you, but if you start edit warring on that page again while the block would've been in place I'll reblock.") I think this could very well take some of the load off ArbCom, where the solution very often is to impose partial restrictions on editors who misbehave in certain areas but do fine in others, and avoid the blunt instrument of a block where a scalpel would be much more helpful. Seraphimblade 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. ArbCom as a body has to vote and reach a majority in order to impose sanctions which are more nuanced than a block (which any arbitrator can and occasionally does impose alone). It's hubris for individual administrators to claim more power than any single arbitrator has. Durova 06:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and Jimmy Wales have both stated that they support the idea of administrators employing more subtle tools to solve problems:

• ArbCom: ...the community is encouraged to review and document common good practice for administrators imposing editing restrictions as a condition of an unblock and in lieu of blocks.
• Jimmy: "If an admin could issue a block for a period of time for a behavior, the admin can equally well let the user know that in lieu of blocking (which prevents editing anywhere), there will be an editing restriction for that period of time on certain topics."

Time marches on. We continuously seek to improve Misplaced Pages. ArbCom is an expensive, slow tool for solving problems. If all editing restrictions must go through them, this would hinder Misplaced Pages. We should develop standards for administrators to provide the least restrictive sanctions that work. Jehochman 07:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The most important point is that an administrator applied editing restriction may only be employed when a block would be allowed. Secondarily, the length of a restriction may not exceed the length of an appropriate block. If somebody edit wars once, they should not be topic banned for 90 days, when a block would typically only last 24 hours. If however somebody has edit warred many times, a 90 day topic restriction in lieu of a 90 day block might be justifiable. If somebody does something worthy of an indefinite block, I think an indefinite editing restriction could theoretically be employed.

I think we would need to clarify in this policy the difference between a community sanction and an administrator imposed editing restriction. Then we need to document the above two ideas at Misplaced Pages:Editing restrictions, Misplaced Pages:Administrators and Misplaced Pages:Blocking (new sections, editing restrictions in lieu of blocks, and restrictions as unblocking conditions). Jehochman 07:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've explained very well what I'm trying to say here. This isn't to say "I'm going to restrict you for a year from editing Foo, when you normally would've received a 24 hour 3RR block." It's more to say "Alright, you're doing a lot of good work in some areas, but you're engaging in really disruptive content and edit warring at Foo that would normally result in you being blocked for a week. Take a week off editing that article or its talk page. If you edit it anyway, the block will be imposed, as it already would have been." Seraphimblade 07:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Still disagree: gameable by bad faith admins. Editors A and B are in a conflict. Admin C comes along and "restricts" A, but does it badly. Either due to lack of clue or deliberate politics, supposedly mild restriction is ill-suited and fails and paves the way to heavy community sanctions (i.e. sitebanning). Actual community discussion brings more eyes and more likelihood of an appropriate solution, as well as improved odds that the sanctioned editor would respect the decision. Durova 07:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If somebody gets restricted, they are in a favorable position to appeal by starting a thread at WP:AN. I don't see this tool as being any more gamable than what's already available. Jehochman 08:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually see it as less so—a restricted editor would still be able to start a thread on the incident noticeboard, file an arbitration request, and so on, whereas a blocked user is largely restricted to using {{unblock}}. A bad restriction could certainly happen, just like a bad block could, but the user would actually have a lot more access to avenues of appeal in such a case. Seraphimblade 08:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an alternative to blocking when a user is productive in general but also disruptive in certain areas. Chillum 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse with the caution that initially, at least, "lesser" sanctions be imposed only when a block of the same length would be allowed. Limited-duration/under-1-year 1RR parole, topic bans, user interaction bans, and the like are typically preferable to a block of the same duration.

If this works well, maybe a year from now we can tweak it so that lesser offenses that are not blockable are sanctionable, but for now hold off on that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of policy on deletion of pages by banned users

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5 - some clarification and discussion about speedy deletion criterion G5 (pages created by banned users). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban history

So I've lately had a couple of friendly chats with User:Caspian blue, who's discovered a clever way to keep his talk page purged of anything he doesn't like: at regular intervals, he moves it into an archive page, and then requests the deletion of that archive page. My question is quite simple: is there any effective, centralized way to find what administrative sanctions have been imposed on a user? For CB's particular case, googling around found this buried in a pile of other crap, but I've got a hunch there should be more. Jpatokal (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)