Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Peacedove.svg The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. 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. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.
Shortcut:
WT:BAN

Banning and Blocking

We recently had a discussion at arbitration enforcement in which an editor had been topic-banned under BLP discretionary sanctions and continued to edit. The editor then said that he assumed that topic-bans were "hard-coded", so that the ban had not been implemented yet. In the discussion of the difference between blocks and bans, would it be in order to clarify that only site bans are enforced by blocks, and that editors who are subject to topic bans are expected to obey the ban or face subsequent blocks? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Probably not worth it. We cannot foresee every possible excuse someone could give for pretending they didn't know what they were doing is wrong, and we shouldn't try. Any reasonable person would understand that when the community, or people vested by the community with the authority to act on their behalf, say "quit doing that", you should maybe quit doing that thing that they told you to quit doing. People trying to weasel out of that aren't going to be dissuaded by language that forbids that one tactic to avoid the ban. They'll still try to avoid the ban, just use some other bullshit excuse. It's not worth our time to fill this page with every possible way someone may try to weasel out of their bans. --Jayron32 19:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Time To Get Censoring

The language of the policy needs to be altered ASAP to avoid further confusion.There now can be no mention of the list of banned users, since it has been deleted after a decidedly inconclusive deletion discussion. I hope there will be a Deletion Review, because: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." That should be changed as well, as it is simply not the way it's done around here. Doc talk 23:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

All such material that is still required will be moved to WP:LTA, as indicated in the deletion discussion close. Please go ahead and update the documentation. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no mention of LTA in the discussion close at all. Am I missing it? I see the opinion of one admin, as if we needed the wisdom of a Solomon to decide. (Emphasis mine) "Here's why I think this discussion shows consensus to delete. The evidence that this page is potentially harmful, made by several, to me outweighs the arguments that the page is "useful"." Absurd. Doc talk 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I also will not update the documentation here. What I'd really like to add, but cannot, at WP:NOCONSENSUS is the following: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept. In abnormal or politically-charged deletion discussions, individual closing admins are permitted to interpret their own consensus for the greater protection and good of the project." Can an admin add that for me? Doc talk 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think an admin needs to call a WHAAAMBULANCE for you, tbh. AfDs are not votes, the strength of the arguments are weighed. If many of the "keep" weigh-ins were weak, than that final tally is more one-sided than a numeral 35-33 would suggest. WP:DRV, at your leisure. Tarc (talk) 00:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Heh? Piss off with your "whambulance". Way to be a dick. How about you clarify the LTA thing, smartass? Doc talk 00:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • In the midst of all this passive-aggressive whinging, there is one good point: the link to the deleted page needs to be removed from this policy. Reyk YO! 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ugh. You wanna see "active" aggressive? Doc talk 01:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    You seem to be taking the deletion of this page very personally. There are more productive things you could be doing if you feel so strongly about it like going to DRV, instead of complaining and shouting. Reyk YO! 01:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks for the tip. Doc talk 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Updated links

Per the recent deletion discussion, I've updated the links that used to go to the List of Banned editors to Category:Banned Wikipedia users and Wikipedia:Long-term abuse. Both were cited by the discussion as alternative venues for getting information about banned users. --Jayron32 01:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to nominate the LTA list at MfD as soon as I get to a non-mobile device. There is no logical difference between the two lists, as the "potential" for harm is exactly the same. There is no difference at all. We can't have one enemy list, or two or three, if we are to continue as the "friendly" site. Doc talk 01:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
That's beginning to sound a wee bit making a point-ish. Tarc (talk) 01:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no having one's cake and eating it too. They are identically purposed "enemies lists" with the exact same potential for abuse. Because one is "liked" more than the other is immaterial. Doc talk 05:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
We must not forget to note this per the MfD instructions: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere." So when I get accused of being "pointy" for being "consistent" with this ridiculous decision, it is duly noted. No more enemies lists of any kind should be allowed here. Period. See you in the funny pages. Doc talk 05:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Banned user category

Please go over to Category talk:Banned Wikipedia users to discuss a series of questions I have about this policy. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Appeal clarification

I'd like to propose we make it explicitly clear that any community ban enacted by the English Wikipedia community must be appealed and can only be appealed on the English Wikipedia, and not at Meta or other sites. This has been long standing practice but it isn't clearly stated, which has led to a little confusion and a community banned user appealing their ban on Meta recently (see [1]). I'd prefer if it was explicitly written down, if only for the benefit of banned users. Thanks, Nick (talk) 13:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Does that really need clarifying? Just as I can't block someone on the de.wikipedia website because I'm only an admin at en.*, it is seems to fall under WP:BLUE that any ban on a given wiki can only be appealed or adjudicated on that same wiki. Snowolf made it pretty clear there [2] that you can't do that, and the idea that CC would break the rules and try to claim they weren't clear, well, that is par for the course. Dennis 14:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
This is only the second time that I am aware of that a banned user from here has appealed to meta. In both cases the banned user was among the most intransigent, stubborn, serial ban evaders. Of meta wishes to waste their time hearing an appeal when they know they can't do anything about, I say let them. If instead they take a more realistic approach and shut down such appeals as a useless waste of their time, good for them. Either way it isn't really en.wp's problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IBAN on talk pages

I think our IBAN policy could do with a bit of clarification. What is not clear to me is to which extent editors who have a mutual IBAN can participate in (article) talk page discussions. The current language says only they can't reply or make reference to each other, which can make for pretty awkward conversation, and would allow both to participate in the same thread on a talk page, for instance. I, and I don't believe I'm the only one, have typically interpreted letter and spirit to mean "you can't participate in a thread the other has occupied already", and it seems to me that this potentially avoids a lot of problems, until of course it doesn't. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts, from the point of view of practice and policy.

I'll ping John, with whom I've been mulling this over a bit (no need to jump to it, John; just a courtesy note). This conversation may well take a while, which is fine, but since I don't regularly hang out here (not exciting enough!), please ping me if you're commenting say a week from now. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 18:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I saw that thread on your page and it got me wondering as well. Simplified, I always thought it meant "don't participate in the same thread without good cause (you were pinged there, it is about your edit, etc), which I think is what you are saying. I think it has been left vague because every situation is different and it is kind of up to us to determine "intent". I've seen someone accidentally enter the same thread, a very long one, but wasn't mentioning the person and it didn't cause a problem except for the complaint, and it left me saying "no harm done, try to avoid in the future", as there didn't seem to be an intent to violate the policy. I just can't block someone for a mistake. Obviously, if someone jumps in and is countering the other's argument, even if not mentioning them, so they are diminishing the other's input, then sanctions are reasonable, but incidental or accidental should be ignored, imho. The purpose of the iban is to keep them from arguing and/or antagonizing, not to keep them from participating, so sweating the little things seem unnecessarily bureaucratic. Dennis - 18:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Denis' perspective. The current wording is not optimal but seems designed to allow for some leeway by not being too explicit. The apparent intent of the parties is relevant to determining whether a real violation of an iban took place, and we don't want to make a rule that basically bars a user from participating in a discussion just because someone else got there first. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans in user space

Do topic bans apply to writing about the topic in the sanctioned individual's own user space. For example, is an individual topic banned from "Pseudoscience" allowed to have substantial sections on their user page discussing pseudoscience theories? At present, none of the topic ban examples given address personal user space. Dragons flight (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a WP:TBAN covers "all pages" including user pages. The last example includes "also including edit summaries and the user's own user and talk pages". Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I guess I missed the final clause in the last example there. Thanks. I assume therefore that users can't add material covered by TBAN to their user page. For a related point, if the user already has content that would be covered by the topic ban in their user space, but it was created before the sanction was applied, should it be removed? Dragons flight (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. My take is that a discussion about imposing a topic ban should have involved someone raising the question of whether existing material was a problem, and if so, what to do about it. The two issues are separate—an editor is topic banned because of disruption associated with their actions, but keeping existing material in user space is not disruptive provided the material satisfies WP:UP. My conclusion would be that existing material could be kept, but tweaking it would violate the topic ban. Of course it would be fine for the editor to delete such material. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been explicitly told by the Arbs that content in user space is subject to topic bans. Including writing drafts of appeals of the bans (do them offline was the direction) Gaijin42 (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Banning_policy/Archive_7#Do_topic_bans_extend_to_the_banned_editor.27s_user_talk_page.3F Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
And the arb comment [3]Gaijin42 (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-controversial change to remove bad link

This is a minor change, which I considered just changing, however as per Arbitrator Beeblebrox above: "Nobody should be adding or removing anything other than typos without getting consensus for it beforehand. Unilaterally altering policy is never the right thing to do." This isn't a typo change, but fairly close, still I thought I would get consensus first.

The "See also" section on this page links to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles, I had followed that link and found this little sentence "Wikipedia:Blocking policy provides that users may be blocked for repeated vandalism but not under current policy for disruptive editing although such a policy is proposed." Now as an experienced editor, I knew this wasn't current policy. So I found that on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index it states that "Links which are struck through lead to historical archives that are no longer maintained. All other links are current committee archives." And "Principles" is one that is struck through (so it is no longer maintained). This page shouldn't be linking to a list that is no longer maintained and likely to confuse new editors that might not realize. So I propose removing it from the "see also" list. --Obsidi (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Maintenance editing of pages isn't actually changing policy, so it's fine to just change them. NE Ent 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)