Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Process for Appealing "Indefinite" Topic Bans[edit]

Greetings,

My topic-ban for the subject of "longevity" has been up for 366 days. Several editors suggested that after one year, the ban may be lifted. However, it is not clear to me what the process is to request a topic ban be lifted.

Further, I do think the topic ban was excessive in the first place. My edits were NPOV and based on science; the edits of the primary "opponent" were religious-based POV editing. It's like a "creationism vs evolution" debate. Even to put the debate on the same level really isn't fair to those who are basing their editing on principles such as evidence or proof.

Also, the problem from a year ago died away and hopefully will not return.

I await hearing from someone as to possibly getting my "topic ban" lifted. "Indefinite" is not forever.Ryoung122 17:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban on 92.24.3.41?[edit]

Since IP addresses don't really belong to anyone, topic banning an IP address sound a bit odd. –BuickCenturyDriver 12:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this a topic ban?[edit]

Ok, I found out about this RfAr (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair) today. The final decision stated that all the editors involved in the Bogdanov Affair were banned from editing that article indefinitely. Does this meet the criteria to call that a topic-ban? Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom). (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Topic bans shouldn't extend to banned editors own pages.[edit]

An editor who's topic banned (such as I) shouldn't be prevented from discussing those very topics on his/her own pages - Userpage, secondary page, sandbox etc. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(@GoodDay. Remember WP:OWN, those are not "your" pages.) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes they should. A topic ban is to get a person out of a subject area. Your proposal creates backdoors for people to get back into a subject area where they were disruptive. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I agree. A topic ban should be a topic ban. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Expired restrictions[edit]

Several of the editing restrictions imposed by the community have now expired. Should they be moved to an archive somewhere, or simply removed from the page? — This, that and the other (talk) 08:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly done this. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it would also be good to move the entries for those users under community restrictions, who have since been indefinitely blocked, to a separate "collapsed" table under the main one. The table could be preceded by a note like "The following users are indefinitely blocked from editing. Should they be unblocked in the future, their editing restriction(s) will remain in force unless otherwise advised." This would help to stop the main table from growing to an excessive size. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't like the removal of the expired restrictions. I think they're helpful for historical purposes, particularly if the editor has similar problems after the restriction expires. It's a much easier way of tracking that. I've therefore reverted that change.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Would you prefer it if they were moved to a collapsible box? Otherwise, as I said, the table will just grow and grow and grow. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I like the idea of an "expired sanctions" section (or, perhaps more appropriately, subsections of the community section and ArbCom section), but I'm not sure about collapsing... I often use ctrl+f on this page to see what restrictions an editor is or has been under. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 20:47, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
They should be removed. The page exists to provide quick reference to active sanctions, not be a "scorecard" of past misdeeds (we have block logs and user talk pages for that). NE Ent 11:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
I say we should invoke WP:STATUTEOFLIMITATIONS (stealing your redlink there), and remove them somewhere between 2 and 5 years after they're lifted. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Purpose of section[edit]

Should Biographies of living persons enforcement log, current sanctions be a log of activity relate to a sanction or simply a list of current sanctions? NE Ent 11:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

  • List The purpose of this page is to provide an index for editor sanctions; editors delving into a particular editor should be reviewing user contributions, block log and user talk page. As their are no instructions to update the page when enforcing sanctions, and it wouldn't get done all the time, adding enforcement activity will clutter the page with incomplete information that cannot be relied on. NE Ent 11:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Log if there is none elsewhere. List otherwise. I spend 1/3 of my time on WP:BLP violations and there are certain persistant editors. Having a lot makes it easier to identify and keep track of the worst abusers. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify? Right now, it is a list of all sanctions under BLP, with some updates. What are you proposing? Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 00:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither. It should be a list of current restrictions with each name also having a note like "Precious restrictions: 3" and a link to a page explaining how to access those recods. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Alphabetize?[edit]

It would be easier to look up a user name if the list was in alphabetical order. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine with me if you want to alphabetize it ... but don't expect folks adding to necessarily follow suit. NE Ent 10:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Ban limits[edit]

If User:Example is banned from editing LGBT-related topics, how many links distance does the ban extend?

Georg Preuße was born in 1950. Mike Samples was also born in 1950. Does this mean that Samples' article is also covered by the ban? --Auric talk 00:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:TBAN & WP:BAN#Exceptions to limited bans might answer some of your questions.

In your example the user is only banned from LGBT-related topics so they would be able to edit Mike Samples. However they are banned from adding content related to LGBT topics, so if they added that Samples supported gay marriage (whether true and reliably referenced or not) it would be a breach of the topic ban. Hope that helps, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:49, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Very much. Thank you.--Auric talk 21:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Currency of this list[edit]

One or two of my bans are no longer in place. I don't recall if just the first or the first and the second were ended.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:27, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Anchors question[edit]

I want to add an anchor to each item in which I am named. The reason is to help remind myself to stay within the bounds of the restrictions, as I've had at least one near-violation. I had in mind putting some "anchor" templates in. Is there any technical reason not to do that? Is there any rule-based reason not to? Any objects otherwise? Thank you, all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. NE Ent 12:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, I'll give it a try. If I mess it up somehow, feel free to revert. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems not to work. Embedding an anchor inside a line in a table only makes the link jump to the top of the table. More research needed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Restrictions Placed by the Arbitration Committee[edit]

Hi! I was doing some error checking on this page and i saw that the entry for Digwuren says "Expired 2011-12-23 but is an earliest possible ban and conditional (refer to decision)". I read that three times and I still don't understand what it is saying.

I looked at the case and saw:

Digwuren restricted: Digwuren is directed to edit Wikipedia from only a single user account, and is banned from editing Wikipedia until he advises the Arbitration Committee of the name of the account that he will use. Passed 7 to 0 with 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren banned: Digwuren is banned for one year. Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration. Passed 4 to 2 with 2 abstentions and 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren topic banned is topic banned from articles about Eastern Europe, their associated talk pages, and any process discussion about same, widely construed, for one year. This ban is consecutive to any editing ban. Passed 8 to 0 with 1 recused at 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the above I am still not quite sure about when the three restrictions expire/expired. I think they all expired but are waiting for him to name an account, but I am unsure as to exactly when each one expired. One year after December 2009 is December 2010 -- or did it start on December 2010 and expire December 2011?

I have some suggestions to make the above more clear.

First, could we change "Expired 2011-12-23 but is an earliest possible ban and conditional (refer to decision)" to "Conditional (refer to decision)"?

Second, on those 3 decisions, could we add notes such as "(Expired 22 December 2010)" and "(Waiting for name of account)"?

Third, "Any other remedy is to be consecutive to the ban and take effect at its expiration." is unclear. Why not simply say "starting after year ban expires" on that other remedy? This is a general principle for writing clear documentation; no remedy should say "this changes that other remedy." instead the other remedy should say "this was changed in this specific way by that other remedy." In other words, each remedy should make sense on its own without having to check any other remedy for modifying clauses.

Finally, in the future "Any other remedy is to be..." is language that should be avoided. If you are posting a December 2010 remedy you can have it place restrictions on another December 2010 remedy, but "any other remedy" implies that it places restrictions on a hypothetical July 2011 remedy, which is clearly not the case. Future Arbcoms get to overrule past Arbcoms, not the other way around. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should remove the topic ban from this list as it has expired and add the conditional ban to Wikipedia:List of banned users. If Digwuren returns to Wikipedia and the Committee restricts them to one account we can add that restriction to this page. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

My username was removed (April 4, 2014) from the Wiki community section of topic-banned editors. Has my British/Irish topic ban been lifted? GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The editor who made Special:Diff/602725250 was User:Armbrust, so you may want to post the question at User talk:Armbrust, if you have not found an answer, already. If the ban has expired, I might advise getting back into the topic slowly, to avoid trouble. (I'm not an authority or anything, but I don't see an answer posted.) Have a good day! ;) —PC-XT+ 07:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
@GoodDay: As you can see from the above difference, your topic ban expired on 3 April 2014. Therefore I have removed it from the list. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Would you relay this fact to Danbarnesdavies & Steven Zhang? -- GoodDay (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V topic ban[edit]

The description of the User:Gibson Flying V topic ban refers to a different editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Edit summary for my large cleanup edit:

  • General wording copyedit, no core changes to text
  • Merged restrictions for the same user (within the same section) into joined rowspans
  • Added a few new names of renamed users (have not checked every user individually)
  • Clarifying subheaders for BLP-DS sections
  • I have not had the time to individually validate each item but I have been told that a non-negligible number have since been repealed or removed, so this potentially warrants further investigation

Cheers, ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Topic bans[edit]

Weren't some of my topic bans overturned last year? Why are they still listed here?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The person who closed the discussion probably forgot. If you give us links here to the discussions where they were lifted someone will remove them from the page for you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 15:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't have links. I don't even remember the specifics, but I am fairly certain that the Featured Sound ban was lifted and probably the self-promotion one as well.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me if this sounds rude, but at this point the burden of digging for the diffs is, IMO, on you. I'd be more than happy to update WP:EDR is you present evidence that any of your community-imposed sanctions have been repealed. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  17:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I happen to know this one, so I'll go ahead and post it. I think I was watching the talk page where the archive discussion happened. It shouldn't have been hard for the user to search with "TonyTheTiger Featured Sound ban" looking for results in the last year: archived discussion and comment on his talk page —PC-XT+ 19:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Was this never corrected here or corrected and uncorrected? It looks like Floquenbeam was the closing admin.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 05:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Editing restrictionsWikipedia:Users under editing restrictions – This page isn't about restrictions, it's about users. The name of this page should reflect that. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per I don't like it! As a long time editor, I'm used to Editing restrictions being "Editing restrictions" and admit I have the typical bias towards the status quo, which is never a good reason on Wikipedia. That said, American English is neither logical nor consistent. (For clarity: I'm not asserting anything about other English variants other than my own ignorance.) Sometimes things are titled based on the subject of action: A woodcutter cuts wood using a chainsaw; sometimes things are titled based on the object of the action: A plumber cuts pipe using a pipecutter. The nom's argument applies equally well to WP:TOPIC BAN -- topics aren't banned, users are banned from topics. So while I have no logic basis to oppose the move, I also don't see how it benefits the encyclopedia. For the sake of brevity, if there is consensus for a move, I'd suggest "User restrictions" in lieu of the wordier "Users under editing restrictions.". NE Ent 11:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • weak oppose, the being of the article contains information on the restrictions without mention of editors. Gregkaye 14:37, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I consider that "Editing restrictions" isn't an exact descriptor of the information the page contains; "Editing restrictions" is a common name used by Wikipedia users to refer to restrictions imposed on a user's editing privileges. Most project-space pages have titles that refer to their concept in general, commonly used and easy to understand terms, rather than exact or accurate descriptors. There is also no argument presented that the current title is problematic. ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  18:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no confusion, as it's only editors who can be restricted from editing, AFAIK. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date column[edit]

I've readded [1] the date column Sardanaphalus added. This is a useful addition. NE Ent 10:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Thank you. I'm intending to complete its entries anon. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know how you managed it, but the table no longer fits on 1280px wide screen, which I find unacceptable. Also, when somone adds an entry, the table will break. Fix it or I will revert. I'm tired of cleaning up your mess. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Hello:
    1. I don't know what you're looking at, but the table works without problem here at a resolution of 1024 by 768.
    2. How will the table "break" when someone adds an entry?
    3. Your third and fourth sentences: WP:CIVIL.
Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It doens't fit here wihtout scrolling sideways. An entry is added by copying the top row (commented out); you did add a cell there. I'll be civil when you stop breaking stuff. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The now deleted WP:BU page. Should it be changed to something else?[edit]

I noticed that WP:BU has been deleted when it said that site bans should not be logged here, but commenting on that aforementioned page. I finally noticed that I should change it to Category:Banned Wikipedia users. I self reverted because I'm not sure whether I am supposed to change the links here, so I am inputting on some consensus here. Hx7 22:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)