Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Unblocking

Hello! Can you unblock me from Wikipedia with immediate effect?. Because i know what i have done. I have used sockpuppet accounts, i have edited templates without consesus or discussion and i have caused that the accounts for hundreds of users have been blocked. From now on i'm promising to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia and to discuss with other users regarding the issues here. Sondre 14 September 2007 at 11.35 (UTC)

Strong Code of Ethics is Needed

Community ban is a powerful tool to eliminate bad editors. However given the current process it can be easily abused. First there should be a theme for the community which needs to be endorsed by the members who want to join. Ban should not be initiated to resolve a content dispute. Strong code of ethics are needed. Suggested list for all members of community are:

1. have a good prior knowledge about the topic involved
2. review the past related edits of the editor under target for ban
3. state what motivated them to participate as a member of banning team
4. disclose any dispute they had in the past with the editor targeted for ban
5. not join in ad-hoc just to vote
6. should not participate in the final judgment including Admins. The final decision to ban should be by an independent observing team (say 3) out which at least one is Admin and other is a Sr respected editor related to the topic
7. provide specific reason for voting to ban. Abstract and vague accusations such as annoying, harassment, disruptive Tendentious editing etc. without specific acceptable objective evidences need to be ignored.
8. never join under solicitation
9. should disclose any of their close acquaintance with the editor proposing the ban and immediately excuse if there is a conflict of interest.
10. respond to rebuttal by the editor under target for ban
11. excuse if conflict-of-interest is pointed out particularly for Admins

If there is a violation of code of ethics the ban should be reversed. 75.55.49.63 (talk) 07:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

so who were you wgen you were banned? Viridae^Talk 09:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be a Sr editor. Please assume good faith.76.192.202.111 (talk) 15:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I was ( still I am) a wikipedia reader when editors got banned using unethical methods. Please ask further question fast before someone blocks me. No banned editors are using this system now. 75.55.49.63 (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to appeal your ban you can write to the Arbitration Committee. If they fail to respond in a timely manner you can contact me. In the meantime, recommend you respect your ban and cease evading it. It makes things simpler to sort out if you respect the process. Even if the process may be flawed, there are legitimate options for resolving things. Durova]]^Charge! 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see examples of "unfair" community bans before we add a bunch of rules. Chillum 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello User:Durova and User:Chillum. Thanks for your attention about above 'Code of Ethics'. If I am not blocked again I will try to provide you the examples for "unfair" community ban. Meanwhile if you can spare time please visit here. By Not Naadapriya.76.192.202.111 (talk) 07:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Self-reverted edits by banned editors.

During a recent flap over a banned editor who was pushing the edges of the ban by making spelling corrections to articles covered, it occurred to me that there was a way that a banned editor could efficiently suggest such changes without violating the ban (more than technically, and it would be an error to sanction mere technical violation that respects the right of the community to ban and which does not defy it). That would be that the editor makes the minor, easy-to-verify or obvious correction, and then self-reverts it. A banned editor did do this just today, and because I saw the edit, I was able to quickly incorporate it into the article; it was slightly more complicated than a spelling correction, but the sources were right there and I checked, and the edit was good. With a spelling correction it would be two clicks and done.

I'd suggested that with the first edit, the editor note in the summary, "will self-revert per ban." Then the editor promptly reverts. In the original case where I got this idea, the editor was free to edit talk pages, but it seems silly to suggest a minor spelling correction on a talk page, there is nothing to discuss, it just fills up the page with talk not needing discussion, and then it takes another editor much more time to fix, compared to a quick revert.

The problem with simply ignoring minor corrections is that it complicates ban enforcement, and arguments can easily arise over what's minor. But if an edit is self-reverted, even if there is a problem with it, the problem is immediately gone, moot.

Meat puppetry is really a red herring: if an edit is a problem, any editor who asserts that edit is responsible, it doesn't matter who suggested it. I've encountered this meat puppetry charge before, it never stood up to community examination. Edits by banned editors may be reverted, but there is no requirement that they be, and thus no objection to restoring a self-reverted edit, provided the editor restoring it takes responsibility for it.

I ran this idea past Carcharoth and he approved it. So I suggested it to the original editor, who quite contemptuously rejected it, as did some of his supporters. ("Insulting!") It actually made for a nice little test of the willingness of the editor to cooperate with the community. Self-reversion respects the ban and the community, shows intention to remove the project, and, the kicker, begins to establish cooperation between the banned editor and the other editors working on articles covered by the ban. Hence I think that some mention of this might belong on the banning policy page. --Abd (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in my opinion, under IAR, banned editors can make productive changes and immediately self-revert. I would not change the wording of their ban or of the policy, although I'm not opposed to a brief mention of this on the policy page. If it's a topic ban someone might still block the editor in good faith after the first edit and before seeing the self-revert, and should definitely not be criticized for doing so. For this reason the banned editor would be well-advised to very clearly state in the first edit summary that a self-revert is about to take place, and to self-revert as quickly as possible; they should not presume that they have an entitlement to carry out this action. If the edit is unproductive, or even if the edit itself would normally be considered productive but if the overall action is considered counter to the interests of the project for any reason, further sanctions can still occur: for example, if the extra reverts muddy up the page history too much, or if the edit summaries are uncivil, or if it takes too much time to determine which edits are or are not productive, or if the editor has done some unproductive edits in this way and been asked specifically to stop completely, or if the edits lead to a lot of wasted time in discussion over whether they're allowed or not, etc. Therefore even after the self-revert, someone might decide to sanction them and according to the letter at least of policy is entitled to do so; as with any action, according to WP:WIARM they should be willing to explain their reasons. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've stated, in practice, that a harmless edit by a banned editor should state the intention to "self-revert per topic ban" in the first edit. It could happen that events transpire that prevent the reversion, but isolated unreverted edits by banned editors that are harmless shouldn't be a problem. It only complicates enforcement when they become frequent. Someone seeing the edit and not wanting to check it, will see the edit summary in Recent Changes patrol and may revert it, no problem. It ends up the same. The value to the project of corrections or other improvements made by banned editors in this way exceeds the "damage" of "cluttering up edit history." If that were really a problem, we'd sanction editors who don't use preview and who make lots of edits for a small change. Self-reversion would not be a protection against incivility unless perhaps there were apology in the revert; otherwise self-reversion could be a way to insult someone and avoid consequences. Self-reversion shouldn't be used by a banned editor to assert controversial changes: the existing procedure of suggestion in Talk should be used for that, because discussion is appropriate. There was substantial debate in the recent ScienceApologist case about "harmless edits," and that's how I happened to come across this idea. Editors should not be blocked for making beneficial edits, if they do not complicate ban enforcement. Yes, if an admin blocks a banned editor based on one of these edits, covered by self-reversion, it would be an error, but presumably made in good faith, and the remedy is simple: unblock with apology. It doesn't have to be a big deal. I do think there should be mention of self-reversion in the policy page, that's why I came here. It should be established that non-controversial edits, edits where discussion is actually a waste of time, self-reverted, do not violate a ban. The exact boundary of "non-controversial" isn't important, what's important is that the edit itself would not be a problem if made by an ordinary editor. This should not create arguments over what is minor, helpful, etc., because there is a big step between a noncontroversial edit and a disruptive one. It's only if a self-reverted edit is still, in itself, disruptive, that debate could ensue, and in that situation, any admin could reasonably block for it. Self-reversion could not be used as an excuse for truly disruptive behavior, only for what should actually require no excuse, helpful edits that don't complicate ban enforcement.

So in determining ban violation, an admin would ordinarily ignore self-reverted edits. They would not have to be reviewed routinely. By the time someone is banned, there are usually editors who will be watching for problems with the editor, and if an editor tries to cover up disruption, say by claiming self-revert, but actually leaving problem text in place, that would quickly be discovered. And that would be it for that editor. Blocked for ban violation. It's hard to screw up a simple undo.

But what is truly interesting to me here is that this can open up channels for cooperation between banned editors and the rest of the community, to rebuild trust in both directions. A banned editor using self-reversion is, every time, demonstrating good faith and willingness to cooperate with what the community needs, including respecting a ban. And every time another editor reverts a helpful change back in, cooperation is being shown in the other direction, and the project benefits.

ScienceApologist rejected this idea because his goal wasn't making helpful corrections, it was to get editors arguing with each other, and to discredit the ban; the idea of cooperating with it? Horrible! Some of the editors who had previously supported him were trying to encourage him to accept consensus, but he blew them off; others clearly sympathized with the disruption and they, likewise, thought the proposal to self-revert an "insult."

It is also possible to extend this to totally banned, blocked editors. A self-reverted, helpful edit by an IP address with an edit summary of, say, sp., will revert per ban of BannedEditor, if not disruptive in itself, should not be considered ban violation and, I'd recommend, while it would easily lead to examination of other edits from that IP, should not result in blocking of that IP if there were no disruptive edits from it. Work with us, we will work with you. I don't know how much difference this could make, but it wouldn't hurt. But I'd suggest starting with topic bans, it's less complicated. (The IP may, of course, simply make those helpful corrections without a banned editor notice in the summary, and they will probably not be noticed, but, then .... the community doesn't see that this editor is being helpful, and perhaps we should notice such things, if we want to heal conflict.) --Abd (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's a situation. Banned editor makes spelling correction. Undo takes less than a minute, three or four clicks after the edit, but, in that period, someone else edits the involved section, preventing reversion. Fine. Leave it. The banned editor shouldn't have to rummage through the text and restore the spelling error. That will not happen often and would be covered under "occasional unreverted harmless edits." I'll note that SA made several harmless spelling corrections, and the community roundly ignored them. A complaint was raised only by one of his supporters, and was rejected with derision (the ones rejecting it apparently thought that this editor was actually trying to get SA blocked for spelling corrections). It is not routine to block a banned editor for making a spelling correction, provided it doesn't become so extensive that it complicates ban enforcement. With self-reversion, that wouldn't happen. An editor self-reverting as described should be safe from being blocked for ban violation, and it is very little trouble. On the other hand, an admin reviewing for ban violation could decide to look at any unrestored edits, instead of ignoring them, and, if they were good edits, revert them back in, thus converting a negative activity (scrutinizing for violations) into a positive one (cooperating with banned editor to improve the project, efficiently). --Abd (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd, please reconsider these words about an editor who is not at liberty to respond. Durova^Charge! 17:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I think these are essentially the same questions which were previously asked by Abd (and satisfactorily answered) a year or so ago in regard to User:Fredrick_day. — CharlotteWebb 18:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate Durova's approach, the comments above aren't, in the end, about ScienceApologist, and he will not be harmed by them any more than what already occurred harmed him, they aren't complaints about him or attempts to increase sanctions. Rather, his case is an example of what is certainly possible behavior, and is adduced as such. If his intentions were, or become, to improve the project cooperatively, the above won't add pressure to him; however, I offered, if he would agree to self-revert should he edit an article covered by the ban, I would fully support him and attempt to protect him from claims of technical ban violation, and, in fact, I reverted one of his spelling corrections back in after it had been removed as an alleged ban violation. Even though this process would be hardly any inconvenience at all for him, and certainly less cumbersome than getting ArbComm permission to edit a specific article -- which he did in one case -- he rejected it, and it was considered, by ArbComm, that his declared motivation for what he was doing was indeed disruptive, that's a settled matter, Durova. I use, where appropriate and possible, real examples from the editorial history of Wikipedia, based on a very sound legal principle: judgment in the abstract is to be avoided. The proposal for text in the guideline here -- which hasn't been made specific yet -- won't be about him, though his case is what led me to develop the concept and to ask Carcharoth about it. --Abd (talk) 05:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

However, having said that, Durova, what specifically would you have me consider refactoring? --Abd (talk) 05:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A ban is a blanket statement that editor X's contributions to pages Y are disruptive and unwelcome, that the invitation to edit those pages has been withdrawn, and that the editor may be blocked if they don't respect the ban. Put very simply, a ban is a request to go away and edit somewhere else.

In general, it is a bad idea to create loopholes which allow, because they are "about to be reverted", edits which would otherwise be judged disruptive and might merit a block. Internet and wireless networking connections can go down, batteries can fail, users can be kicked off computers by parents, and the Wikimedia servers can experience difficulties - and even if none of those occur, other editors may still end up viewing the problematic revision of the page in question, simply based on when they access it.

Needless to say, I think it'd be counterproductive to encourage banned editors to edit the pages they're banned from. Creating such a loophole introduces complexity and uncertainty to something that should be very simple, and invites acrimonious dispute in an area which is already prone to drama. It also discourages banned editors from finding something else to do, i.e. edit in an area from which they are not banned. Editing experience away from problem areas can make the difference between an editor becoming productive and being blocked or banned indefinitely.

Finally, this just doesn't look like a good solution to the problem. If you want productive edits to be exempt from a ban, then start a discussion and get consensus as to which edits, if any, are noncontroversial and productive even if made by a banned editor. If you can do that, there'll be no need for banned editors to resort to trickery to circumvent their ban. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Bans are preventative, the "go away" is issued, assuming the process was legitimate, as an expression of an expectation that, from history, the edits will engender needless disruption. There then arises the question about harmless edits; that is, edits, that by their nature, are not controversial. If somehow we could allow these edits, we would. And, in practice, the community does. If I wanted to make a spelling correction to Cold fusion, even though I'm banned, I could easily do it without consequence, it's very simple: just log out. Spelling corrections to articles don't establish any kind of pattern that could lead to sock investigation. To use the example of my own ban further, I've not been topic banned, just banned from editing the article and its talk pages themselves. I've been actively encouraged to participate in other cold-fusion related processes, in particular, the mediation. Being involved with the mediation means that I'm regularly reviewing the article, so I may see a spelling error. What should I do?

I can tell you. I won't log out, it's too much trouble. I won't suggest a spelling correction on a user talk page, as has been suggested, too much work. I won't do anything, I'll leave it, now that I've been blocked for making a one-character correction to a reference, then self reverting "per ban." If this had been part of a pattern of testing the edges of a ban, sure. I'm not raising this here to complain, but only as a real example where, as a banned editor, I noticed an apparent error, thought I could fix it quickly, and attempted it. I did nothing more than what I'd seen done many times, and accepted, and I was shocked to be blocked. I won't do it again unless this matter has been clarified to permit it.

What we know is that a popular editor who makes spelling corrections to an article while banned, isn't considered to be violating the ban in any way that deserves sanctions, and that's been very, very clear and actively discussed. Only if the edits rise to a pattern of provocation is a sanction likely. In that case, there was indeed a declared intention to disrupt ban enforcement. Someone filing an Arbitration Enforcement action over a single spelling correction is still likely to get slapped down. It's been tried, too many times. So the alternative here, for popular editors, isn't total ban or self-reversion. The alternative is allowing minor corrections, not controversial, vs. allowing minor changes, not disruptive in themselves, with self-reversion. Self-reversion shows cooperation with the ban, not defiance of it. Routinely, self-reverted edits could be ignored, and only receive attention upon complaint that they were, in themselves, disruptive (such as insulting an editor, then self-reverting, especially if repeated). This makes enforcement easier and less disruptive, not more so.

Blocking someone for a harmless edit is never going to be popular. I did not protest, beyond asking the blocking admin to reconsider, after providing evidence. This was taken to AN by a completely unfamiliar editor who saw it and was puzzled, and thus another long discussion at AN ensued over practically nothing.

Self-reversion is often used by editors to propose an edit that might be controversial. It puts the edit in place so that it can be seen in context, and it is often more efficient than proposing the edit, in detail, in Talk; the edit can then be discussed by reference to history, and easily implemented if accepted. Promptly self-reverted edits that violate policies are normally considered moot. I'm just suggesting that we recognize this more extensively, because there are a number of salutary expected consequences, that have already been seen in actual practice. A ban can be extended, where needed, to prohibit self-reverted edits as well as normal edits, should an editor abuse this in some way. --Abd (talk) 17:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• If it really is a good idea, then you should probably just do it. I don't see why we need to add an authorization for this in the policy, especially since it isn't yet common practice. Do it and we'll see how people react. If it becomes accepted, then we can consider amending the policy. ⟳ausa کui ^× 17:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Look at it this way. If you see an edit that improves Wikipedia beyond any shadow of doubt, go ahead and make it. Of course, if you're banned from editing that page, then you might want to mention WP:IAR in your edit summary, in order to avoid trouble. Good luck!

Having done so, if you then go on to make a second edit (1) to an article that you're banned from (2) that harms Wikipedia beyond any shadow of doubt, don't be surprised if you're blocked. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with the view that it's OK for topic banned editors to make edits to articles in the banned topic. Many times people are banned for disruption and POV pushing. The edits they want to make may not be "harmful" to the project in a narrow sense, but the editor's involvement in the topic is disruptive and that is harmful. Folks don't just get a topic ban for no reason. Very often the other editors have had to put up with the disruption for a long time, and then make a case to get it remedied. To make them continue to fight with the user over his POV edits while he's topic banned is illogical, and just perpetuates the disruption.

If a banned editor makes an edit by mistake, perhaps not realizing that an article is included in the ban, for example, then we should assume good faith. But if it's done intentionally then the ban needs to be enforced with a block.   Will Beback  talk  20:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I can agree in that certain editors should be allowed to make self-reverts in articles where they are banned if the community considers that his edits are good and the information very difficult to convey otherwise. Case in point User:PJHaseldine in Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial making this edit.

However, I can't agree on making a blanket allowance. Banned editors would start making typo corrections and other minor stuff to show that they are being collaborative, which would to clutter of page history. Every little fix takes 3 entries in the history: the edit by the banned editor, the self-revert, and the undo by someone else to implement the change if it's good. Also, banned editors can simply request the change in the talk page, and, if they are banned also from there, they can use the talk page of any interested user, and this way the change gets reviewed by another pair of eyes before being done. So, to sum it up, why should those banned editors make those self-reverts of minor stuff when they are not allowed to edit in the first place, and when there are multiple way to avoid having to violate their ban, and then those other ways have a better result?

As for invoking IAR, sheffield is correct, but depending on circunstances this invokation can have a very chance of drama and disruption, so banned editors should first make sure with the person that banned them that it's ok for them to edit the page in that way. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In the example given above, I don't see a reason why PJHaseldine could not have either used the talk page or contacted an editor directly. While it was an important edit to get made (because it concerned a BLP in a criminal case), there were other ways he could have handled it without breaking the ban.   Will Beback  talk  00:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that by precedent these edits didn't "break the ban." PJH used this technique for a more complicated edit than I'd suggested, but it does show the effect. By actually making the edit, he could show, in context, exactly what he was proposing. It's much more efficient than describing it on a Talk page, discussing it, waiting for someone else to implement it, etc. As to the efficiency, the problem originally came to my attention with ScienceApologist, who was making spelling corrections to page from which he was banned. The community, quite strongly, opined that this was okay. Some of the same editors complained when I did it and added a self-revert, because of the prior discussions about the SA case. I urge thinking first about a very simple case: an editor sees a spelling error, and is reading the article, and there is the edit link, and it can be fixed in a flash. This is an edit that, except for one problem, IAR would strongly suggest, fix it.

The one problem is that the editor is banned from editing, either that article, the entire range of topics, or, I've argued, is entirely banned from editing Wikipedia, and isn't logged in, because if logged in, the editor won't be able to edit. Should the editor make the edit, and if so, how? What would follow Rule Number One and respect community process?

The practical reality is that we don't go after IPs for making harmless edits.

Now, suppose a banned editor doesn't make the edit, instead, goes to the talk page and suggests it. That takes many more words and time than simply to make a spelling correction. Then an editor who sees the suggestion has to figure out where to find it and then also make the correction, and, to avoid many editors looking at the same thing, has to go back to the Talk page and acknowledge making the edit. Compare this to the editor simply making the edit. In the SA case, he was just making the edits, and it was broadly defended, but my point was that it complicates ban enforcement, and this was also generally recognized. I realized that if the editor self reverted with a note, per ban -- and any editor can revert, on sight, an edit by a banned editor -- this would make enforcement simpler than allowing "harmless edits." So I ran it by an arbitrator -- this is documented on my Talk page in the discussion of my recent block -- and the arbitrator approved it. I ran it by the community, and, until now, nobody opposed it.

This is the reality for me. If I see a minor correction to make and I can fix it on the spot, I'll do it. I'm simply not going to go to the trouble to do something much more cumbersome. But self-reverting is easy. And, in fact, it works. The changes get made, reverted back in, quickly, where an article is watched, and we don't usually get banned from editing unwatched articles.

The idea that the extra edits gunk up article history is spurious. Sure, it's more edits than a single correction, but not much. I don't know how much the database is optimized, but it might not be much disk space at all. In any case, it's much less noise than the common suggestion of discussing a spelling correction! And what is a spelling correction worth? I'd say it's worth the extra edits. Self-reversion shows cooperation with the ban. PJH didn't get into any trouble at all for his edit, it only came up because the editor who took my block to AN mentioned the example. I'd say this should be encouraged, and if any editor abuses it, easy for an enforcing administrator to warn the editor, or even block directly for egregious abuse. I really doubt that would happen much. Most banned editors are not at all interested in cooperating, and self-reversion demonstrates cooperation. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

"(...) and the arbitrator approved it." and in 15 June another arbitrator came to your talk page after you were blocked and he told you that "the "Committe", as a whole, most certainly does not approve of this method to circumvent a topic ban— and any edit to a page from which one is banned may lead to blocks of increasing duration (...)"[1] and also told you as an editor that you should stop trying to strech the limits of your ban and go edit something else (in the diff I just linked), at which point you should have stopped using as an argument that an arbitrator supported your argument, and much less says that this was documented in the discussion of your recent block without mentioning anywhere that a different arbitrator popped up in that discussion to make clear that the committee does not give its support to this practice at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Using own talk page vs. sending mails

From the discussion here it is claimed that banned users are not allowed to edit anything (including their own talk page), but yet are allowed to send emails from their banned account. The policy clearly says that banned useres can't edit their own talk page, but it says nothing about sending emails. So, are banned users allowed to send mails? I don't really see much of a difference between sending mails and using your own talk page, especially when it comes to ban apeals, so I would consider it to be pretty odd if one would be allowed while the other would be disallowed. --Conti|✉ 17:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was analyzing the edits of some banned users, and I found that banned user MyWikiBiz/Thekohser has posted some comments on his talkpages (see the talkpages of MyWikiBiz and Thekohser) this month. Since banned users are not allowed to edit their talkpages, I disabled him to edit his talkpages. The banning policy clearly says that banned useres can't edit their own talkpages, but it says nothing about whether banned users are allowed to send emails or not. Wikipedia:Banning policy#Appeals process states "Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration by a clerk." A banned user making request on his or her talk page??? But below, it says "An indefinitely site-banned user loses the right to edit any page of the project, including their talkpage." See Wikipedia:Banning policy#Difference between bans and blocks. I think this page on the banning policy should clearly state the difference between ban and block, and there shouldn't be any self-contradictory statement. It should also make clear whether a banned user should be allowed to send emails or not. AdjustShift (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A banned user can be temporarily granted use of their talk page to file a request (if that hasn't been done by email) and for the time that an appeal or review is running. After that, if the ban continues, their talk page is again off limits to them. Note that this doesn't imply that talk pages should necessarily be protected or blanked. Banned users are normally allowed to send email, but I can imagine that there are exceptions. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to say that arbcom-banned users should email arbcom for appeal, but I don't see why it's necessary to prevent an ordinary banned user from using the talk page. In particular, it looks bad to change the block conditions on the account mentioned above. The user in question was responding to an AFD notice initiated by someone else; that doesn't seem like talk page abuse. Did the admin who changed the block conditions consult with the prior blocking admin? Gimmetrow 06:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That'll be the day. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 08:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Gimmetrow, how do you distinguish between arbcom-banned users and ordinary banned users? We don't make such distinctions. A banned user is a banned user. The banning policy clearly states that banned users can't edit any page of the encyclopedia, including their talk page. This is one of the fundamental differences between a banned user and an indefinitely block user. Even if a banned user doesn't abuse his/her talk page, he/she can't edit it. On 28 May, MyWikiBiz/Thekohser posted this and this comments on the talk pages of his two accounts. If he wants to become a free man on the English-language Wikipedia, how is posting such needless comments going to help his cause? He should apologize to the WP community for his past blunders, and promise to never repeat such activities again. If MyWikiBiz/Thekohser wants to edit the English-language Wikipedia again, he should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Posting needless comments on the talk pages is a complete waste of time. If he wants to post an unblock request on his talk page, he can send an email to any admin (including me), and ask the admin to let him edit his talk page, so that he can file an unblock request. I didn't consult with the prior blocking admins; I did what the banning policy says. I think the page on the banning policy should state that banned users are allowed to send emails to appeal against ban only. If they send abusive emails, their ability to send emails will also be blocked. I think WP editors should work on the Wikipedia:Banning policy page, make clear what a banned user can do and can't do. Some work is needed on the page. AdjustShift (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

An arbcom-banned user is a user banned by an arbcom remedy. That doesn't seem complex. Gimmetrow 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Apparently. An admin Someone just claimed that topic bans mean you can't post on user talk pages where by chance the topic happens to be mentioned, as that makes the user talk page a related page. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

That admin would be correct. If you are topic banned, you cannot circumvent the ban by discussing the topic elsewhere. But that's not what we are talking about here. This isn't about you, actually. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't try to confuse the issue. If it's not about me, then don't talk about me; I didn't.

The page mentions topic bans, but actually says nothing at all about them, so any interpretation is strictly your own. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not see, in the paragraphs above, where " An admin just claimed that topic bans mean you can't post on user talk pages", but I do know that has been pointed out to you recently. Since I didn't see it above, I (perhaps incorrectly, can you give a cite for your assertion) assumed you were talking about your own situation, as you often do. Hope that clears things up for you. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

As I am mentioned here (I am the "admin" above), I made no such claim and Guido should stop repeating this slur. Guido's topic ban is clear, he is banned from the topic on all pages; that is all I have said, and is rather obvious. Verbal chat 21:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Gimmetrow on this one. Actually, there shouldn't be a general rule on whether banned users are allowed or not allowed to use their talk page. The situation of one banned user can be quite different from the situation of another banned user, so let's deal with this on a case-by-case basis. If there's a need to protect the talk page, protect the talk page. If there's a need to prevent a banned user from sending emails, prevent him from sending emails. But don't protect talk pages if your only reason is "because the rules say so". Especially if the rules are kinda self-contradictory on this issue. --Conti|✉ 10:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Further, absent a clear and compelling reason to keep the particular restriction in place, I plan to lift it in the case that started this discussion. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The policy is not clear on this. For all banned users, there is a general rule right now. As an admin, I've do what the policy says. I would also like to do this on a case-by-case basis. Some banned users are hopeless; some are not that hopeless. The policy on banned users must not be confusing and self-contradictory. We need to work on the banning policy page. AdjustShift (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Policy should guide us as to what went before, not bind us from doing what common sense suggests is best. If the policy is unclear or doesn't conform to actual practice (remember that policy at WP is descriptive not prescriptive) it should be changed to reflect that practice. This is an ongoing task, as policy at WP evolves. In this particular case, I think it's clear that common sense says there is no harm, and some benefit, from letting Greg talk, at one particular page, as long as it is not disruptive. (critical of WP is not necessarily disruptive). AdjustShift and I have conversed on his and my talk pages and I think Adj. is going to change the block settings him/herself, which I applaud. ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the block setting. Greg can now edit the talk page of Thekohser. I would like to thank Lar for his valuable input. AdjustShift (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done, AdjustShift. @Lar: if the policy doesn't conform to actual practice, I believe that it is prudent to discuss both policy and practice, with various possible outcomes. Often enough, they both need changing. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. What makes you think I didn't? ++Lar: t/c 16:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Given the above discussion, and existing confusion in the policy page, I propose changing the text at WP:BAN#User_pages from:

Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, indefinitely site-banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages.

to:

Indefinitely site-banned users may be restricted from editing their user talk page if they are disruptive.

This reflects practice and allows options. Isn't any user, when blocked, prevented from editing anything but their talk page, including their user page? Gimmetrow 18:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

How about:

Indefinitely site-banned users may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail if they are disruptive.

That way we cover our bases. Chillum 19:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Gimmetrow 19:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Works for me as well. ++Lar: t/c 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No objections. Durova^Charge! 21:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep! Works for me. AdjustShift (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I see the change has already been made, but just for the record, I support it, too. Note, tho, that Wikipedia:Banning policy#Site bans still says "An indefinitely site-banned user loses the right to edit any page of the project, including their talkpage". That sentence should be adjusted (or removed entirely), too. --Conti|✉ 20:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Also changed. Gimmetrow 23:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the adjustment. AdjustShift (talk) 17:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Consider evasion to be aggravating factor for a banned user

My two cents:

Ban evasion is ban evasion, plain and simple.

Productive or not, an edit by a banned user is at its core willful defiance of a ban that was presumably issued in good faith, even more so if the arbcom issued the ban. We already have procedures in place to review bans that are inappropriate, so evasion is not proper appeal technique.

Self reversion by a banned editor is little more than spam. At its best, it clutters up the page history with noise, and requires THREE edits for the fixes to be made official. And even though a self-revert preserves the page, it's still log noise. Log noise that only wastes the time of anyone on the lookout for ex-editors trying to cause trouble.

Edits by banned users are rightly treated with suspicion, as the ban itself serves as strong evidence that the user in question has a habit of editing in bad faith. Which means that any such edit will either be reverted as a matter of course, or will waste the time of whoever checks it out. Time that could be better spent elsewhere, especially in cases where the edit in question could just as easily have been made by an editor in good standing, and thus without a time-consuming cloud of uncertainty.

The bottom line is that ban evading is trespassing. Personally, I would consider ban evasion no different from a hacker breaking into the system and editing the database directly.

So, my opinion is thus:

Ban evasion should be treated as a serious offense, at least equally serious to whatever offense the user in question was banned for in the first place. Severe punishment for ban evasion would IMHO be in line with the fact that it is pretty much hacking.

Shentino (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that this is raised here, just before an actual incident arose yesterday, with me. Proposing self-reversion, I wasn't at all thinking that I might actually apply this. The community has, in a very visible case, as mentioned above, rejected the idea that harmless edits are "violations," other than technically, and this is an example of WP:IAR in action. I argued in that case that there was a problem with such edits, but only because they can complicate ban enforcement. That's why I suggested self-reversion; it's true that it takes three edits to accomplish what might be done with one, at the article, but if one looks at the overall process, it's far more efficient than the commonly suggested approach of suggesting an edit on the talk page (1 edit), or, if the editor is banned from Talk, on a user's talk page (also 1 edit and unreliable), with a response being necessary or else more than one editor will waste time looking at it (2nd edit), and the actual article edit (3rd edit). And these edits are far more complex, hence more impact on the database, not less. What might be a one-character change, as was my edit yesterday, becomes many, with much more editor time invested in it.

A self-reverted edit that acknowledges the ban is a cooperative edit, not a defiant one, unless the content of the edit is defiant. Self-reversion sets up a condition where a banned editor, while banned, can effectively solicit and obtain cooperation wfrom unbanned editors, even those with whom the editor was in conflict, thus helping integrate the user back into the community, and I've seen it work that way in one case.

I have argued, as well, that bots can be set up to revert changes made by a banned editor, this would be simple, and would avoid much fuss and disruption. Any editor, similarly, could revert these changes back in, by taking responsibility for them, and whether or not the banned editor should be blocked for the edit would be a separate question that can be considered at leisure. Abuse of self-reversion would be obvious, actually, and would be disruptive behavior, an offense by itself.

The disruption that happened yesterday took place because this matter hasn't become clear; prior discussion seemed to show that self-reverted edits would not violate a ban, inasmuch as even unreverted harmless edits weren't considered ban violations. --Abd (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)