Wikipedia:Banning policy

"WP:Banning" redirects here. For banned links, see Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.

For lists of banned and restricted editors, see Wikipedia:List of banned users and Wikipedia:Editing restrictions.

A Wikipedia ban is a formal or authoritative revocation of editing privileges on one or more Wikipedia pages, usually in the scope of an article ban or a topic ban, though it may extend to the entire project. A ban may be temporary or permanent. The standard Wikipedia invitation to "edit this page" does not apply to banned users.

Users may be banned as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators enforcing Arbitration Committee rulings.

Banning should not be confused with blocking, which is a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most often used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule. A ban does not, in itself, disable a user's ability to edit any page. However, users who violate a ban may have their account access blocked entirely, as a way of enforcing the ban.

Types of ban

Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. This usually means that the banned person is forbidden from making any edit anywhere on Wikipedia, whether through an user account or anonymously. But certain limited bans are sometimes also imposed:

Article ban

An article ban forbids an editor from editing a specific article or a set of articles. Whether the ban includes or excludes the article's talk page should be specified in the text of the ban. Editors subject to an article ban are free to edit other related pages or discuss the topic elsewhere on Wikipedia.

Topic ban

The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area where their contributions have been disruptive, but to allow them to edit the rest of Wikipedia. Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic. For example, if an editor is banned from the topic "weather", they are not only forbidden to edit the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather, such as:

• weather-related articles such as Wind and Rain, including their talk pages;
• weather-related project pages, such as WikiProject Meteorology;
• weather-related summaries of edits to any page;
• weather-related parts of other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with weather: the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not;
• discussions about weather-related topics anywhere on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist.

Interaction ban

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are banned from interacting with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly; or
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

Exceptions to limited bans

The following exceptions to article, topic and interaction bans are usually recognized:

• Reverting obvious vandalism (such as replacing a page with obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is "obvious", that is, cases in which no reasonable person could possibly disagree.
• Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum. Examples include asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by the other party (but normally not more than once), asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, or appealing the ban for a good reason.

Such edits are allowed even if the ban would otherwise prohibit them.

If there is any doubt whether a limited ban prohibits any specific edit, the banned editor should assume that it does, unless whoever imposed the ban expressly clarifies that it does not. If clarification is not sought before making the edit, the banned editor assumes the risk that an administrator takes a broader view of the scope of the ban and enforces it with a block or other sanction, as explained below.

Decision to ban

See also: Wikipedia:List of banned users. Note the absence of a name from this list does not mean that a ban does not exist.

The decision to ban a user can arise from various sources:

1. The Wikipedia community can decide, by consensus, to impose a ban.
2. The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy, usually following a request for arbitration.
3. The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user, such as by authorizing discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator. See also Mentorship.
4. Jimbo Wales retains the authority to ban users.
5. The Wikimedia Foundation has the authority to ban users, though it has rarely exercised this authority on the English Wikipedia.

Except as noted above, individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans. However, the community may, as outlined in the next section:

Community bans and restrictions

The community, through consensus, may impose various types of sanctions upon editors who have exhausted the community's patience:

• If a user has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of users who are not involved in the underlying dispute. When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments.
• In some cases the community may have discussed an indefinite block and reached a consensus of uninvolved editors not to unblock the user. Users who remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community".

Community sanctions may be discussed on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Discussions may be organized via a template to distinguish comments by involved and uninvolved editors, and to allow the subject editor to post a response. Sanction discussions are normally kept open for at least 24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members. If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:List of banned users.

Bans by administrators under Arbcom delegation

The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee may designate specific topic areas in which uninvolved administrators may impose discretionary sanctions. These can include bans on editing, within narrow limits.

For example, in the the Palestine-Israel articles case, Arbcom stated that any uninvolved administrator identifying a certain editor as being disruptive within that topic area, could warn them, and then if necessary ban the editor from work within that topic area, to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Sample bans include:

• "You are not allowed to edit articles in this topic area for one month, though you can still participate at discussion pages";
• "You cannot edit or engage on the talkpage of this one article for the next week";
• "You are not allowed to post at the talkpages of these three users for one month"; and so forth.

Duration of bans

Bans are not intended as a short term measure. Sometimes a ban may be for a fixed period of some months. More often no period is specified – the ban is a decision that the user may not edit or participate in the specified matters on this site.

Traditionally when a user is banned by the Arbitration Committee as a result of a "normal" Arbitration case, a duration of one year is the most serious level of ban that will be given. The Committee's logic is that if reban or extension becomes necessary because the problem has not ceased, then the community will probably be able to deal with it by consensus.

Review and reversal of bans

Appeals and discussions

Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee (arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org). Users who have been banned indefinitely by the Arbitration Committee may appeal to the Committee after one year, unless a shorter minimum period is specified in the Arbitration Committee motion or remedy.

• Users who are banned from a topic area or certain pages but can otherwise edit, may appeal (and comment in a discussion) on-wiki, either at the administrators' noticeboard or at requests for arbitration.
• Users who cannot edit any page except their talk page may:

• Post an appeal or comment there and ask (by email or other off-site means) for it to be reposted to the appropriate discussion. This is a voluntary act, and should not be abused or used to excess.
• Or may appeal by email directly to the Arbitration Committee.

• Users unable to edit any page (even their talk page) should appeal or make any statement by email or other off-wiki means, to an administrator, an arbitration clerk, or a member of the committee and ask for that to be filed on their behalf.

In some cases, a banned user may be unblocked for the purpose of filing an appeal. In such cases, editing of any unrelated page or other matter is grounds for immediate re-blocking.

Any editor (such as a prior victim of harassment) who may be affected by a possible ban appeal should be informed, so that he or she can participate in the ban review.

While any arbitration decision may be nominally appealed to Jimbo Wales, it is exceedingly unusual for him to intervene.

Reversal of bans

Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee; or

(b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.

Administrator-imposed bans should be appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If there is a dispute or question related to the interpretation of a ruling, its scope, or any other point of understanding, then a request for clarification or appeal may be filed with the Arbitration Committee.

Evasion and enforcement

Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:

• Maximizing the quality of the encyclopedia
• Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation to any victims of mistaken identity
• Maximizing the number of users who can edit Wikipedia
• Avoiding conflict within the community over banned users
• Dissuading or preventing banned users from editing Wikipedia or the relevant area of the ban

As a result, enforcement has a number of aspects. While all editors are expected to respect the enforcement of policies by not undermining or sabotaging them, no editor is personally obligated to help enforce any ban.

Bans apply to all editing, good or bad

Users are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other users. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

A number of banned users have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force users into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if the user only makes good edits they will be rebanned for evasion.

On very rare occasions a limited exception may be requested, for example to participate in a particular discussion.

Blocks

In the case of project-wide bans, the primary account of any banned user may be entirely blocked for the duration of the ban.

If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these usually will be blocked as well. When evasion is a problem, the IP address of a banned user who edits from a static IP address may also be blocked for the duration of the ban. If a banned user evades the ban from a range of addresses, short-term IP blocks may be used. Typically, these last 24 hours.

Reset of ban following evasion

It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban. No formal consideration is typically necessary. For example, if someone is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer may be reset from "four days remaining" to "ten days remaining". So if the user doesn't subsequently evade the ban again, his or her eventual total duration would be 16 days. Repeated evasion may lead to a longer or more serious sanction.

A user who has been banned or blocked, and tries to evade this by creating a new account, is known as a reincarnation of the old user. Obvious reincarnations are easily dealt with — the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted, as discussed above. See sock puppet for policy on dealing with unclear cases.

Edits by and on behalf of banned users

Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user, the community has decided that the broader problems due to their participation outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.

Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and they have independent reasons for making them.

Sock puppetry policy defines "meatpuppetry" as the recruitment of new editors to Wikipedia for the purpose of influencing or editing on a Wikipedia matter. This is forbidden, and new users who engage in the same behavior as a banned or blocked user in the same context, and who appear to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, are subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are imitating.

Enforcement by reverting

When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of such core policies as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content.

It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to. Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a {{db-g5}}, or its alternative name {{db-banned}}, to mark such a page. If the banned editor is the only contributor to the page or its talk page, speedy deletion is probably correct. If other editors have unwittingly made good-faith contributions to the page or its talk page, it is courteous to inform them that the page was created by a banned user, and then decide on a case-by-case basis what to do.

User pages

Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits. Indefinitely site-banned users may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using e-mail.

Further enforcement measures

Serious, ongoing ban evasion is sometimes dealt with by technical means or by making an abuse complaint with the operator of the network from which the edits originate.

Other considerations

Conduct towards banned users

Wikipedia's hope for banned users is that they will leave Wikipedia or the affected area with their pride and dignity intact, whether permanently or for the duration of their ban. As such, it is inappropriate to bait banned users, or to take advantage of their ban to mock them.

Coercion

Attempts to coerce actions of users through threats of actions outside the Wikipedia processes, whether onsite or offsite, are grounds for immediate banning.

Scope and reciprocity

The English-language Wikipedia does not have authority over the Meta-Wiki, sister projects, or Wikipedias in languages other than English. As such, bans issued by the Wikipedia community or by the Arbitration Committee are not binding on other projects.

Reciprocal recognition of bans is an unsettled area of policy, in part because of the relative rarity of cases in which a banned user attempts to join another project.

Difference between bans and blocks

The standard distinction is that a ban is a social decision about the right to edit; a block is a technically-imposed enforcement setting.

The MediaWiki software does not have the ability to selectively prevent editing. Users who are banned from specific pages or topics must immediately cease editing these. If they do not, then a block will be used to enforce the ban. Such a block will necessarily prevent their editing of the entire site, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community.

A user who is "site banned" (which may sometimes be described as "community banned" or "full ban") has been completely ejected from the project. For the duration of their ban they are no longer considered a member of the editing community, which affects how their actions are treated.

	Blocked (including "indefinite blocks")	Page/topic banned	Site banned
Still a member of the community?	Yes, although temporarily unable to edit	Yes	No
Access to own talk page?	Usually allowed unless abused	Yes	Usually not allowed
Imposing of block/ban	May be imposed by any uninvolved admin	May only be imposed by the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, or the Wikimedia Foundation (or uninvolved users specifically authorized by one of these), or by community consensus.
Content created during block or ban (by the user or by someone acting on their behalf)	Any pages that they create where they are the sole contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5. Editor(s) may potentially be sanctioned for evasion.	Banned users editing despite a ban or on their behalf may have all of their edits reverted without question (exceptions), and any pages that they create where they are the sole contributor may be speedily deleted under CSD#G5. Editing on behalf of banned users is not allowed.

See also

• Blacklist
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles
• Wikipedia:Blocking policy
• Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions (proposed policy)
• Wikipedia:Editing restrictions
• Wikipedia:List of banned users

External links

• CommunityExile, RequestToLeave and RightToLeave, from MeatballWiki