Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Lifting of a ban

Suppose a user is indefinitely banned per WP:ANI consensus, takes a 14-month wikibreak, and then returns under a different name and exhibits good behavior for a couple months, having, perhaps, matured a bit and developed a mind-set that is more conducive to behaving appropriately and getting along with other members of the community. Is there any procedure for formally lifting the ban? Or would it be better for the user just to pretend that nothing happened? Tisane (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Clean start, and Wikipedia:Banning policy#Review and reversal of bans. However the decision to use sock puppets for evasion will count against the editor. The preferred way of doing this is to send the email to arbcom before creating the new account. Taemyr (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Types of ban

I noticed that nowhere do we describe what a topic or interaction ban actually means, hence the need to draw up detailed rules in most cases. I've attempted to describe our usual practice in a new section, Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of ban.  Sandstein  21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I've modified some of the details as I don't agree that the original reflected how things work properly in practice. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

These seem to be mostly stylistic changes, but ok.  Sandstein  13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Coercion = immediate banning?

This line (from Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Coercion) seems rather dubious:

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

Firstly, neither ArbCom or the community are prone to acting with haste in banning editors, so I doubt the truth of this implication. Secondly, this line seems to encourage administrators unilaterally banning the offending parties. I suggest that this be clarified and folded into either the "Types of ban" or "Decision to ban" sections as a normal rationale rather than special dispensation. Skomorokh 16:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think is somewhat of an extension of WP:NLT; offsite and real life harassment is and should be grounds for immediate banning. I certainly wouldn't want to edit with anyone who harassed people. NW (Talk) 03:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Banning isn't instantaneous. I think that the sentence is supposed to mean "You'll get indef'd now, and banned after an ANI discussion concludes in a couple of days." /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There's several types of types of conduct (and several types of harassment) which will result in a ban after a few days and setting an exhaustive list will be a pain to update. I think we all agree that it's grounds for blocking (per NW) so it should be reflected in blocking policy. That is, coercion is too narrow to describe the sorts of behavior that would warrant "immediate banning". Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Revision-delete as a way of dealing with banned editors

I have now seen the situation where a banned editor has created a sock making mundane edits to unrelated subjects which are clearly pretty mundane and beneficial to the 'pedia, yet their presence causes som other editors distress.

It occurs to me that some banned editors might get a sense of amusement seeing an improved page reverted to an older one with errors in defence of wikipedia's banning policy, yet contrary to the improvement of the 'pedia.

My idea is, how about using revision delete in these situations (as well as 'swamping' the page with improvements, hence the banned editor's 'stamp' on the article disappears into the history) - the banned editor's presence is expunged, and mundane and unequivocal improvements left. This way there is nothing for the banned editor to revert over, yet their presence is eradicated. I think this is useful in a situation where edits are (a) uncontroversial and clear encyclopedic improvement and (b) unrelated to the topic area of the person's banning (?). What do we think folks? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Would this not violate our licensing policies? NW (Talk) 02:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

well, in one way they are still there, they are just invisible to nonadministrators.....? (sounds of wikipages ruffling to look licencing up...) Casliber (talk · contribs)

PS: I am looking at this page - Wikipedia:Copyrights - is there another that is more explicit? I can't see anything that this contravenes there..(??) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I remember Moonriddengirl saying once that a full list of authors had to be provided to satisfy CC-BY-SA-3.0 (but not GFDL) conditions. I could be wrong though. NW (Talk) 03:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

If we keep any changes of substance, the page history has to credit the editor correctly and publicly, otherwise we are in violation of our own licensing agreement with the editor (we agree to license each contribution under CC-BY-SA-3, and that requires crediting the contributor each time we agree to use their contribution). Really minuscule changes that don't meet any copyright threshold - something like a single change in spacing, punctuation, capitalization, etc. - might not need to be attributed, but if we attribute the editor's other work it's better to be safe than sorry. If you don't want a banned user to receive a byline, you'll have to completely remove their edits. GFDL only really requires crediting the five "principal authors" of a work, but we no longer have any text that's GFDL-only, so the CC-BY-SA requirements are what's important. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It has the somewhat nebulous:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

well that doesn't happen, there is just a standard acknowledgement as organized by the WMF. No-one gets a say in how prominently or otherwise it is displayed. (???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who contributes using our edit interface agree to be credited as specified at foundation:Terms of Use - the page history is option c). My interpretation (I admit that it is only that) is that each time they agree to this form of attribution, we must credit them, except that "Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions". Omitting credit for some edits could break attribution for reusers of our content who only used part of the edit history. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

(Not really sure where to indent this) Now, don't we sometimes remove usernames anyway if they're horrible and defamatory? E.g., User:JIMBO WALES [verb]S [noun]!!! (I'll let your imaginations run wild about what the verb and noun might be and avoid and BLP vios that way). Is this different from doing that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The way that we would ordinarily fix this concern is to revert the banned users edits and then rewrite the article again in our own words to correct omissions or errors in the text. That does not always happen because of time pressure that limits our ability to clean up the articles. If we keep any edits of significance then I would think that the editor should be credited in the history. It is the ethical thing for us to do. As to RevDel the edits, I have concerns about raising the exceptions that we will do this on most articles edited by banner users. In general, right now we are not able to monitor articles well enough to remove highly problematic material quickly, so I'm not sure that this is the best use of our time and work effort. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 10:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of edits by the topic banned

I just want to check something. With site banned editors other users cannot do edits for them and we revert these edits immediately. If a Topic banned editor gets another user who has a history of operating (if only as a single purpose account) in that topic area to make an edit for them - is this a breach of WP:MEAT? Also, is asking somebody else to make an edit for them enough for a topic banned editor to be in breach of their ban?--Cailil ^talk 19:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally yes, but the circumstances play a key part in determining if it can be considered a breach and how it should be enforced. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban wording

As this section shows, the expectations of a topic ban are not clearly enough defined at present.

A topic ban means that the user is no longer invited to contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia's articles on the topic and that their past attempts to do so have been very disruptive. Also if other editors act improperly then the topic banned users' contribution is not needed to correct it - uninvolved editors without a history of poor judgment and conduct in the topic area will comment if comment is needed.

Would consensus agree with a tightening of the wording as follows:

Original

Proposed

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.

A topic ban indicates to a user that for the duration of the ban, they are not invited to contribute to the shaping of the topic on Wikipedia. This is usually due to a history of improper conduct on the topic. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic on all pages (including their userspace and project pages, not just articles) and making edits about the topic in unrelated pages. Their views on other disputes that may exist within the topic area are not required either. For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" this means editing is forbidden on: weather-related articles such as Wind and Rain and their talk pages, weather-related project pages such as WikiProject Meteorology, or summaries of weather-related discussions or edits; weather-related wording and sections in other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as the section on "Climate" in the article New York; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist or an RFC on weather-related wording; discussions of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors on weather related topics (except for factual correction and appeal of their own sanction) per discussion below not needed, first exception is a big loophole, second is already in policy; or userspace posts or engaging with other users (including past disputants) on weather-related topics. A useful way to do this is to reply "I'm forbidden to post about this topic on-wiki due to a topic ban."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Weak support. The more specifics we put in, the more loopholes we create. That said, the descriptions above seem reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Mild support. I share the general concern of S of V that adding specificity can lead to loopholes.
  • Specific observations:
    • "except for factual correction" sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. Unless I'm missing something, this creates more problems than it resolves.)
    • "Appeal of their own sanction" - support. (Oddly, the current CC topic ban wording does not have such an exception. It should)
    • "userspace posts" - support. (Oddly, the current CC topic ban wording does not prohibit such posts. It should)
    • Question - what good will this revised wording do if ArbCom ignores it and crafts their own wording? Presumably, specific wording by ArbCom trumps generic wording. Ideally, we would agree to good wording, and ArbCom would simply enact a topic ban, implicitly invoking this wording, but that isn't what happened. Perhaps this means it will be helpful in the case of an AN imposed topic ban, but given that the recent interest is instigated by CC issues, it is worth discussing how to get ArbCom on board.--SPhilbrickT 17:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1+2/ Agreed and fixed. My thought was about others taunting them or misrepresenting their topic ban. On reflection #Conduct towards banned editors covers most of this.

Also appealing a sanction is already an exception at #Exceptions to limited bans. So I've removed these exceptions as "probably not needed".

4/ A good wording for topic bans can only help ArbCom cases and community sanctions - if worded well enough, ArbCom may adopt it as the standard topic ban conditions.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As the original author of that policy section, I agree with the (few) substantial clarifications, but think that most changes to the wording are no improvement. Some thoughts:

1. I originally tried to get the point across in as few and as simple words as possible. But:
   1. The proposal contains expressions like "shaping of the topic" (what's that?), "userspace posts", RFC" and "disputants" that may be unfamiliar to non-native speakers of English or new users.
   2. For instance, instead of "are not invited", we should use the clearer and shorter "may not"; instead of "indicates to a user that" we can simply say "means that ... the banned user".
   3. "for the duration of the ban" is also self-evident and thus redundant.
   4. "This is usually due to a history of improper conduct on the topic." Usually, but sometimes not? That means we sometimes topic-ban people on a whim? The original "where their contributions have been disruptive" is more to the point, IMHO.
   5. "this means editing is forbidden on" can more concisely be expressed thus: "they may not edit".
2. What does "Their views on other disputes that may exist are not required either" mean? If disputes about the topic, that should need no elaboration; if disputes not about the topic, then why?
3. I am not sure that the new example paragraphs four and five are really needed: they are simply examples of "discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia" (¶3).
4. Could the cumbersome "userspace posts or engaging with other users (including past disputants)" be replaced with "messages"?
5. The sentence A useful way to do this is to reply "I'm forbidden to post about this topic on-wiki due to a topic ban." does not work well with the preceding one, since it's not clear what "this" refers to. If we need to have that piece of advice, how about we avoid wikijargon and say: "The banned user should not react to queries related to weather except with "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or a similar response."
6. Can we lose the random-looking bolding? Other parts of the policy don't have it either.  Sandstein  18:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• (I think the bolding is only there to emphasize the changes) - this overall clarification is essential to prevent the use of loopholitis. Collect (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC) .

Quick comments using Sandstein's numbering:

• Shorter wordings (1.2 - 1.5) look fine.
• Not too concerned over unfamiliar terms or non-English use (1.1) - anyone who's been editing enough to get topic banned (which usually means they make useful contributions elsewhere too) is unlikely to need help understanding very common wiki-terms like "RFC" and "userspace".
• (2) "Views on other disputes" reworded - yes.
• (3) Topic banned users often have a past of warring. Many have a severe case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:LAWYER. The topic ban is to get them to drop that area so we don't have to block or ban them entirely. Spelling it out is no bad thing in the circumstances.
• (4) "Userspace posts" -> "messages" works, but "engaging with users or past disputants on the topic" probably needs specific mentioning.
• (5) Agreed.
• (6) Per Collect and yes.

Amended wording based on this:

--Proposed v2 -- A topic ban means that the user may not in any way contribute to the shaping of the topic or to discussions about editing related to the topic on Wikipedia, because their previous involvement was too disruptive. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes on all pages (including project pages and their own userspace, not just articles) and edits about the topic on unrelated pages. For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" they may not edit or participate in: weather-related articles and their talk pages, weather-related project pages such as WikiProject Meteorology, or summaries of weather-related discussions or edits; weather-related wording and sections in other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as the section on "Climate" in the article New York; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist or an RFC on weather-related wording; on-wiki discussion of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors, engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages on weather-related issues. Canvassing weather related actions, for example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email (this is forbidden whether or not topic banned). The banned user should not react to queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic. A suggested response is "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or similar, with an optional link to the relevant decision if wished (but without editorial comment). If engagement continues, ask for uninvolved administrator assistance.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me. A few more questions and comments:

1. What does "and [the topic's] editorial processes" mean? Do topics have editorial processes dedicated only to them? Do you maybe mean "and discussions about editing related to the topic"?
2. "including their userspace and project pages" should be rephrased as "including project pages and their own userspace". I initially misread the sentence as referring to project pages belonging to the user, which makes no sense.
3. Is "edit on" correct English? I'd have said "edit about", but I'm not a native speaker.
4. What is meant by "plain" links?
5. In the phrase "engaging with other users (including past disputants and in messages to or from other users) on weather-related topics", I'm not sure that the prepositions "in" and "on" are apposite. How does one engage "in" a message, or "on" a topic? Besides, one cannot violate a topic ban by receiving a message, which is what "from other users" seems to imply. Might we say "sending or responding to messages related to the topic, no matter whether or not the other user was involved in any previous disputes"?
6. To avoid a double negation, "is also forbidden" should be omitted, or else the last bullet point should begin capitalized and be preceded by a period.
7. In the last paragraph as currently proposed, we seem to be no longer talking about the "weather" example, so it should read "queries about the topic or disputes related to it", which also avoids a repetition of "related".  Sandstein  20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I've twice seen topic banned editors ask about whether they could participate in mediations related tot he topic. I suspect that this proposed language would make it clear that that's not acceptable, and that'll be a help.   Will Beback  talk  21:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein -

1/ Same thing, your wording's fine and may be more obvious, 2/ Fine as well, 3/ It's difficult to find the right grammatrical structure (some of these require "in" and some "on" and some "relating to"), I have changed it to "may not edit or participate in", 4/ means no commentary, just the link (providing a link is not the same as a loophole to rehash the entire dispute and all one's views), 5/ the culprit is the expression "and in messages to or from other users". Your wording helps fix this. Try this: "on-wiki discussion of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors, engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages, on weather-related issues". 6/ Cannot see the wording "is also forbidden" in the text, can you check this, 7/ see comment on #5.

I have edited v2 to reflect these. I also made one other changes - added off-wiki canvassing as a likely loophole.

"Engaging with other users (including other disputants)" could be improved. "Engaging with other users [on the topic]" is covered already under "sending or responding to user messages" so it's redundant. The aim of the other part is to forbid the situation where a topic banned user begins to wikihound his past opponents, finding "faults" elsewhere, trying to prove they are bad editors, etc. The problem is that sometimes the opponent is genuinely showing issues elsewhere, sometimes it's a WP:COATRACK to undermine ex-opponents without breaching the topic ban. Any ideas for improving the wording on this area? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

V2 looks better, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

• This seems pretty clear and straight-forward. "Plain link" seems somewhat in need of explication, something on the order of "a plain link without editorial comment"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Added that. I also added a bit more in that paragraph (briefly: other users should not provoke engagement; if provocation doesn't cease then seek uninvolved administrator help rather than breach the topic ban). Such users may well be needled and tend to respond easily, a little guidance is sensible. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the wording looks pretty good now, but a few additional comments:

1. "edits about the topic in unrelated pages" should be changed to "edits about the topic to unrelated pages". Unless I'm mistaken, by convention we speak of edits "to" pages, not "in" pages.
2. "sending or responding to user messages (including off-wiki canvassing)" seems to imply that engaging in off-wiki canvassing is covered by the topic ban. Or do you mean that only responding to off-wiki canvassing is prohibited? We may need to discuss this in more depth. Normally, topic bans (like any sanction) cover only on-Wiki conduct. I can see the argument for possibly making an exception here, but such an expansion would need a solid, broader consensus.
3. In "queries related to weather or its related dispute", I also think that we can lose the weather, because we have left the example. Also, not every topic has "its" dispute, but rather a great number of individual disputes. Thus I propose: "queries related to the topic or to discussions and disputes related to the topic".  Sandstein  10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

1+3/ yes and I think it's now fixed ("queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes"), 2/ the mention of canvassing isn't new, it's already in WP:CANVASS under #Inappropriate notification and #Stealth canvassing:

"[C]anvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate";

"Inappropriate notification is generally considered to be disruptive";

"The following behaviours... are regarded as characteristic of canvassing (and may be seen as disruptive): ... Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions";

"Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason".

This doesn't add anything new. The users to whom topic bans are applied include a high proportion of POV warriors (by definition) and people who look for loopholes. It's worth the mention to avoid doubt.

One major ambiguity: "or to discussions about editing related to the topic on Wikipedia". This was a wording you suggested to replace "and [the topic's] editorial processes" but on reflection it's added more ambiguity than we realized. What about: "and communal discussions and processes directly related to editing of the topic"? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing: okay, but then we might not want to hide that important aspect among the examples. We could mention it in the second paragraph: "... on unrelated pages. Off-wiki canvassing related to the topic is also forbidden. ¶ For example ..."

Ambiguity: I'm not sure that I see what the ambiguity might be. I'm not happy with "communal", because it's not clear what it means, and it might be read to imply that, e contrario, bilateral / "private" discussions are OK. Is there a reason to refer to "directly related" discussion here, whereas we use "broadly related" in the general definition? That might be another wikilawyering opportunity.  Sandstein  18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I tried that approach on canvassing, it didn't work well. Adding an extra bullet looks much better: "Canvassing weather related actions or soliciting weather related edits by other users, for example using wiki-email (this is forbidden whether or not topic banned)." I've edited this into v2.

The ambiguous wording added was "or to discussions about editing related to the topic on Wikipedia". This could be read two ways: (all discussions about (topic editing on Wikipedia)) or ((all discussions about topic editing) on Wikipedia). What about "...or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic..."? Better?

The reason for the "directly related" or "concerning" wording is that we definitely don't want a topic-banned user to wikilawyer that they can participate in a topic discussion (ie commentary which is clearly related to the topic), however we also don't want to prevent them from contributing validly to the many low risk discussions whose connection to the topic is tenuous but which could be construed as "broadly related" due to some very minor overlap. Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing: OK, but I propose to remove the part between brackets, "(this is forbidden whether or not topic banned)", because it does not faithfully represent policy and is not necessary here. WP:CANVASS only says that "the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged". Discouraged does not mean forbidden, but we don't need to go into that here; the link to WP:CANVASS should suffice. Instead we could write: "... using wiki-email or other off-wiki means".

About the ambiguity: I still don't quite see the difference between the two ways you think the provision can be read. Might it be avoided by just dropping "Wikipedia", as in: "... discussions about editing related to the topic, because ...", since it is understood that the scope of a Wikipedia policy is always Wikipedia itself? But your proposed wording, "...or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic...", would work as well, I think.

Relatedness: I think we should err on the side of caution here and stick to the "broadly related" standard. Any contributions that are in fact harmless will tend not to be sanctioned, but we should not encourage boundary-pushing. The core message should remain: Anything related to the topic is off-limits.  Sandstein  17:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

(unindent) Agreeing and adding 1+2 and noting 3 is also fixed by 2. As this seems to be closing in on a wording people are happy with, reposting as v3:

--Proposed v3 -- A topic ban means that the user may not in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic, because their previous involvement was too disruptive. Lesser or different restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated, if not then these will apply. As such they are forbidden from making edits broadly related to the topic and its editorial processes on all pages (including project pages and their own userspace, not just articles), edits about the topic on unrelated pages, or efforts to shape Wikipedia coverage conducted off-site. For example if an editor is banned from the topic "weather" they may not edit or participate in: weather-related articles and their talk pages, weather-related project pages such as WikiProject Meteorology, or summaries of weather-related discussions or edits; weather-related wording and sections in other pages, even if the pages as a whole have little or nothing to do with the topic, such as the section on "Climate" in the article New York; discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion concerning an article about a meteorologist or an RFC on weather-related wording; on-wiki discussion of user conduct and disputes (including possible or past sanctions of other editors), engaging with other users (including other disputants), or sending or responding to user messages, on weather-related issues. Canvassing or proposing weather-related Wikipedia actions off-wiki. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means. The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to on-wiki questions and discussions about the topic or its related disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic. A suggested response is "I may not reply because of a topic ban" or similar, with an optional link to the relevant decision if wished (but without editorial comment). If engagement continues, ask for uninvolved administrator assistance.

Workable? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can perhaps transfer this to the policy page and fine-tune it from there ("participate in: ..." would read better as "engage in: ..." as applied to canvassing; instead of "wished" I'd have written "desired"), but these are stylistic details. Thanks for doing all the editing here. I'm still not very comfortable with "editorial processes" / "its editorial processes", for the reasons given previously, and because the emphasis on "editorial" might give rise to the impression (contrary to the examples) that we only prohibit engagement in content ("editorial") discussions, but not in user conduct discussions arising from editing within the topic area. Maybe we could omit "editorial"?  Sandstein  20:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both your other points are okay and will be understood as intended. Participate works here because it covers both active and passive senses, one can "participate" in a canvassing matter by passively being part of a canvassing group as well as "engaging in" canvassing. It covers all aspects of "being part of". Also keeps the wording simple (same wording for all bullets). Editorial processes would be processes related to its editing. The wording is very strong here - this isn't the only wording ("contribute in any way to the shaping of the topic" and "discussions concerning the topic" as well). A user who tried to argue that a relevant AFD, mediation, arbitration, RFC, village pump proposal, manual of style discussion on topic-related infoboxes, dispute resolution, etc concerning the topic area was not an "editorial process" or were not "discussions concerning the topic" (the other criterion) would not stand a chance. I think it's fine and will be understood in the sense intended.

Would like to see if a couple more users will endorse a move before doing so. Some users have broadly endorsed and surely others have read it and not felt the need to change it - maybe wait till others have had a chance to read this and comment? I'm a bit wary that this was started due to a specific topic ban discussion and would like to be sure it doesn't look like an attempt to modify policy while it's being referenced in a case. I do agree it's broadly just affirming community norms and the discussion on the case broadly affirms the same norms, but let's be careful not to hit that possible issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Minor update - added "which topic banned users are reminded is forbidden" to the canvassing bullet. This is a reminder not a new restriction, it's important not to imply it is permitted to non topic banned users. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

As noted above, I don't think we should do this: the canvassing policy can't be summarized as "it's forbidden", and there is no need for us to deal here with canvassing as applied to non-topic-banned users. Indeed, that's another loophole. What we want to say here is "all canvassing is forbidden to the topic-banned, even though not all forms of canvassing are forbidden to other users". But as a wikilawyer I might choose to read your wording as "canvassing is forbidden to the topic-banned in the same manner as it is to others" - i.e., not strictly. And the remaining sencence now reads awkwardly.  Sandstein  05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a preference between these wordings?:

1. Canvassing weather related actions off-wiki, which topic banned users are reminded is forbidden. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means.
2. Any canvassing on weather related actions (usually only some kinds of canvassing are prohibited). For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means.

(For me, the first seems better. Canvassing is usually read as "inappropriate canvassing" like its page says, so the second sounds a bit like it's encouraging canvassing to non-topic banned users. First is a reminder and reinforces the key issue. On-wiki canvassing is already handled under "user messages" in the previous bullet so no need to cover it again). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The first wording is inaccurate, as noted above. The following wording, which I prefer, doesn't sound like an encouragement to others to me: "Off-wiki canvassing of weather-related actions on Wikipedia, e.g. by e-mail." It is also more concise.  Sandstein  16:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's almost identical to the first wording isn't it? "Off wiki canvassing" v. "canvassing.. off-wiki", "on Wikipedia" is redundant (actions are by definition on Wikipedia or else they aren't "actions"), and "e.g. by email" is effectively the same as "using wiki-email or other off-wiki means". The current draft states that off-wiki canvassing of on-wiki actions is "forbidden"; the point is taken that the actual wording is "discouraged", "inappropriate", and "regarded as characteristic of canvassing (and may be seen as disruptive)".

I've taken that phrase out, it's easier to remove than fix and strictly is not needed anyway (the rest is sufficient). Hopefully that's that fixed. I've left notes for the other past participants to this discussion to recheck the wording as well. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse v3 wording. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Endorse as well. (I added a hyphen to "weather related" in the canvassing line) Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

<-I'm concerned about possible over-reach restriction on "Canvassing weather-related actions off-wiki". While my first instinct was to reject any reference to off-wiki activities, I am now comfortable that we can include them. However, I believe the prohibition should be on Wikipedia related activities. So, for example, if user:foo has a weather blog, and conducts a poll to select the lamest weather article in WP, that is included as an activity in violation of the ban. In contrast, if user:foo conducts a poll to determine the optimal outdoor temperature in the opinion of readers, even though that is weather related, it should not be disallowed. (possibly, the definition of canvassing "intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" with the implicit assumption that the reference is to Wikipedia discussions, rather than off-wiki discussions, is sufficient, but it might be easy to tighten this language and remove uncertainties.

I remain unhappy that exceptions, such as dispute resolution, remain outside the description, but, after looking, and realizing the exceptions cover more ground than just topic bans, I reluctantly concede they can be handled external to this definition.--SPhilbrickT 19:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think these are covered. The restriction (in simple terms) is on involvement in the wikipedia editorship, shaping, creation, community decisions, dispute resolution, etc, on the topic. If they keep a weather blog or post a rant on their topic ban or the lameness of their opponent on their website, we might disapprove but we cannot control what they do there and don't try to. The exception is if they use these things to try and get into editing the topic by the back door (crudely worded) then we take that seriously and may extend their block/ban. I think the wording covers this. It's the canvassing of wiki-actions thats the key "not okay" thing. Off-wiki general discussion (eg on WikiEN-l mailing list or their blog) is not "banned" - we don't forbid that sort of thing. To underline this, the official site mailing lists have banned users quite active on them.

On your second point, processes such as dispute resolution are covered in several places: "may not in any way contribute to the shaping of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic" covers it well. So does "discussions about weather-related topics anywhere else on Wikipedia, for instance a deletion discussion... or an RFC". RFCs are a core part of dispute resolution. And it's explicitly covered under "on-wiki discussion of user conduct, disputes and possible sanctions of editors" related to the topic. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

You've satisfied both of my questions, unfortunately, I have a third. The term Canvassing narrowly covers "sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". So for example, sending a notice to a mailing list about a weather related AfD is covered and prohibited. However, if I send an email to a list of people, pointing out what I think is a problematic edit, that doesn't sound like it fits the definition. Linking to a diff of an edit can't really be called "inform[ing] them about a community discussion". Yet this is specifically the example given. I don't see that the example is covered by the definition. In addition the point of the page is to distinguish between acceptable forms of canvassing and unacceptable forms. In this instance, we intend to prohibit both. I wonder if we ought to avoid the use of "canvass" and simply:

Prohibit off-wiki actions contributing to the shaping of the topic or to editorial processes and discussions concerning the topic. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means.

--SPhilbrickT 20:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivial cavil: Ought we include a statement that this language refers to "full topic bans", and that the Arbitration Committee or the community may specifically apply topic bans which are less than total, but that where the prior language does not specifically except activities, that this language governs? Or thereabouts? Collect (talk) 20:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That language doesn't work well for me - there is a (full) site ban, and then various types of limited bans. The topic ban is an example of a limited ban. It would be confusing to call it a "full topic ban" given that it is an example of a limited ban.--SPhilbrickT 12:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem being that ArbComm has, indeed, used "topic ban" in differing contexts, and with differing stated restrictions, over the years. Not to make this clear would invite massive niggling. Collect (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is now resolved - see latest edit. Now says this is the norm for a topic ban, lesser restrictions may be applied but need to be stated explicitly if so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, and I catch your point. Ideally, Arbcom, when issuing a topic ban, will accept the wording we have devised and simply note a topic ban as defined on Banning Policy Page . If Arbcom wants a modified ban (presumably less onerous) they should explicitly note the terms of the ban as applied in that instance.--SPhilbrickT 14:48, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding off-wiki communication, in a 2010 case the ArbCom posted two somewhat contradictory principles:

• While discussion of Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia itself is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external communication for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is improper.
• A user's conduct outside of Wikipedia is generally not subject to Wikipedia policies or sanctions, except in extraordinary circumstances such as those involving grave acts of overt and persistent harassment or threats or other serious misconduct. The factors to be evaluated in deciding whether off-wiki conduct may be sanctioned on-wiki include whether the off-wiki conduct was intended to, and did, have a direct and foreseeable damaging effect on the encyclopedia or on members of the community.

They've cited the Eastern European mailing list as a leading case involving off-wiki communication. However, the ArbCom doesn't set policy. If an editor is totally banned, and then goes to an off-Wiki website and recruits meat puppets, there's nothing we can do (except block the puppet accounts). But if a topic-banned user goes off-wiki to recruit meat puppets or proxies then further enforcement remedies are available, such as blocks of the user's account. But that would be a major change from current practice.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I'm having with this is that the arbitration case that brought on this thought to change the banning policy made a clarification of what the wanted for the Remedy 3 banning of editors. Then as complaints came in further clarifications were added. How do we reconcile this banning policy to what the arbitrators are saying in any cases? A total topic ban is easily defined but when we get into the partial types of banning things then get less clear for this policy page. How do we write this up is what I want to know or are you all just trying to tighten the policy and not because of the Climate change case? Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) It's for tightening up - while prompted by the case it's not intended to reflect the specific case. The case has highlighted that the policy's not clear enough in this area. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• A concern – "may not in any way contribute to the shaping of the topic" would imply that an editor whose normal off-wiki activities affected the topic itself, rather than Wikipedia coverage of the topic, would be banned from continuing these normal off-wiki activities even though they had no reference to Wikipedia. Propose "may not in any way contribute to the shaping of Wikipedia coverage of the topic". . dave souza, talk 14:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Various good catches here.

@Dave - yes and added

@Collect - Good call - two wordings I found that might work:

• "Lesser restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated, if not then these will apply" at the end of the 1st paragraph
• "Topic bans are decided case by case. If the ban decision states different or more limited restrictions then those will apply instead." as a final paragraph below the rest of the section

I tried other combinations, the first seemed to work best and is shortest. I tried to avoid using the term "full topic ban" - extra terminology and clumsy, not really needed.

Canvassing - still looking at this. Following Dave's wording I've tentatively added "or efforts to shape Wikipedia coverage conducted off-site". Any use? (diff). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec) :::Thanks for the clarification FT2, I now also support with your above changes. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Either choice looks pretty good. Collect (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

On canvassing, the implication is that a topic-banned editor would be prohibited from making any contributions to a Wikipedia Review thread on the topic, given that the function of that website is to influence Wikipedia coverage or behaviour. Is that the intention? . dave souza, talk 14:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This one came up above (previous answer). Wikipedia norms are quite firm (though it's a well-known grey area that cannot be delineated with precision). As stated above, a user can post on their blog, rant about their ban or a website, or post on WR or WikiEN-L about how awful the weather section is. We don't control those and should not wish to. What they cannot do is attempt to get in the back door of Wikipedia topic shaping. Whether they have done so in a particular case is best left to the community if there was agreed to be a problem. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Given the room for a heavy handed response to any discussion of the weather section or complaint about their ban, more clarity would be desirable. As SPhilbrick pointed out at 20:46, 28 October 2010, Wikipedia:Canvassing specifically refers to influencing discussion rather than requesting edits. Perhaps "Canvassing or proposing specific weather-related actions off-wiki. For example sending requests to or soliciting edits by other users using wiki-email or other off-wiki means." . . dave souza, talk 15:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS refers to "the sending of messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion". As you say it doesn't cover requesting edits but the draft does. If you mean ensuring better clarity on proposing/requesting edits - which is not covered by WP:CANVASS - then that makes sense and is easy as you suggest - changed to "Canvassing or proposing weather-related Wikipedia actions off-wiki". ("Specific" would probably add room for wikilawyering and doesn't add much, proposing actions of a general nature is equally a problem). Resolved? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• Regarding prohibition of "on-wiki discussion of user conduct", is that intended to apply to discussion of the user's own conduct? Note that such participation in discussion after the editor concerned was notified of the on-wiki discussion was not sanctioned with any penalty or warning. . . dave souza, talk 14:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Banning policy already covers legitimate dispute resolution and appeal against one's own ban (#Exceptions to limited bans: "Legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum"). It is a bit of a grey area in that a user could hope to wikilawyer this permission to rant on about their ban, how unjust it was, who else was evil, etc. But the proposed wording actually blocks attempts to move from that to ranting about the topic or other disputes of any kind, or responding to messages about the topic, so if all they can do is rant about their own conduct (and not the topic or other disputants) people will tire of it very quickly and it doesn't seem to have much potential to harm the debate. It's more likely to be seen as WP:STICK than anything. We also state they should not respond to messages about the topic so they know how to avoid if others provoke. So if there's a grey area here it doesn't seem harmful enough to block and would be tricky to find fair wording to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point about the subsequent clarification, but given confusion, it would help to be explicit about this. Suggest "possible sanctions of editors" could be changed to "possible sanctions of other editors". . . dave souza, talk 15:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I ended up moving that into parentheses: "On-wiki discussion of user conduct and disputes (including possible or past sanctions of other editors)..." which avoids subclauses and seems to be less loophole-y and flow better. Any further issues, or reasonably fit to go? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 15:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

See my comment above of 15:36, 29 October 2010, about the canvassing clause. . dave souza, talk 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Responded above under that post - better? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's better. Looking again at discussions at AE, this does seem to be in line with current arbiters views in relation to the climate change case. The question has been raised about whether it's such a good idea to overturn the previous tolerance of statements made by topic-banned editors on their own talk pages, and that's something I'd wish to think over before giving any support to that specific change. There's something to be said for allowing editors to make comments where they can be ignored. . . dave souza, talk 17:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the general sense of the final sentence ("something to be said..."). The concern is that such statements often comment on other editors, who then have to reply, which then lead to further threads, or an expectation of leaving such a thread in userspace (WP:UP: "...Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems..."). By the time a user is topic banned there's probably been many discussions and the proposal already permits them to provide a link (without comment) to the main discussion where anyone can form their own view. If we want such users to disengage then it's best to not make provision for adding a final statement against others. By the time this has happened it's probably not needed or useful. If they haven't said it before the topic ban they probably don't need to add it after it kicks in. Likewise we don't let community banned users post a valedictory speech after their ban commences either. The aim is pure and simple disengagement, dropping of the topic – not starting of a new thread or "blowing off steam" about their topic ban. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The point of a topic ban is to remove the banned people from the game, with the game being the topic and the personal/political disputes around it. Talk page commentary is a part of that game. Allowing it to some degree makes the topic ban difficult to enforce and leads to slippery slope issues. Bright-line rules are best: no involvement with the topic in any venue.  Sandstein  19:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that is the clearest and cleanest option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One last wording that I just noticed: "The banned user should not react to queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic". The actual meaning is they should not react inappropriately, otherwise this sounds like reacting on other websites, their blog, etc. Three possible fixes:

• "The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to queries related to the topic or its related discussions and disputes, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic" - accurate but wordy.

• "The banned user should not breach the topic ban by reacting to questions, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic" - easy to understand but is it clear and firm enough.

• "The banned user should not react to on-wiki questions and discussions, and questioners should not encourage further engagement by the user with the banned topic" - more complete and direct but omits email.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edited that sentence, not perfect but fixed [1]. Last calls for eyeballs before posting to the policy page. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose this. If we want a topic ban to be so restrictive, that's the way it should be drafted with reasons for why it is so restrictive. It should not be the default option just because of a single (climate change) case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what a topic ban should be, a complete separation of an banned editor from the topic at hand. The fact that it hasn't been that, has been the cause of continung problems. A topic ban should be serious, not a slap on the wrist, something that you got because you didn't behave badly enough to be blocked. It should be something that people will actively work to avoid; this hasn't been the case; as a result, it's been taken much too lightly, hence our problems not just in climate change, but in Eastern Europe, in Arab/Israel, and in other controversial areas. A topic ban should feel like one step removed from being banned outright.

NCMV, your view has been the reigning paradigm in the past, and it just hasn't worked. It is, I'm afraid, time to get serious; and just to be clear, this is not a philosophical choice, it is an empirical choice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not good enough to say 'it just hasn't worked'. It is not the Community's responsibility to clean up after users who either draft things poorly or don't draft things properly in the way that they personally intended in the first place. In a lot of situations, you can go to the drafter for what he/she was intending, but if what they drafted resembles something else, that's not the Community's problem; that's the drafters problem. Topic bans don't just serve for the narrow situations you've referred to in those problem topic areas; nor are they always the next step away from an outright ban. Some users are just not capable of working in certain parts of certain areas without causing disruption but are more than capable of working in all other areas, and the other parts of that area. In those cases, I don't see this approach as justifiable. This project is run by humans, not bots. The extent to which you want to restrict someone should be provided in the restriction itself (especially if it involves the whole works). In other words, this version should be used by drafters who want to impose such a restrictive topic ban and they can go ahead and write the justification for why the whole works is necessary as opposed to a major chunk of it. If they're unable to provide that justification, then they can know what to expect from the Community. I'm not going to endorse a version of policy that misleads users as to what the Community will do if something is being done when it is NOT the right thing to do either by the project, or by the user. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your comment is legalistic in the extreme, and in that respect antithetical to the concept of Wikipedia, which is more concerned with practicalities than it is with legalistic micro-parsing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to concern myself with someone who is unable to understand when another is referring to practicalities (and not some half-baked notion of antithetical legalistic crap that doesn't even make sense). Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That's good, just don't concern yourself, that'll be an improvement.

Hey! I've got an idea - how about editing an article and improving the encyclopedia? There's something new and different [2] you can do to help out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also noting "Lesser or different restrictions are possible but must be explicitly stated". The default is that if someone has acted sufficiently disruptively to be topic banned, then unless told otherwise the topic ban is intended to completely remove them from that field on Wikipedia. If that's not the intention all the ruling or decision has to do, is say so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:47, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi FT2, I did note that, but I don't think this is being given enough thought. If the default is that someone has acted so disruptively, then that much more evidence needs to be provided to prove that the disruption requires the editor completely removed from the topic ban rather than from the part of it. I see this as just presenting multiple opportunities for certain admins to submit a case to the Community (or otherwise) that there was part of a problem, and then the drafter is just going to put a default proposal rather than actively showing why the extra terms are required in a particular case. And as a lot of people clearly don't pay attention to the drafting, we're just going to have amendment nightmares. If we want to be able to use topic bans more effectively (including for shorter periods of time), then we can't be assuming the worst as the default. The onus is on the person submitting the case to present why the most restrictive stance is needed (you can't prove why the most restrictive stance is not needed when that presentation rests on the doctrine of AGF). I don't know if what I'm saying is making sense, but I hope you understand the message I'm trying to convey here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

NCMV really has nothing to add, he's just annoyed that if this paases, the extent of topic bans will be explicitly defined, and there'll be no reason for him to insert himself into the discussion, and he'll be forced to actually edit articles and improve the encyclopedia, instead of playing at wannabee admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

<chuckle> (Still, remember to WP:AGF...)  Sandstein  12:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand, but (along with everyone else who has spoken so far) I disagree. Not only is this already long-term policy but I think it's the right choice as Ken said. Other users such as SPhilbrick, dave desouza, Sandstein, Will Beback have already commented that topic bans should apply strongly and I agree with them. Existing policy is just as strong in this area.

Check the current wording both here or as used at ArbCom - "The purpose of a topic ban is to forbid an editor from making edits related to a certain topic area .... Unless otherwise specified, a topic ban covers all pages broadly related to the topic [and] parts of other pages that are related to the topic". A user is already not topic-banned lightly. Those few who are, already get excluded from all edits "broadly related" to the topic. It's not new. Topic-banned users should understand it is intended to remove them from the topic area completely. If that's not required in a specific case, someone will say so during the discussion. But arguing in effect that when the community sets topic bans it expects some involvement to remain in the topic by default, despite both policy and AC wording suggesting the contrary, is a non-starter. If consensus agrees that lesser restrictions are needed in a specific case (due to AGF or other reasons) that's also not an issue. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FT2 is entirely correct. A topic ban is by definition and practice a full exclusion from the topic. It is any exceptions that would have to be explicitly noted and explained. Doing it the other way round is not manageable.  Sandstein  12:12, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

I'm sympathetic to a point made by Ncmvocalist (or perhaps I inferred), that we should be careful about revising a policy based upon the experiences of one cases (even worse, a single participant in a single case). One can make an argument that an generic description ought to be crafted to cover the modal (most common) situations, then write exception language in cases where needed. (there are other options, not worth expounding upon now). If it were the case that we are writing the ideal topic ban for the CC case, and most "usual" situations will require different language, I'd be more supportive of Ncmvocalist's point, but I don't believe that is the situation. We aren't simply trying to craft language that would apply to the CC case, we are observing the problems occurring in that case and realizing deficiencies in the existing wording. In the view of some, this wording will represent a change from their current understanding, but interestingly, some of the arbs believe the current language does prohibit discussion of the topic on editors talk pages, so for them, this is just codifying what they always believed.--SPhilbrickT 15:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)