Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Archives
Archive 1 (2004–2006) Archive 2 (2007)

Community banning

This looks like a good time to update the community ban section. The community has begun applying topic bans in addition to outright sitebans. See Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard/Archive2#Community_ban_request_on_User:GordonWatts, which GordonWatts attempted to appeal to ArbCom and the committee rejected his appeal. Also the recently closed Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Community_ban_proposal_for_Miracleimpulse.

Also I suggest including a link to the guideline Wikipedia:Disruptive editing which offers a model for community action culminating in community bans. An important criterion there makes a consensus of uninvolved editors is the standard for community banning. That part has been at guideline level for half a year now with no problems (it was implemented as a safeguard against good people getting railroaded out of the project) so I suggest adding that qualification to the banning policy statement on community bans.

Respectfully proposed. Durova^Charge! 05:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a matter of curiousity" how many "banned and nuisance persons" operate across more than one language/Wiki area? If the number is "very low" it might be easier to consider other routes than blanket bans. The crossovers are more likely to occur in some areas than others - eg English/Simple English.

A broad policy and a case by case handling might be easier than a "sledge and peanut" policy. Jackiespeel 15:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure any comprehensive survey has been performed about multiple language problem users. Each language edition is administrated separately and decides on its own policies. Wikipedia.en doesn't have an oversight role - that would rest with Meta. While an effort to coordinate banning policies across languages might be worthwhile, it's tangential to this particular thread. I'm requesting that the policy language be brought up to date with actual practice. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"As a matter of curiousity" how many "banned and nuisance persons" operate across more than one language/Wiki area? If the number is "very low" it might be easier to consider other routes than blanket bans

I think you are misinterperting the use of "ban" in this area. A community ban is only for en.WP. Although sometimes people may use "ban" to describe a wikimedia wide ban for editor who engages in threats, it is seldom done in practice since currently every wiki has a seperate user log and there is not way to automatically connect account on several wiki's to one person. Alhough there are occasions when a "banned user" popped up on another wiki and was noticed and blocked; it is rare. This may change in the future, but I have heard of no disscusion of a method for instituting wikimedia wide bans as of now. In any event such an method of banning would need a seperate policy (i.e. not on en.WP) with much wider discussion. If you are disscussing a policy on en.WP, the issues being disscussed will not be applied outside of en.WP.--BirgitteSB 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A very low number I think. Sofar I only have been tracking a spammer and a group of kids trying to get their names into various articles. Apart from that I have only come accross one crackpot being banned/blocked in 3 or 4 wikkies. OTOH some editors have been referred to as being banned on xx wikki, which never was a reason to block them here as long as they did not disrupt here. Agathoclea 14:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) May we return to the original suggestion? Durova^Charge! 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the arbcom should write this policy. They are after all the people who ban contributors. Andries 21:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Updated community ban language

Some recent developments at WP:CN and WP:RFAR have revealed a need to update and refine policy on community banning. Here is a diff of the new change.[1] Before making the changes I solicited input in four venues: here, WP:CN, WP:AN, and Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Threaded discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#.22Unclear.22_tag.3F. As the previous thread here at this board demonstrates, I sought discussion for eight days before taking action. Durova^Charge! 14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Some recent developments at WP:CN and WP:RFAR have revealed a need to update and refine policy on community banning. Here is a diff of the new change.[2] Before making the changes I solicited input in four venues: Wikipedia talk:Banning policy, WP:CN, WP:AN, and Wikipedia talk:Community noticeboard. Threaded discussion can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Community_noticeboard#.22Unclear.22_tag.3F. I sought discussion for eight days before taking action. Durova^Charge! 14:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I've struck most of the change as instruction creep ("reasonable expectation of notification", "disruptive user may forfeit these expectations", "not obliged to wait"). Has the community ever issued topical bans as opposed to general ones? >Radiant< 14:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and ArbCom upheld one on appeal. These points have been covered at the discussion on the talk page of this very messageboard, linked through my notice above. Durova^Charge! 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Speaking of which, with respect to reducing the complexity of policies, there may be merit in merging WP:BAN with WP:BLOCK. >Radiant< 14:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that merge, they are very different things. The distinction is already too vague in my opinion. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Precisely my point. If the distinction is vague, then one page should clearly explain what it is. I'm not saying that blocking is the same as banning, obviously it's not, but they're related enuogh to be covered on one page, for the same reason that protection is on the same page as unprotection. >Radiant< 14:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, Radiant, I really am disappointed that you responded to none of the several solicitations for input and then unilaterally altered policy counter to the discussion consensus immediately after the update got implemented. The new paragraph addresses reasonable concerns expressed at two different appeals to ArbCom where editors were blocked during community ban discussion and not notified of their ban discussion until after it had concluded, effectively denying them the means of defense. Additionally, the stipulation for uninvolved editors to decide on community bans has been at guideline level for half a year and was the most important provision in getting the proposal accepted as a guideline: partisan edit warriors shouldn't be empowered to railroad people out of the project. Durova^Charge! 14:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll add that, by selectively leaving some new material and deleting others, Radiant's diff amounts to a unilateral attempt to WP:OWN banning policy. If Radiant disagreed with the method used to garner consensus, the appropriate response would have been to revert the entire update. Durova^Charge! 14:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Get real, Durova, that someone disagrees with (part of) your edit has nothing to do with ownership (ad hominem is a fallacy, I'm sure you knew that). Policy pages are edited all the time by lots of people without "formal consensus gathering", and none of the links you cite point to any actual consensus gathering in the first place, just to lengthy talk pages where that gathering supposedly occured. I hadn't noticed your earlier invitations, or I would have responded earlier. >Radiant< 15:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Please express your thoughts in less a less inflammatory manner than get real, Durova and refrain from accusing me of logical fallacies I have not committed. My objection in no way constitutes an ad hominem attack: it regards your actions, not you as an individual. As your question Has the community ever issued topical bans as opposed to general ones? reveals, you were unaware of recent precedents that affect the policy you altered. I did link directly to the threaded discussion that formed consensus on the policy and within that thread my posts provided other links to the relevant precedents, upon which I would have gladly expanded had you requested clarification. Alterations to policy are weighty edits and should not be made in ignorance. Durova^Charge! 15:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• WP:KETTLE, Durova, you're the one that started with the accusation of ownership (and now, of of ignorance, although you're apparently unaware that most policy pages are edited all the time by a lot of people, a process which is neither weighty nor formal). You linked to the top of four lengthy talk pages, and one thread about the purpose of this noticeboard. None of that demonstrates consensus for the change you made. Basically, you added a long paragraph that doesn't really say anything. >Radiant< 15:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear

Please have a look at this diff and Wikipedia:Community_noticeboard#Updated_community_ban_language_at_WP:BAN. We've got a problem on our hands. Durova^Charge! 14:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• No we don't, we have one editor (you) making a change to a policy, and another editor (me) undoing part of, but not all of, that change. Policies are edited all the time, so I fail to see the problem here. We could discuss the matter at the policy talk page, as is common for suggested changes to a policy; I'm not sure what this thread is doing here. >Radiant< 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And the thread to the policy talk page has been open for eight days where you could have commented at any time, yet you acted without offering input and responded afterward to WP:CN. I initiated this thread here in order to notify people that the proposed changes had been implemented. It seemed like the responsible thing to do, particularly since it was the first time I had implemented a significant change at the policy level. Your reaction truly baffles me - it comes across as if you're itching for a fight. Durova^Charge! 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Like I said I was not aware of that thread, and apparently neither were most other people because it didn't see much participation. But you're really missing the point here:
  1. You don't need to announce policy changes; the normal wiki process governs.
  2. The policy isn't "set" because you discussed it at some place, it can be edited later on; the normal wiki process governs.
  3. You haven't actually linked to any major consensus building related to this change. Not that that's necessary, but you claim to have a strong consensus backing for your actions and this is not apparent.
  4. If people (e.g. me) disagree with an addition to policy, we discuss it on its talk page.
  5. Don't accuse people of WP:OWNership or of ignorance, per WP:CIV and WP:NPA.
• >Radiant< 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with this proposed change. The change to "consensus support among uninvolved users in good standing" will herald endless wikilawyering about what constitutes "involved," and in any event, just because someone may be "involved" doesn't mean their opinion should be discounted. If someone has been harassed by a user, for example, that person has a right to have their opinion carry weight without allegations that they're too "involved" to count. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, as has been pointed out many times, troublemakers often start harassing the admin who takes action against them, or an ArbCom member, so they can claim that admin or arbitrator is too "involved" to continue to deal with them. We should resist all such efforts. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it only the uninvolved users in good standing passage that earns your objection, Slim? That's been at guideline level for six months at WP:DE and was the key provision that garnered consensus support when that was at guideline level. As the talk page archives there demonstrate, it was the only effective safeguard against teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website. Durova^Charge! 15:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Durova, can you give one example of "teams of partisan editors exploiting the community ban option to railroad good people out of the website"? I've never seen it happen, though of course every user who's banned claims to be a good editor who was unfairly treated. Users who are banned indefinitely are almost always given warning after warning, usually from multiple admins. I've personally never seen any good editor (good in terms of content contributions or behavior) have this happen to them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What specifically does "in good standing" mean? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) To respond to SlimVirgin first, I'm not aware of a case where such railroading actually happened. The potential for that type of abuse got discussed extensively when WP:DE was at the proposal stage. Would you like me to cite specific posts and threads from those discussions? As long as community ban discussions were housed at WP:AN and WP:ANI the risk of that abuse was pretty low (although other problems attended holding them there). With the opening of WP:CN I've been active to reduce potential for that happening.[3] So far the community has handled this well, and I'm proud that it has, yet - let me know if you need more specifics than a general link to Wikipedia talk:Disruptive editing/Archive 1 - what's apparent to me from close involvement throughout the process is that the community has addressed this proactively. I don't really object to keeping that language at guideline level if consensus hasn't formed for advancing it: my impression had been that it was merited. Slim, is that your only objection to the edit I implemented this morning or are there other points you wish to raise?

And to Milo, in good standing here means the same thing it means at WP:AFD discussions or WP:RFA discussions: basically someone who has a meaningful edit history, isn't blocked or banned, and isn't a sockpuppet or meatpuppet. If we can presume that without explicit wording then I've no objection to deleting the phrase. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Radiant, it's odd that you claim to have been unaware of a discussion that occurred on a page you edited while the discussion was open.[4] I have no wish to personalize a disagreement, nor do I wish to cast aspersions. I have exerted more than reasonable efforts to solicit discussion and consensus proactively, operated with maximum transparency, and promptly laid my actions before the community for scrutiny. My good faith should be evident and please assume it if you have doubts. Yet I must express very serious misgivings about the way you have conducted this matter: I do not accuse you of acting in ignorance - your own post announces it. And if you believe my efforts to solicit discussion were inadequate or improper, please revert to the entire prior policy version rather than your own customized version, which you have declared you composed without understanding the events that had necessitated an update. Also I again request that this discussion move forward in a less precipitate and "hot" manner. There are many other things on my to-do list and a conflict impedes progress in all of them. Let's take a deep breath, straighten this out, and work toward our shared goal of a reliable online encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 15:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Durova, if you are unwilling to lay off the accusations I will not discuss this with you any further. I removed only the parts of your change to which I objected; I see no reason why I should remove parts to which I did not object. As I have pointed out several times already, policy is not edited by making formal proposals, but through the Wiki Process, which means organic editing until a compromise is reached. >Radiant< 16:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It's done via consensus. Durova has demonstrated how the consensus was reached. Your lack of awareness or disagreement isn't an argument against it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Well duh. But he has demonstrated no consensus. Your insinuations are not a consensus. >Radiant< 16:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
      • What else do you need to see, then? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Here is an excellent example of why adding anything about "involved" editors would be a disaster. Basically, if you know anything about the user, your opinion wouldn't be taken into account. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that, of course, since it was posted to my own user talk page. And I'm also aware (and sympathetic) that community banned editors recently targeted SlimVirgin with similar allegations in recent WP:RFAR requests. I've been targeted in the same way - see this example. It's taken some hard consideration to arrive at the conclusion I've reached: that it's simpler and easier for the community to identify such allegations as frivolous and disregard them as such than for the community to remedy deliberate railroading by a coterie of edit warriors (if policy explicitly allows such exploitation). I've little doubt that I'll take heat from time to time for being bold and impartial in the community's interests, yet any sysop who takes action in dispute resolution keeps a good wardrobe of flameproof suits for that purpose. If you see a way to close both methods of exploitation I'm all ears. I chose the lesser of two evils. Durova^Charge! 20:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• That would seem to be a false dichotomy. >Radiant< 08:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)It's unhelpful to accuse someone of a logical fallacy without being specific. Which part that statement do you interpret as a false dichotomy, and for what reason?

As examples of how it's fairly simple to deal with frivolous allegations of involvement, let's look at the two recent arbitration requests where SlimVirgin got targeted. First, the Arthur Ellis attempted appeal:

...It is also rather unfair that a community ban by admins and invited editors like Clyoquot, who also alse edit warred with Ellis and Slime Virgin on pages like Rachel Marsden, unlike an Arbcom process, allows permanent banning without anything resembling due process and without even informing the ban target that a ban is being considered or asking for his take on things or the reason why he feels wronged enough to act out in ways that are seen as vandalism.[5]

There's the reference to SlimVirgin: one insulting assertion with no supporting evidence. The attempted appeal ended in early closure. It was already on its way to rejection on its merits when I submitted a statement that linked to extensive vandalism, template abuse, and a user threat by the same IP addresses that had requested the review.

The BabyDweezil request has garnered more serious consideration and, as of this writing, there remains a chance that it could open. Yet this appeal at my talk page, which got cited at this discussion yesterday as an example of how an involvement claim could be gamed, turned out to be an honest misunderstanding that got resolved with an explanation. I'll quote that explanation in full here because it's also relevant here.

I wasn't going to reply to this, but a post at another user talk page that invoked my name leads me to change my mind: silence implies consent so I ought to speak up. This thread demonstrates a logical fallacy called proof by assertion. It's just a list of names with no reason whatsoever why any of their input should be discounted. BabyDweezil's own request for arbitration only offers evidence of a content dispute with one of them. We don't throw out votes just because someone issued a user block or made a comment at WP:AN.

That clause at WP:DE was designed to prevent cliques of POV edit warriors from railroading good people out of the project. Suppose there's a dispute at opera. Ten Arnold Schoenberg fans are trying to WP:OWN the article and say that Schoenberg is the greatest composer in music history. Then along comes a Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart fan who raises some WP:NPOV issues and tries to balance the coverage. The Schoenberg fans huddle together somewhere and decide to run this Mozart fan out of the project. They tag team him, heckle him, and goad him into a WP:3RR block. Finally the Mozart fan gets frustrated and commits an act of vandalism. That's where I come along. While I'm browsing the page I see the words I'd rather eat ten pounds of rancid warthog meat than listen to Schoenberg. So I click edit and type removed vandalism in my summary. About two weeks later the Schoenberg fans start a community ban thread on the Mozart dude and all ten of them support the ban. Well none of those ten votes count because those are the people who've been disputing with the Mozart guy all along. But my vote's valid and the fact that I reverted his edit doesn't make me involved. I was just performing routine housekeeping. The Mozart guy might accuse me of bias, but that claim carries no weight because I hardly ever edit that type of article and he can't read my mind. (My actual opinion is that I'd like to move Arnold Schoenberg from List of composers to List of cruel and unusual punishments, but that's beside the point). Even if I issued a block for vandalism on Mozart dude, I haven't been a party to his dispute, and it's perfectly valid for me to support or oppose at the ban discussion. Mozart guy can't drive out the sysop who issued the WP:3RR block on that basis either, unless Mr. Mozart can prove that the other admin had been part of the opera content dispute, and in that situation Herr Mozart could have opened an administrator conduct WP:RFC because sysops aren't supposed to issue a block to gain the upper hand in a quarrel.

I hope that clarifies the distinction. Durova^Charge! 05:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[6]

That explanation led to this polite response that had got it as the edit summary and further constructive dialog.[7][8]

I've worked intensively on community banning for months and followed most of the individual cases where community bans have happened since I consider it one of the more important long term developments in site administration and I'm committed to seeing it implemented fairly. These two examples where users misinterpreted the uninvolved requirement follow a pattern: either the user is reasonable, in which case he or she adjusts to feedback, or the user is unreasonable, in which case the protest can be disregarded. Durova^Charge! 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated wording

I agree that Durova's wording was overly wordy and complicated. What about something simple like: "A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban should be notified of the proposal and given the opportunity to respond." If someone really wants to, they can make a notification template for user talk pages. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with this. They can post on their talk page if they want their views to be taken into account. Otherwise, they'll turn the discussion into another platform for personal attacks. Bear in mind that editors subject to community ban will usually have had many last chances already. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was talking about responding on their talk page. Do you really object to notifying users that there is discussion going on about a potential community ban? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I have no object to their being notified at all. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

If there's any simpler way to express the gist of this I'm open to refinements. Regarding notification and defense, there can be situations where a disruptive user's participation renders notification all but impossible. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gundagai editors. And as for submitting a defense, sometimes a blocked editor is so problematic that the user page needs protection. Apologies in advance to participants who aren't sysopped: the example that springs to my mind is from a deleted user talk page.[9] So as I expressed before implementing my edit, two different factors deserve balanced attention: notification and defense where feasible in order to prevent one kind of exploitation (good editors getting railroaded), weighed against troublemakers who would exploit policy loopholes and try to tie the community's hands and prolong their own disruption. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What about ""A user who is the subject of a proposed community ban should be notified of the proposal and if blocked may respond on their own talk page." Or if necessary "...on their own talk page, unless their actions have caused it to be protected." --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The second version of that looks pretty good. What about a situation like the anonymous Gundagai editor where the user never registers an account and edits through a variable IP range? Durova^Charge! 20:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• In that case the blocking summary could be used to point to the page where the ban is discussed. But we don't need to spell out contingencies for every single possibility; it's best to keep it simple. >Radiant< 08:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as we don't create a situation where a well intentioned policy clause prevents the community from taking necessary action, I'm all for simplicity. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverting banned users, and users who engage banned users

Two questions/propositions:

1. Reverting banned users: may vs will

The banning policy says, "Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves". As the policy gives no leeway for them to post on Wikipedia pages anyway, shouldn't this language not contridict the rest of it and say "will be reverted" instead? Why indulge trolls and troublemakers? - Denny 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why indulge people who are contributing positively, even if they've been a bit naughty in the past? I'll let you figure that one out for yourself, Denny. Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned users have a process they can go through to get unblocked/returned... they can go to ArbCom or post to the unblock email list. But applying treatment of banned users unevenly is a problem. None of them should get special treatment over another... - Denny 15:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose as will is too prescriptive, we are all volunteers and nobody can force us to make an edit we dont want to and to try and make such a prescriptive move is not good. I definitely think it should be left as may, SqueakBox 15:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No one can force an edit, no, but having it be stated that it should be removed still doesn't mean that anyone has to. But it makes crystal clear that ban evasion is wrong and not to be endorsed... if someone chooses after to enable ban evasion by proxy/communicating with banned users on-wiki, that's their own issue for others to review after... - Denny 15:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly in Brandt's case it was possible to identify his edits because he signed his name. All you will achieve is that he wont sign his name and you wont be able to prove it is him. Its your proposal to punish users who co-operate with banned users that I find so alarming, reminiscent of the Siberia that Grace refers to, SqueakBox 15:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you think banned users should be allowed to freely post? why? - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think banned users should be free to edit. I think someone like Brandt should not be allowed to edit in the main spac3e but I do think in his case he should be allowed to comment on his article onits talk page and that of any afd's, drv's etc related to that one article. i also think that every case must be taken on its own merit when talking about edits outside the mainspace. At the end of the day Brandt can edit his talk page and so we cant under current policy completely silence his voice. thje ref he gavce me the other day after I asked if anyone had one was put in the article by me and not by him and I should not in a future) be punished for such an edit on the basis that it was co-operating with a banned user. We need to trust the judgement of our good faith editors, SqueakBox 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You said, "someone like Brandt". Why does he get special treatment? there are thousands of banned users. Why give him magic rights no one else has? - Denny 17:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I am only aware of 2 banned editors who have their own article and my above statement only gives leeway to banned editors commenting on their own articles, SqueakBox 17:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example of why this would be a bad idea. User:Mike Church often begins one of his sockpuppets by making several positive contributions with it, so he can better hide the negative ones. I've been blocking a lot of his sockpuppets, but not reverting all of his changes -- it would make no sense to revert a positive contribution to an article just because of who made it or why. (Sometimes it annoys me that the "sockblock" template gives me no choice but to say "...and all your changes have been reverted" if I use it.) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. While, in general, banned users should be reverted, one shouldn't be excessively legalistic and Wikilawyering about it... zero tolerance is rarely a sensible policy anywhere. There will always be cases where it would be reasonable to make exceptions; one, in my opinion, is for banned users with a bio on this site commenting on the talk page of their own article, if they can do it without resorting to further bannable offenses such as legal threats; also, if a banned user happens to revert vandalism, it wouldn't make sense to force other usrs to restore the vandalism, would it? *Dan T.* 00:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

2. Engaging editors known to be banned - policy violation

I think that, given that some admins and users won't/can't enforce this policy even handedly, and give or don't give special treatment to users like Barbara Schwarz Schwartz and Daniel Brandt, who are both indefinitely banned... that the banning policy should be updated to reflect that such discourse be in and of itself a policy violation. I.e., if you see posts that are identified as by a banned/blocked user, the proper action is to remove it. Anything else is facilitating a banned user to cicumvent their ban. Posts to WP:RFAR would be exempt, so that they can appeal their blocks. Or they can email the unblock mail list. Or mail Oversight. Thoughts? We can't force people to block/ban/redact banned users... but if the policy states that engaging/interacting with them is an act of disruption, and bannable if ongoing... could help to close these personal loopholes that some allow banned users... - Denny 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If only we could send them to Siberia... Grace Note 07:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this is completely unacceptable and is an attempt to foce good will editors to act in a particular way. This is a bad suggestion that will only antagonize the already difficult situation on the Brandt and Schwartz Schwarz articles and suggests punishing good faith editors. Such a suggestion actualised would only harm wikipedia, SqueakBox 15:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey Squeak, we're not voting on policy changes. At any rate, Denny, you seem to be treating this overly much like a book of law, which it's not. >Radiant< 15:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, Radiant, I'm just frustrated by what seems to be some users giving certain banned users inappropriate free passes, even to the point where they threatened admin actions vs. them. do you think some banned users should get free passes? is it OK for them to be able to interact with the community even when banned? I don't understand why Brandt or Schwartz Schwarz for example are given magic rights others aren't. it makes no sense to me. - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Jean-Luc Picard: However... the excuse "I was only following orders" is the epitaph of too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet does not want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation.--Kamikaze 16:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Starfleet command also doesn't allow incarcerated prisoners to freely wander off from the penal colony, because some random Captain of a ship decided that the given prisoner should get a few minutes off-world to communicate and hang out... - Denny 16:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What about when Captain Janeway took Tom Paris from prison cause she needed a pilot? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt is NOT a prisoner and nor should he in any way be treated as a criminal or law-breaker, SqueakBox 16:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I was replying to a silly ad hominem with another silly ad hominem... I never said Brandt was a law-breaker. But he is a rule breaker, and banned from Wikipedia. - Denny 17:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Brandts talk page, why can't they use OTRS or off-wiki? All they can do anyway is point out BLP vios/errors. why do they get magic ban evasion rights on-wiki? - Denny 17:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I see no reason to get so punitive... it only plays into the hands of some of our enemies that like to call us "fascist". *Dan T.* 00:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Denny, bans are generally taken to be preventive, not punitive. At least they were, in the days when they weren't simply ways of getting rid of one's enemies. But anyway, that's the theory. A bit of flexibility at the margin allows the possibility of rehabilitation. It should be considered a success if a bad user turns good, surely? Also, the focus has mostly been on behaviour rather than personality. We're not discouraging the person as such, we're discouraging the bad editing patterns. Many of Wikipedia's policies are at base edit focused rather than person focused. It doesn't make sense in that framework to scrub out good edits just to punish bad editors. And yes, I suppose it can be frustrating when banned people just won't stay banned, but they are not necessarily pursuing negative ends, and allowing some wriggle room keeps us (just barely) human. We can argue over the wriggle room -- on the one hand, I can see a strong argument for hardbanning everyone who contributes to Wikipedia Review (and I'd like to see Jimbo do it, given the disgusting treatment handed out to some of the valued contributors here), while on the other, I urge accommodating those who are trying to contribute positively here (which is, in the case of contributors such as Jon Awbrey, a petulant, whiny child, a losing proposition -- I guess I cannot help wanting the grievances of hurt people to be resolved) -- but I think it has a purpose, particularly given the belief in rehabilitation.Grace Note 05:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should be banned then, since I registered an account on Wikipedia Review, for the purpose of being able to comment directly when they talk about me. This precipitated a big debate over there over whether I should be banned from that site for being part of the "evil Wikipedia cabal". *Dan T.* 14:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no cabal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to tell that to the wikipedia review not Dan. Banning people for off wikipedia activities is not acceptable, especially if we are talking about nothing more than contributing to another site, ie no attacks on wikipedia, its editors etc. The ramifications of such a proposal are terrifying, SqueakBox 16:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Allowing banned users to make comments on talk pages of articles about themselves

I would like to propose an edit to the current policy which will allow users (most obviously Daniel Brandt) who are banned and have articles about themselves on Wikipedia to be allowed to make civil non-abusive comments on the talk page of their article without being reverted. I would have thought that this would simply be common decency; however, others are choosing to wikilawyer about it. Thoughts? Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Would edits to other aspects on-wiki under their "name" be subject to the same, expected RVing? - Denny 20:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Banned is banned, and for good reason. Editors are only banned after extensive conflict, allowing them to edit for any reason would force good editors to have to deal with users who have abused and harrassed them repeatedly. Also, there is no technical way to allow this, so you would either have to allow posts from unverified IP addresses which claimed to be the banned user, or to unblock the banned user's account and hope they only use it for the allowed purpose. People with complaints about the content of articles naming them can contact the Foundation by e-mail; the communications committee routinely reviews such complaints and posts valid ones to talk pages. Banned is banned. Thatcher131 20:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Question, Thatcher: Arbcom said before posting on behalf of banned people was a bad thing. Is reposting banned user's content AFTER someone RV'd it as a banned user posting by proxy then? I removed Brandt's stuff three times on his talk page today, and got reverted by different people each time... - Denny 20:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, pot->kettle, Zibiki Wym? Especially as it turned out that 4 of the accounts who were restoring Brandt's comments were sockpuppets of a banned user? I was probably wikilawyering with the best of them at 2 months. Let me check...yup, I was on Categories for deletion my second day and posting to AN/I at one month. Anyway this is all a distraction. The people who think that it's ok to let banned users make "reasonable" comments make the mistake of thinking that "banned means banned" is some kind of adherence to rules for rules' sake. Banned users are banned for good reasons and it is these reasons why tolerating or encouraging cracks in the dike is a bad idea. Thatcher131 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of banning someone is to prevent them from damaging Wikipedia. If allowing a banned user to edit their own talk page does no damage, then what exactly are you trying to prevent? It's a matter of common human decency. Not allowing someone to make civil edits to their own article talk page is petty and vindictive. It serves no purpose to prevent it. Frise 01:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that common human decency requires that we consider the users who have been driven off Wikipedia or otherwise had their private lives invaded by Mr. Brandt. I think that such behavior damages Wikipedia greatly, and that tolerating comments by such users on talk pages, even nominally reasonable comments, is not only the camel's nose, but shows enormous disrespect for the distress that many good Wikipedians went through before the user was banned. I happen to think that entertaining such edits is offensive to good Wikipedians in the same way that giving a seat on the PTA activities planning committee to a person who had lost custody of their own children through abuse and neglect would be offensive to good parents. And I happen to think that the OTRS email system satisfies our duty to banned users quite well enough. Thatcher131 02:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

While appreciating your good intentions, as a "victim" of said page I think that keeping Brandt completely off wikipedia will only encourage him to add further wikipedians to the list, etc, whereas allowing him a little space on his own article might get him to calm down and possibly even persuade him to remove said page. Certainly both the "let him edit his bio talk page" and "dontn under any circumstances let him" are both motivated by a dislike of his hivemind page, SqueakBox 17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:DENY. - Denny 17:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the PTA analogy is that the PTA can't do things which affect the lives of non-PTA adults--while the whole *point* of having a policy about biographies of living persons is that Wikipedia can affect non-Wikipedians by having articles on them. Any comparable PTA analogy would be a little contrived, but imagine a small town where the PTA both deals with children and also occasionally chooses a townsperson to kill, like a less random version of The Lottery. If the PTA was trying to kill someone, I'd think it's reasonable for them to be able to attend a PTA meeting whether they've been deprived of their children or not. Ken Arromdee 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have checked with someone in OTRS and there are no outstanding complaints from DB. In any case, your experience points to the need for more OTRS volunteers, not to relaxing the banning policy. Thatcher131 02:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Any banned user who is the subject of an article needs to have the right to discuss his biography on the article's talk page. Only a particularly severe amount of invective should be cause for withdrawing this, and then only for limited times. It is blatantly unfair to have an article on someone while prohibiting that person from discussing his or her concerns about it. Everyking 07:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than Mr. Brandt, are there any users at all who are both banned and the subject of an article? It seems unnecessary to add a clause to policy for only a single instance. >Radiant< 10:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, but even if he's the only one now, future cases are bound to appear. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if we are going to start making exceptions, I don't see why we want to start with Brandt. Gregory Kohs never set out to deliberately drive admins off of wikipedia and invade their private lives. Thatcher131 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this about being an impartial encyclopedia or is this about settling a score, Thatcher? Killa Kitty 13:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, all those articles you mention about Kohs/Leyden/Wikibiz got deleted, so that's hardly a precedent for anything. My point is that I see insufficient instances of this happening to actually make a Rule for it; see also WP:CREEP. >Radiant< 12:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Living people who have biographies at Wikipedia and have never had an account and don't want to register one can and presumably do contact the Foundation with complaints. Mr Brandt already has an extra advantage as a user — he can contact any administrator through "email this user". Why do people talk about this as if leaving him banned means that he's 100% helpless with regard to inaccuracies in his article? ElinorD (talk) 10:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I gather, based on his own complaints, that people ignore him when he tries to contact them privately. By posting on the talk page he reaches a wider audience and makes it more difficult to ignore him. Furthermore, as the subject of the article Brandt is an invaluable resource, and instead of just demanding the article be taken down he has been making specific points about ways to improve the content lately, so I would argue that in the interest of creating a better article about him we should give him a voice. Everyking 11:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Other banned editors with biographies are Derek Smart and Mark Bourrie. Smart was banned by ArbCom from Talk:Derek Smart; shall the community overturn that? Bourrie also considers himself a defender of Rachel Marsden, should he be allowed to post there as well? What about User:Richardmalter, who is the representative of Yoshiaki Omura and has been banned by ArbCom from all related articles and talk pages. Thatcher131 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There's also Ashida Kim (though he just got ifdef blocked, not formally banned), Barbara Schwarz and Igor Bogdanov, who was banned by the Arbcom. So there's no lack of non-Brandt examples. - Ehheh 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't support this proposal. The banned user can email us, which is generally the more responsive pathway to such issues anyways. It's important to note that unless we screwed up, they should only be banned because of a history of harmful and/or disruptive behavior. If there isn't such a history we shouldn't make an exception to the ban, we should unban them. :) --Gmaxwell 13:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: As stated on his User page, Zibiki Wym is Gregory Kohs. For full disclosure. - Denny 13:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't see why they can't contact us in a million other ways. The fact that he (Brandt) knows it will cause a proverbial storm each time he does this "in his name" means he's not out for changes, but to just troll. - Denny 13:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Zibiki Wym is Gregory Kohs. He's been community banned, so why the hell is he still posting? --Calton | Talk 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

apparently Jimbo unblocked him. Thatcher131 15:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He recently (this week) posted on the MyWikiBiz talk page as MyWikiBiz. Why is he using this sock account now? Maybe a RFCU is in order? Didn't he have multiple socks before I saw/read? - Denny 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

What would this proposal accomplish that cannot already be accomplished via e-mails to the Foundation? BLP concerns are already a legitimate exception to the policy about proxy editing. Durova^Charge! 14:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Kohs, this is the talk page of Wikipedia's banning policy, not a forum for your personal grievances. I hope you become a productive and valued editor now that you have returned, but if you wish to pursue that particular matter further please do so via a thread at WP:AN or a request at WP:RFAR. Policy should be guided by general principles that apply to all relevant situations. The examples Mr. Brandt showed me were of requests that his entire article be deleted rather than of specific BLP concerns within the article. As for your own e-mail experience, please substantiate it with specific examples. Be aware also that either you or Mr. Brandt also could have followed up with an e-mail petition to an uninvolved administrator (we have over 1100 of them). Durova^Charge! 15:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(Replied at editor's user talk page). Durova^Charge! 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Brandt posting HERE

See this where he accuses Thatcher of a legal threat. I am not going to remove this one myself as I don't feel like getting targetted more today. But this is a legal threat by a banned user on a page that is not an article on him. Why again are we suggesting a policy to give HIM alone a break currently when he obviously has no respect at all for us? - Denny 16:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected this talk page for a week. Durova^Charge! 16:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• If ever there was a perfect example of why banned means banned then that thread provides it. Brandt has, once again, goaded people into doing things that allow him to self-justify his behaviour. Enough already. In order to protect any further members of the community from being drawn into this dispute, and pushed into doing things that get them added to Brandt's stalking activities, all future communicaitons to and from Brandt should be handled exclusively through back-channels, with WP:OTRS the front-runner. Mr Brandt, if you are reading this, you know the email address, OTRS volunteers will be happy to help with correction of factual errors. On Wikipedia, WP:RBI applies. Guy (Help!) 17:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Banned is banned. He was banned for very good reasons. Allowing a banned user to edit talk pages is a very big mistake. He should not be allowed to edit at,all, for any reason. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I really should explain my reasons. User's get banned only rarely, and when they do it is because they are damaging to the encylopedia. Brandt is certainly in that category. He is very bad news for anyone who gets on his wrong side. If he is allowed to edit the talk page, he will be interacting with people. Sooner or later ( well sooner, we know his MO) one of these people will say or do somthing that upsets him and he will go for them. We cannot allow that to happen. We must make it perfectly clear that he is not welcome here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn}~

So instead of risking someone possibly pissing him off sooner or later, you're choosing to guarantee that he's pissed off right now. I'm not really seeing how that's the better choice. No one is saying that people should be forced to interact with him. Also, I don't think you have to worry about him thinking he's welcome here. Frise 19:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. So you think that if Brandt, or any banned user for that matter, is allowed to edit an article talk page, and the other editors all have the wisdom and restraint to simply ignore him, that he will be happy with that outcome? Thatcher131 20:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy? Of course not. Happier? Almost certainly. But forget his happy level, because that isn't what this is about. We have a moral obligation to marginally-notable people who we place as the number one hit on a Google search. Many of these marginal subjects would go virtually unnoticed if we didn't use our search engine ranking to artificially boost their profile. Editors search the web looking for any tiny pieces of information on his life, some of it 40+ years old, that they can scrape together and put in his article. Regardless of how you feel about him personally, he must be allowed to voice his concerns in a civil manner in a place where people interested in his article may view them. It's our end of the bargain for placing people in the spotlight. Frise 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He can voice his concerns to Danny, Brad or Jimbo. He has options. But he has been banned form Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Danny and Brad resign? I thought I saw that somewhere. Frise 07:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

So they did (shows how much attetion I pay to whats going on). Never the less. My point remains he can email someone else at the office. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea how long it takes for an OTRS response? One possible problem is that an article might get scraped by any one of hundreds of sites while a complaint waits to be acted on. We can remove bad info from our own articles, but the bad version could be mirrored all over the net. We need to take into account realistically how long it takes to look into an OTRS problem. Frise 04:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Brandt has repeatedly shown that he will abuse any permission to post to Wikipedia and therefore he is, quite rightly, banned. Banned means banned, and for good reason. While editors are not obligated to remove his contributions, they are, IMO, obligated to not revert such removal. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case but I dont believe it is policy right now. perhaps it should be? SqueakBox 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec)No banned user, including Brandt, should be editing this page. IMO there may be a legitimate reason for him to edit the Brandt talk page but that must not extend to any other pages on wikipedia. You'll get a lot more support removing his comments outside his talk page methinks, Denny, SqueakBox 18:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

What about editing on their behalf (which his fans still do)? Shouldn't the action be only revert, block, "Go to OTRS," ignore? - Denny 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Very hard to prove someone edits on Brandt's behalf, and should only his supporters not be allowed to do this very hard to prove thing? Or should his enemise be stopped from doing so as well? Yanksox was desysoped for warring and incivility not for doing what Brandt has requested, and that's as it should be, SqueakBox 23:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak to Yanksox. he was desysoped, done issue. But if Banned User X says "Do this," and User Y does THAT, he edited as a proxy it is reasonable to assume. - Denny 23:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That would imply you know the motivation of Y, and that is not reasonable to assume. For instance in my case I asked for a reference, ie it was me who wanted the reference. Who provided that reference has no relevance. Surely we generally are here to make a better encyclopedia not to enforce wikipedia policies. Brandt would use such a rule to create chaos. Meanwhile persecuting good faith editors for refusing to be policemen will see a rapid rot in wikipedia, SqueakBox 23:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert sub-policy needs an overhaul

The policy about reverting banned users' edits regardless of the merits of the edit needs an overhaul. It might be used to pass down vandalism to pages in the following way:

User A is a banned, but not blocked user. User B is a vandal. User C is the normal good Wikipedian.

User B vandalizes an article. User A sees it, and, breaking his/her ban, reverts the vandalism. What should User C do then? Revert to the vandalized version of the article? That is what comes from this policy, but it's clearly wrong. Or leave it as is? That is leaving a ban breaking unsanctioned. If we substitute User C for another vandal, he/she can revert to the vandal version without consequences! We need an exception for "obviously good edits, such as vandalism reverts", but at the same time we must make sure that the exception is impossible to abuse. Any ideas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NetRolller 3D (talk • contribs) 12:28, April 2, 2007

The simple answer is that both users should be reverted, one for vandalism, and the other for violating a ban. Of course, if the last version not by either of them happens to identical to the version by the banned user, no "double revert" will be visible as it would often be a null edit.

If you see this happening often, you might ask whether the users are actually the same person. Consider this strategy:

• Obsessive content edit by banned user's sockpuppet [10]
• Page-blanking vandalism by banned user's other sockpuppet [11]
• Vandalism revert by bot [12]
• Anonymous revert of banned user's content edit (a month later) [13]

— CharlotteWebb 21:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just because they can be reverted doesn't mean they're always reverted. Use some common sense. >Radiant< 09:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you request to ban a user?

I am thinking about banning Misteroonova for excessive vandalism. On what page do I request a user to be banned? Mewtwowimmer 02:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

• WP:AIV for vandals. WP:CN otherwise. >Radiant< 08:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban

The sentence "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users." was in the original text (as of 02:17, 7 November 2006) of WP:BAN#Community ban.

The latter half, "and should never be enacted based on agreement between a handful of admins or users", has just been deleted (as of 03:16, 16 April 2007), without discussion here.

The edit summary reads: Remove part about "enacting"; this contradicts the very first sentence of this section, and creates a false dichotomy with de jure notions that are contrary to what consensus is.

This may be related to Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard#Comments moved from a ban proposal regarding "what is enough discussion to close?" (paraphrased, not direct quote), where this editor claimed: "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban"....

I would like to know whether this policy change has consensus support, since it was not discussed. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 17:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that a user can be indef blocked pending discussion, is there any downside to requiring a slower process that requires greater input? Requiring greater input might have the practical effect of limiting bans to people who have so inflamed others that a large number of other people care, but, in light of the availability of lesser sanctions, is this a real problem? It would seem reasonable to limit what can be done by quick administrative action to blocking, and to require something more deliberative and with more broad-based input for banning. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already limited by saying that there must be "strong consensus" and "consensus of community support". Using the word "handful" is meaningless; there does not need to be a supra-handful vote for a community ban, and depending on the situation a handful is excessive (think obvious vandalism/long-term abusers) or insufficient (think long-term established user with a good track record). —Centrx→talk • 03:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Either we eliminate the difference between an indefinite block and a ban, or we keep the requirement that a ban have some significant input to it. It was recently proposed at the community noticeboard that we mass endorse all old indefinite blocks as bans, and the community said "no thanks". The last community discussion was opposed to this, so I believe this edit was against existing consensus, with no rationale offered. Go ahead and correct it. GRBerry 01:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The rationale is in the edit summary, and the sentence and the whole section was added to this page without discussion. —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The sentence and the whole section was added without discussion. This part a) contradicts the first sentence of the section, which defines a community ban in terms of an indefinite block that no one will undo; and b) belabors a point that is alternatively plain wrong or unclear: a "handful" of people are usually all there is making a community ban, and all that is in fact necessary, and the point about consensus is already emphasized elsewhere, that the admin should "be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block" and "Community bans must be supported by a strong consensus". —Centrx→talk • 03:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

"The sentence and the whole section was added without discussion." -- All together, on November 7 2006, and sat there 5 months without anyone objecting, demonstrating stability and consensus acceptance. Now you delete it, and immediately this gets objections, so it's clear it doesn't have consensus acceptance. Let's revert to status quo ante, the 5-months-stable consensus version. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is not that whatever notion is supposed to be intended by it is a bad idea, but that in the form it is here it sprang forth one day from one person's mind and it so happens that it is self-contradictory and uses language that is otherwise never found in policy pages. —Centrx→talk • 03:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why not discuss better phrasing, since apparently no-one else in the past five months thought of any? Heaven knows a lot of Wikipedia's policies use language not normally seen in off-wiki policies, so you've got a great project ahead of you. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 08:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

• The meaning of the phrasing is already included elsewhere in that same section; it is superfluous. If you think some other wording should be added, add it.
• This wording is not used in other on wiki policies. It is wording that is often found in off wiki policies, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 20:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it's needed. It's redundant since a strong consensus isn't going to be just a handful of editors. --Minderbinder 12:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Under the usual sense of "consensus" (as active approval resulting from a group discussion) you're right. When Centrx says "Any uninvolved intelligent good-faith person can enact a community ban", a group discussion doesn't seem to be part of the process.

Wikipedia also uses "consensus" in a passive sense, in the context of page-editing: see WP:BRD, where one person can just go make a change on a page and -- if no-one reverts it -- then its stability is deemed to have shown "consensus".

Oddly enough, Centrx doesn't grant "consensus" status to this 5-months-stable policy, because "it sprang forth one day from one person's mind" -- but his statement, italicized above, would let a whole "community ban" just "spring forth one day from one person's mind"... as long as that one person is "uninvolved intelligent good-faith".

Imagine the possibilities of that. You and I are "uninvolved intelligent good-faith", of course, so either of us can just add people's names to WP:BANNED without discussion, and if no-one notices for a while, we've just "enacted community bans". They can't do the same to us, because of course they are not "uninvolved intelligent good-faith", otherwise they wouldn't have been banned, would they? (Besides which we'll revert their edits if they haven't been blocked.) That's the flexibility of "uninvolved intelligent good-faith"; there's no objective measure; "we" fit it, "they" don't. Wheel Wars, part II, anyone?

The "never by just a handful" clause argues against applying that page-editing sense of "consensus" to community bans.

An actual quorum number, percentage of agreement, forum location, and duration of discussion, would be clearer and more specific than "handful", but at least "handful" points the way to something determinable.

When just three people (a "handful") agreed to ban Instantnood ("administrators Seraphimblade, Mangojuice, and Aldux agree that an indefinite ban is called for"), they did so as an admin enforcement of his ArbCom probation, not as a "community ban"; the open hearing had already been held, and the terms of his probation set, well before this ban for its violation resulted. These three were acting as probation officers, not as judge and jury.

But what if a "handful", or one person, could enact an actual "community ban" as well, no public discussion or active approval by a wider group required? And what if you're not that one person, but one of those he "bans"? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 18:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to read this. You can start by explaining in just a few sentence why this phrasing should be included. —Centrx→talk • 20:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The "short version", 4 sentences, would be the 1st, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 04:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Restored version that had been here for 5 months

With due respect to Centrx's concerns, I have restored the version of community ban language that has been up for nearly half a year. Community banning in its present form developed concurrently with the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and much of the discussion regarding these standards can be found at the guideline's talk archive. Essentially what this week's disagreement did was attempt to revive a historical version of the community ban concept that doesn't jibe with current practice. Any sysop can impose an indefinite block under the right circumstances, but ample precedent at the WP:CSN archives now distinguishes community bans from indefinite blocks. If a contradiction appears to exist in this policy, resolve it elsewhere. --Durova 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not operate on precedent and this section was not added as a result of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, which Jossi has never even edited, and the fact remains that the clause contradicts the rest of the section, contradicts common practice, and does not use language appropriate for a Wikipedia guideline. Wikipedia:Disruptive editing is a new, ancillary page that is irrelevant to whether a user is banned. —Centrx 04:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

This text doesn't describe current practice and is fundamentally incorrect. A community ban is a block that not one of 1200 administrators will undo, not the outcome of some myopic process on an ill-frequented noticeboard. How far has this business gone? Centrx is absolutely right here. Mackensen (talk) 02:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. if no admin will undo then you are essentially banned. (note that arbcom and jimbo can be considered admins here) —— Eagle 101 02:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is harmful to have instruction creep that is not useful to the language of the policy, but instead can easily be gamed. We don't need any more ruleslawyers getting unblocked because there was some (undefinably) small number of assenters. All pages like AN and CN are necessarily some small segment of the community, not the community incarnate. We don't deal with that shortcoming by giving vaguely-worded free passes. A community ban is an indefinite block that stands. Otherwise you are asking for problem users to get unblocked because "they're not banned" rather than because the block is wrong. I agree with the change. Dmcdevit·t 03:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Soon, I think, at least "sooner rather than later", we'll have to do something about these ridiculous little fiefdoms that keep springing up. --Tony Sidaway 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you further qualify your fiefdom comment, I don't get it. Navou ^banter 12:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(Reply to Dmcdevit) - Ah, by that standard if anyone chooses to unblock them, they never were banned in the first place, only indefinitely blocked. So the issue you present doesn't exist. It is impossible to tell if an indefinite block is a ban on that standard until Wikipedia ceases existence. And at that point the issue is quite moot. GRBerry 12:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Disruption?

Apart from the disruptrion, the arbcom bans users because they are fed up with a problem e.g. a percieved WP:COI, not only because of disruptive edits. I have repeatedly requested diffs that show that I make disruptive edits to members of the arbcom, but they were not produced. In contrast my editing was described by the arbcom on the subject on which I received a topic-ban as "generally responsible." See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Andries.27_editing_privileges_restrictedWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Workshop#Editing_by_Andries Andries Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Andries.27_editing_privileges_restricted. Also read what user:Bishonen wrote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Proposals_to_ban_Andries_for_responsible_editing

"The proposed finding of fact about Andries editing the SSA article states that "His edits to Sathya Sai Baba (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) are generally responsible, requesting verification rather than aggressively deleting or reverting." [1] Nevertheless, quite draconian remedies has been proposed against Andries editing of the page: a year-long page ban and an indefinite page ban, both of them supported by some of the same arbs who supported the finding of fact that Andries is and has been editing responsibly"

Andries 22:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Community ban section is instruction creep

Currently, point #1 under "The decision to ban a user can arise from various sources" is This is sufficient. The rest, meaning that new section that cropped up much later, in December is unnecessary instruction creep. The first two sentences of the section repeat what is already said earlier, the rule about listing it a noticeboard is common sense for all potentially controversial admin actions, is unnecessary for uncontroversial ones, and is already implied in the earlier language which mentions consensus (which happens at such discussions). The rules about the block log and WP:BU are more unnecessary procedure, that in any case belong in a footnote, not a policy page. Saying it needs consensus again at the end is, again, repetitive. We should get rid of the "Community ban" section entirely, as sufficiently covered already, without the red tape and repitition. Dmcdevit·t 03:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that the decision to ban is moving away from the community, and more so into admin hands. Do we need to list these re-wordings at more places to gather consensus for change? Navou 10:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• What makes you think so? Radiant! 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. But, if an admin blocks a party, and the most part of the admin populace misses the block, due to no review, does this imply ban. Now current policy/practice allows for a 24 hour block on simple 3RR I believe. Now if this were placed indef by someone, is that a ban. One would say no, it needs to be undone. If the blocked editor does not protest (unblock template) and the block goes unnoticed, then is this a ban? Common sense would say no, but it at least needs discussion to ensure this scenario (extreme for examples sake) does not happen. I do not like bureaucracy, but let us be fair to the editors. There needs to be a review process in place.

Also, for this policy to be changed, I would at least list this discussion at VP policy, relevent talk pages, AN and ANI, before reverting from the stable version. Navou 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• No, it does not imply a ban. There are a variety of ways in which the editor can draw greater attention to his predicament. At any rate I believe the intent was not a major change but a removal of perceivedly redundant wording. Radiant! 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also restored an earlier version as I do not think this has been discussed or has enough visibility currently to get consensus for policy change. Navou 10:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree instruction creep is bad, there needs to be an inlet for community voice. I understand where 1000+ administrators will not unblock, what if 1000+ editors wish an unblock. There needs to be some discussion in this area. Navou 10:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• That's a rather extreme hypothesis. Point in fact is that if nobody can be found willing to unblock a user, then that user will not be unblocked. You cannot force people to do otherwise. If no single admin can be convinced by those 1000+ editors, then arguably those 1000+ editors are wrong, but at any rate no rules you impose will change this. Radiant! 10:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
• The community chose every single administrator. That, in itself, represents significant commmunity input. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, some choose not to be administrators, and choose not to participate in RFA. Does the lact of participation necessarily negate the voice? Navou 12:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The anti-WP:CSN party was Bold and undid the five-month-old version; okay. This was reverted back to the five-month-old version; okay. Now comes the time to discuss, not revert back to the new version. See WP:BRD. The five-month-old (and for five months stable) version should stay in place until discussion is complete. I'm restoring the 02:28, 20 April 2007, version by Durova. Now please discuss and resolve the matter by consensus before changing it again. -- Ben 12:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note the prior discussions above, #Deletion of text from WP:BAN#Community ban and #Restored version that had been here for 5 months. -- Ben 12:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• We have parties now? :confused: Radiant! 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• What, you missed the primaries? -- Ben 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Are you trying to strengthen your argument or just annoy other users? Be honest now... — CharlotteWebb 12:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No parties, just a group of editors discussing a change in policy. But if elected... I promise... :P Navou 12:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

With s sub-group repeatedly deleting text from WP:BAN#Community ban; see the prior discussions and the page history. -- Ben 13:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• It's generally not helpful to think of editors as parties or factions. Just a thought. Radiant! 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reading DmcDevit's proposed version again:

The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.

This does seem like all we need in the policy. Attempting to list all banned editors would be counter-productive, really. If someone comes back and promises to be good we'll consider it on its merits and having a formal "ban" list would get in the way of that.

Having Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard has led to editors bringing people they've been in dispute with an trying to get them banned instead of resolving their problems. It has also led to attempts to formalize the ban process, which is bad for Wikipedia because it makes it harder for us to deal with our mistakes when you have a long list of people conducting a "hanging vote" and wrongly expecting their voices to mean as much as a single voice that may point out extenuating circumstances, or a serious error in the proposal indicating that the editor is not responsible for the problems.

The short version of the policy gives us all the banning powers we need, it doesn't get in the way of review, and it leaves us lightweight and maneuverable. The long version is simply instruction creep and introduces numerous undesirable factors. --Tony Sidaway 14:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone other than Ben disputing Dmcdevit's revision? Mackensen (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you seeing my points? Navou ^banter 16:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your concern seems to be "community voice". While it is an incorrect assumption that administrators and the community are somehow distinct groups, there is a bigger problem with that claim. Read that first sentence again: "The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself." I don't see where the concerns are justified. Administrators are administrators because we trust their judgment; that doesn't mean we are content to give any sole admin bannning powers based on their personal opinion, or even the whole body of admins. One of the things that makes good judgment is gauging and responding accordingly to consensus: if there is substantial reasoned support for a blocking or unblocking, an admin will carry out the community's decision. What exactly is the problem with that? In fact, I might even say the "If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned." sentence, which you removed, is unnecessary. Dmcdevit·t 17:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If I have misunderstood your argument, forgive me. I do not take admins as different than editors, all the same. But I understand that administrators are acting on consensus, then how will they act without a forum for consensus gathering. Again, forgive me if I am being obtuse. Navou ^banter 17:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've suggested there should be no forum for consensus gathering. To me "following consensus on the case itself" implies that a discussion is necessary for non-obvious case. All blocks that might be controversial should be submitted for review. Dmcdevit·t 17:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just a note on semantics: In Dmc's version, it should of course not say: If one out of 1,182 is unwilling to unblock, but: if none out of 1,182 is willing to unblock. The other version would, understood literally, lead to a rather extreme rule that was certainly not intended, was it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yes. Not sure where that wording crept in; I guess I didn't look to closely at the version I copied. Dmcdevit·t 21:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, and so we can write changes into the policy if there is consensus, could you copy your proposed wording here. I don't want to have misunderstood. But lets see what we are talking about. Navou ^banter 22:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's quoted twice above. Adjusting for User:Future Perfect at Sunrise's correction, it reads:

The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. If not one out of 1,182 is willing to unblock a user, the user can be considered banned.

And this is basically junking the recent changes to policy, restoring the older, simpler version, rather than making a "new" policy. --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I've been offline for a few days and got a request to comment here. First what I'd like to point out is that community banning is a developing area of Wikipedia. Recent precedents at WP:CN and appeals to the arbitration committee have established the community's ability to do other things besides full sitebanning - for example topic banning - and the developing consensus has been that an editor who's been banned by a consensus discussion would appeal the ban through a similar consensus discussion. Achival of community bans is necessary in order to reference these precedents and partly toward that end the WP:CN board was created. Also, several people who have already been indef blocked have been put through the community ban process in order to formalize their status, mainly because they continued to edit war through sockpuppets at particular pages and the editors who had been tending those pages found it easier to establish a formal siteban so that they wouldn't be liable for 3RR blocks when they maintained the pages. I didn't necessarily support those formality bans, but consensus discussions have consistently upheld that distinction, so yes there is a difference between what community banning means today and what it meant half a year ago. On a practical level I don't mind the distinction: if any sysop wants to lift the one year block I imposed on PatPeter then go ahead, but I'd very much prefer to see a formal unban discussion take place before Arkhamite were to return. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Nathanrdotcom for an example of why it isn't such a good idea to relegate unbanning to any sysop's unilateral decision.

To the best of my understanding, the current move to revert community ban language to the version from half a year ago springs from a couple of sysops' opinions about a single case: the status of Daniel Brandt. Overwhelming consensus at WP:CN was formalizing his status into a community ban when someone made a unilateral declaration that the action was outside the scope of that board and, shortly thereafter, the current dispute at this policy arose. In general it is a bad idea to alter policy in pursuit of any narrow goal. The people who now want to alter the stable version of this policy have had minimal involvement in community banning developments over the past half year and appear to be unaware of the reasons why most of the current practice has developed. If anything, the policy language needs to be updated rather than rolled back.

I consider a stable, fair, and reliable community banning process to be one of the more important developing aspects of Wikipedia for the following reason: Jimbo and the Arbitration Committee already operate pretty much at capacity, yet the site keeps growing. The only way this site can keep up with the need for certain types of sanctions is to have an equitable system to impose community bans. The ad hoc approach simply isn't scalable. --Durova 18:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing more or less than a long plea to entrench unnecessary instructions in our already quite adequate banning policy. Wikipedia policy is policy as it is enacted on Wikipedia, not whatever tripe has been written in this document. If you can persuade the administrators to jump all the hoops that have recently been written (without much discussion that I can see) into this policy document, then it will become Wikipedia policy. Othewise it makes more sense to restore it so that it accurately reflects actual policy. --Tony Sidaway 19:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I urge sysops to stop edit warring on this page. This is most unseemly. Could you please first discuss proposed changes here? --Ghirlandajo 13:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Although changes were made, reverted, I don't see anything beyond a collective 2RR. I would that in good faith, Dmcdevit, Mac, Ben, and myself, (and others) are discussing these changes now. And that no egregious violation, or edit war occurred. I hope that we do not have to address the actual reversions, the fact is, that all participants are discussing now. I do not want to lose focus from the discussion of the changes. Best regards, Navou 13:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "collective 2RR". However I'm glad that the page has been protected. --Tony Sidaway 14:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I just coined it. It applies (+content -content +content -content by different editors) :P Navou 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a little misleading because it tends to equate independent actions by several different editors. --Tony Sidaway 17:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

(outdent and OT) Why are you refactoring my signature? Navou ^banter 17:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)