Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 10

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If a user has one or more accounts blocked for sockpuppetry based on a combination of checkuser and behavioral evidence, and the checkuser result is possible or likely but not confirmed, do those blocks count for purposes of 3x bans? I Jackattack1597 (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:AN for bans, which just gave them more attention and wasted time, and there was confusion as to if admins should take repeat sockmasters to AN before unblocking.

What 3X strove to do was solve these two problems. On the former, it ended the ban discussions on LTAs. We don't have them now. On the latter, if clarified for admins that consultation with the community was needed before unblocking a repeat sockmaster.

It was worded somewhat strictly because at the time, the idea of an auto-ban was new and people wanted assurances that it wouldn't be abused (or the people I ran it by when I was drafting it did at least.) That's where the CU confirmed requirement came in. There used to be an AN notification requirement, but no one ever did that so we removed it.

So anyway, after that history lesson... no, someone who is not confirmed as a sock 3 times by a CU would not technically be banned under 3X. At the same time, if someone's a repeat sockmaster and have an SPI with that many filings, I think the norm we've established because of 3X means that most admins would not unblock without bringing the discussion to AN, which is the same thing as a ban in practice. They just don't technically have to.

Hope that was helpful. TonyBallioni (talk

) 00:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the detailed explanation, I appreciate it.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Similar question

So, there's a new LTA in town,

If I am banned from all content namespaces except for userspace, does that mean I can only participate in discussions in user talk space? Does that mean I can only make minor changes on other types of talk pages? What about adding/modifying templates/categories/files on user/talk pages? What about mentioning pages in banned namespaces? Does this mean this edit violates the banning policy since I am discussing a page in a banned namespace? JsfasdF252 (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2021 (UTC); edited 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

@JsfasdF252:, this question appears to have already been answered by admin Ymblanter at your user talk page which is where it should have been asked in the first place. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

The response doesn't seem to cover how I can edit the talk pages, only which namespaces I can edit. JsfasdF252 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

This is a very basic question, which I'm sure has been asked before, but I was unable to find anything about it said explicitly in the policy itself, or in the archives of this talk page. So I will ask it: do topic bans extend to the talk pages of articles covered under the ban? I am pretty sure they do, but I think it would be good to have some authoritative confirmation. (And, if so, is this true in all cases, or does it depend on the specific details of a user's sanction?) jp×g 21:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Its quite clear. "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic". It doesnt have a prescriptive list of every type of page because there are lots of them and there is no point. No talk-page of an article could in any way be construed as 'not related to the topic' of which the article is about. Anyone attempting to do so would either be an idiot or much more likely, someone looking to edit clearly in violation of a topic ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If it does, then I should be expecting a site ban very soon. JsfasdF252 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is worth discussing, but in general, when non-admins, ones under a topic or interaction ban, make changes here, it would be good to discuss them here too. Referring to this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere: Can you please explain what you meant by your edit summary "Per admins"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the edit may have been left in retaliation to this conversation User_talk:Guerillero#I-ban. Since Guerillero basically said "just leave each other alone" rather than sanctioning the other participant, it appears François Robere made a pointy edit to the banning policy that the other participant's actions must have been fine. I'd revert personally. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why some people like playing with fire... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I was made aware of this thread, where these comments[1][2] by Johnuniq and Wugapodes (admins), which express what I later added here; Guerillero merely seemed to "sign on" to that interpretation. I disagree with this interpretation wholeheartedly, but it is what it is and it's better that it was clearly stated then people had to guess, ask around, and potentially land themselves into trouble. François Robere (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (Updated 12:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC))

Revert the changes. This is going to cause people to wiki-lawyer and no good will come of it. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I already did. I still think that several aspects of this policy are ambiguous, which leads to wildly different interpretations and "wiki-lawyering", but if the community is satisfied... so be it. François Robere (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the policy is already pretty clear. The addition is already covered by the existing text Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. Emphasizing this only encourages editors into territory where a slight error can result in a block. I don't think the change should be restored.

The line is drawn there because it has to be drawn somewhere, but I would go the other way. If it does need clarification I would add something like While it is permitted to edit the same pages or discussions as the person you are in a ban with, ibanned users are cautioned that this is risky as a small error could result in a block. This wording would of course need improvement.

My point is that this technically allowed territory should be emphasized as a danger zone, not as a safe zone. As another user so aptly put it, this is playing with fire. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

In general yes, but the "same discussion" clause has an edge case when one party participates in a discussion started by the other party, which could be seen as a "reply to" or "reference to" them. That's the cause of the differing interpretations here. François Robere (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you that this is not the case; I don't know why you're still unclear on that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I do think it makes sense to clarify a relatively common situation and potential source of confusion, though. In many Internet forums, top-level comments are considered "replies" to the OP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That's one part of it. The other is the one about "direct or indirect reference", which seems to raise more questions than it gives answers. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

When I saw the changes come through I didn't think much of it. FR is right that the exceptions listed are, as I see it, pretty commonly held exceptions. However I do think codifying them as "official" exceptions is likely to cause us more grief than benefit as it seems like we would open up new grounds for wikilawyer and/or still having whatever harm is caused now when someone shows up in a discussion started by someone they're iBanned with. Without having it in the policy it's easier to say "it's really best to avoid replying" even if we're not ultimately going to sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that having a policy that isn't codified - especially one that is as unintuitive as this one - undermines what policy is all about, and can create pitfalls even for veteran editors (eg. myself). While I don't understand why something that is strongly discouraged is still allowed, if that is the case then we might as well state it clearly: "the following is allowed but strongly discouraged". François Robere (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at

) 19:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Mediawiki" to "MediaWiki" in "Difference between bans and blocks" section

This edit request to Wikipedia:Banning policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"The Mediawiki software allows the ability to block editing of individual pages" should be "The MediaWiki software allows the ability to block editing of individual pages" if I'm not mistaken. OffAndSphere (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Fixed. --Jayron32 19:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

If an editor is banned from project space (or some specific project-space pages), there is no clear way to report obvious vandalism they cannot fix themselves (for whatever reason) or socks of banned editors other than on the talk pages of random admins, which is obviously not ideal. I don't think anyone would consider reporting these things to be a violation of a topic ban but it isn't mentioned at

Context: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DSMN-IHSAGT. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, no. Topic banned people are banned for a reason and giving them a method of pursuing their passion is not helpful for them or the community. It's not true that Wikipedia will descend into chaos if a particular occurrence of vandalism is not reported by the first person (who happens to be topic banned) who saw it. Leave it for someone else. If really necessary, the person could email someone to report the problem but that cannot reasonably be put into rules. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would allow people to revert but not report vandalism? It wont change anything at all about who is watching which pages and wont open up any new avenues of abuse. It seems really very odd and rather detrimental to the project to say that if you see vandalism you can fix, you can fix it, but if you see vandalism you can't you aren't allowed to tell people about it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's not a big deal and I'm not going to revert insertion of "or reporting" at

WP:CREEP which starts listing all the things that apply in a specified situation, particularly when the list is things that a user can do as exceptions to their topic ban. It's very unusual for someone to be topic banned from WP space and thus unable to report an urgent problem at ANI. In the case in question, the person is permitted to post at ANI's talk page and they could have reported the problem there where it would get fast attention. Also, the edit being reverted was diff which isn't "obvious vandalism" or a BLP violation. That makes me think that WP:BANEX doees not apply in this case. Johnuniq (talk

) 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BMB. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!}

11:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like CREEP is a bad argument against clarifying BANEX. It seems highly likely someone could end up in terrible trouble because someone else thinks "Of COURSE reporting isn't included in BANEX. If it were, it would be so stated. This person's ban needs to be extended by another year." —valereee (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is a bad idea. When somebody is banned from an area we don’t no want to allow pushing the envelope, skirting the rules, or engagement in an area where the person does not have sufficient discipline to participate. Just stay away. If there’s a problem, somebody else will deal with it sooner or later. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: Can you give examples of a situation in which there's pushing the envelope, skirting the rules, or engagement in an area where the person does not have sufficient discipline to participate when a banned editor is reporting something? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I don’t keep an index of things that didn’t happen because they were not allowed. But the burden is on somebody suggesting something new to prove that it is safe. The burden is not on me to prove that a new idea is unsafe. Do you have any examples of bad consequences that occurred because a banned editor wasn’t allowed to report vandalism? Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Jehochman How is reporting vandalism in an area a person is banned from any different to reverting vandalism in an area a person is banned from? The former is not currently explicitly allowed but I've never heard of anyone being sanctioned for it, the latter is currently explicitly allowed. The reason I'm not understanding these objections is that I honestly don't perceive any meaningful difference between the two, nor can I foresee any potential for abuse in one that doesn't exist in the other. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with you that the inconsistency is wrong. It would be better to ban both activities. If there is one error, we should not make a second error to be consistent! Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence the current allowance is an error though? As far as I'm aware it's generally regarded as a benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I’m not requesting any changes. I don’t like the existing exemption but until there’s a problem, we can leave it be. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, we should not open this up. If obvious vandalism needs reporting, someone else will be along shortly to take care of it. --Jayron32 15:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: If someone else was along shortly to take care of it, then why, if I may ask, does Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Responder role exist? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Probably as part of the years-old effort to make RfA more palatable by unbundling some of the admin functions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Because the people who need to be banned from projectspace don't have patience. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed with everyone else - this shouldn't be added to the list of exceptions. If it is actually an issue, someone else will report it. If someone is banned from project space, they likely have problems differentiating issues from non-issues (i.e. that tends to be part of the reason for the ban) so why would we want to let them report things if the community has decided they don't have the competence to do so? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That wasn't why I was banned. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • This thread isn't about you even if it was started because of something you were involved in - it's about a change to the policy. If you want to request an exception for your ban, the correct place to do that is
      WP:NPA, since talking about your behaviour in a discussion about a policy wouldn't be appropriate, even though you keep bringing it up. TonyBallioni (talk
      ) 19:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone else. If someone can't nondisruptively participate in project space, they won't make good reports, either. All this would do is allow reports from the very, very few users who are banned from projectspace; the absence of these very, very few users from AIV etc. does not have a noticeable effect on the project. This, the proposed change is more likely to cause problems than solve them. Levivich 18:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pile on agreement with all those above, in particular TonyBallioni. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• If editors can generally revert obvious vandalism I don't see why they can't report it, reporting strikes me as less of a problem than reverting directly to me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• If this isn't an exception to BANEX, we should make it clear. I understand people wanting to avoid CREEP. I want to avoid someone getting their TBAN extended because we didn't want to spend the $0 to make this clear because CREEP. —valereee (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Valereee I added a footnote. Think that makes it clearer in terms of clarifying while avoiding creep, and accurately reflects the consensus here. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks, Tony, good enough for me. —valereee (talk) 12:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Following the exemplary tban of Bob drobbs by Euryalus, a thought occurred to me: in less egregious cases, might a more lenient form of tban be constructive, where editing in draftspace is allowed even on pages directly relevant to the banned topic? Draftspace generally is less heated than articlespace, and while it is quite possible to result in abuse, I am guessing most editors who get tbans without inviting more extreme remedies will have the self-discipline to resist this temptation. Thoughts? — Charles Stewart (talk) 00:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

So to stop a ban evasion, the admin simply blocks their IP if they know it. But if a banned editor repeatedly changes their IP to get around the IP block, a range block may be appropriate.

If a range block does not work, admins may use the very last resort measure, "by technical measures". What does this mean? Sheep (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mz7 and Interstellarity: regarding this revert, I pretty much agree with Mz7. I had started to revert this myself earlier today, but when I saw the edit notice that says, you may be bold in making minor changes, I figured this probably was a minor change so I'd let it be. But, yeah, this is a policy document, and a pretty major one at that, so getting consensus first really is the better way. It doesn't have to be a big deal. A note on this talk page saying, "Unless somebody objects, I'd like to make the following change...", and then give it a week to see if any objections pop up. Most likely, nobody would object, and then you'd be on a much stronger footing to go ahead and make your change. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith,

I created a post at VPP here that discusses the change, but also asks whether Wales should still have the authority to ban users. Feel free to comment there if you wish. Interstellarity (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The edit did not alter actual policy, and just provided a description of past history, so personally I think the

bold, revert, discuss cycle is a reasonable approach. From a writing style point of view, I agree with Mz7 that perhaps a footnote would be better. However, in accordance with the guidance from the bold, revert, discuss page—Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and only if you cannot immediately refine it. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen.—I did not choose to revert the edit. Maybe we can reach an agreement on having a footnote? isaacl (talk

) 22:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2022

This edit request to Wikipedia:Banning policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ramji Ambedakar

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.

Jimbo Wales abandoned his right to ban users and removed the line in the "Authority to ban" section, but the Ban-block difference table still says that Jimbo may impose bans. ¿Should it be edited?--SRuizR 16:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

AFAIK, Jimbo removed his right to banning people going forward, the action does not "commute the sentence" (for lack of a better term) for anyone who has so been banned in the past. I'm not sure if there are any active bans ad Jimbonum currently active, but the table only states that bans imposed by Jimbo may only be lifted by Arbcom or Jimbo. Assuming that there still exist bans that Jimbo imposed prior to his relinquishing the right, those people would still need to have an avenue of appeal. --Jayron32 16:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

@Jayron32: that part should not be removed, but I'm talking about the part that says "May be imposed only by the Arbitration Committee, Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation (or uninvolved users specifically authorized by one of these), or by community consensus; users may also be banned for repeated block evasion". --SRuizR 16:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I'm an idiot. Missed that bit. Fixing now. --Jayron32 16:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done I removed Jimbo from the "may be imposed" section, and I also included a clarifying footnote in case anyone was confused about his mentioning later in the table. I hope this works. --Jayron32 16:54, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

It works, but it's overly complicated. Special:Diff/1092025655 should suffice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if it would make sense to split

In a recent case raised in

[responding to a ping on my talk page] - The point I made in that discussion has to do with what we consider an additional/second topic ban. Let's say we see someone who makes good edits in a few topic areas, but seems to get into too much POV-pushing when it comes to politics. If they're most active at one particular political article, we might say "well, they seem to be POV-pushing in lots of politics articles but the disruption is mainly in this one article, so let's try an article-level topic ban and see what happens". Then, if that person disrupts another political article we can say either "that's your second topic ban -- you're officially a net negative now" or "guess we should've gone with the broader topic ban to begin with" and implement that. Like some others, for people who cannot edit certain topics constructively, as long as there are topic areas where someone can contribute constructively, I'm typically going to support a more limited intervention than a full block. In the case of Epiphylumlover (with whom I disagree on basically everything, it seems, and whose block I neither supported or opposed), IMO we should've just topic banned them from AmPol to begin with. The reason they're indeffed now is because we didn't do that. You could say that once they get a narrow topic ban they should've been extra careful. That would be fair -- they own their own actions, of course -- but the rest of us also have to take responsibility when we get the scope of a sanction wrong. In the grand scheme of things, is a topic ban from two subtopics really a better indication of disruption than a single ban from a larger parent topic? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

You cannot know in advance whether a narrow or a wide topic ban will yield the best outcome. I believe that a clear warning for a possible site ban will help editors understand that a narrow topic ban should be treated with great respect. Ofcourse, there is the question of one being proactive and maybe we should discuss whether the topic bans should be wide regardless of what the reporting editors suggest. But then again when is "wide" wide enough but not too wide? Should every WikiProject designate categories for topic bans for example? We either need to get more beaurocratic or require consensus not only for the topic ban in general but also the wideness in particular. Maybe the less intrusive method is to write a policy advocating wide site bans and how to determine a "suitably wide" topic ban. What do you prefer? Nxavar (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

• I should probably clarify that my remarks were intended as a response to the general topic, and not the specific case linked above, which I am not really familiar with. --
  talk
  ) 17:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• WP:BRD. Edit warring on a page that dozens of admin watch is not smart. Dennis Brown - 2¢
  20:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
• Broadly speaking, I tend to agree with Beeblebrox. Topic bans are not useless. There are editors who, for whatever reason, cannot stay out of trouble in one particular area, but outside of that do fine. In that case, allowing them to continue to contribute except in that area makes sense. And sometimes, with more wisdom and experience gained by that editor over time and a demonstration of positive contributions outside the trouble spot, the community can agree to ease and eventually remove the ban. But if an editor causes trouble in one area, is removed from it, and goes right on to doing much the same in some other area—they're the problem, and at that point, it's time to remove them entirely. And I generally think "bespoke" narrow topic bans are a bad idea; if someone's not doing well in some area, just take them completely out of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Nxavar, you keep adding this section: [3] claiming a consensus to add it, that doesn't exist. It is unnecessary creep that just pads the policy rather than introduces anything new. The goal is to keep policy pages concise so people will actually read them. Unless a consensus here states they want this addition, it will be reverted back out. Since you've added this three times without a clear consensus, I do see this as edit warring. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
• Nxavar's addition does not add anything. Someone who persists in disruptive editing will get into trouble, which we know already. The case of topic ban plus misbehaving elsewhere is just an example of the general case and it adds nothing to give it a special mention. Zero^talk 13:33, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the policy, in terms of its provisions. However, it helps offending editors better understand their position. The goal of this addition is to help people avoid bans and it came from a recent case where a relatively narrow topic ban for abortion-related articles escalated to a full-blown site ban. Nxavar (talk) 14:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. Overexplaining ancillary issues doesn't provide clarity, it just gives them more things to read and ask questions about. Again, policies must be concise and stick to the topic as narrowly as possible. If you want to explain all the possible ways that can lead to banning, write an essay on it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

An essay on how to avoid bans would be helpfull? Be carefull of what you wish for. Nxavar (talk) 07:10, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Essays don't bother me. They are easy to ignore, and most have zero impact on enforcement. The good ones eventually develop mindshare. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

We already

have an essay on how to avoid bans. -- RoySmith (talk)

22:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, which restores text that was deleted by an edit in 2018: if an indefinitely blocked editor hasn't had their situation reviewed by the community, as per Wikipedia:Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions, then they can still be unblocked by a single administrator granting their appeal. This is in accordance with the general principle that bans should only be imposed by the community, or through authority delegated by the community (namely, to the arbitration committee). I appreciate that an editor who has behaved so poorly that no administrator is willing to unblock them is in essence banned. Nonetheless, I don't think the table on the differences between bans and blocks should include a defacto ban as a way to impose a ban, as the community generally still treats it as a block for purposes of applying policy, until it formally enacts a ban by reviewing the situation and declining to unblock. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I restored it because someone mentioned to me that it used to be policy but for some reason wasn't. It had been long-standing policy that was silently removed from a table and I don't think many people noticed, and I think it still reflects existing community consensus (i.e. if no one is willing to unblock you, you are not a part of the community.) I didn't see it as particularly controversial since it had been a long-standing part of the policy that, imo, should never have been removed without discussion. I get its been some time, but also don't think we need an RfC to reinsert it. If there's significant opposition, I guess it can be removed pending discussion, but I didn't think it was necessary given the historical weight it had. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would agree that a long time block is not the same thing as a ban. Really, only the community or Arb can ban someone. No single admin can by virtue of a block and time. Even at AE, we can't ban someone. I don't believe there is consensus to view a long block as a ban with the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
• 'twas I who asked Tony about this omission. The de facto ban is an old concept, which was partly formalized in the form of
  WP:3X (which still says "effectively banned", so really is a kind of de jure de facto ban); someone apparently misunderstood 3X as having completely superseded de facto bans, even though it did not, since 3X has certain procedural requirements that were not historically needed for de facto bans.

  Someone being indeffed for a long time does not make them de facto banned. Nor does someone having multiple declined unblock requests. I recently unblocked a user who had had multiple unblocks declined over the preceding 9 months. No one suggested that community review was needed there. A good example of a de facto ban would be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Glam-girlz. There have been two sets of CU confirmations on her sox, but neither definitively tied the sox back to the master account, and so she is not 3X'd. She is, however, clearly banned, after almost a year of wanton vandalism and harassment, including death threats. If an admin were to unilaterally unblock her, I would take them to AN and expect things would end with at least a community admonishment, maybe an ArbCom desysop.

  Perhaps no administrator is willing to unblock doesn't state it quite right. Maybe it would be better to say In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no reasonable administrator would be willing to unblock them unilaterally, they can be considered de facto banned. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed}
  ] (she|they|xe) 00:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  We could, but the word "banned" gets thrown around all too often around here, to the point of distorting the true meaning of it. Because of that, I feel it needs to reined in, and defined as the original intent. A blocked users has more "rights" than a banned user by virtue of the fact that a blocked user is still considered a member of the community, while a banned user is not and is essentially excommunicated. (don't ask me to drag up the policies that cover that, I'm not up to it tonight). There is a difference, and that difference SHOULD be as clear as a line in the sand. Otherwise, it is diluted and has no meaning. Only the community, and by extension, ARB, has that authority, to de jure ban. De facto ban isn't really a ban, and calling it that muddies the waters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have mixed feelings about it. The part that puzzles me the most is actually where it says "In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive...". Other than abusing talk page access or acting maliciously off-site, how can that even happen? (I'm guessing that it means creating socks or off-site harassment.) That just sounds off to me, and could be a reason for me to want to remove the sentence (even though I copyedited it). For the main topic here, de facto has to carry a lot of water. Blocks and bans can both be appealed, and we don't have a defined number of unblock requests that transform a block from appealable to unappealable. I think what we are trying to say is that an indefinite block has the same practical effect as a site-ban until it is successfully appealed, even though they are procedurally and conceptually two different things. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since site bans are enforced through indefinite blocks, yes, they have the same effect. But in a table describing the differences between blocks and bans, I think we shouldn't gloss over procedural and conceptual differences. isaacl (talk) 01:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have been subject to both sanctions, so I can answer you about how that can even happen. I've never done block evasion or socked or anything like that ever in my life on this or any website, but my case is beaurocratically complicated. At one point, I emailed ARBCOM to ask (paraphrased), "When is my next appeal date and at which venue would you like me to make it?" They said something like "It's been a while since you've been allowed to present your case before the community, so do it at ANI [instead of AE]." I appealed per their instructions, and the community did not establish a clear consensus to unblock. This converted my indefinite block to a community ban, because the discussion was made by the community and not AE admins or ARBCOM.

  So it's not or at least not only disruptive conduct that can convert an indefinite block or other sanction to a community ban. Sometimes it's just the way the disciplinary system classifies things.

  I fully support stating outright that indefinite blocks and community bans are two different things, even if they have the same de facto effect. I find "de facto" a good way to express it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, this situation is covered by the section on community bans. The text under discussion, though, is regarding blocked editors whose cases have not been reviewed by the community. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Being banned due to repeated block evasion is being banned by policy, which has been authorized by the community. I think for severely poor behaviour, it's basically a moot point what label is placed on the editor. Since the primary way an indefinitely blocked editor can continue to be disruptive is by evading their block (I suppose they can also be disruptive by sending messages, such as email or on other Wikimedia sites), it's reasonable to think of the repeated evasion rule as a replacement for the sentence in question. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  We used to take serial socks to ANI and just vote up a ban, which then authorized anyone to revert on site. It isn't that hard to do. My participation at ANI is spottier than it used to be, so I can't say often that happens now, but getting a community ban isn't hard when it is obviously needed. We then lock the talk page, put a notice up, and UTRS or Arb is their only avenue for appeal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The RFC initiated by Tony in 2018 made it unnecessary to have that discussion at the incidents noticeboard, after three two block evasions. isaacl (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC) corrected number of block evasions isaacl (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  That seems to me to be a more straightforward way to see it, and it makes sense. For that reason, I suggest changing In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, that editor is considered to be de facto banned. to the language of that RfC: After three indefinite blocks, a user is considered to be de facto banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: But 3X, per the RfC, requires publicly-documented CU confirmation for strikes 2 and 3, which was not historically the case with de facto blocks, and, again, would not cover LTAs like Glam-girlz who happen to have dodged CU. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The table already says users may also be banned for repeated block evasion, and Wikipedia:Banning policy § Bans for repeated block evasion has the details. Plus the user is banned by policy; it's not a de facto ban. isaacl (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Those are both good points. As a non-admin, it's becoming easier for me to understand what we don't want to say, but still unclear what we do want to say. It seems to me that the sentence about "banned for repeated block evasion" can apply to repeated evasion of blocks that are not necessarily indefinite. And we don't want the sentence after it to be restricted to cases that are confirmed by CU. But we do want that sentence to apply to disruption by behaviorally identified socks of an indeffed user. Is there any kind of disruption by indeffed users that is not done by socks of any sort, that should also be covered by that sentence? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: Well, I can't recall a case where this neither coincided with sockpuppetry nor gave rise to an OSblock/ArbComBlock/SanFranBan, but someone who engaged in serious off-wiki harassment of editors after an initial indef would probably be de facto banned under that same test of "You'd get admonished/desysopped if you unblocked them." But I don't know if that even needs to be in policy. Someone who posts a death threat on-wiki is probably in the same boat, but this policy never included that in its definition of de facto bans because, I would argue, it's common sense. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The table shouldn't be defining policy; it's just providing a shorthand overview. The clause on being banned for repeated block evasion was added in the edit I noted in order to refer to the corresponding section on repeated block evasion, which provides the details. isaacl (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  It seemed like a good idea at the time, but this seems premature without CU data. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand your comment: the edit in 2018 was made to refer to Wikipedia:Banning policy § Bans for repeated block evasion, which describes the need for checkuser data, as had been discussed in the RfC that led to the section being added. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  The more I read this discussion, the less I think the table needs such a sentence at all. It increasingly seems to me that anything that might be covered by the sentence is either already covered enough elsewhere, or goes so far into the realm of common sense that it accomplishes very little to spell it out. The way the sentence is currently worded, as well as any revisions I can think of, are more confusing than helpful. And I agree with Dennis' earlier comment, that we should not blur the line between blocks and bans. I'm now inclined to just want the sentence removed again. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  The discussion has gone quiet for the past few days, so I'm checking back to see what the sentiment here is, about removing that sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  As far as I can tell: both you and I proposed removing it; Dennis seems to prefer removing it; Tony and Tamzin feel it continues to have consensus support. isaacl (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  I do, as it really isn't a de facto ban unless it is specifically backed with 3x CU data, thus a regular admin can't unblock anyway. Originally we had too many ban discussions, too soon, all related to socking, which the policy change did fix, but it's adding confusion as it is stated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Pinging TonyBallioni and Tamzin: Just checking whether you still feel that way. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think that the concept of a de facto ban was never repealed, and the RfC was not meant to replace it with a narrower concept of a CU-confirmed 3X ban, and thus this should be mentioned in some way in the banning policy. I don't have a strong feeling about where or how it should be mentioned. If there's objection to including it at all, we should probably have another RfC. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

  My experience with the term "de facto ban" has always been in the context of a community de facto ban, where it reviewed a block and chose not to lift it. I'm not clear on how an "admin de facto ban", which could be lifted by a single admin or by community consensus, has been treated differently in practice from a blocked user. Are there some examples that we can examine? isaacl (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• This is an example of some vagaries of things not stated in policy, certainly not in clear writing, that most senior Wikipedians know and don’t talk about. If you’re idef blocked and no admin will unblock you, you have the following legit options: Improve your unlock request, or appeal/correspond by email or other off-wiki communication. Then there’s the other option of waiting at least the checkuser stale time, doing a dark restart (cf. WP:Clean start and never go back to the old ways and places that caused you trouble, with one prime example being to only edit mainspace for a long time, whether as an IP or new account, and avoid talk page posts. As an amateur wikiarchiologist, I can tell you that the second option is common and readily successful for the non-inept. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with that, and I think it makes the concept of a de facto ban all the more meaningless. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  I think in the original intent, if a user has CU data 3x showing they are socking, you can treat them like they are banned, as far as reverts, etc. is still valid, but this wording doesn't really make that point clear. A single admin can't unblock that kind of editor, even the community can't without CU clearance to be sure they aren't still socking. That's the point, this de facto ban is really a very narrow thing, but is described as being fairly broad. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  If a checkuser made the block and identified it as a checkuser block, as per Wikipedia:Blocking policy § CheckUser blocks, then it can't be undone without discussion with the checkuser. Otherwise, just having checkuser data as part of the sockpuppet investigation doesn't prevent unblocking (though I imagine there's a good possibility a two-time evader will get blocked by a checkuser). isaacl (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  Speaking to the first, SmokeyJoe. I was indefinitely blocked and community banned by process (as in not for block evasion or disruption), and my practice was to improve my unblock requests and establish a good editing record on other projects. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I see that TonyBallioni has made a few recent edits, and I'm going to re-raise this issue. I'm trying to think how to make the language clearer without simply removing the sentence, as that's probably as far as we can get consensus for without needlessly having a new RfC. So I propose changing: In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator is willing to unblock, that editor is considered to be de facto banned. to: In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator has been willing to unblock, that editor is treated as being de facto banned. I realize that's a hairsplitting change, but being "treated" as banned is not the same as "being" banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't want to edit the policy page if there are still concerns in talk, but I'm guessing that this change would be noncontroversial. If there are no objections here in the next couple of days, I'll go ahead and make the edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

    I previously asked how is an "admin de facto ban" treated any differently than any blocked user. Are there some examples we can look at? I don't feel it's helpful to say this scenario is treated as a ban if there is no difference, and I don't see any. In either case, one admin changing their mind or the community reaching a consensus agreement to unblock will result in an unblock. isaacl (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    Frankly, that's how I feel too. Your comment gives me this idea: In the event an indefinitely blocked editor has continued to be disruptive and no administrator has been willing to unblock, that editor is treated no differently than as being de facto banned. I added "no differently than". That does seem more truthful, and I think it's probably as far as I can push it without getting opposition. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    I'm a little lost with the multiple negatives about what the message is. Plus, the common usage of "de facto banned" is in the context of the community reviewing a block and not lifting it, and there is a difference in that case: the community has taken ownership of the ban, and reverting the editor's edits becomes, in theory, easier. Your proposal seems to imply that an editor whose talk page appeal has failed is de facto banned, or that a community de facto ban is the same as a regular block. I don't think either reflects current community consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    Sigh, I can't say that you are wrong. (That's another multiple negative: you're right.) I think the sentence we have been discussing is somewhere between meaningless and nonsensical, but there seems to be (seems to have been?) opposition to removing it. So I'm going to wash my hands of it. It's not worth pursuing any longer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

    Tamzin has referred to the restored sentence on this page to support the notion that a blocked user can become a banned one without community input, so I think it's worth clearing up. If we can save time and resolve this without an request for comment discussion, that would be great. The early days of the site were long ago; for many years now, my experience is that the community feels it holds the responsibility of banning editors from the community. I appreciate that for convenience it's easier to say that extremely poorly behaved blocked editors are effectively banned ones, and in a lot of ways, treat them as formally banned ones, in the spirit of avoiding bureaucracy and ignoring rules in scenarios where everyone agrees they are a hinderance. I just don't think a table describing the differences between blocks and bans is a good place to go down this side path. Perhaps some discussion under "Other considerations" would be a better fit. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• From the department of unintended irony, here I am arguing for removing the sentence, but lo and behold, I found it useful to cite, myself, for some socks (now blocked): [4]! --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you cited it, though. If I understand correctly, you disagreed with the added material, and so properly reverted. There was no need to assume that anyone is de facto banned, by virtue of not having been unblocked. isaacl (talk) 20:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  It's really not worth discussing, but you appear not to be familiar with the history of socking and block evasion ([5]). It was just a lighthearted comment here, with no need for going on about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I understood there was socking, and block evasion. As far as I know, all of the resulting actions taken were absolutely applicable to any sockmaster: spamming multiple venues about the same related topic is disruptive and block evasion, no matter who's doing it, and is always subject to reversion. There's no wikilawyering around that which would requiring citing the section in question. isaacl (talk) 23:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest making this change to the CBAN policy:

If an editor has proven to be repeatedly or egregiously disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia...

This is so that repeated disruption is not viewed as a requirement for a siteban; one-time disruption, if bad enough, should be sufficient justification. Levivich (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This should probably be an RFC and listed on

WP:CENT, right? Madeline (part of me

) 16:16, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

It's the kind of thing that requires talk page discussion, but I think it would be overkill to have such an RfC, for just adding two words. By the way, I'm inclined to support the proposal as adding some clarity and as not creating any likely confusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts. About the RfC, if some editors think it would be better to do so, then I don't want my opinion to stand in the way of it. On the merits of the proposal, I'm ambivalent about CBANning someone for a single incident without giving a second chance. CBAN is different than an indef block. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably, since despite only being two words it dramatically changes the text. As for the question itself, we're a volunteer organization. You don't get very far by deciding to kick out everyone for single infractions, especially since what determines "egregious" is very much in the eye of the beholder, the same way admins disagree over the lengths of blocks for infractions. The better question perhaps is if it's actually community practice to do so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally I like to

float these ideas informally first before launching an RFC. Levivich (talk

) 17:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Madeline (part of me) 17:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the change, as by its nature, every community ban will be based on a community discussion which can establish any new consensus it wants. So while the prescriptivist in me wouldn't mind the change, in practice either way the discussion will be on whether or not the action in question is sufficiently egregious. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

This is the "Athaenara Rule". I disagree with the proposed wording, because "egregious" is a soft and nebulous standard with nothing to compare it to.--🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually I'd call it the "WaltCip Rule" -- it was inspired by your oppose rationale, not by her actions. Her actions are repeated (IMO); this change isn't necessary to siteban her. It's intended to take away the oppose rationale of "it wasn't repeated". Levivich (talk) 18:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• "Disruption" is also vague and in the eye of the beholder. That's why consensus decides if something is or is not "disruption", and thus it would be the same for "egregious". Levivich (talk) 18:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  The definition of "disruption" at least is something that doesn't require subjectivity, because we have a whole policy on it. But it's the qualifier of "repeatedly" that is the key modifier there which makes this easy to identify. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 18:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I would also support this change:

  If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia...

  Levivich (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think we need some qualifier for disruptive because run of the mill disruptive vandals don't need to be eligible for CBANs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  Right; how often do we run into an issue where we would need to CBAN those run-of-the-mill vandals? From my experience, it's just been

  WP:NOTHERE, etc.. Never has to rise to the level of needing a community ban, because no admin is going to be bothered to overturn the indef on the basis of "well, I talked with them and they promised they wouldn't do it again". 🌈WaltCip-(talk

  ) 19:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

  I agree for clarity, some kind of intensifier would be helpful (though not essential, since community discussion will ultimately decide if the behaviour was sufficiently poor to warrant a site ban). It doesn't have to be "repeatedly"—it could be something like "flagrantly" or "blatantly". isaacl (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to have a discussion on this to clarify that adding that language -- which I agree does change the meaning -- has consensus.

IMO there isn't an issue with the current ANI because the second bullet point says

• In some cases the community may review a block or an editor's unblock request and reach a consensus of uninvolved editors to endorse the block as a community sanction.

For me, that's the important bullet in the current ANI: this is a review of a block to reach consensus to endorse or not endorse that block as a community action which requires community action to lift. Valereee (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: The following proposal by Tamzin is explicitly phrased as a community sanction, not as a review of a block:

I propose the following community sanction: For repeatedly targeting other editors on the basis of their gender identity, transgender status, or requested pronouns, including in the form of an egregious personal attack, Athaenara is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia.

And, even if it were a review of a block, this would be a third-party block review, as Tamzin was not the blocked editor nor the blocking admin; a mere discussion of whether or not to endorse of TNT's block would not be capable of converting this into a CBAN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a review of the actual block, it's a review to request to endorse as a community action. Valereee (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• The language of or egregiously is extremely nebulous. It's quite clear that a one-off incident can lead to an ordinary block, but I don't think that it is wise to CBAN people based off of a single comment when
  WP:TBANs are almost always more narrowly tailored towards whatever disruption occurred in that single diff. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest)
  20:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

  As I have suggested at the CBAN discussion in question, I think the key issue at stake there is whether to convert the indef-block into a sanction that requires a community discussion to lift. It seems obvious to me that a large part of the community feels that this step is necessary under the circumstances (indeed, a number of Oppose !voters seem to believe that such a requirement is already in place in this instance, although it is not).

  If any of the arguments for this are potentially valid - whether based on future disruption by the indef-blocked editor once reinstated, based on future drama resulting from a unilateral unblock itself, or based on chilling effects brought on by engwiki tolerating hate speech - it would seem to be BURO to insist on the letter of "repeated" disruption when the key aspect ought to be assessing consensus within the community whether the likelihood of future disruption acceptable or unacceptable, based on all the evidence at hand. Newimpartial (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

• This is an attempt would encourage to institutionalize cancellation and rule by angry mob. Jehochman ^Talk 11:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
  • 🤦🏼‍♂️ Levivich (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I’ve been around long enough to see that patience is a good strategy. If a user needs to be banned they will eventually prove it beyond a doubt. There is no rush to ban users. They can be blocked, get another chance, and we see how they act. Once you ban them, they can pop up 90 days later and there’s little we can do to stop them if they don’t announce themselves. We already have tons of recycled users. It’s better to keep them editing on their original account so we can keep track. Jehochman ^Talk 12:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

      Well, that is certainly better than casting shade on other editors by accusing them of trying to institutionalize cancellation and rule by angry mob. I'm not convinced that it qualifies as an "explanation" for the ASPERSIONS, however. Newimpartial (talk) 13:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. It's a bridge too far. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:11, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  In addition policy does not forbid a CBAN for a single exceptional edit. It’s not the norm. There is a high hurdle to argue that somebody should be banned without any prior warnings or sanctions. That’s very extreme and should be very rare. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  It does forbid it, by requiring "repeated" disruption for a CBAN (any kind of CBAN).

  WP:CBAN says

  If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

  This isn't actually a correct statement of current global community consensus: we already impose CBANs for one-time disruption if the disruption is bad enough. It's rare (but then so are CBANs, which are imposed on like less than 1% of editors), but it happens. I don't think we should restrict ourselves by requiring repeated disruption for a CBAN (any kind, including site ban), nor should the text of CBAN require "repeated" if that's not actually something the community requires. Levivich (talk

  ) 15:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  ”CBANs are typically applied after repeated disruption and the failure of lesser sanctions. In exceptional cases a CBAN might be applied after a single egregious incident.” I think we all agree on this. Now, can anybody point to examples of past CBANs based on a single egregious incident? Is this theoretical, very rare, or just uncommon? Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  What are you quoting? AFAICT it's not on

  WP:CBAN after the sentence I quoted above (and thus striking "repeatedly" from the sentence I quoted above), i.e.:

  If an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may impose a time-limited or indefinite topic ban, interaction ban, site ban, or other editing restriction(s) via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. Bans are typically applied after repeated disruption and the failure of lesser sanctions. In exceptional cases a ban might be applied after a single egregious incident.

  But that still has the problems of "egregious" pointed out by others above. As for examples of TBAN for one-time disruption, first thing that comes to mind is the first thread currently at ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#GENSEX TBAN: Wefa. Levivich (talk

  ) 16:15, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

• My 2p based on experience: I think we should keep the quantifier, "repeatedly", and not replace it with "egregious" or similar, because "repeatedly" is less open to interpretation than "egregious" and similar, and removing it makes it too easy for a determined group of editors to get rid of someone they for whatever reason don't like, even if it's an editor who has been around for a while and made a large number of good edits and then suddenly make a single edit the group doesn't like, so it should be three strikes, or more, and then you're out, not one strike and you're out. The exceedingly rare cases where any reasonable editor would feel that a single edit is reason enough for a CBAN can be handled anyway, since they're usually so egregious that there are no opposes, or at least next to none. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:01, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

In the CBAN section, "third-party block review" means "a block review requested by a third-party", not a block review given by a third party, right? I would prefer it clarified with my wording. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Right, because all block reviews are given by third parties, since the first two parties usually split the vote :-) Seems like it would be a noncontroversial clarification to me. Levivich (talk) 01:06, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This makes little sense:

A topic-banned editor cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but is allowed to appeal the topic ban to Jimbo Wales. An appeal should be lodged at his user talk page.

If you are appealing a ban, you are discussing the ban: if you want any chance of success overturning the ban, you would have to explain why. And if Jimmy Wales is considering reversing it, it is likely that you will need to respond to his response, which is communication between two parties, and by definition, a discussion. I suggest removing the words "cannot discuss the topic ban or topic on Jimbo's talk page, but". —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Or maybe just remove the words "topic ban or". I presume the idea is that Jimmy Wales' talk page is not a place for a topic-banned editor to argue their viewpoint about a topic. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 00:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah. I'd be in favour of just eliminating any reference to appeals to Jimbo. It's unrealistic and, frankly, he hasn't done it in years. His last block-related action was 2016. Risker (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with Risker. It functionally isn't a thing anymore and hasn't been in a while. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Agree with above. Appeals to Jimbo are not a thing anymore, and to imply that they are just sends people to Jimbo's talk page unnecessarily. We should remove the whole section.--Jayron32 18:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed, remove it. Zero^talk 00:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
• IIRC Jimbo made a solemn promise several years ago about never using his superadmin powers again, at least not on en:WP, which of course would mean that he wouldn't reverse bans imposed by the community here, so the possibility of appealing bans to him should be removed. - Tom  | Thomas.W ^talk 13:21, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Jimbo said he'd stop using the blocking tool quite some time before he actually did stop, if that's what you're thinking of,
  In August 2009, the Committee found Wales to be in breach of the blocking policy in his block of Bishonen, and acknowledged his "permanent abdication of the use of the blocking tool". I suppose that's theoretically not the same as giving up his power to lift a topic ban, though. Bishonen | tålk
  08:28, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

• It looks like Bishonen has dominated the consensus limiting Jimbo's blocking powers for 14 years. That is 2/3 of the history of the project. Cullen328 (talk) 08:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

• \o/ Bishonen | tålk 10:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

I wasn't all knowledgeable on copyright policy, I've learnt from my mistakes. Although when trying to reappeal my ban I am instructed to paste a text into my homepage, but I am blocked from even editing my own homepage on Wikimedia. So i've been banned for the first time, for a permanent length and there is no feature to reappeal it. What happens next? PreserveOurHistory (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

@PreserveOurHistory: I assume you are talking about Wikimedia Commons. You are not blocked from editing your talk page: commons:User talk:PreserveOurHistory. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:14, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I go onto it, I press on the "User Page" Tab, then click "edit" on the right and i get the pop up message saying my IP address/Username has been blocked.

Editing and uploading from ‪PreserveOurHistory‬ was disabled by ‪D-Kuru‬ for the following reason: Uploading unfree files after warnings This block (ID #432847) is set to expire: infinite PreserveOurHistory (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"User Page" is the wrong tab. You need to press on the "Discussion" tab.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

so would those administrators get notified of unblock request or only if someone clicks on my talk page? (which is never) PreserveOurHistory (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

PreserveOurHistory, Commons administrators will see it without having to first click on your talkpage. Your use of the unblock template has put your request on to this page, which is patrolled by administrators. Bishonen | tålk 08:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC).

Recently, I have seen editors doing the same thing I did a few months ago and looking, without success, for a template to indicate a topic ban. Is there one? This would be especially useful for editors to add to their own Talk and/or User pages, if it could be specified that an editor adding such a template to their own User or Talk page is understood to be covered by

• Comment - Let's stop the unnecessary disruption. This doesn't go into why or discretion, it just puts a limit on who can place it. - jc37 00:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly a sensitive issue that leads to drama, so why should it be a free-for-all? What reason is there to make it anything other than a perfunctory step in the banning process which should be carried out by the blocking admin or -- if they forget -- some other uninvolved admin? Need something better than "I see no reason not to" to oppose IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• The simple answer is: why should some banned users (most of whom were popular) get special privileges and others not? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 03:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• What does that have to do with anything? Nobody's proposing doing anything differently on one user's page than another's. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• We are; because some user pages won't get the CBAN tags and some will. And we know this because Roxy's didn't have one. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• What about this proposal says "some users will get CBAN tags and others won't"? That someone might violate our policies isn't a good reason to have our policies make sense. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

...The fact that it's a natural consequence of this proposal? If this proposal were in effect at the time Roxy was banned, the notice would have never been placed. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

What happened when the blocking admin was notified that they forgot? Or did someone who was involved just add it, leading to an edit war? (I didn't follow it). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Five editors went back and forth before the tag was eventually restored by an admin. The original editor who added it was uninvolved, the editor who reverted them was involved and I believe the rest (which includes myself) were involved. I don't know if the admin was involved or not, I believe they were not though. The blocking admin was on wikibreak from the 9th to the 14th[6], this happened on the 11th. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe something like "anyone can add the banned template to a banned user, however, non-admins should strong consider contacting an admin first before doing so". --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 19:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that. I've been thinking about something like "non-admins should consult the blocking admin before adding the banned user template". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Coming back. Why, again, would we not just have the blocking admin place the tag, and have an uninvolved admin place it in the extraordinary situation where someone places a block and then vanishes (PS: please don't place a block in a high-drama case right before going on wikibreak, admins). It should've been placed by the blocking admin, and then anyone edit warring to remove it should've been pageblocked. Simple, no? If no admin has done it, continue pestering them to follow our policy. If it takes a while, who cares? What's the rush? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:05, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Not all admins agree that it should be placed by the blocking admin, or placed by anyone. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, those admins are wrong, IMO; and we really should have some type of formal discussion about all of this. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 01:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's the way you see it, I suppose we could turn the focus of the question around, and ask if it is administrative misconduct to intentionally not tag a user page. But the admins aren't the ones who are wrong. I really want to ask you, very seriously, to consider that this is something where having a simple black-and-white rule is not what's important, but recognizing human feelings is. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see where a person's feelings come into play here, honestly. There's no objective way to determine if someone's feelings would be hurt by having the tag there, nor am I convinced that we should really care: an indefinitely banned user isn't welcome in the community. I still think that the best solution is to hide the tag though. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Rockstone35, I tried to say this in a more indirect way below, and it was another editor who mistook it as being directed at them, so I guess I'm going to have to come right out and say it. No, we should care what users think. Not caring is callous. I see on your user page that you volunteer the information that you have Asperger syndrome. Maybe it's harder for you to relate to how neurotypical editors feel, and that's OK. But please understand me when I say that neurotypical editors do indeed get hurt feelings about this. That's more important than having a black-and-white rule. Additionally, you should understand by now that indefinite does not mean permanent. Yes, there are some indeffed users where the rest of us can reasonably feel like it's good riddance, but there are significant numbers of CBANs where the expectation is that it is not permanent. There is an expectation that the banned user is going to fix things and appeal successfully in some amount of time. It sometimes even says that in the closing statement. To say that we shouldn't care how such a user feels is entirely wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's callous at all, and I hope you're not using my diagnosis as an argument that my perspective is irrelevant (I doubt you are). If hurt feelings are a valid consideration, then I still think the solution is to just make the tag invisible and still require it, for anyone, regardless of whether the ban is indefinite or infinite. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I would not want anyone to think that I'm dismissing your perspective. Of course it's as relevant as that of any other editor. Your perspective is relevant, and it's wrong. But we agree that using a non-displaying tag is a good potential solution. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose as I'm still not convinced there's any reason for this. Any banned user should be treated the same as any other. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rockstone. It's at best rude to place the tag if the banned editor is someone you've been in conflict with and as norm of behavior that specific scenario should be avoided, but there's no reason that an independent non-sysop should be prohibited from doing so and sometimes sysops have also had past beefs with banned editors. I think making the tag invisible is worth exploring, feeling kind of neutral on that at the moment, but regardless if there is a problem this isn't the solution. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per opposers and my comments in the above section. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 06:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, particularly because this proposal would prevent a banned user from adding a template on their own User Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. My primary concern is consistency - everyone gets a visible template, everyone gets an invisible template, or no one gets a template. Given the approach at the moment is that everyone should have a visible template, I'm not really concerned about who adds it so long as it appears. - Bilby (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • However, in actual practice, not everyone does. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Which is something we should fix. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• It looks like this might be a discussion held locally, because I don't actually see the RfC tranclusion template at the top (at least not yet). But I'm wondering if this is simply premature. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Please shut this down. All it's going to do is kill any chance of getting something useful accomplished. We need to have more local discussion before we can formulate an RfC question that will have any chance of getting consensus. Please. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    It's not yet tagged as an RFC, so I guess it's still an informal survey, but despite my

    assessment above, I don't object to it being closed if someone thinks it might prematurely terminate discussion. 74.73.224.126 (talk

    ) 02:38, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    This appears to be a discussion about whether or not to have a RfC, not a RfC itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    OK, I've boldly changed the section header from "RfC" to "Local poll", and I hope that editors will agree to treat it that way. I also hope that editors will not simply look upon this as an opportunity to line up, choose sides, and dig in. Instead, I hope that we can work together to see if there's a solution that we can agree upon. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

    Sounds fine. I'm actually busy over the weekend and given my schedule should probably avoid the Wikipedia rabbithole after today until at least mid-August though I probably won't, but there's a good deal of other people around with good ideas. Personally somewhat leaning towards hiding visible display having thought it over, alternatively if the discussion link is important, maybe reduce the prominence and reword a bit, say for example [{{PAGENAME}} is currently banned (discussion)] or whatever brief verbiage best makes it clear the intent is purely informational. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Comment in lieu of !vote: If I were to !vote, I would support, but I don't want to do that. I don't necessarily support the question as written, because I'm not convinced that the right solution is to make the policy establish a special role for admins. I'm closer to supporting than opposing it as written, but I'm starting to think that framing the issue in this fashion is getting in the way of getting to a good consensus. Instead of creating instruction creep on who has the permission and who does not, I want to explore how we can cut down on the dramas that result when an editor who is not the enacting admin comes along and places the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• The issue I see with having a visible message be optional (including visible categories) at someone's discretion is that it makes the message an indicator that "no one will consider this message offensive", which does categorize site-banned users into a more-valued tier and a less-valued tier. I appreciate why some editors support this distinction. However it does work against the idea that the message is a straightforward informational one that doesn't pass any judgement. isaacl (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • That's why it either should always be visible, or never visible. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:24, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) That's a very interesting observation. It seems to me that when the community decides to enact a ban, that is inevitably something that involves a judgment. Then, when someone decides to label the user page in this way, that's also making a judgment. When editors argue that it is policy and established practice that the user page must always be labeled this way, they are arguing that this is purely informational, and nobody should read any kind of judgment into it. It seems to me that such an argument goes against human nature. The very fact that a drama broke out in this case indicates that at least some of us perceived a value judgment inherent in it. And the fact that a significant number of experienced admins regard the decision as a judgment call, rather than an automatic requirement, belies the claim that nobody should perceive a judgment having been made. But I disagree with the formulation that the judgment is over more-valued versus less-valued, at least when framed as simply as that. It's really more about unlikely to ever be reformed, versus worth trying to reform. (I realize that there is an element of more and less value there, but I'm distinguishing it from being in the in-group versus the out-group.) When we have long-term abuse, cross-project bans, large sockfarms, and the like, it makes sense to blank the user page and have a clear template label. But we also have CBANS where the expectation, sometimes even expressed in the closing statement, that the user might make things right and make an appeal in some number of months. In those cases, it's reasonable for the enacting admin to decide that nothing is accomplished by adding the user page tag (there are other ways for other editors to know that the user is banned), and it's also reasonable for some editors to see it as insulting when someone comes along and issues a drive-by tag. That's why we define "indefinite" the way that we do. It's one thing to say that something is "no big deal", but it's more important to remember that editors are real people. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
    • I want to add something about that, and I've been trying to think about how to express it. I'm very serious about what I said about how people read a value judgment into it. That rests on the belief that we should value people's feelings over the need for absolute rules. I want to explain that I feel that way, as a neurotypical editor. I recognize that not everyone will see it the way that I do, but I ask other editors to consider that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

      I was considering how other editors and the site-banned editor will read a value judgement into the placement of a visible message. If the community agrees with the potential inequities with the inferred value judgements by all, then having nothing placed on the user page is a better approach. isaacl (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

      But that doesn't appear to be your argument... You appear to be arguing that we should value the feelings of some editors (your friends) but not others. If people read judgment into being banned or into having the tag added thats their problem, bans are not punishments they are preventative measures and therefore a tag acknowledging the ban carries no shame unless an editor chooses to imagine that it does because they misunderstand our banning process. Also interested in how anyone could find the addition of the tag insulting, that doesn't appear to be reasonable and you're going to have to explain what is insulting about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

      Wow. I said very clearly what it's about for me, and it was not about whether some editors are my friends, but here you turn it around. If you want to get personal about it, OK, then I can answer about how some people can find it insulting by reminding you that I very recently took you to ANI, and you sure sounded like you felt insulted by my doing that. But hey, I was just trying to prevent you from continuing to do something that was a problem, so nobody should feel insulted by that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

    • For purposes of discussion, I'm only covering the case of a single person being site-banned by the community, and not admins blocking sockpuppets, stewards locking accounts, or other situations involving larger-scale policy-violation issues. If it's up to someone's discretion that something is accomplished by having a visible message, then there are two types of site-banned users, denoted by the presence or absence of the message. The community is of course free to choose this approach, but it should appreciate this consequence. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
• Based on comments I've been seeing here, I'm starting to wonder whether there might be something that needs to be figured out, regarding how this policy does or does not square with current practice in the community. And that's making me think about working on that before going ahead with what I talk about in
  WP:AN, so we can get broader input about what admins currently do. --Tryptofish (talk
  ) 20:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

• The question should be what the community wants admins to do. Admins don't determine policy, as that is something created by the community. - Bilby (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with that. I do think that it would be helpful to the community to have some information to work from, as to what current practice really is, and as to what has been found to work or not work. But the community then makes the decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• If we're looking for a rule on this, I can think of two simple options:

• Always add the template to all banned users' user page
• Never add the template to anyone's user page ever

Either works for me. Arguments about this date back at least as long as I've been on this project.

talk

) 21:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I do not doubt it. - jc37 11:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. But a

"Shame" has to do with punishment.

We act out of prevention, not punishment.

And if they are banned, they are considered to be gone. So there is no "shame" to be had from any notification placed on a userpage - A user was banned, and here are the relevant links.

And if they successfully appeal, then the notification is removed.

So please explain this idea of "badge of shame" to me. I do not see it.

If you were talking merely about an indefinite block, I might agree with you. I'm not heartless. Far from it.

But this is in regards to a site-ban. A user - due to their own actions - that the community no longer wants as an editor. - jc37 11:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Then I'll try to explain. When "the community no longer wants" the person, then I'd agree with you. And there are certainly such situations. And I support having a solution in which there is a visible template on the user page of such an individual, as something that the enacting admin can put there.

But there are also situations in which the community feels that there is a problem that is not going to be fixed by a block lasting a specific amount of time, and the community, per se, does not issue blocks. So the community decides to have an indefinite ban, meaning that the person has talk-page access (something that would typically be revoked if the person were truly site-banned), and where the onus is on the blocked and banned person to earn their way back into the community's good graces.

To illustrate that with an example, I'll point to the case that started the recent row that led us to these discussions, and in which the admin who put the template on the user page was none other than you. Here's the notification from the enacting admin (not you): [7]. Note what the notification says, that the person should review

WP:UNBAN

, and should accept another user's offer of guidance about how to fix things. This is followed by further discussion of (at least in part) what the editor should and should not do in order to eventually have a successful appeal and return to editing. This is not the same thing as the kind of site ban in which the community never wants to see or hear from the person ever again. It falls into the same category as what you, correctly, describe in the context of an indefinite block.

And it frustrates me that it has proven this hard for editors to understand the difference. This is why I also have been trying to make the case for allowing the enacting admin to skip placing the visible template on the user page (still notifying on talk, still making sure there is proper logging of the sanction), and to be able to do so without someone else coming along and doing something different. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so first, just for whomever else may be reading this and not be aware - when I placed that, I stated why, also noted that the closing admin was welcome to revert, if they felt it appropriate. And you also know that since then, I took off my admin hat for these discussions...

Anyway, to respond to the rest of your post.

First, we don't revoke talk page access automatically, in order to allow for an appeal sometime down the road. Because we do allow for redemption here. But that is not carte blanche access. If someone is shown to abuse that open option, talk page access is then revoked.

Second, what you are describing is a muddling of indefinite blocking and banning. There is a difference. And yes, an editor can be indefinitely blocked until x, y, z occurs. A

ban

is not some sort of community-level "cool down block".

Look. If a wiki-friend is banned, I understand wanting to see their ban successfully appealed at some point and so, also not liking to see that they currently are banned. But, they are. If you think that the community was mistaken in site banning rather than indef blocking, there are venues for that. If you think the closing admin should have indef blocked and not closed as community banned, there are venues for that too.

But a site ban is a site ban.

For what you are talking about, maybe you should propose another "step" (or tier?) between site ban and indefinite block. Because right now, as far as I know, that doesn't exist. If you think that that somehow exists in practice, then start that RfC. - jc37 22:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you think that I was accusing you of anything wrong in placing that tag, but please understand that I am not.

I pointed you to what the other admin said in informing the editor of the ban decision. And it directly contradicts what you are saying here. So I'm not the one who is muddling anything. At this point, I can think of so many things where people are telling me that we have a widely-understood policy, but we plainly don't, that I'm really not sure which RfC to start first. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, his stated opinion, seems to be that he didn't feel it was necessary in this case. Which, I believe, falls under the typical discretion that we tend to allow to admins. - jc37 04:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, and I think we are all expressing our various opinions. And I really do believe that "the typical discretion that we tend to allow to admins" is a good thing in these situations. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

There is not functionally much distinction, generally it just comes down to how established that user was. Technically we go down to

WP:INDEFRIGHTS it clarifies When an editor is indefinitely site-banned by the community, their granted permissions should be removed. If the ban is reversed due to actual error (e.g. votestacking in the ban thread), the rights should be restored, but otherwise a user who successfully appeals their ban is not automatically entitled to regain the rights. Hope that helps! All the current rules and policies seem be pretty definitive on when and how things should happen and that is for the best. It is for the best for the person, their friends, and most importantly the community and encyclopedia. I am more concerned about the community having the right information and easily knowing what happened vs someone that earned their rights being removed being upset about it. PackMecEng (talk

) 20:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be just one or the other. The community can easily find the right information, and we can avoid making it more difficult for someone to make things right, without having to choose just one. It isn't about the removal of rights, either. Nobody is arguing that rights should not be removed. Nor is it about how many wiki-friends the user had (although that can show up in the inevitable edit war, when some non-admin comes along and puts up a tag, because of.... why?). It's about putting up a conspicuous and redundant notice about the ban, particularly when the enacting admin did not choose to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how having Template:Banned user on one's userpage hinders an appeal. At all. - jc37 23:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

It may not hinder the appeal process, as such, but I'm thinking more in terms of putting the person in a frame of mind such that it's harder to make things right. And as I said below, the issue for me isn't so much the presence of the template, as the action of a busy-body non-admin putting the tag on the page a couple of days later, when the admin chose not to do so. Please hear me on this: I'm not that concerned with an admin placing the notice being a badge of shame, but with some random busy-body coming along subsequently and doing it. It's that kind of self-appointed fixer who moves the situation into badge of shame territory, at least for me. Which is what I thought you were asking in this section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If that's your concern, that's a behavioural issue, not a policy/process issue. And while I don't personally think other Wikipedians helping clerk is necessarily a bad thing, when it comes to addressing behavioural issues, I kinda am leaning toward "if you don't have the tools/responsibilities to implement the block, maybe you shouldn't be doing this". Hence my eventually starting to agree that only admins, clerks, and functionaries should probably be doing this. And honestly, I think there's probably really no reason that this notice couldn't be added by bot, similar to how certain protection notices are. - jc37 04:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there's a lot that you say there that I can agree with, and that I think we can work with, towards a consensus. Many of our policies, of course, are directed at resolving behavioral issues. Perhaps we can work with something growing out of #An alternative approach, above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The real question is what legitimate reason would there be to remove the tag? It doesn't seem like these "wiki-friends" would actually have any grounds to revert the tag on. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's stipulate that you and I reverted one another. As I see it, the absence of a legitimate reason took place when the non-admin decided to come along and place the tag even though the enacting admin chose not to do so (and subsequently posted a detailed justification of why they chose not to do so [8]). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

But what is the reason for removing it? The reason for adding it is obvious: it isn't there and the people adding it think it should be. But what is the reason for removing it? Do the people removing it think it shouldn't be there or is it purely a procedural objection? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

So the reason for adding it is that it isn't there and the people adding it think it should be added. Consequently, the reason for removing it is that it is now there, but it wasn't before, and the people removing it think it should be removed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

And what reason do they have to think it should be removed? Are they automatically opposed to change or is it something specific about this change which they don't like? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact, the last part of what I just said makes me think of something more. For me at least, the issue isn't so much that there's a problem when the admin who carries out the ban decision posts the template, but rather, it's about when some other editor, a self-appointed putter-up of tags, decides to come along a few days later and put up the template. There's something presumptuous and busy-body-ish about it. That's what sets other editors off. That's what makes other editors feel like this was simply done in order to place a badge of shame. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the fascinating realm of knowledge curated by a motley crew of presumptuous self-appointed enthusiasts. It's an intriguing aspect of this platform, how it thrives on the diverse perspectives and passionate contributors who have played a part in its development. Frankly, the individuals responsible for tagging articles matter less to me than the act of ensuring that they are appropriately tagged. After all, the essence lies in the accuracy and relevance of the tags themselves, rather than the specific individuals who attach them. However, if there is a need to mandate administrative involvement in the tagging process, I suppose I could lend my support to that idea as long as a tag is a requirement. The notion of leaving random discretion to the whims of the person who ultimately pulls the trigger? It doesn't quite align with the principle of maintaining consistency and reliability. PackMecEng (talk) 22:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"consistency and reliability" is another way of saying "

bureaucracy". Some people understand discretion and others are unable to stop scratching scabs. The former strikes me as the more mature and desirable approach. Johnuniq (talk

) 00:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Or is it another way of saying "fair and just"? I understand discretion, what I don't understand is why discretion would ever be required here. Could you perhaps suggest scenarios or historical incidents in which the preferable course of action would be to not have the template on the page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Johnuniq puts it very well. We make admins go through the RfA process to ensure that they have the necessary discretion over things where we don't empower editors as a whole to make decisions. In this case, the enacting admin, who chose not to place the template, has provided a thoughtful explanation of why it was the preferable course of action ([9]). Comparing that with a non-admin who chooses to pick at a scab yields what I think is a pretty clear distinction. Putting it another way, welcome to Wikipedia, the fascinating realm of social interactions where all too many people do not give a flying fuck about the feelings of other people, or maybe even take pleasure in disregarding other people's feelings. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

But why not just make it automatic? Why burden already overworked admins with a decision they don't need to be making? If it goes on everyones pages then it can't hurt anyones feelings because everyone is being treated equally, I note that you are disregarding how not tagging some users effects the feelings of those who are tagged. Are we to give a flying fuck about them or are we here only to protect the feelings of our wiki friends and family? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You bring up an excellent point. While it's important to consider the feelings of the banned individual, it's equally crucial to acknowledge the impact they may have had on the people they attacked and marginalized due to their misguided perspectives. Banning someone doesn't occur in isolation; it's often a response to the harm they've caused within the community. It's essential to recognize that actions have consequences, and when individuals engage in harmful behavior, there are repercussions that extend beyond the immediate situation. PackMecEng (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, so this is about reducing the burden on admins, by doing the opposite of what they did while not bothering to ask them why they did it, and looking out for the feelings of banned users who committed really horrible stuff that everyone agrees should result in tagging, because it would be unfair to tag them but not tag some other users. And of course we should put a badge on all banned users' userpages to make their victims feel vindicated, but that couldn't possibly be a badge of shame. (And I do understand how victims feel, so let's not have any misconstruing of that.) That all makes such good sense! Why didn't you explain that before? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Not helpful. Perhaps you should take a break from the topic given the multiple discussions you have started here and all over the place on the topic. I think it is time to

drop the stick. PackMecEng (talk

) 23:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The status quo is that there is discretion and Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Those beating the horse are the couple of people with nothing better to do than tag every page because they can. Johnuniq (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No, its the ones that have nothing better to do than start the same discussion several times on this very page and over multiple pages hoping for different results. It kind of fits the definition to a tee if I am honest. PackMecEng (talk) 02:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: This is the first time I'm seeing it suggested that there's a couple of people tagging every page. Who would those people be? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Anyone who can look at this, and just shrug it off and conclude that CBANS are all the same and that there is no place for letting an admin use some common sense, well, don't bother arguing with me about it, because I honestly have no use for you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Please, drop this already. PackMecEng (talk) 23:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Or, what? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Or, what? Seriously? Is this high school now? Come on man, this is embarrassing. PackMecEng (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I've got nothing to be embarrassed about, but I guess you do. And an admin has now removed the tag. (And any admin who puts it back would be wheel warring.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

You are spending all your time and energy defending a self professed transphobe that was banned by the community for editing in a way that was transphobic. Also, it does not require an admin to place the tag so it is not an admin action to add or remove it. That is not what wheel warring is, perhaps edit warring but honestly the warring appears to be on the removal. PackMecEng (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

And you are spending your time and energy trying to argue with me. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, it feels like there's a giant set of people all trying to defend Roxy's behavior by trying to keep the tag off. Just now, Bishonen, who generally seems to be a solid admin, removed the tag despite the consensus for the past month that it ought to remain. This really appears to be a form of favoritism for certain users, which is against written policy. It really needs to stop. Can we just make the template invisible, require it on all banned user pages, and be done with it? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 04:49, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Why? Is there a
    rule? Johnuniq (talk
    ) 05:33, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Yes, I'd say we should follow policy so as to not play favorites. That's what Jc37 was getting at, too. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Tagging Roxy's page seems to be very important to you. Why? Have you engaged with
        WP:BURO which points out that an overriding principle here is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The blocking admin did not add the tag; that was done by an anyone can edit contributor later and the status quo was restored. Johnuniq (talk
        ) 06:01, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
        • Couldn't I turn it around and ask the opposite question of you? If the rules specify that a banned user should always be banned (which it does), then we should follow. I understand the argument that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, but I fail to see how the encyclopedia is better for treating some people as better than others. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

          Um, pretty sure this banned user is banned. I'll post here my reply to you on Bishonen's page. @Rockstone35 We should treat editors unequally. A new editor should not be treated in the same way an experienced editor is, for example. We certainly have had problems in treating experienced editors unequally, but I don't see how insisting on a ban notice that is distressing to someone suffering from various illnesses including Chronic lymphocytic leukemia improves anything other than perhaps callousness. I also see that "The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits." That's important when the ban is a topic ban, etc, but not when the editor is site banned and cannot edit. Compassion should be a consideration.

          Note that in no way am I defending any transphobic comments. I don't think anyone else is despite the suggestion made by @PackMecEng. Doug Weller talk 08:24, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

          It appears that Roxy's transphobic comments were the root cause of this entire predicament, leading to their subsequent banning by the community. It was these very comments that sparked numerous debates and efforts to revise longstanding policies. The catalyst for this wave of controversy stemmed from Roxy's friend expressing dissatisfaction over their departure due to those comments. Interestingly enough, they had shown little concern for such matters in the past, but now it has become a significant issue. Also to note, the passage you quote, is not just about topic bans as expressed several places on this page. Though good luck finding them if I am honest.

          Furthermore, it is crucial to engage in deep reflection when considering the recipients of our compassion and empathy. We must carefully contemplate the needs of not only the minority communities within our encyclopedia but also those individuals who seek to access this valuable resource from diverse corners of the world. By extending our compassion beyond our immediate surroundings, we can ensure that our content remains inclusive, welcoming, and beneficial to a broad range of individuals. In doing so, we embrace the responsibility to create an encyclopedia that serves as a beacon of knowledge and understanding, fostering a sense of belonging for all who engage with it.

          With that being said, I find myself in agreement with jc37's perspective. Unless this matter is taken up for further discussion in an RFC or brought before a noticeboard, it seems that the extensive discussions across multiple pages have reached a point of diminishing returns. The usefulness of these extensive deliberations might have run its course, and it may be time to shift our focus towards building an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

          As far as I've seen, notices are generally not placed on user pages for topic bans. Consensus has considered it to be an unnecessary highlighting of an editor's restrictions. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Edit conflict lost a longer post. Short of it is: the reason for the banner is to alert admins not to unblock without community consensus. These days thats achieved via a permalink to the discussion in the block log. I always place a banner when I close it, but its not worth fighting over. Also the policy page should not be updated either way. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  That goes to what I tried to ask in #Encountering edits, above. To me, making sure that admins know about not unblocking unilaterally makes sense to me, in a way that "announcing" in some vaguer way does not, but I also agree that the same information is available to admins in the block log. And, as I've already said, I can agree with always placing a banner but it's not worth fighting over – and, by the same token, not placing a banner but it's not worth fighting over – and that makes me dislike the idea of some editor coming along after the admin chose not to place the banner, and adding the banner without checking first with the admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: In the 17 or so years since I created this user account, I don't believe I have ever interacted with the banned user in question. I've contributed to many Wikipedia-wide discussions, so I wold not be surprised if it turns out that they had contributed to an RfC that I had as well, but I have no recollection of ever having interacted with the editor.

When initially acting to place the notification (this edit - though note that the section title is now

Part of being uninvolved, quite often is that you really don't care that much. And honestly, I don't. My focus (my "care") throughout all this has been concerning Wikipedia. I am sincerely sorry to hear that a fellow human being is having medical issues in real life. But - due to a now closed and implemented community ban discussion - it's been determined that they are no longer a Wikipedian. So there's nothing further for me to consider here on Wikipedia. Though, from what we've seen so far, I have little doubt others will. And if the likely AN or AN/I discussion happens, please feel free to link to this note, if you deem appropriate. - jc37 06:19, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• I think I have come to the realization that there really is an extensive group of people who will defend their friends on Wikipedia, even if they do wrong. Alas, I guess it's just part of human nature. I guess they win by
  fait, as I'm not really interested in engaging with them anymore.. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!}
  20:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • If you are including me in that group, you are wrong. This isn't about who my friends are. It's about doing the right thing. It's intellectually lazy to brush off sincere concerns about what's best for Wikipedia as some sort of petty motivation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
    • It is just baffling that there is a group of users so intent on keeping a ban notice off of a transphobic banned user page. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
      • Oh, so is that what this has really been about? I've been wondering. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

        Yes, I think that's primarily what it is.

        Anyway, my conversation with the admin who removed the tag went rather poorly. I hope someone does start an AN discussion, but it won't be me. Here on Wikipedia, while all users are equal, some users are more equal than others. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

        Wow. First you show lack of good faith to Bishonen because you didn't like her response after you kept repeating yourself, now you appear to be accusing the editors who don't see a purpose in the ban notice of supporting transphobia. Please note the comment above about

        WP:STICK - you've posted about 44 times about this. Doug Weller talk

        10:53, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

        ...I'm not sure where you get that, but alright. I'm done with this conversation. Having given it some thought and reread what was said on Roxy's page, I think I do understand why people are not placing a tag, even if I don't agree. Hopefully Roxy feels better soon. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 18:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

        @Rockstone35: Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I can say my oppposition to tagging Roxy's userpage (or the userpage of any banned user who has not disrupted post-indef) does not stem from any apologism for transphobia. Given, y'know.... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 11:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• At various times, the issue has come up during these discussions, of whether, in fact, the policy says (one way or the other) that userpages should always be templated, and whether admins currently follow a practice of always tagging or not always tagging. So I decided to look back on the discussion, specifically at comments posted by admins, and informally total up what they, themselves, have said about it. (I'm omitting a few admin comments that we should follow a consistent policy, but which did not come down as favoring one option or the other, just that we should be consistent.)
  • In the actual tagging history of Roxy's userpage:
    • El C elected not to tag.
    • jc37 tagged, following the outbreak of the dispute. (He has also expressed various nuanced opinions here, and has most recently said at the top of this talk section that he wants to just walk away from these discussions.)
    • Bishonen removed the tag.
  • From comments currently on this talk page:
    • Bilby: everyone gets a visible template.
    • Doug Weller: supports admin discretion, and compassion.
    • Johnuniq: the status quo is that there is discretion.
    • Tamzin: opposes tagging the userpage of any banned user who has not disrupted post-indef.
    • TonyBallioni: always places a banner (but not worth fighting over).
• My point, and what I take from it, is that experienced admins have various opinions on compulsory tagging versus discretion, and that there are consequently differences in current practice from one admin to another. I think there's also a consensus that fighting over tags is something we should find ways to avoid. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • To the extent that it matters I'm with TB on this one. I offer no opinion on the specific case under contention. However I acknowledge that bona fide exceptional circumstances cases exist. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I think creating policies to cover exceptional circumstances is a bad idea. The easiest fix is to simply acknowlege that
      WP:IAR is a thing, and we aren't so bureaucratic that we can't allow for exceptional circumstances when they arise. The idea that we need to create new rules in order to reduce bureaucracy seems odd to me. - Bilby (talk
      ) 01:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
      • I agree wholeheartedly; no change to this page is needed. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:03, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
        • If one frames this as being about only "exceptional circumstances", that predetermines the outcome, but this is not what we are dealing with – and while saying that the impetus for these discussions is to reduce bureaucracy is cute when one places that alongside the concept of creating more rules, that was never the impetus. So what we are left with is that Bilby disagrees with some of the other admins, and an IP 74 agrees with Bilby, all of which we knew already. It doesn't change the fact that admins as a group have divergent views of what the current policy even says. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

          I've quite carefully refrained from offering an opinion on whether the case the prompted this thread is or is not an exceptional circumstance. Whether or not an account has a sysop flag is irrelevant to the question of how much weight their voice carries in determining the content of this page. You can refer to me as 74 if you wish as no other IPs beginning with the number have thus far participated inn this discussion. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

          Corrected to 74. And I agree that admins don't decide policy unilaterally; the community decides. But it's very relevant to find that various experienced admins interpret the same policy as meaning different things, sometimes taking positions that are completely opposite to one another. We have a longstanding community norm that polices should reflect current practice. Here, there is clearly some inconsistency as to what current practice even is. Whether "no change to this page is needed" seems surely open to discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

          You didn't have to correct there, it's not a big deal. I don't mind being referred to as just IP, and on a low-traffic talk page it's not an issue, but it can quickly get confusing on talk pages where more than one unregistered user is involved, and even though I'm the only one commenting here at the moment It's possible someone else will drop by, more future proofing than anything else. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

          Further, 74, you said that you agree with Tony B. Tony said in his original comment that "the reason for the banner is to alert admins not to unblock without community consensus", and he goes on to say that the block log also achieves that purpose. However, that's not what the policy currently says. It say instead that the "purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits." In #Encountering edits, above, I make the case that the policy page is kind of hand-waving in its explanation of what the template is for. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

          I was referring merely to your summary always place a banner (but not worth fighting over). But actually I don't have a problem with his formulation there either, the two don't directly conflict. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

          OK, so I can accept that warning admins not to unblock can be regarded as a subset of announcing the ban to editors encountering edits – at least sort of, if not precisely. But that leaves the larger set curiously undefined. The other specific reasons I've seen offered are that the template helps keep track of large sock farms, and of cases of cross-project long-term abuse. Those make sense, too, but there is an emerging pattern that these are all things having to do with administrative tasks. When I ask what should be "announced" to editors in general, I keep hearing that it's not a badge of shame, but I feel like there's a lot of vagueness over what it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

After seeing this edit: [10], I found that

@Tryptofish and @86.23.109.101: I explained some of my thoughts behind it at WT:BANHAMMER (sorry if you were already aware of that, I just wanted to let you know in case you weren’t.)

If you’re okay with it (ie if you agree it’s the right venue), then I’m going to open another RfD on it now — I debated doing so before the change but ultimately decided not to; apologies if it would have been better the other way around. A smart kitten (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I saw your comments after you had made the edit, but I had not been watchlisting the shortcut or its talk page. If you don't accept the revert, you certainly have a right to open a new RfD, and hopefully it will have more participation than the previous one did. (I'll oppose the change.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: RfD opened. A smart kitten (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

This edit request to Wikipedia:Banning policy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please could someone revert Special:diff/1172236028, as I have reverted this disambiguation per the reasoning in my edit summary and the most recent consensus at RFD. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done. I don't see a current RfD about this, but that would have been preferable to a bold change, and I'm going to regard this as having been

WP:BRD. --Tryptofish (talk

) 22:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There was an RFD 2 years ago where the nominator suggested disambiguating between these two pages, but which was closed with a plain retarget. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#Wikipedia:BANHAMMER 86.23.109.101 (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I certainly agree that it makes better sense than a DAB page, and it's really kind of strange to have a WP: shortcut be something to disambiguate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that the hatnote was reverted, and I have no objection to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2023 (UTC)