Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Banning policy. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Indefinite blocks being considered community bans

It would seem that User:Sarah and User:William M. Connolley disagree with the discussion found here, since they have reverted the text of the policy back to:

If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has indefinitely blocked the user and no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user may be considered community banned.

I would respectfully ask that they express their concerns here on the talk page rather than simply reverting. The text as you seem to prefer it relies on the notion that when "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" an indef blocked user may then, and only then, be considered community banned.

For the purposes of determining the point in time when this transition from merely being indef blocked to being fully community banned actually takes place, how do they propose the community would actually determine that "no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock" in any specific case? --GoRight (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there any effective distinction between the two states? An indef-blocked individual is barred by technical means from using his own account to edit Wikipedia, and barred by policy from using an alternate account until the issue that caused the indef block of the primary account is resolved. Whether or not we choose to apply a particular label ('community banned'), an indef-blocked individual who cannot persuade any admin to unblock him faces the exact same treatment as any other banned editor: his edits (made under an alternate account or while logged out) can be rolled back without question, any new accounts can be blocked on sight.

What distinction in practice would you like to draw? An editor banned in this way is welcome to request the review of an uninvolved administrator through the {unblock} template. Further, an indef-blocked editor who makes a reasonable request can often anticipate a ban being brought to AN/I or another venue for broader consideration. Saying 'you're not community banned, but you can't edit and no one will unblock you' seems to be splitting some very fine hairs indeed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well if the label doesn't matter, then why are people arguing so strenuously in favor of calling them community banned when they weren't, in fact, banned by any community discussion to that effect at all? Let's just have indefinitely blocked people be referred to as indefinitely blocked and people banned by community discussion be referred to as community banned. As you point out, the effect on the project is essentially nil and no one has disputed that.

Although Abd has pointed out, and User:Sarah has reverted his change, that administrators can unilaterally overturn indefinite blocks. They generally are not able to unilaterally override a community ban (at least not one imposed by clearly demonstrated community consensus). So, I wish to know the point in time when a merely indefinitely banned user transitions to being a community banned user so that I know the point in time when a single administrator loses the authority to unilaterally lift the user's restrictions. This seems to be a practical matter and one that will avoid any potential arguing that might ensue, correct? And avoiding such disruption is generally a good thing so why not try?

In any event the current policy seems to be ambiguous on these points and I would like to see the policy made more explicit in this regards. Do you object to having clearly stated policies which are not ambiguous? For example, should all indefinitely blocked individuals be immediately considered as community banned until they have their block lifted? If not, how do we sort out the two subsets? --GoRight (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I also seek clarification on how this method of banning is being reconciled with the following statement on the difference between block and bans:

A site ban can only be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, by Jimbo Wales, or by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The first and third bullets in the community ban section clearly address how the community consensus will have been determined and there will remain a record that you can actually point to where the discussions and the decisions were made. In the case being discussed here, however, there does not appear to be any record of where the community consensus was demonstrated or of where the actual decision to ban was consciously made. Should this not be covered clearly in the policy? --GoRight (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We're in the middle of an arbcomm case (have you heard of it) which turns, at least in part, on how these bans work. Attempting to edit-war it back to Abd's version shows poor timing at best William M. Connolley (talk) 07:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it to be the height of administrative arrogance that adninistrators like Adjustshift, William Connoley and Sarah repeatedly revert edits arrived at through discussion without even being willing to participate in the discussion! If the ongoing arbcomm case meant that the bannign policy is protected form editing then it should have been ptrotected and a notice about the ongoing case should have been posted on the talk page to inform other editors that the policy cannot currently be discussed or edited - it has not been. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

@ WMC : Heh, that's funny. The evolution of this policy in no way affects the deliberations in the ArbCom case. This policy said what it said at the time the events being discussed at ArbCom occurred, and subsequent changes made here to improve the policy are not retroactive by any stretch of the imagination. Ergo they have not affect whatsoever on that case. Not to mention that the changes being discussed here have no bearing that I can see on the ArbCom case at all. Abd was not an indef blocked user, was he?

As for edit warring being badly timed, let us note that you have edit warred here as well to keep what I presume is your preferred version. --GoRight (talk) 02:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiple editors who have posted here don't have a strong understanding about how bans are conducted. Admins like Sarah, WMC, and I have analyzed multiple banning cases. Banning is done on a case-by-case basis. The banning policy page gives a general overview about how bans are conducted. I would strongly advice certain individuals who have posted here to study the history of some banned users. See Category:Banned Wikipedia users. One has to do lots of analysis to understand the banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you then please ammend the banning policy to say that bannings are done at administrators discretion on a case by case basis, because that is not what it says now. the banning policy is not "a general overview" it is a policy - that is it is the rulebook by which admins and editors alike have to play. And could also please show me where in policy it says that what non-administrator editors have to say about the banning policy holds no weight because they have never had to ban anyone. This attitude is about the most grievous example of administrators arrogance I have ever seen. Wikipedia is NOT run by Adminocrats but by editors! The fact that you have some funny tools does not mean you have any special knowledge or that your opinion weighs more.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have "special knowledge" because I have analyzed multiple banning cases, not because I'm an admin. I've not shown any "arrogance". The banning policy page can't be a "strict rule book" because banning is done a case-by-case basis. The manner in which Ecoleetage was community banned is different from the manner in which NYScholar was community banned. Ecoleetage stalked someone in RL, and was indef blocked. No admin was willing to unblock him, and the indef block turned into a community ban. In NYScholar's case, there was a discussion at WP:AN, and there was a consensus to community ban NYScholar. Please analyze the history of some banned users. The Wikipedia:List of banned users page is a selected list of banned WP editors. One can analyze the history of different banned editors, and develop a strong understanding about the banning policy. AdjustShift (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to convert practice into policy by saying this is how we have banned people before so this is how banning should be done. This is not how an open democratic community like wikipedia works (and don't spit out wikipedia is not a democracy here before you have Jimbo's word that he wants administrators to be able to ban user with out observing any kind of due process). A democracy works by having the community creating rules which the administrators then have to follow. If we were to say that how to ban someone was done on a case by case basis there would be only a ruling class of administrators who can ban anyone they please just as long as they have enoug admin friends to agree with them. I certainly do not want to be part of such a community, this is not the ideals of the wikipedia I know (and I've been here since 2005 - much longer than since you became an admin four months ago). So please stop using the banning practice as an argument to keep the policy as it is. It doesn't work. The fact that people were banned without due process in the past does not mean that we have to continue doing it in the future. Your special knowledge of how banning policy has been administrated so far does not mean that your opinion about how it should be administered in the future counts more. We are not adressing the past here - we are trying to have a banning policy that is clear and that allows editors to see before hand whether they are doing something that they may be banned for. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy is descriptive not proscriptive. What we actually do has precedence over what the policy says we do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Why bother to have a policy if we don't intend it to express the ideal way of dealing with different aspects of editing? an why bother to have apolicy if we don't try to keep it in tune with what we actually do? Please notice that we are not trying to change admins' behaviour here, or trying to clear currently banned users, but discussing how to get the policy in tune with how it is actually administered. ·Maunus·ƛ· 20:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is often said. Now, if what we do is different than what the policy says, should we amend the policy to what we actually do? Do you realize, Spartaz, that this would mean openly stating all the various quirks of actual practice, such as how administrators sometimes back each other up and circle the wagons when actions are challenged? If any administrator can ban, keep a low profile on it, and the banned user can then be considered community banned, without there ever being a discussion and a consensus of uninvolved editors, then, fine. So state in the policy, clearly. But the problem is that the community would not allow it to be so stated. Actual practice is not in accord with actual consensus. That's the problem. The policy pages represent a kind of consensus, and actual practice deviate from that. So which prevails? To assert that actual practice prevails is to dismiss community consensus. I'm not proposing the reverse: that the text of policy pages becomes strict law. I'm simply suggesting that the matter is a bit more difficult to dismiss than can be accomplished with "Policy is descriptive, not prescriptive." Not proscriptive, by the way, though some policies do proscribe. --Abd (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Spartaz - and note that although it is of great application in a consensus-driven environment where bureaucracy does not rule (at the end of the day we have a job to do), it is actually like almost every real world workplace I have worked at. For instance, I teach students occupational health and safety and how it applies in their workplace. They learn about analysing hazards, risks, what forms to fill out, lines of authority, occupational health and safety representatives in each department and so on. They then go out into the workplace. Do you seriously think if they see a toilet roll holder balanced precariously on the 2cm-wide booth divider above someone's head (I've seen this done in at least two workplaces, believe it or not) they'll fill out a form and alert their OHS representative and attend meetings to discuss how it should be placed? No, they'll most likely remove it and place it on the floor behind the toilet where common sense says it should be placed. If they're *really* proactive, they might scribble out a quick note, "Please do not place above the booths" and stickytape it to the base. They'll probably alert their supervisor, who will not care now that the problem is fixed because they have a gazillion more important things to worry about. Policy has been wantonly, maybe even purposefully ignored, the person certainly knew the policy (they'd done a training course in it!) but the right thing has been done and the problem remedied. Of course, if you have a flickering light in your office giving people headaches and it needs specialist attention, you probably would follow the policy, although whether the person above you (OHS rep) would follow policy to the letter and wouldn't just get their boss to call up purchasing and maintenance and ask one to buy a new tube and the other to install it, is a good question. Policy is a protection to ensure things don't get completely out of hand, but it's not meant to bind one foot behind our knee and both hands behind our back when obvious action is necessary.

PS Funny story, when I was 23 and in a particular workplace, I used an OHS form as a means to get an OHS committee to consider the actions of the CEO of my company (400 employees) who kept smoking in his office and who, thanks to the distributed A/C system, had been responsible for at least one of his employees having an asthma attack. I was a very junior night shift employee and was certifiably allergic to the smoke. The OHS committee was, strangely enough, headed by the HR manager and was the only body in the entire company capable of ordering the CEO what to do because it was, apart from the Audit Committee, the only committee required by, and empowered by, legislation - i.e. the CEO would cop a $10k fine if he persisted. That is why we have policy, and why it needs teeth. Orderinchaos 22:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, GoRight. Manus, I don't refuse to discuss and I find your accusation insulting. I responded to messages on my talk page and I even self-reverted my edit to the page, even though I didn't agree with it, in response to your message on my talk page, but I'm terribly busy at the moment and don't have a lot of time and I haven't even been on Wikipedia since (check my contributions) to be able to participate so please try to assume good faith. I reverted the changes for a few reasons. The main reason I object to these changes is that it seems like you're screwing the terms of the policy in so tightly that it can only lead to wikilawyering. There's always going to be exceptions and unusual circumstances but such tightly screwed conditions leave no room whatsoever for that. I don't think it's helpful to require multiple unblock requests to qualify a block as a ban. Though that may be the usual case I think there are unusual and even unforeseeable circumstances that it doesn't allow for and it just seems like inviting wikilawyering to explicitly state that multiple declined unblock requests are required.

I reverted Abd's changes because he's trying to expand the meaning of "not involved in the underlying dispute" to such a broad extent that anyone who has ever disagreed with the user could be discounted. The phrase "not involved in the underlying dispute" simply means "not involved in the underlying dispute", not "has never previously disagreed with user" or "has never participated in any previous administrative discussions about this user". I mean, I can really imagine, for serial problem people who have had a succession of complaints about them, that we would actually run out of experienced, interested and available people who qualify in Abd's eyes as "not involved". The idea that people who handle OTRS emails about a user and who investigate complaints to ANI (such as myself, OIC and others) or who mentor the user under a community imposed mentorship (Shell), should then be discounted in subsequent discussions is absurd and it will discourage people from investigating and commenting on ANI complaints. Why bother taking the time to investigate and comment on an ANI complaint that doesn't look like an immediate community sanction proposal if your opinion will subsequently be discounted in any future community sanction proposals - arguably the more important discussion to have your comments fully weighted in. The last discussion about NYScholar closed pending mentorship. So when a new report was made to ANI, Shell naturally returned to report on the progress of the mentorship. And Abd wanted her opinion discounted, [1] endlessly berated AdjustShift, then tried to expand the policy from "dispute" (i.e. the dispute that led to the complaint) to "disputes" (anything in the past involving this user and in SlimVirgin's case, it was a dispute from three years ago when NYScholar was socking) in order to roadblock editors, mentors and admins who had previously reviewed and commented on prior incidents. That's just crazy wild-eyed wikilawyering and I don't think it's in the project's best interest. And, most importantly, this is not our usual practice and therefore is not appropriate for the policy page because policy is, as Spartaz and Orderinchaos point out, meant to be descriptive of our usual practices. Abd is trying to introduce new practices, not describe what we already do. By all means, write a user essay about it but it shouldn't go into the policy until or unless it is our usual practice. Plus, I think Abd's position is flawed in fundamental ways, lacks balance and will pervert the results in favour of the person being discussed, but I won't get into that now as it's not really about these policy changes. While this wasn't why I reverted, I also want to note that I don't think it's appropriate for someone who is at the center of a number of disputes that center on the ban policy to be making changes to it that back up his own position. That seems to me like an obvious and blatant conflict of interest. Please do not be offended if any needed replies are slow at coming because, as I said at the start, I'm very busy and don't have a lot of time at the moment. Thanks. Sarah 04:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Appeal Committee

There is a proposal to create an Appeal Committee for sanctions imposed by administrators or the community, responsibility held until now by the Arbitration Committee. The proposal is related to a recent discussion on this talk page. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Cenarium (talk) 01:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to create an Appeal Committee sounds like a nice idea, but I think multiple editors will oppose it. AdjustShift (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording of policies does not agree

The Community ban section of this policy states:

"If a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where an administrator has indefinitely blocked the user and no uninvolved administrator is willing to unblock him or her, the user may be considered to be community banned."

This is different than the Indefinite blocks section of the Blocking policy that states:

"If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community."

The bolded phrases are different in that one says "uninvolved administrator" and the other does not specify the involvement. Also, one says "willing to unblock", which is a little different than "will lift the block". --Atomic blunder (talk) 17:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I will change the wording to make the policies consistent. --Atomic blunder (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating edits of banned users?

As a result of discussion at [2], we seem to have ended up with [3]. This looks like a change of policy. It isn't really clear to me that CHL's interpretation [4] (etc.) is correct. I would have thought it should be discussed here rather than policy being apparently made on the hoof William M. Connolley (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the old policy as written clearly did not have consensus support, as seen from multiple recent discussions. The problem then, is how to describe a complex problem in a pithy sentence. There are many reasons why an editor might reinstate the edits of a banned user. To give two examples, a) because he wanted to create drama and piss off the people who are enforcing the original ban, or b) because he honestly believes the edit is procedurally and factually correct and he would have made it himself if had thought of it sooner. And there are lots of in-betweens. a) is almost certainly actionable, b) is almost certainly not actionable. Hard to describe in one sentence. Thatcher 18:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreeing with William M. Connolley. This is longstanding policy; the place to discuss a major reversal is here and not the admin boards. Administrators do not control policy. Procedurally, I will be reversing that edit and urging those who endorse it to seek consensus for change here. Per WP:CONSENSUS, no consensus defaults to status quo. Durova³⁰⁶ 18:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Small correction for the record. It was Boris that starting making these changes, not CHL. --GoRight (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Nobody said CHL made the first change, so your "correction" is puzzling. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
"It isn't really clear to me that CHL's interpretation [5] (etc.) is correct. I would have thought it should be discussed here rather than policy being apparently made on the hoof" - For some reason I took those two sentences as being tightly coupled and together they seem to indicate that it was CHL trying to change the policy, not you. If that was not the intent then I stand corrected (back). --GoRight (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Madness. Tens of thousands of words have gone into this at the Abd-WMC arbitration case and at who nows how many noticeboard thread involving GoRight and Abd, and the support for the strict interpretation wouldn't fill a thimble. But by all means, let's discuss it some more. Thatcher 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Depends on the size of the thimble. ;-) My argument is that policy should reflect how the place actually works. At the moment we have a policy that states "users are expected to refrain from doing X." Someone does X, not just on occasion but dozens and dozens of times. Someone else pops up and says "he did X, in fact he did X eleventy-zillion times, and policy says we shouldn't do that, so let's put a stop to it." They're met with a chorus of voices that say "How dare you! It's perfectly fine to do X, as long as you have a good reason." What I'm proposing is to say "you can do X provided you take responsibility for it." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    "he did X eleventy-zillion times ..." - When can I expect to see those eleventy-zillion diffs? :)
    "policy says we shouldn't do that" - No, it doesn't say that. It says you shouldn't do that without having your own reasons for doing so and if you do you take full responsibility for your action. People have been making the common sense interpretation that "take full responsibility" is referring to the content of your edit. Any other interpretation clearly says that your actions are subject to being restricted by the behavior of others. Common sense rejects such a view, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    The change I'm proposing clarifies the policy to state that edits of banned users can be reverted if the person doing so is willing to take responsibility for them, which is the case you're making here. So I'm at a loss to understand why you're objecting to my proposal. Unless it's just habit... ;-) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    I objected to your proposal? Where? My comments were clarifications of the description and the rationale that preceded the proposal ... which I took to be a biased representation of the events that brought us here. I also threw in some analysis of why the recent discussions have gone the way that they have (all in my opinion, of course). The proposal itself is fine, which is why I didn't mention it, but since I am now welcome aboard. --GoRight (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    - There is considerable support for the existing policy, and its enforcement. However, that support does seem to be largely polarised. I think Durova may have somewhat misinterpreted my point; I supported the text of the policy and its implementation. The two should be aligned. If we really have consensus for it not being implemented, then it shouldn't be. But I don't see why people reading this policy are supposed to be aware of stuff burined inside that arbcomm case, because (alll together now) that case is utterly unreadable even by those involved (proof available upon request). Various people (notably CHL; perhaps others; unsure of Thatchers personal opinion) oppose the now-restored policy's implementation (and possibly the wording too) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
      - My opinion is that it's complicated. The policy should not be interpreted so as to tolerate editors who are deliberately pushing boundaries and being pests, but it should not be interpreted so strictly as to effectively ban a particular editorial point of view. Thatcher 18:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
        Agree in principle, but in practice it's virtually impossible to distinguish editors who are deliberately being provocative from the others (even moreso when there are outside agendas and personal conflicts that enter the situation). Better for the policy to be as simple and unambiguous as possible.Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I like the wording "Users may reinstate edits made by banned users in violation of their ban as long as they take complete responsibility for the content of those edits." If reinstatements prolong edit wars, repeat personal attacks, or are otherwise disruptive, they should be sanctioned. Cool Hand Luke 19:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- That appears like a reasonable standard, although I would suggest a recommendation that it is preferable to declare the intention publicly and ideal to do so in advance (i.e., as legitimate and public proxying). During Privatemusings's siteban, for instance, he took photographs of athletes. I announced an intention to add those photographs to several articles and when no objections arose did add them. That transparency reduced the drama to zero. If everyone took a similar approach the site would operate much more smoothly. Durova³⁰⁶ 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  I'm not sure about requiring advanced notice. It seems like that just shifts the discussion to a pre-discussion rather than a discussion of the actual restoration. I don't see much value in that. I have no problem with a suggestion that when making such restorations that you announce your intention explicitly. I have done so in the past to highlight that I was aware of the policy and that I was explicitly taking responsibility for the content. At that point I consider the edit to be my own and I accept that I am responsible for its content. --GoRight (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  - The value is the preventative against subtle POV pushing and manipulation. Also the preventative against drama. Banned editors who have nothing to hide about a proposed edit should have no fear of advance scrutiny. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: we have a straw poll, to gauge support for the existing wording and its implementation (something like: do you (1) support the existing wording and (2) its implementation and (3) is this an example of blockable proxying, where "this" should be some test of the cases - perhaps one of GR's that Raul has proposed William M. Connolley (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Counter suggestion: How about we actually discuss this rather then having a vote because votes polarise positions and make compromise and consensus building much harder... Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I would support any policy that discourages reinstating edits made by a banned user, preferably with some kind of enforcement suggestions attached. IronDuke 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with a statement that such restorations are "generally discouraged", but I do have a problem with a blind interpretation that says you can never again utter the same idea that some banned user once said. That is ridiculous on its face.

The only reasonable view is that the user making the restoration has to take personal responsibility for the content. It becomes as if that user had made the edit themselves and the banned user never existed. Then, if that content is damaging or otherwise problematic administrators have the full range of tools available to them to address THAT user's OWN behavior. --GoRight (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At AN/I Raul described this as "Nathan's interpretation" but honestly, I think it is and has been the standard interpretation. I don't think it is all that unclear as previously written, but to keep it from being a football in future disputes perhaps the language advising editors to refrain from reinstating edits by banned users should be removed. A warning might make sense as an alternative, e.g. "Edits made by banned users should reverted on sight; any editor reinstating such edits should be aware that they take full responsibility for the content and context of those edits and may be subject to sanction if either violate Wikipedia policies." Nathan^T 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a reasonable wording to me, although I would change "should" to "may be" since such reversion is not necessarily required. I could be convinced that "should" is appropriate, though, given the banned status of the user in question if the intent actually IS that people are expected to do such reversions as a matter of course. I only raise this as a point for conscious consideration in this discussion, not because I have an objection to such a requirement. My only objection is with the notion that constructive content cannot be restored as some people seem to feel the current wording suggests. CHL's wording also seems acceptable to me. --GoRight (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the subject interests me in that I've been the target of a stalker, on and off, a long banned user, who recently came back with an obvious sockpuppet. Editors who disagreed with me in the past made use of the obvious sock's harassing reversion of my edits, reinstating the reversions, even when I indicated this was a banned user. So... special pleading, if you like, but I'd like to see real consequences for that sort of behavior as opposed to absolutely no consequences whatever, which is what ended up happening in my case. IronDuke 00:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

IronDuke isn't the only Wikipedian who has been abused that way. The difficulty is in what constitutes "constructive". Among the editors who get sitebanned there are a considerable number of subtle POV pushers and grudge-holders; it would open a door to abuse both in terms of the site's content and of its policy-abiding editors if we introduce an assumption that a banned editor's edits are constructive unless proven otherwise. When a banned editor has truly constructive edits to make, it is usually not hard to gain the assistance of reputable editors who are willing to put their reputations behind the edits by disclosing the intention to proxy and obtaining the consent of the community or of ArbCom, depending on where the ban originated. That was how we handled the optics improvement drive. Durova³⁰⁶ 00:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to your examples, the alternative is to allow Raul to ban me and every other AGW skeptic because of one banned user, Scibaby. We all know he will do it. He is already trying to do so with me. Given the choice, therefore, I obviously favor the path the leaves me not banned.

"it would open a door to abuse both in terms of the site's content and of its policy-abiding editors if we introduce an assumption that a banned editor's edits are constructive unless proven otherwise." - This introduces no such assumption. The community will either agree, or disagree, that the content being restored, in context, is either helpful or damaging using the same tools and criteria that they would if the edit were being made anew instead of being a restoration.

The fact that some banned editor said X some time in the past (and it may not even have been something that got them banned) should not be used to prevent me from saying X later as long as X is within policy both content-wise and behavior-wise. --GoRight (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I support this phrasing too. Thatcher is right that intent is an important component, which is hard to capture concisely. Durova also points out a good way to keep everything above-board. That said, I think a phrase like this one should open the paragraph. In broad strokes, this is our current practice. Other considerations can be elaborated after this statement (facially productive but insidious contributions from Amorrow spring to mind). Cool Hand Luke 03:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

If we add an explicit statement that Wikipedians are not required to assume good faith of editors who are already banned, that would be a workable compromise. Durova³⁰⁶ 04:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please explain this further because this seems a curious statement to me. Why would anyone ever be required to AGF regarding a banned user's comments or edits? They may be reverted on sight with no questions asked. There is no question of good or bad faith there.

As long as an editor takes responsibility for anything they restore, all assumptions of good or bad faith should be made based on the editor making the restoration and the banned editor should be considered as completely out of the picture. It should be like the banned user never existed or at least like they never made the restored comment at all, IMHO. This insures that people are judged based on their own actions and not the actions of others. --GoRight (talk) 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

To combine a response with your earlier point, these are matters where a balance has been struck: the reverting editor is obligated to demonstrate reasonable assurance that an edit being reverted is actually that of a banned user. One danger in making edits too easy to reinstate is that banned editors often frame their ban evasion in ways that look superficially reasonable. You edit global warming; I don't. Suppose someone who had been sitebanned added a sentence that cited Scientific American, and somebody reverted the edit. So I check the link and it looks legitimate, and reinstate. This is entirely hypothetical (and it makes no difference which POV is represented), but six pages back in the archives there was a long discussion about that source, which concluded with the determination that Scientific American had withdrawn that article after publication and it would not be allowable as a source. The banned editor knew about that discussion--and had vigorously argued for its inclusion. As a passerby I know nothing about it. So unless we're careful, a change to this policy might either bring us back to square one indefinitely or mistakenly place the attribution of bad faith on the passerby who reinstated an edit that looked reasonable on its surface. If global warming has had no such dispute, other subjects have. It's not atypical for people to get banned, and then attempt to reinstate a disallowed reference to the topic that precipitated their siteban. Durova³⁰⁶ 22:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's see, can we think of a banned editor who has repeatedly returned to argue the same points on global warming articles? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Suppose I told you that in the last year, there have been 500 new editors advancing a skeptical point of view on global warming, and that 475 of them were blocked as Scibaby sockpuppets. That tells me that 25 new editors have had their editorial point of view reverted, ignored and quashed. Thatcher 13:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the solution then? For my own part I have pledged to stop reporting and reverting Scibaby edits (see my post to CHL's talk a day or two ago). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing our discussion so far: Restoring edits made by banned users or proxy editing on behalf of banned users is permitted, as long as the editor doing so takes responsibility for those edits. Correct? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to the term proxy editing here. When I have restored such an edit I have never thought of myself as making the edit on the other user's behalf, which is what proxying would imply. I am making my own judgment regarding the content of my edit so it is NOT the other user's edit at that point it is MY edit. If it is MY edit it is not proxying. --GoRight (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, pardner. Mention of "proxy editing" does arise from time to time so we have to address it. By giving it the same status as other edits in concurrence with banned users we have a level playing field and avoid drama. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would support a policy that was more strict rather than less strict in dealing w/ reinstating edits from banned users. I'm not too keen on the provisions of WP:BAN that suggest that admins should or could delete material added by banned users in violation of their ban (deletions and edits like that tend to cause a bigger dust up than they are worth), but another editor reinserting edits isn't a dead issue. If someone is site banned or topic banned and edits in violation of that ban, other editors shouldn't act to further those edits on the page. All that does is make the banning more porous and offers more incentive for banned (and still active) users to sock in order to make edits to articles. GoRight has a point that if he makes an edit, then it is his edit. We shouldn't see reinstatement as editing by proxy (unless it is editing by proxy or via direction, but that is awfully hard to prove one way or the other), but I still think we should see reinstatement as disruptive. Protonk (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Under what circumstances may banned users contribute? Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with watering down this provision. Since we can usually only identify the socks of banned users after they've made significant edits, allowing those edits to remain gives banned users a strong incentive to sneak back and see how much they can get away with. Editors who support them repeatedly by edit warring to restore the verbatim material should be strongly discouraged and ultimately banned themselves. One or two such edits are excusable, a dozen or more are evidence of intentional circumvention of the banning policy. Will Beback talk 22:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

People are not banned lightly. If an editor is evading their ban, we should not assume good faith of their edits. If another editor checks the statement and any references thoroughly themselves, that other editor could potentially make the same edit themselves, but they are fully responsible. The reason people get banned is that they generate too much noise and not enough signal. Edits from such people should be assumed to be noise, and removed, until proven otherwise. The burden has to be on the editor seeking to restore the material to show that it is in fact proper. If anybody restores edits without checking them, that would be disruptive, sanctionable behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 23:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
"Edits from such people [I assume you mean the banned editors] should be assumed to be noise, and removed, until proven otherwise." - I have no problem with this principle. But the one way that a given edit is "proven" to be acceptable is that someone else takes the time to review the material, remake the edit, and then take the heat if there is a problem with it. As with any editing, if you generate too much heat you get banned ... not because some banned user originated the material but because YOU caused the disruption. This is what I mean by taking responsibility for the content.
"If anybody restores edits without checking them, that would be disruptive, sanctionable behavior." - Again, I have no problem with this principle. If you restore a given edit you will be expected to justify yourself just as if you had made the edit originally (i.e. as if the banned user never did). Nothing being proposed changes this as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
What we're acknowledging is that edits by banned editors are the same as edits made by anyone else. Edits that someone agrees with will be allowed to stand (perhaps by first reverting and restoring, though that seems unnecessarily cumbersome). Only edits that are blatantly disruptive will be permanently removed. This is exactly the same as with non-banned editors. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
"What we're acknowledging is that edits by banned editors are the same as edits made by anyone else." - No, that is not the case. The edits of banned editors can, and most likely will, be reverted on sight with no questions asked. Any editor is free to revert the edits or comments of a banned user at any time. This is not true of non-banned users. If you feel better about it state that there is a presumption that the edits of a banned user are EXPECTED to be reverted each time THEY (the banned user) are the ones to make or revert them.
What we are seeking to acknowledge is that simply reverting a small subset of the edits of a banned user is NOT prima facie evidence of proxy editing and is not therefore sanctionable based on that evidence alone. Proxy editing is more than simply reverting a single edit or even multiple edits over time. It requires that there be a collaboration and some level of direction between the banned user and the one reinstating the material.
As long as another editor accepts responsibility for anything that they reinstate (i.e. the validity of any references, the appropriateness of the content, and accepting any consequences that they would face with any other such edit), then such reinstatement should be allowed without prejudice to the editor making the reinstatement. Any reinstated edit should no longer be considered as having been made by the banned editor, but should instead be considered solely as having been made by the one that actually made it. If such reinstatement is sanctionable based on its content, then the editor making that reinstatement can be sanctioned based on their own actions as related to the content they actually submitted taken in context. If the edit is NOT sanctionable based on its content then, obviously, no harm was done. --GoRight (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How would you express this in terms of policy? It seems that the main substantive distinction is that reverting edits by a banned editor would not count toward 3RR, correct? Otherwise content added by a banned editor is the same as any other content, and may be restored at will by anyone taking responsibility for the edit's adherence to the usual policies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
"How would you express this in terms of policy?" - I am happy enough with the proposal by CHL and Nathan above, but if you want yet another stab at it how about this: Any edits made directly by banned users can and should be reverted on sight and without regard to 3RR. While the reinstatement of such edits is discouraged and provable cases of true proxy editing in collaboration with a banned user are not permitted, any user may reinstate all or part of an edit made by a banned user as long as they accept full responsibility under Wikipedia policies for any content that they actually reinstate. Once such material has been reinstated it shall no longer considered the work of the banned user, but rather it shall be considered the work of the user who reinstated it. --GoRight (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
On the right track but a bit too convoluted to make useful policy. "Discouraged" - what does that mean? "Provable cases of true proxying on behalf of a banned user" - in practice how could we ever "prove" such a thing? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't know what discouraged means? :) It means we would prefer that it not be done but not so much so that we consider it a sanctionable offense. I agree that true proxy editing would be hard to prove, but if you somehow managed to do so I have no problem with it being disallowed. The alternative of viewing any reinstatement of an edit made by a banned user as de facto evidence of proxy editing which is subject to indefinite blocks is unacceptable since that, in effect, is banning the content and not merely the editor. --GoRight (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But banned editors aren't the same as everybody else. It sounds as if you're saying that banned editors may edit as much as they like until discovered, and then only those edits which are individually provable as disruptive should be removed. If so, that'd be an invitation to sock puppetry and block evasion. With a provision like that, I don't see what the point would be of having a banning policy at all. Will Beback talk 01:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the prevailing view as expressed by Cool Hand Luke, GoRight, and others is that edits by banned editors may be freely restored as long as they're not disruptive. What we're acknowledging is that edits by banned editors are the same as edits made by anyone else. Taking out the middlemen (the editor who reverts, and the editor who restores) wouldn't be much of a difference. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
This is, of course, a mischaracterization of what is being said. There is still a presumption that any editor may revert any edit of a banned editor on sight, whether that edit was disruptive, or not. This is NOT the same policy that we have for non-banned editors. Under the proposed scenario only edits which other users take it upon themselves to research and validate will be reinstated. This is likely to be a very small subset of any such banned editor's modifications. Your presumption here that all of non-disruptive edits will be restored is totally groundless. What percentage of Scibaby edits have been restored to date? Totally insignificant as far as I can tell. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Please respond to what I actually wrote: I was talking about adding content, not reverting it. Other than the first sentence, everything in your response agrees with what I have been saying. It's beginning to sound like you won't take "yes" for an answer. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I did respond to what you wrote. You wrote that banned editors are allowed to add non-disruptive content. I wrote, in effect, that no they aren't because their content can be reverted on sight with no questions asked. This is obviously NOT the case for non-banned editors. Banned editors are NOT allowed to add content. Period. But if they manage to get something in, and it is justifiably reverted because they are banned, that does NOT prevent some other editor in good standing from being able to reinstate it if it has value to the project. It was the editor that was banned, not the content.
This is not that hard of a concept. Look at it this way, everything done by a banned edit should be reverted and only content which other editors in good standing deem beneficial to the project CAN BE (not must be) reinstated. Where's the harm to the project? --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

According to whom is that the prevailing view? Based on this thread, it seems to be a controversial view. One of the problems with this policy proposal is that many editors are banned for overall POV pushing. Their individual may not have been disruptive per se, but taken together they formed a disruptive pattern. So by inviting socks, we are making the pPOV pushing pattern harder to spot. If editors, admins, and the ArbCom have already dealt with the banned user, and presented often exhaustive evidence about their abusive beahvior, must they now be continmuously watchful for soskc, and then spend time going over theiur edits one by one to show they are indivudally disruptive? That places a huge burden on the community, which allowing the banned user to simply move on to the next sock and do more editing. Any identifiable editing by banned users is disruptive because it already necessitates work by other editors - this proposal would increase that disruption. The community has already made the decision that these editors' disruption outweighs their contributions, we shouldn't have to re-argue that decision over and over again. Will Beback talk 02:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
No one is advocating the use of socking here, so I'm not sure what to make of your comment. If they are banned and they are socking the socks are blockable as soon as they are identified, no questions asked. In the case of Scibaby the admins typically go through an revert all of their edits on a routine basis and no one is arguing to change that process. Nothing changes there so where is this huge burden? It does not exist. --GoRight (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The effect of placing the burden of dealing with edits by banned editors onto editors in good standing banned editors creates an unequal situation, in which a banned editor has every incentive to game the system by using socks to make his or her desired edits. The edits shouldn't have to be determined to be disruptive in order to delete them. Editors who wish to restore those edits should have the entire burden of justifying their edits, just like they would if they made them originally. And editors who make a practice of restoring edits by banned users should be seen as disrupting the integrity of the system. Restoring an edit here or there is not necessarily a problem, but restoring dozens of edits, and edit warring over them, tends to show that the "good standing" editor is acting as a prxy for the banned user. Will Beback talk 04:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
"The edits shouldn't have to be determined to be disruptive in order to delete them." - You appear to be arguing against a position that no one is advocating. If an edit was made by a banned editor, revert it on sight. By all means. No one has a problem with that.
"Editors who wish to restore those edits should have the entire burden of justifying their edits, just like they would if they made them originally." - Absolutely agree. This is just another way of saying what was meant by "taking full responsibility" for the restoration of the edit.
"And editors who make a practice of restoring edits by banned users should be seen as disrupting the integrity of the system." - Here we begin to part ways. (a) "make a practice of" is unenforceably vague. (b) If the edits being restored have to be justified as being within policy as we are agreed they should be then the integrity of the system is not being disrupted. Therefore, (c) there is no inherent reason to view such editors as disruptive.
"Restoring an edit here or there is not necessarily a problem, but restoring dozens of edits, and edit warring over them, tends to show that the "good standing" editor is acting as a prxy for the banned user." - First, I don't believe anyone is arguing that this scenario should be considered acceptable. Second, I don't believe that we can state and exact quantity of edits for distinguishing between a "good faith editor" and a "proxy editor". If anything it should be expressed as a loose percentage rather than an absolute number. As for edit warring, that is a sanctionable offense in and of itself against the editor actually engaging in it so if that occurs the editor in question can certainly be dealt with. --GoRight (talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Another thing worth mentioning: as a supporter of Wikipedia:Standard offer, I'm not going to encourage socking by turning it into a pretext for removal of a ban. Each time a ban evasion happens, that resets the clock by my account. Regardless of whether someone decided to reinstate it after the fact. It's a matter of respecting the social contract. So if a banned editor finds a willing proxy who declares the intention in advance and gains approval, that's an entirely different (and much better) scenario. Durova³⁰⁶ 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Except in my case I have my own reasons for taking up a topic that was introduced. I am not acting as a proxy for the banned editor in any sense of the word. I neither know nor support them. I am adopting the content because I believe it is beneficial to the project. To prevent me from doing so is to ban the content as well as the original editor. We shouldn't be banning content, just bad behavior. --GoRight (talk) 04:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a page where banned users can post their contributions for approval. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can create a blog for that purpose. Will Beback talk 00:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not hire a bunch of monkeys to type at random and assign editors to pick through and find the good edits? Likewise, I think it is a bad use of time to scan banned editors' contributions to separate the signal from the noise. It is more beneficial to the project to either (1) remove all the edits on the basis that there's a high probability that they are not helpful, or (2) if an editor wants to be unbanned, let them demonstrate a willingness to work constructively. Oh, we already do both of those things. Maybe we need more editors working on rehabilitation, and less energy spent debating point #1. Jehochman ^Talk 01:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Here was the text back on August 27:

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them.

Here it is now:

Wikipedians may post or edit material at the direction of a banned user as long as they are able to confirm that the changes adhere to Wikipedia policies.

That's a significant change in the policy and I don't think there's a consensus for it. One thread on ANI does not mean that a key policy should be altered so drastically. I propose we restore the previous text. I also propose we replace "at the direction of" with "added by" or something similar. There is no way that anyone would be able to establish communication between a banned editor and his proxy. All we can see is the on-Wiki behavior. Further, instead of saying "...they are able to confirm that..." it should be stronger, "...they confirm..." "Able to confirm" means that they could if asked, or if a fresh dispute arises, but it requires other editors to go out of their way to deal with what started as an edit by an banned individual. Those changes would result in something like:

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material created by a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they confirm that the changes are verifiable and give independent reasons for making them.

These changes to shift the burden back onto the editor re-adding the material. Will Beback talk 06:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

- Very interesting. Cumulatively the non-consensus change from the 28th has been reinstated, even though I reverted it procedurally with a request to seek consensus at the talk page here. No consensus for that change has been established at banning policy talk, either before or since. Yet a series of edits that purported to be minor wrote a major change back into policy. Not digging through the history at a quarter to midnight to see which editor did that, but very poor form (and wholly reversible although I won't be the one to do it again). Durova³⁰⁶ 06:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
  - Okay, contradicting the above. Bing. Major change, mismarked as a grammatical double negative correction. Performed two posts after the procedural restoration. Not good at all. Durova³⁰⁶ 06:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    I think that this is a case of Boris editing to make a WP:POINT. By stating things in their most extreme he hopes to sway opinion away from allowing good faith restoration of constructive material which may have at some point originated from a banned user. I'm not certain why he objects to that, but apparently he does. I assume it is related to his close association with User:Raul654 and User:William M. Connolley. Raul's intent in this respect is quite clear. -GoRight (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
    GoRight, if you're not able to assume good faith and treat editors as individuals (who sometimes disagree, BTW), I would appreciate that you stop participating in this debate. Cool Hand Luke 14:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with CHL, GoRight. SBHB has generally been taking the right approach here, it seems to me, and your comments seem to be assuming something not matched by SBHB's present proposals and suggestions. You have some substantial experience with the bottom, so to speak of this problem, so your participation here should be valuable, but not if you don't drop prior disputes and the impressions left from them. Please do so.
    
    SBHB, on the other hand, it's not true that edits by banned editors become "much the same as edits by other editors." The policy says that such edits may be reverted, generally, with no consideration as to content, that's not true about edits from others. However, the restoration by a responsible editor is then treated like all other edits, that the content came from a banned editor is moot; if there is a problem with the edit itself, it is now a problem with the restoring editor, who is responsible for the problem. To clarify this in terms of 3RR policy, both the routine reversal of the edit as being by a banned editor and the restoration by another editor are not reverts for 3RR purposes, but further reverts would be. (Exception: if the banned edit was a revert, the restoration would also be a revert. Not the removal.) --Abd (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

One must never lose sight of the fact that your banned user is a veritable criminal mastermind. He changes IP addresses with the greatest of ease; he laughs at geolocators; no technical security feature can stop him. Yet there is one thing he cannot change, one tell-tale, DNA-like feature which will inevitably trip him up: his POV. Try as he may to change his spots, the banned user's POV will always surface, sooner or later. Therefore, we must not shrink from the only viable solution. Ultimately, we must publish an Index of Prohibited POVs. This will of course take time to prepare. In the meantime, we should instute a new feature, similar to the Village Pump, to be called the Wikipedia Post Office Wall. We will produce of gallery of known POVs attributed to banned users. Restoring, or creating, material that reflects these POVs will be considered prima facie evidence of guilt. Admins who represent the forces of righteousness must be empowered to take all necessary measures against these marauders from the outside world, including the ability to execute "spot bans" whenever a telltale POV is detected. Can we do any less to protect the project? --McWeenie (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Account clearly set up to mock Will Beback. I've blocked it. Cool Hand Luke 15:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you respect us enough to have a civil discussion, McWeenie? Jehochman ^Talk 10:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

First off three edits Jehochman with McWeenie. I'm sure someone will know what to do if it hasn't been already. Now my opinions follow Will Beback and others. There should be absolutely no reason for a good faith editor to revert a banned users talk page comments back after they have been reverted. (corrected this sentence thanks to Thatcher below correcting me, thank you.) If something is said that you agree with you need to research it anyways so then put it in your own words. Article edits are different if it's just a realiable source be entered, it's impossible to put in your own words except the edit summary which common sense should tell an editor to use their own words yet there is still is no reason to use the revert button other than it's easier. Other than that, I don't see why a revert of a banned user would be needed. Treat it like trying to come to terms with other editors with a different POV, change the wording to something of your own. When an editor is banned or blocked s/he can't be rewarded in any way or the socking will continue. It wouldn't make sense to have a banning policy if editors can still make edits because editor in good standing are willing to just revert to what the banned editor writes. I really can't think of too many times when an outright revert should be used. So policy needs to state that banned editors are banned and as such they do not make edits. If an editor in good standing reverts a banned user they had better be able to explain why they couldn't use their own words to make the edit or severe sanctions could be imposed. Saving time isn't in my opinion a good reason since reverting and signing others comments just verifies to the banned editor to continue to stay involved. --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There should be absolutely no reason to revert a banned users talk page comments, never. Except that sometimes there is. There is at least one particular banned user who edits articles, then contacts the subjects in real life to try and meet them and talk about their articles. Very scary. This person should have every edit reverted without question, no matter where it is posted. There are editors banned for harassment; when their talk page comments continue the harassment they were banned for, they should also be reverted. As I noted above, the situation is complicated. It may be impossible to describe the proper response to every situation in a single pithy sentence. I am very concerned that the proxy editing policy has been or may be used to attempt to silence a particular editorial point of view. But there may even be cases where this is permitted. For example, Arbcom has ruled that Lyndon LaRouche and his organization and publications are not reliable sources on topics other than LaRouche himself. So an editor trying to add the LaRouchian point of view to an article on Obama, say, may be reverted whether he is acting on behalf of a banned user or is just a noob (in which case of course he needs to be gently informed of the history, not bitten and blocked). It's complicated people, and the presence in this debate of people with strong political interests in particular episodes is not encouraging either. Thatcher 12:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I mean that banned editors posts should not have to be returned to a discussion. Yes they should be reverted on sight though, no questions asked. I said this poorly and my apologies, you are right in many ways. Let me repeat, if a banned editors posts something, an editor in good standing should still not have to use the banned editors posts, they should be able to write their own. Again, my apologies, I read this befor posting it but after reading what Thatcher wrote I realized I didn't use enough words to make my points clear. Yes I can see exactly what you are saying and I agree. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Sweet. Thatcher 13:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd add to the above that, while there is a case to be made for verifing and taking responsibility of a banned editor's edits to an article, we can't take responsibility for a banned editor's comments in a discussion. The former is presumably factual and potentially verifiable, while the latter is an opinion. I, as an editor, can't verfiy or take responsibility for someone else's opinion as expressed in a talk page discussion, so I can't reinstate a banned editor's talk page comments. That said, if I wish to express a similar opinion that I happen to hold, doing so is my choice. - Bilby (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems right to me. If the banned user makes a good talk page point, you're free to restate it. But allowing their original comment to stand with signature and everything doesn't seem necessary. You could argue that it's against the WP:DENY principle. Cool Hand Luke 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

When I asked above, "Under what circumstances may banned users contribute?" I hoped the obvious answer - they may not contribute, at all, anywhere - would clarify things. Banned users may not participate in the project. No one may edit for them by proxy. A ban is an absolute thing. As Boris shows, a minor change or exception can easily eliminate bans all together. If I undo a banned editor's work, all I need to say is "undoing banned editor" (granted it's usually better to say more.) Restoring a banned user's edits puts the burden on the editor to demonstrate good faith, and to show the edit entirely satisfies our policies. The new wording, "Wikipedians may post or edit material at the direction of a banned user as long as..." unwisely relaxes the rule against proxying, and invites people to continue to carve out exceptions. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Banned users may be reverted -- I agree completely. The problem is that the previous policy was being used to justify banning editorial viewpoints that were advocated by banned editors, even when those edits were being reinstated by others. The policy can either say "Edits by banned editors may be reinstated if..." or "Edits by banned editors may not be reinstated unless... " I can see why the permissive version would bother people. But what is important is what comes after the "if..." or "unless..." and how it is interpreted in practice. Thatcher 14:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

"Previous policy was being used to justify banning editorial viewpoints..." That shouldn't be dealt changing the policy. Nothing can be written that can't be gamed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:33, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Restoring a banned user's edits puts the burden on the editor to demonstrate good faith, and to show the edit entirely satisfies our policies. But how is this different from any other edit? Don't we have to demonstrate good faith and satisfy policies anyway? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that in general an edit is presumed good unless it can be shown bad, and an editor is presumed to be acting in good faith unless it can be shown otherwise. When someone restores an edit by a banned user, the presumption is reversed - bad unless proven good, malicious unless shown to be in good faith. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is policy being change because of the situation at Global warming and associate articles? If so, maybe it needs to be dealt with just there and not on the policy page. I don't know the situation over there except for comments thrown from opposing sides so I am at a disadvantage with some of this conversation. But reinstating a banned editors posts should be the exception not the rule, is it? --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a "2+2=4" Rule to cover whether it's legitimate to mention the sum of 2 and 2 if your answer to such a math problem is equal to that which was stated earlier by a banned user? Are you proxying for the banned user if you don't change the sum to 5 in order to avoid any taint? *Dan T.* (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

There are various aspects to that question. First, why is this equation being added to an article? If an editors wants to restore it he should have a good reason for doing so, and not just because he sympathizes with the banned editor. But if he does, and if he has independently confirmed the sources, then it would be acceptable. OTOH, even with those qualifications if he does it a few dozen times, and/or edit wars over it, then the concern over proxying may be legitimate. Will Beback talk 18:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so let me get this straight. Hypothetically, some vandal (or a hopelessly misguided editor) comes along and changes "2+2=4" to "2+2=5". Then a banned editor changes it back to "2+2=4". The vandal returns and changes is again to "2+2=5". If an editor in good standing then reverts it back to "2+2=4" are they proxying for the banned user? I don't think so and you seem to agree. Then the editor in good standing ends up edit warring with the vandal to keep it at "2+2=4", are they NOW proxying for the banned user? You seem to favor "yes" whereas I still think that the answer is "no". --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

No GoRight, what you describe is vandal patrol. I think you understand what editors are saying in this thread that describes proxying. Will Beback, a few dozen times? I think we also need to think about how frequent this happens. Personally I've never seen it. As NYB says below, I am interesting in what he and Thatcher can put together since they obvious have information that average editors do not have esp. in regards to sock/meat puppets. --CrohnieGal^Talk 09:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

You can reliably source "One and one and one makes three" to The Beatles, unless one of the Fab Four is actually a banned user. Adding another one to make four might be original research, though. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Crohnie, there is nothing secret going on, it just depends on how frequently you hang out at Wikipedia's various battledomes. I am aware of an issue involving contentious edits involving Lyndon LaRouche (where Will Beback is often involved) and an issue around global warming and cold fusion (involving SBH Boris, Raul654, GoRight, William M Connelly, and a few others). There are other, less recent and less prominent cases as well. In these cases it is alleged by one side that certain editors are proxying for other banned editors and should likewise be banned, while it is alleged by the other side that the policy is being used to block certain points of view on content. I think there is a case to be made that the previous version of the policy was misused to try and block unpopular points of view for the reason that they were advocated by banned users, as if the only reason other users would advocate the same point of view is because they were disruptively following the banned user, and failing to assume good faith that the editor might actually believe the same things independently. Frankly, I think it would be better if this discussion did not involve so many people with current or recent vested interests in the outcome. Thatcher 14:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher, I don't know where you hang out but vandal patrol sounds more fun.;) Ok, I can see both sides view with just what has been said at the Abd/WMC arb case. In my opinion limits on using banned editors posts are important to enforce yet we can't be blocking any side of a POV or we lose balance. So this policy has to say with teeth that ban means no editing and if socking it will be reverted and not returned. So we have to use more than a sentence here. I've never attempted to write policy, just follow it so I'm going to leave that to others. But it needs to say that an editor in good standing should be able to state their own opinions in their own words. If talk page posts of a banned editor are being used to me it would say proxy edit. An article is a bit different only if there is a reference being used. Other than that there is very little I can think of that can't be put into one's own words for the most part. There will be exceptions of course and here is when common sense is needed. So I would leave the original statement in the policy and expand it into a short paragraph if necessary. Just a thought but thanks for taking the time to answer me. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thatcher's input above summarizes my position on this issue as well. There are several nuances and complexities here, and it is probably not possible to address all of them in one sentence. I will give some thought to crafting a paragraph that would address the various aspects of this issue, and hopefully post something for comment in a day or two. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Am I needed here, to produce for us a very workable solution, or are you guys and gals having more fun bickering back and forth about it? -- Thekohser 16:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone can propose new wording. In cases like this I usually post the proposed wording in a new subsection and put it in a {{divbox}} so people can clearly see what I'm talking about, then see what people think. Thatcher 16:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

...sigh... I'm not talking about a "new wording", Thatcher. It's a forest rather than trees sort of thing. You may want to review the "that anyone can edit" wording, if proposed wording changes are your thing. Ooh, and there's also this. -- Thekohser 18:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I support CHL's interpretation in most instances. Seeing as how we have turned to mass burning people at the stake instead of normal blocking policy, there is a strong possibility for people to merely start a loose proposal to ban another and then, after 24 or 36 hours, they are banned and everything they may have contributed destroyed. If another user wants to take responsibility for those edits they should have ever right to. Unless we fix the corrupt system in which people can instant ban others based on a mockery of consensus guidelines, then there is no possible way that the original wording can stand in any kind of "encyclopedia". If the original wording did stand, then we are tossing out our ethical standards and encyclopedic integrity and handing over control to a mob that may possibly just want to destroy others and everything attached to them simply to destroy it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ban discussions always do tend to remind me very much of lynch mobs. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's a problem with how bans are placed (whether by the community or the ArbCom) then that's a separate issue. This concerns enforcement of the bans. If the community continues to feel that a banning policy is worthwhile then it needs to be enforceable. Allowing banned editors to edit makes the policy unenforceable. Will Beback talk 19:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback, don't you dare claim talking about the banning policy on the talk page of the banning policy is off topic. Your comments further up are questionable, and your response here makes it seem like you would rather cause trouble than actually discuss anything. Furthermore, my comments are 100% about what CHL did, so your statement is highly inappropriate. I suggest you strike your comments immediately. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Furthermore, strike your mischaracterization. No one said anything about allowing banned users to edit. What was only stated is that if someone wants to vouche for the edit as correct it should stand instead of people abusing the system just going around deleting things without checking. That makes two highly inappropriate comments in your above entry. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's stay calm, please. I wrote in response to Dtobias' statement that banning decisions are like lynch mobs. I don't think that's relevant to the matter of how to deal with people once they been blocked. If the block policy is changed to say that edits of blocked user should be kept unless someone can identify them and argue successfully that they're disruptive, then that change effectively invites banned editors to see how much they can get away with and places the burden on those who've acted in good faith rather than on those who wish to re-add them. Let me ask you, Ottava, do you think that Wikipedia should have a banning policy, and do you think banned editors should edit despite their bans? Will Beback talk 19:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if Dan used my image or not, but I used it because from what I've seen, there is a mob like approach to banning people. As such, the wording can be used as a tool of persecution and POV pushing. Editors would no longer be required to justify removal of text. They will simply say "well, we managed to ban this guy so clearly everything connected to him is worthless". If people want a fast track to "correcting" information, then Wikipedia is not the place. Everything should be justified and everything should be thorough. I don't like the flash mob approach Wikipedia has turned to as of late. Now Will, seeing as how there are a few people that call for my banning quite often, I think you can figure out if I believe Wikipedia should have a banning policy. Seeing as how I have been the lone voice in many of the recent bans, I also think you can understand how I feel. There is a difference between someone who is criminally problematic and the rest that fall under banning. Banning as of right now is simply "I don't like you". To allow such to continue and to dominate is 100% against what this encyclopedia needs. This is not a popularity contest. This isn't a mob. The cool kids don't run things. This is about writing an encyclopedia. I have seen better stuff written by those like Peter Damian than I have from many people who participate at ANI. If all things were equal and we focused on building an encyclopedia, then Peter would be editing and at least 100 people I could easily point out who have frequented ANI over the past year would be gone. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but it does sound like you're saying that Wikipedia should not have a banning policy, and that people should be able to contribute without any personal limits. If so, I think that's an unworkable approach. Will Beback talk 19:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

How do you get from saying I am against the banning policy to saying I am against limits? The first part is absurd, but the second doesn't even connect to the first. My statement would be equivalent to saying there are abusive admin and this should be fixed to you claiming that I want to get rid of admin as a whole. Claims that something needs to be fixed does not mean that the system needs to be removed nor can it be assumed as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If the banning mechanism needs to be fixed, then I suggest starting a separate thread for that. I believe there is a strong consensus that it is necessary to ban editors from Wikipedia who have repeatedly disrupted the project. And that, due to the ease of creating sock puppets to evade those bans, when they are identified as having violated their ban their non-trivial edits should be removed. And that editors should either work to overturn the ban or respect it but not assist the banned user's evasion. Anyway, we all have our opinions. Let's see what NewYorkBrad has to say. Will Beback talk 20:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Will, I am not asking for the banning proposal to be fixed. That is merely the -premise-. You are the only one talking about fixing the banning proposal. I am merely stating that one of the ramifications of the banning proposal needs to be fixed, and that it is fixed in CHL's change. That is the topic of this thread. I gave a pretty good reason why CHL's change is necessary. If you have nothing to add on the matter, then fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

call for wording

If someone (Thatcher?) has a proposed new wording please do put it in a div box and let's see it. Something that captures the sense that in general edits from banned users are not wanted, because the users are banned, but that there are extenuating circumstances, and that edits "from" banned users really are "from" the person who reinstates (or restates, in the case of a talk page) would be a lot better than what we have now I think. Some wording that notes the shift of the burden of proof (most editors we AGF and thus edits are presumed good. Banned editors we no longer AGF, and thus edits are presumed bad unless shown to be good) would be helpful too. The wording, at best, ought to actually recognise what we actually do here (most policy being descriptive, after all) and thus won't need a giant wikiwide discussion to be acceptable to all. ++Lar: t/c 20:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The current policy language on this subject is as follows:

This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert. When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as neutrality, verifiability, and biographies of living persons. Users who reinstate edits made by a banned editor take complete responsibility for the content by so doing.

and

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them..

To add my alternative:

Edits made by banned users are reverted as standard practice; any editor reinstating edits by these users takes full responsibility for the content and context of those edits and may be subject to sanction if either violate Wikipedia policies. Edits by banned users may continue a pattern of disruption that is not immediately clear from recent contributions, and users reinstating edits are advised to take due care to avoid acting as a proxy by perpetuating such a pattern.^[1]

^ Note that "due care" is not enforceable, and is meant to be advisory only.

The purpose of this change isn't to aid banned users, or provide relief to non-banned users engaged in disruptive behavior. The idea is to protect useful, good content no matter who contributes it; that's the reason we're here, and the source of content should not be as important as its nature. I understand that seriously disruptive people need to be sent away, and definitively - what this allows isn't their return, but the "claiming" of useful edits by willing (and not banned) editors. Nathan^T 22:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Almost there. The first sentence is admirably clear and direct. The second sentence should be deleted as unenforceable in practice. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it isn't enforceable. Its mean to be advisory, and to incorporate some of the nuances described by folks above (or at least, allude to them). Nathan^T 23:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Boris that the first sentence is admirably clear and direct. I also agree that the second sentence is unenforceable, and I will highlight that this fact is likely to be lost on those who wish to use this policy as a means of banning a specific POV. Therefore I am concerned about leaving it as is. Either strike it entirely, or alter it to make it explicit that it is meant to serve in an advisory capacity only and is not directly sanctionable in its own right. I don't have any particular problem with what you intend by the second sentence, I am only concerned with how it may be misconstrued in the future. --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

On a related matter I still have trouble with the sentence Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Again, it is impossible in practice to determine whether an editor has "independent" reasons for making proxy edits. There's no way that we can psychoanalyze people at a distance to determine their motivation, so this should be left unsaid. Also I still don't like the double negative, but can accept that some people don't see it as a double negative. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe the intent was to replace both of the current bits highlighted above with his single proposed alternative. So the sentence you are worried about would no longer exist. Or am I wrong on that, Nathan? --GoRight (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I have the opposite concern, perhaps, as SBHB. I think we can see if two editors have independent reasons for including something. I a sock of a banned editor says he is adding material for reason A, and if another editor restores the material giving the same reason, then that isn't an independent reason. If he has a different reason, or the same conclusion with different logic and words, then those are independent. My concern is that we cannot know if the restoration was made at the direction of the banned user or if it was done simply due to sympathy with the banned user or their POV. Nathan's proposal doesn't include that language, and I hope any final version leaves it out too. Will Beback talk 02:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"...we cannot know if the restoration was made at the direction of the banned user or if it was done simply due to sympathy with the banned user or their POV" - false dichotomy. There is a third possibility, which is that an editor regards the information as well-sourced and neutral, and therefore helpful to the process of building and encyclopedia, and doesn't give a fig about the banned user. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, my intent was to replace both pieces of current text with my proposed language. Nathan^T 12:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel that Nathan's choice of wording can potentially cause a lot of harm. Those who convince a banning of a user can then convince the community that someone rightfully protecting verifiable and strong encyclopedic editions is a POV pusher. Thus, a group of POV pushers can not only effectively stir up problems and ban one member of their opposition, but effectively stop anyone who cares about preserving the encyclopedia. This has happened many times in the past and should not be acceptable according to our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- For excample? Will Beback talk 02:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Here are two examples of deletions you made which appear to me to harmful to the project, and possibly done as part of a personal conflict with a banned user (which should take a back seat to building an encyclopedia): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilhelm Lautenbach and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanislav Menshikov (both deletions reversed by the community.) --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

- - There have been multiple ArbCases and the rest. I don't really think any example would be necessary as it would give yourself or others an opportunity to escape into minutiae then have any real discussion of change. Furthermore, from many of the things I've seen about you and your past actions, I would think that the above would prevent you from harming the encyclopedia with inappropriate deletions. That alone would be worth the hassle of changing the policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    - So you're saying we should base the changes to this policy on previous incidents but those incident can't be named because if they were theyd be subject to analysis and might not be found to support the proposed changes? If so, then that doesn't appear to be a strong argument in favor of altering this policy. Will Beback talk 04:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
      - Why do you desire names? You preached above about going off topic, and yet here you are begging for it. Why is that? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    - I must say, that is an intensely unconvincing argument. causa sui × 05:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Like SBHB, I think Nathan's proposal is almost there, and greatly prefer it to the current text. I agree that banned contributions should normally be reverted as a matter of course. The objection I have to the current policy is that these edits can be used as a blockade or bludgeon against unrelated good faith editors who are not proxying for a banned editor. This proposal fixes that problem. Anyhow, maybe there's a way to indicate that Nathan's proposed second sentence is explanatory advice and not meant to enforced? Cool Hand Luke 17:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"I agree that banned contributions should normally be reverted as a matter of course" Why? Why would we, as an encyclopedia, condone any blind reversion? There are many examples of where the community disagreed with the practice and thought that such practice was absurd. A banned contributor does not mean that items are bad. We work off a system of verifiability and evidence. We should not have any shortcuts that allow people to ignore these. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

In many cases editors are banned because of their individual edits or because of a pattern of pushing POVs. Once it's been determined that their disruption is greater than their contributions, the burden shouldn't be on good faith editors to re-prove that over and over again, which just multiplies the disruption. If banned editors want to edit again there are several routes back that don't involve subterfuge. Will Beback talk 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

See the tweak I made to my proposed language above. Would that work as a solution to the "enforceability" problem? Nathan^T 18:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Are we retaining the idea that someone who has actually established a pattern of proxying for a banned user is in violation of WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets? Will Beback talk 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think anyone proxying for a banned editor will also have violated the meatpuppetry policy, so it is probably not necessary to include this information here. Even so, the second paragraph of "Editing on behalf of banned users" isn't modified by this proposal, and could be kept as a helpful restatement of WP:MEAT in the context of bans. Nathan^T 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to offer my own proposal, but perhaps the following might be considered as possible alternatives to Nathan's second sentence:

(a) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions."

(b) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions which may subsequently become sanctionable based on their own merits."

(c) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions (which may subsequently become sanctionable based on their own merits)."

(d) "Simply reinstating one or more edits of a banned editor is not considered to be prima facie evidence of proxying, however editors are strongly encouraged to avoid enabling a continued pattern of disruption by banned editors through their own actions (which may subsequently become sanctionable based on their own merits or per WP:MEAT)."

I am certainly open to other options as well. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I will be completely honest - if someone like Peter Damian writes a good encyclopedia page and someone else posts it up, I will fight tooth and nail to ensure that the page stays up. The above proposals would only bring harm to the encyclopedia in such a situation. And this situation is not uncommon. There are many experts that are chased out simply because of politics and not because of article writing. As long as content contributors are treated like crap and bullied into submission, then the above proposals cannot be seen as anything other than a tool used in order to bring harm to the encyclopedia in order to protect a myspace mentality. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am actually somewhat confused by your commentary in this thread because the changes being proposed are intended to protect someone like yourself when doing just what you indicate. Good faith editors including good faith content should not be hampered by banned users who hold a similar point of view. Or is this not what you are in favor of? Or are you arguing that we shouldn't be banning people at all? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with GoRight here - the purpose of this exercise is make it easier (or reflect the fact that it is already easier than the current language implies) for editors to reinstate edits by banned users that add useful content to the mainspace. You're either arguing against this more relaxed approach, or arguing against banning people at all; it's not clear which. Nathan^T 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Then take my word and see that the language will actually make it easier to discriminate against those like Peter Damian and keep any good contributions written by him from making it onto Wikipedia. We need to banish language that connects in any way a banned user with a banned content. The two are completely different. We must instead make it clear that we either ban a user, ban content, or do both, but must make it clear when doing so that both are banned. Instead, the language above continues to push the idea that a contribution = a contributor. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

This line cannot be used in any regards if you want to get rid of a potential damage to the encyclopedia: "Edits made by banned users are reverted as standard practice". That is 100% wrong. Only edits that are proven to cause problems can be removed (i.e., it is unsourced, it is a strong POV, it violates BLP, etc). It does not matter -who- the source of the edit is. There should be no fast tracking removal of edits and processes should always be upheld. We operate off of verifiability, reliable sources, and consensus. To have such language as the above in any form is to say that the above no longer apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima: There are many experts that are chased out simply because of politics and not because of article writing. Name three. Will Beback talk 20:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Three? I could simply direct people to any banning of a user that you happened to be involved in. It isn't a secret, you know. However, it is expected, especially since you are unable to, according to your contribs, to operate outside of that area. Wikipedia is not a battleground, yet you used the policy above in order to turn it into one. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid making personal remarks in this venue. We're just here to discuss policy. If you have examples of editors who've been banned for their political views, please list them. I've never banned anyone for their political beliefs. Will Beback talk 21:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal remarks? There were already two AfDs that had community consensus declaring that your glee for deleting articles of banned users were completely inappropriate. You have no room to even be discussing this as your actions have been incredibly destructive. You are a single topic editor with an agenda. That is not what Wikipedia needs. It is not encyclopedia. It is myspacing at its very best. I bend over backwards every day to write high quality content and improve this encyclopedia, and not once have I seen something from you that I could consider positive. The last thing we need are users like you crafting policies to help further your actions that only bring harm to this community. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be basing your views about this solely on two actions of mine. You claim that "many experts" have been banned and so we should change this policy, but you can't name any of these banned experts. If you have issues with me, you're welcome to raise them on my talk page. But this policy governs all of Wikipedia, so let's not make this discussion personal. Will Beback talk 22:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I am basing my comments on you because you are the one so eager to keep this policy in this manner, and you are the one that benefits most from the policy politically as part of this discussion. Most people here know my involvement with other experts who have been pushed out, including Peter Damian, and my support of not deleting articles written by Peter Damian on one of his many socks. It is people who act in the manner like yourself that ensures that there will always be more drama and more damage and more disputing when people simply want to actually contribute a decent article to the encyclopedia. You do not distinguish between good and bad. You just have proven yourself wanting to delete for deletings sake. Since people like you operate in the manner you operate in, this policy must be rewritten for the sake of protecting the integrity of the encyclopedia. Maybe, just maybe, when there are no longer single topic editors who push others out of this community and organize their banning then the policy could be changed back. But I highly doubt that will ever happen. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't follow ANI threads as closely as some here so I am not aware of your history with Peter Damian, or even of much of his history. I'm not sure from your statement what your saying about this policy are. Are you saying that Peter Damian shouldn't have been banned? Or that he should be able to edit, using sockpuppets, despite his ban? Or that people who edit war on behalf of his banned edits should be exempt from other Wikipedia policies? Maybe this is too emotional an issue for some to view logically. Will Beback talk 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look a little, I see that Ottava Rima was the sole editor to oppose Peter Damian's final community ban. At least 20 editors, including myself, supported it. I don't see where anyone even mentioned his politics in the discussion. He was baned for using sock puppets and for pursuing attacks on another editor. If he was banned for using socks to evade blocks, then retaining edits made by those blocks does not help the community and instead it circumvents the consensus. "Banned means banned". Will Beback talk 22:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

He was not banned for pushing original research, copyright infringement, or any other article related matter, so I would be damned if someone performs the same actions to his valuable encyclopedic content simply because he does it in an improper way in the manner that you have chased after other pages. There is a major difference between a user and articles, and I am tired of people destroying articles to persecute users. The simply fact that you and only you seem to be responding in such a manner and happen to have such a long and detailed history with many of these bannings and many of these deletions is extremely concerning, and if there was enough support I would request a topic ban against you for not only this page, but -any- banning related matter. I have witnessed far too much destruction because of your use of this policy. I am tired of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

<-- Surely there are other places to continue that side discussion. Can we stick to discussing the proposed language? Nathan^T 21:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

As I stated, the first line can never be acceptable as long as there are people who want to use the policy to delete articles that are completely acceptable. It is damaging to the encyclopedia for there to be a counter mob that has to form simply to defend something that is perfectly acceptable and should never have been deleted to begin with if it weren't for the above policy's notion. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

If material is worthwhile having then non-banned editors can create it. Wikipedia doesn't lack for editors. Will Beback talk 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody was looking for examples of politically motivated bans? How about User:Ptmccain, who remains indef-banned after running into the third rail of Wikipedia politics a few years ago by criticizing (now-banned) User:Mantanmoreland while he was under the stringent protection of a powerful clique including User:Slim Virgin. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

[[WP:TINC]. I had thought that "politics" meant electoral politics, not Wikipedia alliances. Ptmccain appears to have been blocked six times for edit warring. Are you arguing that he shoulnd't have been blocked and that we shouldn't revert edits he made after he his ban? How is that case relevant to this proposal? Will Beback talk 01:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A cabal is a group that always operates together. From what I can see, you are part of no cabal especially since you are mostly here alone. However, that does not mean that you cannot get others to agree with you. It simply means that you convince them within policy. The whole idea about changing this policy is to force those, like yourself, to actually come up with a justification for a removal beyond "this user was banned". We have many policies - V, NPOV, OR, RS, etc. People could choose from many. However, simply relying on this policy should be inappropriate. By the way, I defended Peter simple because he creates some well written and informative articles. I am not his friend. We have a long relationship together that can best be described as "hateful" or "severely unpleasant". As I stated above, a user is not their articles and the two should be treated separately. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What does "banned" mean? Doesn't it mean that the person is not allowed to edit Wikipedia? Will Beback talk 01:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It sure as hell doesn't mean "anyone who wants to can feel free to destroy any aspect of the encyclopedia they want as long as they claim they are doing it to remove stuff added by banned users". I have seen better content work come out of a handful of banned users than 60% of those who edit regularly at ANI. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)

We seem to be conflating two separate discussions. The first is whether we should be allowed to ban people at all. The second is about what to do with the edits of banned individuals made in defiance of their bans.

I am not taking a stand on the first discussion at all, but if we accept on general principle that we are going to allow banning of individuals, then it only stands to reason that any edits they make in defiance of their ban should be reverted as a matter of course. If not then there is no meaning to the concept of banning them in the first place. For this reason we have to allow that any edits made subsequent to their bans can, and should, be reverted without question and it should be considered as though the edit had never been made. That should also be the end of it as far as that user is concerned.

After having been reverted in defense of the ban, if another editor in good standing believes that the content in question is constructive to the encyclopedia and is willing to defend it as their own then they should be free to do so without any mention of the banned user at all. Again, it should be treated as if the editor in good standing had made the edit on their own and as though the banned editor never had anything to do with it.

With that perspective in mind, let me propose the following wording:

Any edits made by banned editors in defiance of their bans can, and should, be reverted as standard practice. Recognizing that the ban is on the editor and not the content, however, any editor in good standing is free to reinstate any such material that is otherwise within Wikipedia policy and that they are willing to defend as their own contribution. [In the event that the content in question is an entire article, an AfD shall be required to delete it so that any applicable editors in good standing can be identified.]

The intent would be for this to replace entirely the existing two pieces of the policy that Nathan has highlighted above. The requirement that the content be "otherwise within policy" means that proven violations of WP:MEAT are still not permitted, but the onus is on those making the charge of WP:MEAT to prove it before the content is reverted again under the banning policy. --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

My original wording does not appear to cleanly address the case where the content in question is an entire article since ordinary editors cannot resurrect such content after it has been deleted. To address this case I have appended and optional addition in square brackets which could be included, or not, as the community sees fit. I believe that this proposal would address Ottava Rima's concerns while still putting meaning behind the concept of a ban. The question is whether the community prefers something more in line with Nathan's proposal, or this one. --GoRight (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"they make in defiance of their ban should be reverted as a matter of course" - why should the encyclopedia be punished because of the bad personal behavior of a user? We should encourage people to write good articles. Our content policies should be completely separate from our behavior policies in the same manner that ArbCom declares that they are not arbitrators of content disputes. If someone wants to delete something, they should have a very good reason, and it cannot be because of some other user's actions or personality. It should focus on content and only content. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That's the opposite of the usual standard. The burden for showing that any edit is consistent with Wikipedia policies is on the editor adding (or re-adding) material. Banned users are not supposed to be editing any part of Wikipedia. If you want to abolish the banning policy I suggest you start a fresh thread. But considering the number of people who get banned every year on Wikipedia, it appears that the principle of banning, or forbidding persons from editing Wikipedia, is widely supported by the community. Will Beback talk 03:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Or the people who would protest have been banned (or just blocked without ban, same thing). --Abd (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"Assimilate or die!" ;) Will Beback talk 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Usual standard for what? Our policies - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc, need to be respected. This requires you not destroying material that fits those policies. The procedure for AfD makes it certain that people should try to make sure that the errors -can't- be corrected before hand, thus meaning that an article should not be deleted unless there is a really good reason. It seems that the only one not following these policies are those who simply want to delete articles without any real justification. This policy should not be used as a back door to diminish our encyclopedia standards. There should be -no- diminishment of encyclopedia standards and -everyone- must be held to the same standards. It has -nothing- to do with banning or not. It has -everything- to do with having the language of this policy conform to an overwhelming amount of other policies that are set there in order to protect this encyclopedia. It is being used as a tool to justify destroying it. For the sake of content, the lines cannot be respected and have not been by many admin and by the community in multiple AfDs. It is about time that this page has wording that reflects the greater community consensus on the matter, respects our other policies, and disallows an action that is 100% destructive to this encyclopedia. As someone who has devoted thousands of hours into producing hundreds of high quality articles, I will not accept language in this page that would -ever- condone the deletion of material without a good reason based on WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. A "ban" is not an encyclopedic justification and has -nothing- to do with the merits of content. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for individuals to make demands over what they will or won't accept. This is a community project. Since this seems to have become a debate between ther two of us, I suggest we both withdraw and let others move forward with thrashing out the details of this proposal. Will Beback talk 03:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Make demands? I don't really think conforming to the policies that were put in place under the guidance of Jimbo to ensure that we have a credible encyclopedia that will be well respected is any kind of demand. I would think that it would be a matter of respect to Jimbo, the WMF, to all content editors, and to all of our readers, to follow our content policies and to use them and only them in determining if content should be removed. We are an encyclopedia. We will always be an encyclopedia. We are not a cabal. We are not politics. We are not myspace. We have only one god here, and that is content. If anyone wants to disrespect content, then that should be addressed in a manner that ensures that they are no longer capable of such destruction. It is time to fix the above policy to keep out the destruction that is resulting from allowing people to get away with mass deletions without following -any- of our content policies or ensuring that the material does not belong here. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Call for continuation

Is this the end of the discussion or shall we continue? There are currently 2 proposals on the table. The first has received varied amounts of support (including from myself) and the second has simply been proposed. Is there continued support for updating the language of this policy to clearly acknowledge that editors in good standing can reinstate content which originated in the edits of banned users, or shall the current language stand by default? I believe an update is still required. --GoRight (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the argument above sort of derailed the discussion. Unfortunate, really. Nathan^T 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this discussion and trying to understand Ottava's position and to put it into some kind of perspective that relates it to the majority of the discussion on this topic. To that end I have found the following table to be helpful in organizing my thoughts. Hopefully it will be helpful to others as well.

Dealing with edits made by banned users.
Current Edit Status	Possible Community Responses
Not Reverted	(a) Revert without question. (b) Revert based on the merits of the content only.
Reverted	(a) Reinstatement implies proxying and is bannable under WP:MEAT. (b) Reinstatement does not imply proxying; reinstate based on the merits of the content only.

The current policy language is being claimed by Raul and possibly others to mean:

Dealing with edits made by banned users.
Current Edit Status	Possible Community Responses
Not Reverted	(a) Revert without question. (b) Revert based on the merits of the content only.
Reverted	(a) Reinstatement implies proxying and is bannable under WP:MEAT. (b) Reinstatement does not imply proxying; reinstate based on the merits of the content only.

Recent community actions seem to suggest that the above interpretation is not accurate and so most of this discussion seems to have been focused on changing the wording to something that would reflect:

Dealing with edits made by banned users.
Current Edit Status	Possible Community Responses
Not Reverted	(a) Revert without question. (b) Revert based on the merits of the content only.
Reverted	(a) Reinstatement implies proxying and is bannable under WP:MEAT. (b) Reinstatement does not imply proxying; reinstate based on the merits of the content only.

Whereas Ottava's discussion seems to have been more focused on changes like this (which truly reflects the concept that a ban is on the editor and NOT the content):

Dealing with edits made by banned users.
Current Edit Status	Possible Community Responses
Not Reverted	(a) Revert without question. (b) Revert based on the merits of the content only.
Reverted	(a) Reinstatement implies proxying and is bannable under WP:MEAT. (b) Reinstatement does not imply proxying; reinstate based on the merits of the content only.

Now I am certainly sympathetic to Ottava's position and I would support it based on the stated principle, however if our purpose here is to craft language that reflects actual practice (i.e. that is descriptive and not prescriptive) then I still believe that the most accurate view based on recent community decisions actually is:

Dealing with edits made by banned users.
Current Edit Status	Possible Community Responses
Not Reverted	(a) Revert without question. (b) Revert based on the merits of the content only.
Reverted	(a) Reinstatement implies proxying and is bannable under WP:MEAT. (b) Reinstatement does not imply proxying; reinstate based on the merits of the content only.

Edits by banned users actually DO get reverted without much complaint, and Raul's failed attempt to paint me as a meat puppet for Scibaby suggests that reinstating content that is within Wikipedia policy is acceptable as long as the editor doing so accepts responsibility for it.

Thoughts from others? --GoRight (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the reinstatement aspects, as it could mean proxying, which is problematic. However, to be honest the content shouldn't have been removed unless the merits weren't there. It should have at least a discussion first. And no, I am not talking about clear BLP, vandalism, etc. I am talking about things that appear to be good content, well sourced, and the rest. Sure, stuff that seems to violate NPOV would be borderline and could be removed or the rest, but should be removed only based on consensus (previous or ongoing) and discussed as to the removal. Of course, if a banned user keeps edit warring back in content, then that is a problem all the way around and a violation of our content policies along with our conduct policies. Meat puppetry should only be seen as a problem in incidents of tag teaming (then their voice counts as one) or Single purpose accounting, which is just flat out disruptive proxying. A very complex issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Could someone add or point out where we decided that the community feels that it's OK to act as a proxy for banned users? I get the feeling that is based on a single ANI thread. If there isn't strong evidence for a change then I think that going back to the status quo is the best solution. Will Beback talk 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"it's OK to act as a proxy for banned users" - No one said this. What is being asserted is that the simple act of reinstating an edit from a banned user is not prima facie evidence of proxying. That is not the same thing as saying that proxying is OK.

We are here, I presume, because of the ANI thread, as well as the discussions related this topic strewn throughout the pages of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley, and the findings related to into Raul's attempt block me under this policy at [6]. We are here to insure that this policy is not used as a vehicle to ban an entire minority POV by simply labeling people as meat puppets of banned users when they are not, in fact, meat puppets.

Unfortunately you and Ottava have managed to completely derail the discussion with your feud, although I acknowledge that you have on several occasions suggested that you should take that feud elsewhere. Ottava, OTOH, seems intent on insuring (by disrupting this conversation) that you have all the tools you need to pursue banning anyone who restores an edit of a banned user that you don't agree with (i.e. such as Peter Damian ... a position which I am only assuming from the context of your feud here). Why Ottava is doing so, heaven only knows, as O seems to be completely working against O's own best interests in that regard.

It seems that Ottava has succeeded in insuring that the status quo does, indeed, prevail here. --GoRight (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're the person to whom this policy was to be applied, is it really a good idea for you to be leading the effort to change it? I guess I still have a bad memory of user:Jossi re-writing WP:COI. Will Beback talk 23:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"If you're the person to whom this policy was to be applied ..." - Applied, but independently investigated and rejected. Let's not forgot that. As to your other point: Leading? Who's leading? I have no power to impose anything. I'm just trying to rescue a thread started by others. Alas, I appear to have failed in my quest. --GoRight (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"have managed to completely derail the discussion with your feud" as opposed to derailing it with -your- feud? My stake in this is to force everyone to abide by content policies and to ensure that the policies are used instead of ignoring them. Go Right, your actions were wrong but not because you agreed with a banned user. They were wrong because they violated our policies. That is the difference between other people's view and my view on the matter. I made that clear on the one talk page. The thing is, the result of my saying you are wrong is that your actions are overturned. The result of the current standard is that you are banned. Which would you prefer? I think my view not only upholds respect for all of our content standards, but also sets an even playing field in which people are more concerned about what the encyclopedia actually has as proper content then about trying to get back at people. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"The result of the current standard is that you are banned. Which would you prefer?" - The effect of the changes which were being discussed was clearly designed to protect anyone in good standing that feels a particular piece of content from a banned user should be restored. So by derailing that discussion by demanding something that you clearly will never get, you have seemingly solidified the status quo. If anyone here is insuring that people are banned for restoring the content of banned users, it is clearly you and your actions, not mine. This discussion is not, nor has it even been, about my feud anywhere. All of my comments prior to this have been strictly on point concerning the policy changes. No, I have not brought any feud to this page, but you clearly have and clearly to the detriment of anyone who gets caught up in the lack of clarity in the current policy wording. --GoRight (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Derail? No. 1. You need to start a policy proposal to change a policy, which, by definition, is an RfC and linked at an RfC. 2. My voice is only one voice and does not "derail" anything. 3. If people don't want to argue for their own views, then they obviously didn't believe in their views, so you can't claim they wanted them to begin with. So, if you want your language put forward, start an RfC and request it. I, however, will be arguing for the supremacy of content because this is first and foremost an encyclopedia and it is in the spirit of most of our policies and our foundation that my version should be upheld, which, if people don't think is true then fine, they don't have to. But it is nice to know how much they value content. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The real irony here is that you don't even seem to realize that the people supporting the proposals above were ALSO supporting the view that constructive content should NOT be removed from the encyclopedia. We are arguing the same cause on that front. We were just trying to do so from an actually viable position, whereas yours is doomed as we have seen here, and while progress was being made it all came to a halt when you brought your little feud with Will Beback into the discussion. Be a purist if you want, but don't come crying when all your friends are banned one by one as meat puppets of Peter Damian. I'm done, have the last word. --GoRight (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"ALSO supporting the view that constructive content should NOT be removed from the encyclopedia" If that is true, then you would never have attacked me for stating the view. If it is true, then there would have been consensus and you would have been actively putting up an RfC to have the policy changed. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

"If that is true, then you would never have attacked me for stating the view." - I'm sorry, but calling me a liar warrants a response. See my proposal at [7]. Also from above: "Whereas Ottava's discussion seems to have been more focused on changes like this (which truly reflects the concept that a ban is on the editor and NOT the content) ..." and "... I am certainly sympathetic to Ottava's position and I would support it based on the stated principle ...". --GoRight (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've searched for "liar", "lie", and "lying". I could find no results. Now GoRight, what I am telling you (and will tell you again) is to start an RfC according to the policy proposal policy and put up the three options and wording that fits the three options up for vote so that the community can decide if there is enough consensus for a change. Until then, any of the fighting is meaningless because it requires an RfC to make a change like this. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for removing language

I propose that the language "be reverted as standard practice" cannot be used in any policy and anything that hints towards such be stricken from this proposal. The reason why this proposal should go forward is to protect the integrity of our content policies - OR, V, RS, etc. We should not accept any removal of any content without a clear explanation to what policy the content is violating. Anything to the contrary would be clearly within the spirit of 3RR and is not a respectable practice at Wikipedia. To allow for any ignoring of our content policies for -any- reason is to undermine those content policies. For the sake of content and for the respect of our content policies, which are our most important policies because this is an encyclopedia first and foremost, this proposal must go through. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

So you are, in effect, proposing that we cannot place any editing restrictions on editors at all? --GoRight (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where did you get that crazy idea? Merely, I stated that no one has the right to violate V, RS, OR, etc, by destroying articles without a good reason. Those above are editing restrictions on -everyone- and -no one- has the right to violate them. I would say that someone who goes around deleting articles that conform to all of the content policies should be banned. That includes a few responders on this page. There is no justification for destroying the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a direct implication of what you are proposing. If we place editing restrictions on an editor and they just go right on adding content in violation of their ban your proposal states that we have to treat that content exactly the same as the content produced by a non-banned user. So what is the effect of the editing restrictions in that case? There are none, so in effect the editing restrictions do not exist. Am I wrong? (Note that I am not taking a stand either way, merely discussing the obvious implications of your proposal.) --GoRight (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"that content exactly the same as the content produced by a non-banned user" Yes, as we should treat -all- content equally. Content does not depend on the source. Content should be judged objectively. However, there are many options from blocking to range blocking for dealing with banned users. It is 100% impossible to keep a banned user from editing Wikipedia. Why should we justify violating many of our content policies in order to simply spite those people? The encyclopedia should not be screwed around with to get back at someone. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, you keep saying that pople who delete material are "destroying the encyclopedia". I think that hyperbole is unhelpful. We delete hundreds of articles every day to help the encyclopedia from being overwhelemed by spam, attacks, nonsense, and POV pushers. Spammers complain that removing links to their sites is destructive, POV pushers complain that removing their out-of-balance edits is destructive, and members of garage bands complain that removing their vanity article is destructive. But they're all wrong. Just like some shrubs need to be trimmed regularly to stay healthy and grow to their best potential, so too does material need to be deleted from Wikipedia.

You're right that it's impossible to 100% block banned editors. Range blocking and similar tools have very limited use. One of the most effective tools we have to keep banned editors away is the threat that, if they are discovered, their edits will be removed and they will have wasted their time. If we change that equation, and make it harder to remove edits from banned user than it is to make them, then that would encourage attempts to evade bans and place unfair burdens on the editors who may have already wasted time dealing with the banned user's disruption. As I wrote above, I suggest we both withdraw from this discussion and let others bring it to a conclusion. Is that agreeable? Will Beback talk 18:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hyperbole? No, it is 100% accurate. There is -no- way to claim that deleting material that fits all of our content policy is not destroying the encyclopedia. It is vandalism done at the hand of a deletion tool, and I would honestly push for every single admin that ever does such a thing to be up for review. That includes you, Will Beback, because there were at least two AFDs that revealed that those deletions -never- should have happened. You cannot take a view of an editor out upon the encyclopedia. WP:OWN makes it clear that editors are not their pages. WP:BATTLEGROUND makes it clear that no one should be treating this community as if it is a war. These are two behavioral statements that suggest that condoning such deletions are highly inappropriate. Wikipedia ethically and consensus-based is against such actions. The fact that you would claim that the above is hyperbole is so disturbing that I will not type up what I -really- want to say to you. It is enough to say that, as a person who devotes thousand of hours to producing content here in order to make this place better, your words make me want to vomit. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

How to Ban a POV you Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps

Do your best to bait, prod, and aggravate somebody on the opposing side of an ideological war from yourself into acting uncivil out of frustration with you. If you have friends, get together with them to gang up on your opponents and get them angry and desperate.
When the opponent finally does something that can be construed as a violation of policy, get a friendly admin to block him/her.
When the blocked editor uses the means still available to him/her, such as his/her talk page and the e-mail feature, to complain about the unfairness of the block, get your admin friend to bind and gag the editor by removing talk page posting and e-mailing privileges for "trolling" and "harassment".
With the editor forcibly silenced and thus unable to speak in his/her defense, hold a ~~lynch mob~~ ban discussion on WP:AN/I, with your friends once again ganging up. This works best when the blocked user lacks friends to gang up on his/her behalf; if that happens, you'd really have drama, but if there aren't any, you'll just get an open-and-shut case where you and your friends say ~~"Burn the witch!"~~ "Ban him/her already!", and a handful of people who like to see a good ~~lynching~~ banning and hang out on that forum for that purpose weigh in too.
Now that an editor representing the POV you oppose is banned, make the banned editor into a bogeyman responsible for all that is wrong with Wikipedia, claiming that everything that editor believes in is a "fringe belief" or a "harassment meme", and that no tactic is too extreme to counter this grave threat. They should block all IP addresses in Upper Slobbovia if that's where they think the banned editor is editing from!
If anybody else shows up with similar opinions on any subject to the banned editor, try to accuse him/her of being a sockpuppet. If that won't stick, call him/her a meatpuppet and claim that he/she is proxying for the banned editor, and that everything they edit needs to be reverted on sight.
If they call this treatment unfair, block or ban them too.
The larger the body count from the serial banning of advocates of this particular POV gets, the easier it will be to summarily ban anybody new who shows up; just cite the "serial harassment" allegedly committed by people allegedly associated with the new editor.
Profit!!!!!!!!

*Dan T.* (talk) 12:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't say anything about the flap between Will Beback and Ottava Rima, but the current trend being set by Raul654 on the global warming pages definitely seems to be heading along this track, which is why I am concerned ... being that I am one of the people who is apparently on Raul's personal hit list. --GoRight (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It deserves note that genuine harassment does occur. Two Wikipedia editors have gone public about having opened FBI cases in response to serious harassment that arose from Wikipedia volunteer work. As a result of that WMF largely lost David Shankbone whose volunteer highlights included an interview of Shimon Peres for Wikinews. A celebrity stalker glommed onto David after an interview, which was quite a loss because David was opening doors for our volunteer editor pool on levels we couldn't formerly access. Although I have had no involvement in the recent events that led to the current discussions at this page, two things need to be said: policy ought not to be written as if actual FBI investigations were fabricated claims (I could provide the formal reference number and link to the coverage mine received), and editors whose actions undermine the legitimate need for caution in this area ought to rethink their priorities. Yes, Wikipedia has been abused as a venue to perpetrate harassment. The intersection of onsite components with offsite harassment has caused the departure of volunteers. Due to site policies, those who seek legal recourse mention it only after the fact and only if they do not retire (if they discuss it at all). These are nontrivial matters; please accord them the seriousness they deserve. Durova³¹⁰ 15:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said Durova and I totally agree. --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Without in any way meaning to trivialise the real and genuine harassment that does occur here and elsewhere including in real life, the "harassment card" is rather overplayed around here, especially by certain parties who ought to by now know better. Moreover Dan T. wasn't talking about harassment per se, more about the distressing tendency to manufacture bogeymen as necessary. There are a number of editors that, whatever their considerable positive contributions to the wiki may be, ought not to be given credence when they claim vast sock armies are on the march, requiring the rangeblocking of entire states and the like, or the instant denigration of anyone who has a POV opposed to theirs in the subject area as an obvious sock of X. Kind of McCarthy-istic if you ask me. ++Lar: t/c 14:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

How many socks does it take to make an army? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how wide the battlefront is, there is one sock per foot. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Poor sweet Dan. You're like a sad old blogger, railing that no one understands that corporations own politicians. Well, of course they do, son, and Wikipedia is the way it is because there are people who like it that way. It's actually always been like this, as long as I have edited here, and it will be like this until the whole festering heap of shit is binned.

You know, here's something more interesting to think about. I have been looking into a murder -- possibly a miscarriage of justice, which I want to write something about. I loooked up the woman who was, or maybe wasn't, murdered, on google. I found an article about her in a mirror. Nice concise little thing, took up a few bytes and neatly expressed who she was.

It was deleted from Wikipedia. Everyone who voted agreed that it was inadmissible, because hey, there are a lot of murders, so who cares? And I'm thinking, wait, this is the great repository of knowledge and I wanted to know. I couldn't be spared a few bytes on the servers here to be afforded that small piece of knowledge. What did it hurt?

But here's the thing. It hurt someone's vanity. Some people have a lot of their self-image, their self-worth tied into Wikipedia's being a second-rate Britannica, and if some nasty fiend wants to provide information about some boring old murder victim, that crushes them.

If they had argued that because it is not possible to write and maintain stubs on every murder victim ever, it's administratively too burdensome to carry this information, well, that's a poor argument, but they aren't arguing that. They're arguing that Wikipedia should take a view on what's important.

See, Dan? Well, probably you don't, but that's what it is. Make taking a view the currency of a place, and you have ungovernable politics. And if the view you're taking is not popular enough, well, in politics, you get shafted. Happy editing, son. Grace Note (talk) 10:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Grace. Dan, please save those nine steps on an essay page that can be quoted when necessary. Cla68 (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Done. See: WP:POVPUSH. --Atomic blunder (talk) 12:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
- Whoops... I duplicated the effort with WP:9STEPS. A merge is probably in order. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
  - I fixed it with a link. --Atomic blunder (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Copy/pasting a relevant discussion from user talk. It's a pleasant surprise when editors who were recently the subject of proposed community sanctions conduct themselves with courtesy and discretion that could serve as models for others who have advanced ops. One would usually hope, in policy discussions, that it would be the latter who set the highest standard. Durova³¹¹ 05:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the importance of what you describe here, but I am confused about how it applies to the discussion at hand and/or if it was directed at me specifically for some reason or was just a general statement being appended to the thread.

I don't believe that I have advocated for anything that violates the concerns you have raised. Do you believe that I have somehow? --GoRight (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to the best of my knowledge, no. Haven't been following the details of your recent dispute. There are two types of pitfalls to avoid:

Editors who have justifiable reason to restore or proxy make it convenient to do so by altering policy in ways that weaken the safeguards against abuse.
Editors who have a strong POV on a controversial topic leverage strict policy language in the hope of precipitating additional sitebans and gaining a monopoly over editorial POV.

Somewhere in between there is a happy medium where minority views are represented fairly and malicious abuse is minimized. The best compromise I've found in four years as a Wikipedian is advance public notice. The inconvenience for the editor who wishes to do a legitimate proxy is much less than dealing with the fallout after a matter goes haywire. Durova³¹⁰ 17:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV policy requires that we extend to even fringe views the same neutrality that we give to popular views. But it doesn't require that we give them the same weight. We don't "ban" the view that the Earth is flat, or that Haile Selassie is God, but we don't give those views excessive weight either. Our articles should be based on what is found in reliable souorces, and not on who makes the most noise on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review. Nobody should be banned for their views, but inevitably people are banned for how they express those views. It doesn't matter whether one holds views consistent with a tiny minority or with the dominant majority: all are welcome to edit Wikipedia so long as they abide by the rules. Those who don't follow the rules are not welcome, and the popularity or unpopularity of their views shouldn't be a factor. Will Beback talk 06:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Will is right about that being what the policy says, yet policies need to be written from discussions that anticipate problem scenarios. Wikipedia sees a lot of instances where the adherents of minority views attempt to use the project as a platform for advocacy. Yet that isn't the only type of problem that occurs: the adherents of majority views have been known to marginalize minority views beyond what NPOV requires. The matter becomes especially difficult on science-related topics where real world expert consensus diverges from real world politics; views that are scientifically marginal occasionally carry more traction within the popular and political realms.

For example, take the anti-vaccination movement. A reader from Nebraska may be interested in more than just medical opinion. If that reader happens to be a school board member who was recently confronted by ten angry parents, that reader may be equally curious about the movement itself: how much political clout does it have?

Editors are human beings. Our policies need to anticipate both the angry parents who edit, and the medical research technician who sat silent and aghast at the other side of the PTA meeting. Intentionally or unintentionally, that research technician may define the issue wholly in scientific terms, thus eliminating the information of greatest interest to the school board member. If the school board member's primary worry is reelection, roll the dice and see what transpires. Very roughly speaking, that's analogous to the actual dispute which sparked this discussion. Durova³¹⁴ 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Mainstream media frequently misinterprets scientific consensus. They over-emphasize incredible, or sensationalistic views. For instance, at gamma-ray burst you can read that a nearby burst could theoretically wipe out life on Earth. This has been reported widely. However, scientists calculate that such an event is highly, highly improbable due to the low metallicity of the Milky Way Galaxy...(I'll stop before you fall asleep). At 2009 influenza epidemic we have numerous sources reporting the 20 million who died in 1918, and how it could happen again. Medical professionals agree that it probably won't happen again, because most influenza deaths are caused by bacterial pneumonia, a complication that is easily treated, as of 2009, with antibiotics. There were no antibiotics in 1918. Mundane facts widely known and reported in the scientific community are frequently omitted from mainstream reporting. We need help in the science articles because tendentious editors who lack knowledge of the scientific literature can get very wrong ideas by reading mainstream reports. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't a gamma burst just turn everybody into Incredible Hulks? What, Marvel Comics isn't a reliable source, even once it's owned by Disney and a sibling of ABC News? *Dan T.* (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman raises a very valid observation. It's somewhat off topic for this particular discussion, though. Durova³¹⁵ 21:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite ban of administrator by community

I suggest the Community ban section be amended to discuss the indefinite banning of an administrator's use of administrative tools by the consensus of community discussion. The indefinite ban could then be lifted at the discretion of ArbCom. --Atomic blunder (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Since policy is supposed to be descriptive of actual practice do you have any examples of this actually happening? --GoRight (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe this would be a new procedure. --Atomic blunder (talk) 22:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Come back when the community has actually done this, and add it to this page then. As GoRight says, policy is, for the most part, descriptive, not prescriptive. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that says administrators are immune to community bans, that is enough. The fact is before anyone gets close to a community ban they will have lost their tools already. Chillum 16:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged

from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged

8) The Arbitration Committee urges that the community engage in a policy discussion and clarify, on an appropriate policy page, whether and under what circumstances an administrator may direct that a given editor is banned from editing a particular page or on a particular topic (outside the context of arbitration enforcement), without first attaining a consensus for the ban on a noticeboard, and if so, how such bans are to be reviewed. Such discussion should seek to attain consensus on a policy in this area within one month from the close of this case.

Passed 7 to 1 at 22:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The above appears to relate to User:William M. Connolley unilaterally applying a topic ban on User:Abd.
I'm confused. Wikipedia:Banning policy seems unambiguous - User:William M. Connolley had no right/ability to unilaterally apply a topic ban on User:Abd.

Perhaps the administrator, in reading "The community, through consensus, may impose various types of bans upon other editors who have exhausted the community's patience" considered his decision, according to WP:BOLD and the following WP:SILENCE, to represent community consensus? If this reasoning has any support, then I think we need a rule for when "community consensus" can be invoked to announce a "community ban". I suggest the following rule:

A community ban shall have effect if it is supported by at least three uninvolved administrators, and is opposed by less than three uninvolved administrators. In the absence of three supporting uninvolved administrators or presence of three opposing uninvolved administrators, there cannot be said to be a community consensus, and if action is required, editors are advised to seek formal dispute resolution.

Please tell me if this is not the appropriate policy page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(Caveat: This is purely my individual opinion.) I think the distinction between blocks and bans, at least as it has arisen in the past couple of years in Wikipedia discussions, is a false distinction. Bans are social constructs prohibiting contributions, which can be as broad as the entire site or as narrow as a single mainspace article. Blocks are nothing more than a technical measure used to enforce a sitewide ban and provide easily accessed documentation. I find it counterintuitive, and even illogical, to argue that administrators may impose siteside bans (via the blocking mechanism), yet are somehow prohibited or greatly restricted from imposing lesser bans on specific articles or topic areas. I believe the most productive focus of conversation would be to clarify the appeals process (given the lack of an equivalent to {{unblock}}) and the documentation process (given the lack of an equivalent to block logs for bans not requiring an enforcement block). Vassyana (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. My reasoning is that this gives restrictions which are between {{uw-generic4}} ("This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing."; this would mean that the editor can still edit the page in question, as long as they does not disrupt) and an admin blocking the editor (which means that the editor can't edit at all anymore). I think that other type of 'bans' are declared by users (do not add that external link anymore/do not create that improper page anymore/etc). The only problem seems to be that this is not written down in the policy as a 'ban', but the type of restriction is the same.

Hence, administrators should be able to say 'I ban you from that page'/'you are banned from editing that page', meaning that the editor the ban is imposed on is then not supposed to edit that page. That statement could include a timeframe ('for a week', 'for a month'). I agree that this should not be performed lightly, but the ban can of course be discussed (on the users talkpage, the admins talkpage, admin noticeboards), where follow up can be applied (lifting, changing or specifying duration, or endorsing). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dirk, do you believe that William M. Connolley should have been allowed to unilaterally ban Abd from Cold fusion despite Abd protest, and then to subsequently block him?

I suppose that I am suggesting that blocked and topic banned editors should have a procedure for review, with a presumption in their favour until any three uninvolved admins support the blocker/banner. I also presume that this discussion is in reference to long standing editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If I may, Abd did have the ability to ask for review - he could take it to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, or, indeed, to ArbCom. You could even reasonably argue that his ability to appeal was greater than if he had been blocked, as he still had full access to all levels of appeal. - Bilby (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, that’s true. He didn’t. Perhaps his instructions for protesting weren’t clear. How about “If a user disagrees with a topic ban imposed by an administrator, the user must request a review at WP:AN/I” and then apply my suggested rule above? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not a good idea to relate this to Abd's situation, as that was probably atypical. He chose not to take his ban to AN/I, arguing that it would be too disruptive, and instead announced his intent to test the ban and appeal any resulting block as a less disruptive approach. It was taken to AN/I by Enrik Naval, and the ban was supported, but Abd chose to stop the AN/I discussion early (prior to getting any real support) and agreed to respect the ban. He took it to Arbcom later, when he believed that the initial ban had expired but when WMC differed on this. Thus he did appeal it at ArbCom, and it had earlier been raised at AN/I against Abd's wishes.

One suggestion might be, based on your comments, a formal notice/template as per the blocking one that explains to the banned user how to appeal the decision. It was not a concern in Abd's case, but might be useful if these are more widespread. - Bilby (talk) 09:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe: Banning, yes. Abd had the possibility to discuss, and did actually accept at that point (his protest was later). As Bilby said, Abd's possibilities to appeal were widespread. If WMC should have blocked Abd himself is a totally different question, and I don't think that that is something that needs a place in this policy, for that we have WP:INVOLVED.

I don't see the need that there needs to be a presumption in favour of three uninvolved admins to support one of the two. Any editor can warn someone to stop disruptive behaviour, and if an admin then blocks the editor, there is also not a case that three admins favour the warning, or editors disfavouring it. If such a ban is declared then the ban stands until there is consensus that the ban is lifted. Can an editor continue spamming after a warning, because there are not three other editors also saying he is spamming? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there does have to be multiple wikipedians in good standing contributing to the discussion to invoke the “community consensus” phrase on this policy page. Yes, immediate disruptive behaviour, or current and continuing spamming must be immediately blockable by any administrator on sight. But as above, how about allowing the contrite or protesting user the right to ask for a review at WP:AN/I, with presumption that the ban is lapsed if three administrators don’t support the ban within 24 hours. This is not a question for cases requiring immediate action or immediate remedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, Abd was found to be a tendentious editor by ArbCom, and had an admin made such a finding s/he would have been able to block Abd. It is perverse if the same admin does not have the authority to issue a page or topic ban - a much lighter sanction. Confirmation by three uninvolved administrators is a dreadful idea - in months of disruption, only one admin was willing to act against Abd, what are the chances that three others would have taken the time necessary to go through his endless posts to really comprehend his disruption. Note, I believe this discussion should avoid re-arguing Abd's case specifically, but it is worth remembering the reasons this discussion is needed.

The appropriate and judicious use of page and topic bans is a reasonable tool for administrators to deal with problem editors. Vassyana notes two important issues that need addressing - an appeals procedure and a documentation / recording system. Another is how to prevent endless accusations of involvement against the administrator, so that the focus remains on preventing further disruption of the development of high quality encyclopedic content. EdChem (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For me, the appeals procedure is like that is done generally, this does not need an {{unblock}}, the editor can reach all necessary noticeboards and editors for that (the strange exception of being banned to edit said noticeboards, maybe). Appeal is here hence easy, in my opinion. And it also does not matter if the editor itself is initiating said appeal, or that it is done by a concerned third party or the banning admin himself.

Recording them somewhere might be a good plan.

The most important thing is, is that we now record this in written policy form, noticing what level of 'disruption' could generally lead to such a ban, how the involved editor is supposed to be informed of the ban, the appeals procedure and (if we want to record) the place where those bans should be recorded (note here, if the ban is not recorded, that is of course not invalidating the ban; not notifying the editor invalidates the ban until the editor is properly informed). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: claiming involvement by the banned user is not invalidating the ban, that should be part of the appeal, where community can say 'the ban is valid, but you should not have pronounced it', 'the ban is invalid', etc. etc. And similarly goes for admins blocking for a self-declared ban. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we giving administrators the power to declare consensus without discussion? If the decision was made according as a WP:BOLD statement along the line of "this decision of is backed by consensus", why does it matter that William M. Connolley is an administrator? Since when does administrators have special standing? Taemyr (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In a way you are right, technically all editors should be able to do this. All I meant to say was that it should not be treated differently from a block (for which admins are 'special'), those can also be done without discussion or backed by consensus. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If a challenged ban is to be upheld according to a “community consensus” test, then whatever the details, it needs to be a bright line test. I was originally going to suggest “editor in good standing” but that could lead to an argument about the standing of the supporting editor. Administrator status is unambiguous. It could be relaxed back somewhat, such as to rollbacker. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't have such rules for discussing a block, do we? Any editor can take part in such a discussion (giving appropriate weight to involved editors, but not excluding them, maybe), if and when it is discussed or needs to be discussed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We don’t tend to have such rules, but I am now suggesting one. If there is to be a discussion over whether there is community consensus, 3+ administrators supporting, <3 opposing or else “no, there is no consensus, go to WP:DR” seems simple and workable, and more likely to be easy and drama-free then having someone “close” a review discussion on WP:AN/I, where participants are mostly administrators. Certainly, all editors would be welcome to contribute. I am not concerned that many administrators would ignore a large number of non-admins with valid arguments saying the user in question should not be summarily topic banned. Note that blocks tend to straightforward and unambiguous, whereas topic ban can be fiddly attempts at compromise, and that this idea is focused on reviewing declared topic bans. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If an editor is causing disruption on only one page I am sure he would prefer to be blocked from editing only that page, this makes a lot of sense, if an uninvolved admin imposes it that would be fine just if the editor wishes to appeal the condition then there should be a clear appeal process which perhaps could be requested and dealt with on the editors own talkpage, The appeal could be in the manner of a consensus from uninvolved admins appearing there..the appeal could be logged on another page as third opinions are. Of course the admin who gave the initial page restriction would not be free from inspection, but I would say that there would be no need for the admin to initially get support from anyone for the restriction. Off2riorob (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any such bright line test is necessary, the ban, if it exists at all, can only be enforced by an admin. Admins are paid to evaluate consensus and thereby inform our use of technical tools. If an IP attempts to implement a ban, I can judge by the facts and the weight of the IP's policy based argument why the ban does or does not enjoy the consensus of the community as has been communicated to me through the oracles of policy; if an respected editor does the same, I can weigh his or her experience as well - which might help inform me as to whether a ban is the appropriate sanction and should be enforced. These are fine lines but we must remember as has been mentioned above, these are much less harsh sanctions than administrators are normally trusted to bring upon our malfeasant editors every instant. Topic or page banning someone allows them to continue to edit, blocking doesn't. The problem with a ban is that without a way to have the community endorse the ban, every admin must determine de novo whether the ban was justified before enforcing it. So long as we create a meaningful way for the community to endorse, or the banned editor to appeal, or both, an admin should be able to evaluate any ban with the tools ordinarily before him or her and enforce or send to the community each ban violation. It matters not who imposes the ban and making it an admin only right gives a non-tool power to admins - something we have preached for a long time just aren't part of the package admins get. If I have this power, I for one want all to have it.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I would, of course, be willing to warn and, if necessary, block anyone who imposed such a ban frivolously.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe that would be good. Banned editors should be able to know immediately and objectively whether they are actually banned or not. They should not have to try and violate the ban (or jump through bureaucratic hoops) in order for an admin to evaluate the ban and decide whether it applies at all. It's easier if the admin is the one who decides in the first place, especially since admins are needed for ban enforcement anyway. Sandstein 21:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Bans are supposed to be imposed by community consensus. Demonstrating community consensus requires a community discussion. It is foolhardy in the extreme to cede the power to unilaterally ban editors to a single individual or admin. Without having first held a discussion to demonstrate that a community consensus actually exists to ban someone, that person should NOT be considered banned. Banning should be a serious matter and it should be a deliberative one.

Regarding the concept that individual editors already possess the power to unilaterally ban someone, all I can say is "all of you who are espousing this concept are hereby banned from this discussion!" Now, are those individuals actually banned at this point? Obviously not, which proves that the concept of individual editors (admins or not) issuing bans is fatally flawed. --GoRight (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd tend to agree with that. Then why don't we have a Request for Topic Bans page, where any editor can suggest a ban and the community can discuss it without cluttering up AN, as with XfD the discussion could close after so many hours or days and would be implemented. Unlike most AN or AN/X pages, the discussion would be formally closed by an uninvolved admin. I know new processes aren't liked, but this would seem to me to be better than giving Admins some new power to restrict editors without the use of tools. Admins still would adjudge consensus, subject to appeal, and would implement with the blocks, but they wouldn't be imposing the ban itself, the community would.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be an acceptable, to me at least, means of implementing the discussion. My main concern is that when someone is formally banned it is supposed to be a statement by the community, not by a single individual. I would just prefer that we insure that there actually IS a statment by the community before we say that there is a statement by the community by calling someone banned. --GoRight (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

GoRight, I still don't see why community consensus is a must before the ban, you suggest that it is better then to a) block the user, then b) start a discussion on a ban, and c) then to unblock the user but apply the ban? For me, it makes more sense to be able to ban a user from editing a page/topic, still allowing for discussion (where the editor can participate in the discussion), then to block all editing (to stop the disruption) and not allowing them to participate in said discussions. The discussions for the ban should not take too long anyway, and would it be really so bad to follow a ban under discussion for 24-48 hours, Wikipedia is not going to come to a grinding halt because someone can not edit a page for some time (especially when an editor is found to be disruptive on that page anyway, I do not believe that these bans are going to come 'out of the blue'), and guidelines should include a pre-ban warning anyway (see discussion below). However, some forms of disruption do bring editing on a certain page to a halt, and banning a user from such a page (for a short period, pending discussion, e.g.) could enable some progress to be made again on the page.

This is not to say, that it is not possible to impose bans with discussion and consensus first, of course, and that should certainly be preferred, but for some cases unilaterally imposing a ban and then discussing it (if needed) is probably needed, and should be possible. I think that Doug's suggestion there could very well be helpful. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone is being disruptive on a certain page then admins can certainly block the user for that after a warning to stop the disruption. It is only after this cycle continues a few times that the community's patience is likely to be exhausted a serious discussion of longer-term banning is likely to generate any consensus. IMHO, the term ban should be reserved for those cases where the community has actually expressed their opinion that someone is so disruptive that the community literally decides that they are unwelcome and should be banned. The term ban implies that the user in question has earned a certain level of shame and is deserving of ridicule on a community level. I just think that such a statement requires actual discussion and consensus to make. I don't know how to explain my perspective any better than that. --GoRight (talk) 06:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify what I meant by "Well, I'd tend to agree with that" in response to GoRight above. It was the part about the problems of individual editors imposing bans, I suppose that could get a bit silly with newbies and involved editors presumptively banning each other all over the place. Though at the same time, I don't know that it means much as to enforce requires an admin and we'd certainly know what to think of them if they ever came up for RfA :-). What if we had a combination of Discretionary Sanctions and Topic Bans for Discussion (I guess I called it Requests for Topic Bans above but that's too likely to get confused with RfB! Just an idea anyway - if we made it Bans for Discussion it would be BFD, even better :-D ). In such a combination, any Admin could unilaterally declare a ban for, say, 72 hours but ~~was~~ would be required to post it at Topic Bans for Discussion and articulate a rationale that would have basically supported an outright block. Essentially the Admin is mitigating the block. If an individual editor wanted a ban they could also post to Bans for Discussion and if consensus supported it within 72 hours it would be implemented - any admin could summarily implement the ban in advance if warranted under the standard above.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I note that in addition to allowing any editor to initiate the matter and allowing for a meaningful determination of consensus rather than 'any admin's guess', this would also obviate logging of actions since all actions would be listed at BFD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know, with blocks we don't require admins to post at a forum and articulate a rationale, so I would not put the requirement here. However when an admin is challenged over a pronounced ban, then they should come up with a decent rationale.

I am not too afraid that every user will just declare a ban on the other (and if so, such bans would probably never hold and when ignored, probably no admin would want to take action on them, and if an admin would act on it, the following discussion would be .. nice; and still, the appeals can be made everywhere, if a user would want to complain about a 'bad' ban). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What if they just had to nom but not provide any rationale, then - it would be presumed. Maybe some diffs would be nice, but that's all part of the process, provide it and the nom is simply more likely to succeed. I agree that I'm not really concerned about the flood of unsupportable bans, but some would occur if we allowed people to simply declare them and not everyone would be happy with that. I offer this idea in large part because some users are adamant that Admins shouldn't be able to do this without some way to find consensus. I'm not quite sure what suggestion of mine Beetstra thought might be helpful.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree that having a central list of bans somewhere would be useful, particularly in cases where spinout of the content under question or trying to insert it in related articles occurs. Vassayana said above this is, effectively, a lesser power than blocking, and I have to think that it probably theoretically is, except for the fact that it is, basically, permanent when applied, barring appeal. Having some sort of noticeboard to have people at least have the chance of discussing such things would be a good idea, but I have some questions whether having another noticeboard to watch might not be ultimately somewhat counterproductive. John Carter (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to use edit filters or some other process to create "page blocks" or "topic blocks". Seems this would solve the whole issue of whether Admins are imposing bans. If this isn't possible, is it something the developers could work on?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Adopting discretionary sanctions as general policy?

Draft proposal: Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions

I often work at arbitration enforcement. ArbCom has in numerous cases passed "discretionary sanctions" remedies, of which the following (from WP:DIGWUREN) is an example:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

This approach seems to work reasonably well in the topic areas it applies to. Would it be conceivable to adopt it (or at least the topic ban part) as a general policy applicable to all topic areas? It has the advantage of being in use for several years now in some of the most contentious areas on Wikipedia (Middle East, Eastern Europe, Balkans etc.). Sandstein 14:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks good. Try:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this policy by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in highly disputed areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, or the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents). Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue.

Uninvolved administrators
For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

(just a start, will need more tweaking). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, of course, it will need substantial tweaking. If there's no general opposition to the very idea, I'll start a draft at Wikipedia:Discretionary sanctions. Sandstein 15:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've submitted a draft at that link; feel free to improve. Sandstein 17:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Explicitly disallow bans without consensus

In my opinion, WP:BAN already does this. However, thanks to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Community discussion of topic-ban and page-ban procedure urged we ought to make this explicit. I propose to add to the end of WP:BAN#Decision to ban:

Except as noted above, individual users, including admins, may not impose bans without community discussion.

Reasoning: simply put, bans are a social construct, as it says in the policy. This means that bans are valid exactly if they are accepted by the community. (This is inherent truth, since bans are not tool-based. They are things certain people say to other people: all their force comes from the support behind them.) Bans issued by admins acting on their own are not valid, or at least, they are not known to be valid until they are tested, either through discussion, or through the community's will to enforce them. Ones that turn out to be invalid should not be placed, while ones that turn out to be valid should not be placed this way: it is unfair to the banned user, who cannot possibly guess whether the ban is valid and probably suspects it is not. Mango juice^talk 04:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Except that the statement needs to be recrafted, because it is in conflict with the long held notion that indef block + no unblocks = ban. If one admin institutes an indef block, and no one bothers to unblock that user, it is taken as a de facto ban. I think this is a fine, long standing policy, and the danger of a statement like the above is it opens the door to abuse by such banned users to overargue their case. I don't object to the idea of requiring community discussion to avoid the unpleasantness that occurred recently in the WMC/Abd case; however we need to carefully consider unintended consequences of such simple statements. --Jayron32 04:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Mangojuice: I believe that this is the better way to go. @Jayron32: I can understand your concern but I would argue that even in the case of an indefinite block that some type of community discussion would be required to determine that no one is willing to unblock. Without such a determination it would seem to me that the status regarding a "ban" is indeterminate at best. In that sense I don't believe that these two are actually in conflict as you suggest. Once the indefinite block had been tested by a community discussion, if not admin is willing to unblock THEN you can say that the user is de facto banned. --GoRight (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

However, lots of indef blocks are never tested by community discussion, and a statement such as this could lead to the misunderstanding that every indef block be subject to community discussion. Again, I do not oppose the concept that Mangojuice is proposing. In fact, I strongly support it. However, we need to be careful of the effect that any changes have on existing practices. --Jayron32 05:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, lots of indef blocks result in new accounts that behave more surrepticiously. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

@Jayron: I see your point. I still think the wording is accurate, but because I have in mind a sophisticated distinction between an administrator deciding on a ban and an administrator recognizing community support for a ban. The former is what should not happen. The latter is fine. If a user is blocked and no one will unblock them, maybe they are banned and maybe not. But someone may recognize this as a ban and declare it. (Existential question: is a user who is de-facto banned actually banned? I say no, because a ban is, according to the page, a formal revocation of editing privileges, and as such must be explicitly noted.) This doesn't make the person who recognizes the ban a person who is deciding on the ban in my opinion. I certainly remember a couple of cases where I came across an unblock request no one was willing to grant under any conditions. I ended up saying that they are banned and would thus have to appeal to ArbCom. But I do not believe that *I* banned them. Mango juice^talk 06:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternate text:

Except as noted above, individual users, including admins, may not directly impose bans.

This may need further clarification about the decider/recognizer issue, but it says what needs to be said. Mango juice^talk 06:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I strongly disagree. Admins can impose blocks, and all users can 'ban' editors from performing certain actions. Including a new construction of bans (which are a lesser measure than a block) would IMHO be good (and I do read that it is not condemned to have such page or topic bans in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley#Wikipedia page or topic bans). It should not be used lightly, and having a consensus before the ban should certainly be encouraged, but saying that bans may not be given without consensus, no. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A ban is not a lesser measure than a block. A ban is an explicit statement, your contributions are not wanted. A block is a technical tool for calming disputes, preventing immidiate disruption, or enforcing bans. Taemyr (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a block disables all editing to wikipedia (except for the own user talkpage), a ban is generally on one single page, or at one single subject. When I say that a ban is a lesser measure than a block, I mean that the editor can do more than after the block (in your words: a block is 'your contributions are not wanted', a ban is 'your contributions in this area are not wanted'). Both should have as result that they calm down disputes, and that they are preventing disruption. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

And I still don't see the real difference between the statement 'The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.' (issued by users), and a statement 'The next time you edit that page, you will be blocked from editing.' (which is effectively what we are saying by banning a user from a page) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

A ban is not saying "the next time you edit this page you will be blocked". A topic ban is saying, "Your contributions to this area are not wanted". There is a significant difference. In the same sence a block is not the statement "your contributions are not wanted". It is the statement "In order to prevent further disruption you have been prevented from editing". Taemyr (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we're running into the usual problem with the language we use here. As things stand, we have four levels of action:

Warning - the user is told not to do it again
Page/topic ban - the user is told that they can't edit on one or more pages of Wikipedia
Block - the user can't edit Wikipedia for a period of time
Ban - the user can't edit Wikipedia indefinitely

In this model, a block (3) becomes a site ban (4) if it is indefinite. The problem is that 2 & 4 tend to be conflated, so that both are referred to as a ban. But while one says "your contributions are not wanted", that's only really 4 - the other says "your contributions to this page or topic are not wanted", and that's a much lesser claim. It is also much less than a block. I think that "discretionary sanctions" as discussed above, is a much better term for 2, as it avoids some of the confusion. - Bilby (talk) 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I do not agree that "your contributions to this page or topic are not wanted" is less than a block. It is less broad in scope, but it is deeper in implication. I agree however that it is a problem with the language more than anything else.

Also an indefinite block is simply an indefinite block. It is a different issue from a ban. Although by the time an indefinite block becomes necessary the user have been disruptive enough that it is very likely that he is banned as well. Taemyr (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it is how you look at it. I tend to agree with Dirk - a block prevents you from editing anything other than your own userspace for a given period. A topic/page ban lets you continue to edit Wikiepdia, but insists that you don't touch certain parts of the project. As the response to a topic/page ban violation is a block, I'd tend to see a block as being higher up the chain. That said, blocks tend to be shorter than bans. - Bilby (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

When a block is beeing used as a responce to a violation of a ban it is nothing more than using the block as an enforcement of the ban. Since the community decides that a banned users contribution is unwanted any edits in violation of a ban is disruptive, and as such blocks are warranted to prevent said disruption. Taemyr (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe the heirarchy of actions should go like this: (1) Instruct -- tell the user not to continue disrupting, point them to the policies, (2) Warn -- warn the user that ignoring the policies will result in blocks, (3) Blocks to prevent disruption, (4) Indefinite block -- when temporary blocks are no longer sufficient, (5) Topic ban -- when formal sanctions are necessary to regain trust between the community and the blocked user, (6) Full ban -- if topic bans and indefinite blocks are insufficient. Topic banning someone is a major form of sanction: for a lot of editors, they have an area of interest and a topic ban is akin to a complete ban against all the contributions they are interested in making. Even a page ban has this effect on people, when they get particularly involved in one page. These sanctions are more severe than even an indefinite block because indefinite blocks are not infinite blocks, and users are typically released from them once they make believable promises to abide by policy. A topic ban represents a judgment that the community's patience with an editor in an area has been completely used up: even an indefinite block (that isn't an infinite one) does not say that. Mango juice^talk 15:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is a social component to bans that is akin to shunning. It is a formal statement on behalf of the entire community. A block, being unilaterally imposed by a single individual, has no such social stigma attached to it. For me this is why I consider bans, even if limited in scope, to be more severe than blocks. This is also why I object to allowing a single individual to speak on behalf of the entire community. --GoRight (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

But the proposal is that certain, limited (topic/page) bans are being made by individuals, and should be recognised as such. Thus they (unlike a site ban) don't represent the community view any more than a block does, and are, in terms of indef blocks, arguably a lesser step. - Bilby (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be more concerned with the scope of effect, whereas I am more concerned with the social statement implied. So to you page/topic bans are lesser than blocks. For me it is just the opposite because even a page/topic BAN is a social comment on behalf of the community. I don't know how to reconcile these two different perspectives. --GoRight (talk) 06:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I tend to think that both a block and a ban can be a social comment, depending on where it comes from. If someone takes a problem to AN/I, and it is discussed, then the resulting block or ban (of any extent) is a result of the community view. If an admin sees a problem based, for example, on a 3RR report, and blocks the user for two weeks, then it is an individual action. I'm proposing that if an admin sees that same report, and instead of blocking the user, says that the user is banned from the page for two weeks, but is welcome to edit other parts of Wikipedia, then that, too, is an individual action, and might allow for a more graduated response. A ban isn't any more of a social statement than a block if it is unilaterally applied. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There is two problems with this view. The first, and the one that is easiest to "fix", is that WP:Ban explicitly makes the distinction on a block contra a ban. Ie. bans are social constructs. The other problem is why we should not fix this, and that is the fact that we need seperate nomenclature to talk about users that are unwelcome. Taemyr (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right, in that very short-term blocks are less than page/topic bans. But I have to disagree in relation to indefinite blocks. To make it so that someone can't edit Wikipedia is a pretty strong statement. To instead allow them to edit the majority of the project, but insist that they stay away from certain parts where (presumably) they've been disruptive, is much less of a step. It's more like saying that we value their overall contributions, but just not in a particular place. Thus I'd be happy with Warning -> Short Block -> Topic Ban -> Long/Indef Block -> Site Ban. - Bilby (talk) 06:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

How do you see indefinite blocks being insufficient. Blocks mean: not possible to edit. Game over. If you then start socking, block the socks, there is no discussion of banning, there is nothing after 4. If the indef block is lifted, yes, then a ban can be discussed there. Fine. But what we are discussing here are 'bans', or edit restrictions, which are a lesser form of 3, something between 2 and 3 .. why can't there be a stage in between for users who do good work generally around Wikipedia, but have one subject where they grossly misbehave? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a ban is different from an edit restriction. A ban is the community's decision that an editor is unwelcome. Taemyr (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that a ban is here defined differently from an edit restriction. However, an edit restriction is a ban, a decree that prohibits something, sometimes a form of censorship. I don't think that a ban is not a ban because this policy does not declare it a ban .. a ban is how we define it, and the proposals above, and my suggestion here is to adapt that definition. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy is supposed to be descriptive. Bans are not edit restrictions, bans are a social construct. They are a combination of two things: the special rules imposed on the banned user, and the community will to enforce those rules. If you don't have those two, it's not a ban. The way I see things, if an admin applies a ban unilaterally or without a consensus to back it, it's not that they are overstepping their authority, it's that they are just saying something inaccurate or at least unsure. That's why I said at the start that I don't think this needs to be said, but this is about making the language explicit on the point. But I think, Dirk, that you are thinking of the ban as the special rules alone. To me, the type of sanction that definitely includes some proof of a community will to enforce it is a different category of thing from a sanction alone, and if we are going to start calling things that are just sanctions without that community will bans, then I think we need a different term for the ones that have established community will, perhaps "formal bans." Mango juice^talk 20:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --GoRight (talk) 06:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Bans are edit restrictions, 'do not edit this page again', 'do not add this spam link again', 'do not blank pages again', I am sorry, why is 'do not edit this page again' (or 'you are banned from editing this page') a social construct different from 'do not blank pages again'(or 'you are banned from blanking pages').

I feel that we are mostly bickering about the terminology here, not about the construct. Do we think that admins (or even, all users) should as a final, pre-block measure (given enough reason, warning etc.), be able to say 'you are not editing that page anymore', so making the order: 'warn' -> 'final warning' -> 'do not edit that page anymore' -> 'temp. block' -> 'community imposed do not edit anymore' -> 'indef. block' (where steps can be omitted). That takes away at first calling things a 'ban', because thát seems to be the problem, that some people find a ban a social construct, and others find it a 'form of imposed restriction'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes we are bickering over terminology. However the important thing is that a ban is not an edit restriction, 'do not edit this page again'. It is a social construct, 'your edits to this page is not welcome', or 'Wikipedias invitation for anyone to edit does not extend to you'. And having that option, ie. for the community to agree that an editor is not welcome is important because it allows us to weed out those editors. At the same time having the option for admins to step in and prevent editing without making any statement about the welcomness of a uses is important, because it allows us to handle ongoing disruption without the need for the community to make any specific decisions, and without a need for the admin to make decisions on behalf of the community. Taemyr (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I agree this is about terminology, but I feel that a ban means something special and we shouldn't be using that word to refer to things that aren't actual bans, that is, with community will to enforce it. Mango juice^talk 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Mango: Define community, please. If a six-hour thread on a sysop-only board qualifies, than it's not much better than so-called "community bans" as they exist today. I realize that true community voting is impossible (especially when time constraint rules out RFCU), so perhaps it would be fair to call it "more than one sysop block" of sorts and keep it as is, just don't mess up "the community" in it. NVO (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not proposing a new positive process, I'm proposing that we explicitly state that the current process is the only one with authority. As to community: what I mean, ultimately, is that there is enough evidence of community support that admins will respect the decision and enforce it. I believe some admins are willing to trust any decision of any admin so long as they are uninvolved, but I also think a lot of admins (like me) aren't, because they've seen individual admins make mistakes. But I've very rarely, if ever, seen an WP:ANI discussion that got enough participation reach a ~~poor decision~~ decision that the community wouldn't abide by. Mango juice^talk 13:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The message I'm getting here is that admins should block outright rather than impose page or topic bans, because the latter are more controversial. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Subtler things than outright blocks ought to be discussed by the community. Durova³⁷⁹ 03:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You're conflating two different things. Administrators may warn users that further violations of policy will result in a block. This can be expressed as an editing restriction, You may not do X, where X is a violation of policy or guidelines. On the other hand, administrators may not say You may not do Y, where Y is something allowed by policy. A topic ban is the latter. Jehochman ^Talk 11:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A warning not to further violate policy is not a restriction, and you confuse the issue yourself by calling it that. If you want to differentiate those kinds of cases, refer to them as what they are: simply warnings. And in that case, they don't have any place in this policy. You're allowed to warn people if they're continually violating policy that they'll be blocked if they keep it up. That's neither here nor there regarding this page. Equazcion (talk) 12:04, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It may make sense to put some clarifying language in this page that a warning dressed up as a restriction is allowed, but administrators may not unilaterally prohibit allowable editing without specific authorization from ArbCom or the community. Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is a process page that could be used for recording sanctions or "restrictions". There is nothing in any policy restricting how that page may be used. If we find value in using it to log exceptionally important warnings (which we might call restrictions), we may do so. Jehochman ^Talk 13:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Dressing up" a warning and calling it a "restriction" has the potential for further confusion down the line though, as recent events have proved. If there's no policy dictating that such warnings don't belong at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, I think something like that might be worth considering in the interest of avoiding similar misunderstandings in the future. Equazcion (talk) 13:26, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Avoid instruction creep. Jehochman ^Talk 13:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a clear issue here that needs to be dealt with. Not every new policy is CREEP. Though maybe a separate policy isn't necessarily warranted, and an addition could instead be made to this page regarding how to handle the documenting of final warnings. Equazcion (talk) 13:30, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Note that a new section was added to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions for such "Final warnings", in the hopes that such cases won't be confused with community restrictions in the future. I've also added brief instructions regarding the new section to the lead of the page. In light of that, I don't think a policy addition is necessary right now to address the use of that page for final warnings. If it becomes a source of confusion or disagreement in the future though it might become necessary. Equazcion (talk) 14:01, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Clarified a point

Removed a misleading direction that had crept into policy. Discretionary arbitration sanctions derive from the Arbitration Committee, not from the community. So they should be appealed via arbitration venues rather than ANI. Durova³²² 06:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Banned user and Template:Blocked user

Those templates do not not to be mentioned in any policy, yet they are often used. The first one carries a powerful suggestion: This template adds articles to Category:Banned Wikipedia users. It should not be used for normal blocks; rather, it is for legitimate accounts that have been banned after due consideration. The second one doesn't seem to have any explanation on when it should be used. I wonder if we shouldn't clarify it better (here?) as to when they are used, who can add them, and what is their function (informative? punitive (ex. branding)?). Should a userpage of editor blocked for a few hours be tagged with either of those? What about a user blocked for a few days, weeks, months, a year? Can a blocked user request removal of such a template from his or her userpage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much the only time I see these used is in cases where it is abundantly clear that the user is never going to be unblocked, and this is the only thing on their page or pages. Although the blocked user template does have parameters that can be set to reflect the block length. These are mainly used in my experience on the user and talk pages of uses that have been hardblocked with talk page editing disabled. It is my understanding that blocking notices are the exception to the rule about removing content from one's own talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the correct venue for a community or topic ban proposal?

One school of thought holds that it should be Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, as it is not archived as aggressively. (This is the current instruction given at the top of ANI, btw)

Another holds that it should be at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Personally, I think WP:AN is the correct venue. It's typically a more calm and rational discussion there (for whatever reason). Also, a topic/community ban proposal is not an incident, it is often the result of many different incidents. ANI moves too quickly and often attracts far more drama.

Thoughts? –xeno^talk 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I feel that ANI is better, for a number of reasons. ANI is set up to deal with disputes. The admins who get involved in blocks/bans/article deletion/etc. probably work with that noticeboard more than with AN. I don't get involved in any of that, and watch AN (but not ANI) so that I can view topics of note to admins (for example: ArbCom results, adminbacklog notices, important RFCs, etc.). ANI should be for disputes and the like; AN, for general announcements and discussion intended for admins.

Has a ban discussion been held recently on ANI? Perhaps it would be no different than from on AN. ANI moves quickly because that's what much of its current discussions need; a ban discussion needs more time, and I think it won't be "rushed" on ANI or anything. Nor do I think it would attract any more drama (but maybe that just shows what I don't know about dealing with blocks and bans).

AN was restructured a few months ago so that all of the user disputes, etc., go to ANI. I'm guessing that the ANI notice just wasn't changed at the same time. AN would be a lot more useful to me if it didn't have block and ban discussions... that may be a selfish reason, but I think that most people's opinions here will just come down to their own preferences. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

None of sysop-only boards qualifies as "community". Drop this fake "community" hypocrisy, call it what it is. NVO (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not a sysop-only board, so that's covered.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed... Anyone is free to comment. Though we could certainly bring back the ill-fated "Community Sanctions Noticeboard!" –xeno^talk 12:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll stop asking questions now. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Ban discussions are infrequent enough that they can go to AN without reducing it's usefulness. The standard is much higher than blocks and the like. I frequently check AN but rarely go to ANI, unless I catch wind of something particular going on there, because for one I'm not a "vandal fighter" and two it's just way too crowded a board, I suspect the same is true of many others. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Individual incidents including these should go to AN/I. If interested parties are notified, they'll see them. If added visibility is needed, they could be announced at ANB. We've done fairly well recently keeping the volume at ANB down, and we should keep at it. DGG ( talk ) 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A closely related discussion is now at the RfC talk page, about whether the RfC/User process can impose involuntary sanctions on editors. It appears that (as of a week ago, at least), WP:BAN said that it could, and WP:RFC/U said that RfC/User discussions were solely voluntary and consensus-driven. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The correct venue is a Request for Comment. I think community ban discussions on AN or AN/I take place far too quickly, which gives disproportionate power to whoever happens to be awake at that time of night. causa sui × 19:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
No, definitely not at a request for comment. That's explicitly outside the scope of RfCs, and past suggestions to run proposals there have always failed for good reason (too out of the way, likely to bring in partisans instead of the uninvolved editors who should be making these decisions. Durova³⁸⁶ 22:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I can see how that would be problematic, but right now I can't think of any better way to slow these discussions down. Do you have any ideas? causa sui × 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment can be an important dispute resolution step before requesting a ban. If a matter is complex, for instance a long term pattern of improper editing, this should be documented and carefully reviewed by the community at RfC. Once an RfC has concluded, and if the subject's response did not resolve concerns, a subsequent thread on WP:AN could establish a ban or editing restriction. In the alternative, if a matter is relatively easy to document with a few diffs, such as an egregious violation of WP:NPA, a community ban could be initiated at WP:AN. We should avoid using WP:ANI for ban discussions because things get archived too quickly there. Jehochman ^Brrr 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
There have been a couple of high profile misfires recently with siteban proposals that started at ANI and closed in a few hours. Unless the matter is very clear cut (physical or legal threats), better to take it to a slower moving board. AN seems better. Durova³⁹⁰ 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is that the "community ban" option is so easily implemented that it has become a first resort for people who have problems when they first start editing here. There's a certain breed of particularly troublesome newbie who is not only ignorant of how things are done around here, but actually thinks that she knows better and is going to do things her way. Instead of doing the hard work of cleaning up after such an editor and winning them over to our way of doing things, we simply host firing squads on the Administrator's Noticeboard and ban them for life, because it's much easier to do that than deal with problem editors. I think that's a Bad Thing(tm) and it ought to be a lot harder to get people banned than it actually is. causa sui × 20:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Willy on Wheels

Hello. I'm asking this question for the purpose of User:Drahcir/Wikipedia II: The Users Strike Back. What's the story of Willy on Wheels? ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 14:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I seem to have found it from Boot Camp. I withdraw my question. ²³¹₉₁Pa (chat me!) 14:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Difference between de:Benutzersperrung, WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK

OK, Benutzersperr in German literally means both block, lock, and ban, but the problem is, is that I overcame an issue of language difficulties. Normally, I would prefer de:Benutzerverbot, as verbot also means ban, and that it differs from Sperr. In the German Wikipedia, the banning policy is also applied. However, the difference between "sperr" and "verbot" is yet to be seen. I think , that de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung must be moved into WP:BLOCK so as to match the ideal definition. I'm about to go back to dewiki and request a separate page for their WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN. 7107delicious ^{Weinachtsgespräch} 13:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear what point you're trying to make, or why. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a language translation, that's all. 7107delicious ^{Weinachtsgespräch} 01:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Your language issue has no relevance to en:wp; if you wish to take this up with, uh, volk, on de:wp, do so there; bitter. Jack Merridew 04:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

A proposal for "lesser" restrictions than a block

I think there may be a way to reconcile the two viewpoints described above—the view that a finer grained restriction than a total block from editing would be useful in some cases, and the viewpoint that calling this a ban would be inappropriate if they were imposed in a similar manner to blocks due to what a ban represents. Both of these are valid points. Given this, I would like to propose a new type of terminology—I'd propose the name "restriction" or "editing restriction", but a better name may be possible as well. Such restrictions would be imposed like blocks by administrators, would be enforceable by a full block if violated, and would generally be time limited (an indefinite restriction would be more of a ban, and probably should be discussed first). Overturning a restriction would be done in a similar manner to overturning a block: either by consensus that it was improperly imposed, or on the editor making a reasonable showing that (s)he understands what led to its imposition and agrees not to repeat the problematic behavior. I would also see such restrictions imposed in lieu of blocks or as a condition of an unblock (this happens sometimes anyway, "Alright, I'll unblock you, but if you start edit warring on that page again while the block would've been in place I'll reblock.") I think this could very well take some of the load off ArbCom, where the solution very often is to impose partial restrictions on editors who misbehave in certain areas but do fine in others, and avoid the blunt instrument of a block where a scalpel would be much more helpful. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. ArbCom as a body has to vote and reach a majority in order to impose sanctions which are more nuanced than a block (which any arbitrator can and occasionally does impose alone). It's hubris for individual administrators to claim more power than any single arbitrator has. Durova³⁹⁰ 06:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom and Jimmy Wales have both stated that they support the idea of administrators employing more subtle tools to solve problems:

Time marches on. We continuously seek to improve Wikipedia. ArbCom is an expensive, slow tool for solving problems. If all editing restrictions must go through them, this would hinder Wikipedia. We should develop standards for administrators to provide the least restrictive sanctions that work. Jehochman ^Brrr 07:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The most important point is that an administrator applied editing restriction may only be employed when a block would be allowed. Secondarily, the length of a restriction may not exceed the length of an appropriate block. If somebody edit wars once, they should not be topic banned for 90 days, when a block would typically only last 24 hours. If however somebody has edit warred many times, a 90 day topic restriction in lieu of a 90 day block might be justifiable. If somebody does something worthy of an indefinite block, I think an indefinite editing restriction could theoretically be employed.

I think we would need to clarify in this policy the difference between a community sanction and an administrator imposed editing restriction. Then we need to document the above two ideas at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, Wikipedia:Administrators and Wikipedia:Blocking (new sections, editing restrictions in lieu of blocks, and restrictions as unblocking conditions). Jehochman ^Brrr 07:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've explained very well what I'm trying to say here. This isn't to say "I'm going to restrict you for a year from editing Foo, when you normally would've received a 24 hour 3RR block." It's more to say "Alright, you're doing a lot of good work in some areas, but you're engaging in really disruptive content and edit warring at Foo that would normally result in you being blocked for a week. Take a week off editing that article or its talk page. If you edit it anyway, the block will be imposed, as it already would have been." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Still disagree: gameable by bad faith admins. Editors A and B are in a conflict. Admin C comes along and "restricts" A, but does it badly. Either due to lack of clue or deliberate politics, supposedly mild restriction is ill-suited and fails and paves the way to heavy community sanctions (i.e. sitebanning). Actual community discussion brings more eyes and more likelihood of an appropriate solution, as well as improved odds that the sanctioned editor would respect the decision. Durova³⁹⁰ 07:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If somebody gets restricted, they are in a favorable position to appeal by starting a thread at WP:AN. I don't see this tool as being any more gamable than what's already available. Jehochman ^Brrr 08:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually see it as less so—a restricted editor would still be able to start a thread on the incident noticeboard, file an arbitration request, and so on, whereas a blocked user is largely restricted to using {{unblock}}. A bad restriction could certainly happen, just like a bad block could, but the user would actually have a lot more access to avenues of appeal in such a case. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice to have an alternative to blocking when a user is productive in general but also disruptive in certain areas. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse with the caution that initially, at least, "lesser" sanctions be imposed only when a block of the same length would be allowed. Limited-duration/under-1-year 1RR parole, topic bans, user interaction bans, and the like are typically preferable to a block of the same duration.

If this works well, maybe a year from now we can tweak it so that lesser offenses that are not blockable are sanctionable, but for now hold off on that. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of policy on deletion of pages by banned users

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G5 - some clarification and discussion about speedy deletion criterion G5 (pages created by banned users). JamesBWatson (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban history

Simple question: is there any effective, centralized way to find what administrative sanctions have been imposed on a user? The user's talk pages are not available, since they archive and delete them regularly. Jpatokal (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:Editing restrictions. Please try to keep discussions centralized. That means keep your current ANI thread topic on ANI. Thanks. (This was mostly a preventative reminder.) Killiondude (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, but that page only seems to cover bans that are presently in force. You mentioned some discussions about this on Village pump, any pointers? Jpatokal (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the latest one. But it has been brought up many times as slightly different ideas based on the same premise. Killiondude (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Site-banned vs "indefinitely banned"

I don't think the length of the ban is relevant here. Banned is banned, whether for a long, short or indefinite period. I believe "site-banned" is the term we should use. Risker (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Various edits

A number of sections were poorly organized, I've moved some material around and updated a bit. Quick summary:

Refactorings such as [8]
Moving similar material together [9][10][11]
Rewrite of explanation/differences of blocks v. bans, including comparison table [12]
Added "Duration of bans" [13]
Clearer explanation of appeals process and requirements [14]
Refactor of edits by/for banned users [15]

A few other edits and cleanup of the above diffs, but that's the broad summary of the edits. A lot has moved around but not much has been added/changed, except as noted.

Overall diff: [16]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Banned means banned

I've added a section on this phrase, to explain the seriousness with which bans are taken. It explains that a ban is a decision that the user must not edit, not just a request they edit nicely (most banned users have already been asked that and it didn't help). It also explains why reversion is often done, and that banning will usually be upheld even if they make good edits only. Finally it explains that rarely, exceptions may be allowed for specific purposes.

Examples of use at Requests for Arbitration: - by Vassyana (line 478+), by Hersfold, by Newyorkbrad (endorsed by Risker), and the reban of Law.

I think this is non-contentious, it just explains bans "as a social construct".

Disclosure: A user who has attacked me in the past does reincarnate in this manner. This is not intended to be "about" that user.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the sentiments, but I think we need to be careful of WP:CREEP, and also see if there is a way to make this point more concisely. There is some redundancy in the policy already. Perhaps a good editing top to bottom to shorten it would help. We have to take care to keep things short and on point so that people will actually read them. Jehochman ^Brrr 19:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, and thank you for clarifying the removal was for those reasons. Below is the removed text for discussion. I don't think it's creep; it explains how and why bans work as they do; policies should explain, not just dictate. This is a very common issue of discussion in relation to bans so it's worthwhile, and it isn't really said anywhere else. If it can be done shorter then yes.

Banned means banned

The expression "banned means banned" is a reflection of the seriousness of site bans. Users are only site-banned as a last resort following exceptional circumstances, often with considerable disruption and stress to other users, and usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not responded to any lesser handling.

A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, their participation is deemed inappropriate or more likely to lead to further issues outweighing any benefits, and they should not edit no matter if the edits are good or bad.^[1]

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

On very rare occasions for exceptional good cause, a limited exception may be requested, for example to participate in a specific discussion.^[2]

^[1] Examples of use at Requests for Arbitration: - by Hersfold, by Newyorkbrad, by Vassyana (line 478+) (A ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them).

^[2] For example this motion.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bans apply to all editing, good or bad

Users are only site-banned as a last resort, usually for extreme or very persistent problems that have not been resolved by lesser sanctions and that often resulted in considerable disruption or stress to other users. A ban is not merely a request to avoid editing "unless they behave". The measure of a site ban is that even if the user were to make good edits, their participation would likely cause such harm to the community, that they may not edit no matter if the edits are good or bad.^[1]

A number of banned users have used "good editing" (such as anti-vandalism edits) tactically, to try and game the banning system, "prove" they cannot be banned, or force users into the paradox of either allowing banned editing or removing good content. Even if the user only makes good edits they will be rebanned for evasion.^[2]

On very rare occasions a limited exception may be requested, for example to participate in a specific discussion.^[3]

^[1] Examples of use at Requests for Arbitration: - by Hersfold, by Newyorkbrad, by Vassyana (line 478+) (A ban is a ban. It's not uncommon for people to make "good" edits to create a soapbox for disputing their ban and/or thumbing their nose at the project. Let's not enable them).

^[2] For example this case.

^[3] For example this motion.

The above is as short as I can make it. I've also taken out the rather poetic tautology "banned means banned". We often find that being terribly literal is the best way to communicate on the web, so I've replaced the expression with its plain meaning. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

With one minor phrasing change, that works just as well, and I agree about removing the tautology and your logic around that. Is this short enough to be viable? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. In retrospect, I think removing the tautology was the essential improvement. Jehochman ^Brrr 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

[advice-1] Note that "due care" is not enforceable, and is meant to be advisory only.

[1]