This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cailil (talk | contribs) at 18:53, 29 September 2011 (→Proposed residual exception to partial bans: ce). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:53, 29 September 2011 by Cailil (talk | contribs) (→Proposed residual exception to partial bans: ce)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. | Shortcut |
 Archives | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Admin-imposed topic bans?
There's nothing in here about an admin imposing a topic ban on a user without the backing of ArbCom. I thought we could do that, and in fact have done it recently, and was looking to see if I should log it somewhere or not. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- In the absence of discretionary sanctions by AC (or probation by the Community), there will always be a risk of an admin topic ban being overturned completely because admins can't (by themselves) impose a topic ban. The Community had a discussion about it (someone else will probably find a link for it quicker than I do), and weren't willing to come to a consensus to allow admins to do that (final warnings are sometimes logged at WP:RESTRICT, but I'm not sure how long that will hang around for). It's always best practice to get either the Community or AC on board, and set out the terms to be supported, where possible. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Ncmvocalist. Topic bans usually can't be instituted on a lone admin's say-so, unless there are already ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or a clear and substantial community consensus in support of the admin's actions. If an admin is working in a non-discretionary area, and thinks that a topic ban is appropriate, one option is to bring it up in a central location, such as WP:AN, with a brief summary of the situation and the suggested topic ban. Even in egregious cases though, it's usually going to be a hard sell, because the discussions tend to get more participation from involved parties than uninvolved. In my experience, it's usually easier for an administrator to impose a block for disruptive behavior, rather than a selective topic ban. Which seems backwards to me, but for some reason that's the culture we're working with, that bans are seen as more disruptive than blocks. Beeblebrox raises a good point though, that if an admin does institute a topic ban, these things should be logged somewhere. I vaguely recall there was some discussion about this somewhere, like a new guideline page that was being worked on, but I don't think it ever got consensus. Beeblebrox, for now, my recommendation would be to bring up the ban as a fait accompli at WP:AN and see if you can get some uninvolved opinions. If the community is in support, you're golden. If not, you can reverse the ban, and life goes on. --Elonka 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The other option is to simply note it on the user's talk page. These things aren't in policy but they are frequently done. If I say, "you are being disruptive and obviously can't edit Foo in a productive way, if you continue to edit Foo I'm going to block you", I've effectively imposed an article ban, if I say "articles related to Foo" I've imposed a topic ban; though these are really not something that should be discussed in policy for the reasons stated above. However, there is another kind which are openly done: "I'll consider unblocking you if and only if you agree to a topic ban on Foo". These are real topic bans, even if they don't fit neatly in any policy. I think they should be discussed. After all, if I won't unblock you and nobody else will either then you are site banned by definition; so if the only way to get unblocked is to agree not to edit a certain topic, then you are truly topic banned - even a good faith edit in that topic may end you up indef blocked again and you aren't likely to find any help unless the whole issue is long since become stale. I've recently dealt with an editor who is under a "ban" imposed by a non-admin mentor. The ban is effective because he was unblocked only because the mentor took the hard student in and said "I"ll take responsibility for the editor and here's my detailed plan, but editor you need to do everything I say and strictly comply with my plan or you'll be indef blocked again". He makes him list his conditions on his talk page and the mentor controls in a real way what the editor may edit. This isn't a true ban, but it is a de facto one since the editing restriction requiring mentorship is so strict.--Doug. 19:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I should clarify that my comment dealt with involuntary and binding topic bans generally. Doug, if the topic ban you issued (or conditions for unblocking or staying unblocked) came to the attention of any other admin, the Community, or AC, and any one of those found an issue with what/how you've said/done something, then that could be amended/overturned. That is because the Community did not give it binding force and the user has not voluntarily agreed to comply with it. If the user accepted the topic ban/conditions (regardless of the reason), then it would be a voluntary topic ban. If the Community or AC enacted a voluntary topic ban formally (and listed at WP:RESTRICT), then that measure would be voluntary and binding. The short version is it depends on the circumstances, and there is a gamble where best practice isn't followed or where too much reliance is placed on something being de facto (note: from time to time, the Community prefers keeping things informal/de-facto as it offers this sort of flexibility). The mentorship restriction you're referring to is strictly speaking, a voluntary probation. Hope that makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- BTW, here's the page that I was thinking about. It was at Misplaced Pages:Discretionary sanctions, but that now redirects to the ArbCom page. The (failed) proposal for non-ArbCom sanctions was moved to here: Misplaced Pages:Community discretionary sanctions. Note that the discussion was actually encouraged by ArbCom as part of the Abd-William M. Connolley case in September 2009, but the idea never achieved consensus. Check Misplaced Pages talk:Community discretionary sanctions for the discussion. Since it's been a couple years though, maybe it's worth bringing it up again? --Elonka 23:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suppose I should clarify that my comment dealt with involuntary and binding topic bans generally. Doug, if the topic ban you issued (or conditions for unblocking or staying unblocked) came to the attention of any other admin, the Community, or AC, and any one of those found an issue with what/how you've said/done something, then that could be amended/overturned. That is because the Community did not give it binding force and the user has not voluntarily agreed to comply with it. If the user accepted the topic ban/conditions (regardless of the reason), then it would be a voluntary topic ban. If the Community or AC enacted a voluntary topic ban formally (and listed at WP:RESTRICT), then that measure would be voluntary and binding. The short version is it depends on the circumstances, and there is a gamble where best practice isn't followed or where too much reliance is placed on something being de facto (note: from time to time, the Community prefers keeping things informal/de-facto as it offers this sort of flexibility). The mentorship restriction you're referring to is strictly speaking, a voluntary probation. Hope that makes sense. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- The other option is to simply note it on the user's talk page. These things aren't in policy but they are frequently done. If I say, "you are being disruptive and obviously can't edit Foo in a productive way, if you continue to edit Foo I'm going to block you", I've effectively imposed an article ban, if I say "articles related to Foo" I've imposed a topic ban; though these are really not something that should be discussed in policy for the reasons stated above. However, there is another kind which are openly done: "I'll consider unblocking you if and only if you agree to a topic ban on Foo". These are real topic bans, even if they don't fit neatly in any policy. I think they should be discussed. After all, if I won't unblock you and nobody else will either then you are site banned by definition; so if the only way to get unblocked is to agree not to edit a certain topic, then you are truly topic banned - even a good faith edit in that topic may end you up indef blocked again and you aren't likely to find any help unless the whole issue is long since become stale. I've recently dealt with an editor who is under a "ban" imposed by a non-admin mentor. The ban is effective because he was unblocked only because the mentor took the hard student in and said "I"ll take responsibility for the editor and here's my detailed plan, but editor you need to do everything I say and strictly comply with my plan or you'll be indef blocked again". He makes him list his conditions on his talk page and the mentor controls in a real way what the editor may edit. This isn't a true ban, but it is a de facto one since the editing restriction requiring mentorship is so strict.--Doug. 19:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Ncmvocalist. Topic bans usually can't be instituted on a lone admin's say-so, unless there are already ArbCom discretionary sanctions, or a clear and substantial community consensus in support of the admin's actions. If an admin is working in a non-discretionary area, and thinks that a topic ban is appropriate, one option is to bring it up in a central location, such as WP:AN, with a brief summary of the situation and the suggested topic ban. Even in egregious cases though, it's usually going to be a hard sell, because the discussions tend to get more participation from involved parties than uninvolved. In my experience, it's usually easier for an administrator to impose a block for disruptive behavior, rather than a selective topic ban. Which seems backwards to me, but for some reason that's the culture we're working with, that bans are seen as more disruptive than blocks. Beeblebrox raises a good point though, that if an admin does institute a topic ban, these things should be logged somewhere. I vaguely recall there was some discussion about this somewhere, like a new guideline page that was being worked on, but I don't think it ever got consensus. Beeblebrox, for now, my recommendation would be to bring up the ban as a fait accompli at WP:AN and see if you can get some uninvolved opinions. If the community is in support, you're golden. If not, you can reverse the ban, and life goes on. --Elonka 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your point Ncmvocalist, but I think it's a distinction without a difference. If ARBCOM says "thou shalt not edit the topic Foo henceforth" or if I say, "hey dude, you're blocked and there ain't nobody who's going to unblock you unless you are willing to stop editing the topic Foo, in which case I'll unblock you", it's the same effect. Actually the latter is likely harsher because if you violate ARBCOM's involuntary ban you're 99 times out of 100 going to get progressive enforcement if an admin who happens to notice that you've violated a ban, if you end up long term blocked you can ask to come back and ask ARBCOM for clemency and might succeed; if you violate my "voluntary" topic ban you are probably going to get immediately indef blocked and you are almost certain to stay that way. You are right though, circumstances mean everything. On your first point, the community can always amend/overturn what I do and every admin action is an act of applying my interpretation of community consensus, this is nothing special for admin imposed topic bans - under the WP:SILENCE theory, because they exist there is consensus for them. I should note, I have never as far as I recall imposed an ad hoc or de facto topic ban but I see them frequently and I don't oppose them.--Doug. 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the actual series of events: User has a history of adding spammy links. About 60 of their 100 or so edits relates to one particular company which they appear to have a COI issue with. They get blocked as a spammer. They requested unblock, and when reviewing the case I found they had not received sufficient warning that they would be blocked. After discussing with he blocking admin, I unblocked them with an admonishment not to repeat those actions. Their first (and so far only) two article edits since being unblocked were more of the same stuff that had helped lead to the block, so, in an uncharacteristic display of not blocking a spammer, I told them not to edit that topic for a year and to find something else to do or they would be reblocked. I'm inclined to just let it lie for the moment, but I will take on board everything that has been mentioned here and alter my approach in the future to the more simple "do that specific thing again and you will be blocked" as opposed to the broader topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox, I think you are perfectly within bounds and by that I mean within consensus, you're just not within written policy. It's exactly what I'm talking about and I think it's fully supportable. Anyone who opposes you doing that is impractical at best.--Doug. 18:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the actual series of events: User has a history of adding spammy links. About 60 of their 100 or so edits relates to one particular company which they appear to have a COI issue with. They get blocked as a spammer. They requested unblock, and when reviewing the case I found they had not received sufficient warning that they would be blocked. After discussing with he blocking admin, I unblocked them with an admonishment not to repeat those actions. Their first (and so far only) two article edits since being unblocked were more of the same stuff that had helped lead to the block, so, in an uncharacteristic display of not blocking a spammer, I told them not to edit that topic for a year and to find something else to do or they would be reblocked. I'm inclined to just let it lie for the moment, but I will take on board everything that has been mentioned here and alter my approach in the future to the more simple "do that specific thing again and you will be blocked" as opposed to the broader topic ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
- I understand your point Ncmvocalist, but I think it's a distinction without a difference. If ARBCOM says "thou shalt not edit the topic Foo henceforth" or if I say, "hey dude, you're blocked and there ain't nobody who's going to unblock you unless you are willing to stop editing the topic Foo, in which case I'll unblock you", it's the same effect. Actually the latter is likely harsher because if you violate ARBCOM's involuntary ban you're 99 times out of 100 going to get progressive enforcement if an admin who happens to notice that you've violated a ban, if you end up long term blocked you can ask to come back and ask ARBCOM for clemency and might succeed; if you violate my "voluntary" topic ban you are probably going to get immediately indef blocked and you are almost certain to stay that way. You are right though, circumstances mean everything. On your first point, the community can always amend/overturn what I do and every admin action is an act of applying my interpretation of community consensus, this is nothing special for admin imposed topic bans - under the WP:SILENCE theory, because they exist there is consensus for them. I should note, I have never as far as I recall imposed an ad hoc or de facto topic ban but I see them frequently and I don't oppose them.--Doug. 23:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Is this inconsistent?
Misplaced Pages:BAN#Bans apply to all editing, good or bad states
- The measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good
However WP:BAN#Edits by and on behalf of banned editors seems to allow unambiguously "good" edits to remain:
- By banning an editor, the community has determined that the broader problems, due to their participation, outweigh the benefits of their editing, and their edits may be reverted without any further reason. This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor, but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert.
"may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good " appears to mean "revert all edits on sight"; this seems not to be consistent with "this does not mean that obviously helpful edits ... must be reverted".
Either I'm missing something or some clarification would be helpful. Tonywalton 02:06, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- The key word between the two different sets of text seems to be the word "obviously". I propose this approach to define "obviously helpful edits": revert the banned edit, and then re-enter the helpful part of the edit as your own. In taking responsibility for the change as your own, there is no remaining possibility of unintended consequences that are due to the banned editor. Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
- By my read these are not really discussing the same issue. The first quote pertains to whether they are allowed to make the edits in the first place. They are not. Full stop. The second quote pertains to whether we must delete any edit they made upon detecting the ban evasion. We don't have to, but we err on the side of deleting them so as not to encourage them to keep evading the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
- Do we have any evidence that there is a single banned editor that has stopped editing? Given the way that detecting socks works, my guess is that this is a game of how long can a sock hide from the authorities, the sock is detected and blocked, and within minutes the banned editor simply creates a new sock. Unscintillating (talk) 23:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
- By my read these are not really discussing the same issue. The first quote pertains to whether they are allowed to make the edits in the first place. They are not. Full stop. The second quote pertains to whether we must delete any edit they made upon detecting the ban evasion. We don't have to, but we err on the side of deleting them so as not to encourage them to keep evading the ban. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Three questions worth asking, and by extension, asking whether the policy clearly and decisively answers them.
- Are banned users allowed to edit anything at all on Misplaced Pages?
- No
- Is it required to undo, revert, and delete revisions by banned users regardless of the circumstances?
- No
- Is it permitted to undo, revert, and delete revisions by banned users regardless of the circumstances (including usual restrictions like 3RR)?
- Yes
causa sui (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
How can I ban a saboteur
During the past weeks, the page Hayedeh has been attacked by an unknown user (91.98.45.92). After sending him warnings, he is still continuing to enter false data. I wonder if I can put the block user tag on his page myself or it should be done via the administrators? Thanks Leo71538 (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- First off a WP:BLOCK and a WP:BAN are not synonymous. A block may be used as a technical means to enforce a ban, but it is a separate process. And no, you cannot block or ban anyone yourself. A block requires an administrator, a ban requires either community consensus or a decision by the Arbitration Committee. If the user's edits meet Misplaced Pages's definition of vandalism you can report them at WP:AIV. Otherwise WP:ANI would be a place to ask for more input. If the disruption is limited to one article you can also request page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry, did not respond here, I have protected two of the pages for some time. But it looks more pages are targetted (which I watchlisted as well). Maybe it is time for some blocks and some more protection as well, I'll keep an eye. --Dirk Beetstra 21:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Proposed residual exception to partial bans
"A restricted editor may make any edit in good faith, if not making that edit would defeat the purpose of the ban."
Alternatively:
"Administrators are directed to NOT enforce bans, if so doing would defeat the purpose of the ban, and if the restricted editor violated the ban in good faith."
Thoughts?--Tznkai (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Can you give an example? EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Let's not go there. Generally, topic bans are deliberately made to be construed as broadly as possible. We don't want to go creating ways for topic banned users to wiki-lawyer their way around them. Half the point of a topic ban is to get the user to go do something else, if they are taking it seriously they won't even be watching the area they are banned from. In the extremely rare instance that enforcing the ban would be the wrong thing to do we already have WP:IAR to guide us. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Beeblebrox - plus such a wording creates confusion & loopholes that, in effect, "defeat the purpose" of the lesser restrictions themselves. Also "directing" administrators not to enforce restrictions handed down by arbcom (as many such restrictions are or are by proxy through topic probation etc) is in diametric opposition to existing guidelines for Arb Enforcement and restricted users' behaviour.
Besides, where a restricted user has 'accidentally' or in good faith crossed the line, the generally accepted practice is for them to self-revert immediately, otherwise they have, in fact, breached their restriction--Cailil 11:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)- There is more nuance to restrictions than you're giving credit. The overall purpose of a ban is to maintain maximum productivity from/freedom of a user while quarantining them from certain areas/actions/editors. For example, editor A and editor B have been constantly fighting over a range of policy pages, administrative notice boards, and user talk pages, and Arbcom lays down an interaction ban substantively along the wording of "Editor A is to avoid to avoid any unnecessary interactions with Editor B, except to the extent necessary for legitimate purposes such as dispute resolution." Then, not checking the edit history of the article, editor A edits kumquat about one hour after Editor B does. Is this a violation of the interaction ban? Given the wording of the restriction, possibly. Given the background postulated, preventing A from editing the same mainspace articles and forcing A to carefully examine all edit histories before editing an article would defeat the purpose of the ban.
- The problem, as I see it, is that there are administrators who treat bans as Laws, and any failure to enforce bans strictly as destroying the Rule of Law, where in reality, general restrictions are much more like tools given to the administrator community to be exercised with discretion. Having a residual exception written into the ban policy makes it clear that in ban enforcement, intent. The general concept of the residual exception is actually already found in IAR, common sense, and implicit in the nature of proper ban enforcement - but invoking any of those things during an argument with an administrator over ban enforcement is toxic, and adds a high probability of wheel warring.
- The nature of bans, especially arbitration originated ones, is that they create a nearly insurmountable first blocker bias regardless of the underlying merits of the action. A residual exception wouldn't stop that, but it would balance the scales slightly.--Tznkai (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The proposed residual exception is so unclear (at least to me) that it would be harder for an admin to interpret than the interaction ban itself. It is known that interaction bans have problems, but they are nonetheless useful. In your Kumquat example (above), party A is in fact violating the interaction ban, but asking him to self-revert would be the best plan. (Unless editor A does this kind of thing frequently). We assume that the typical admin enforcing an interaction ban would have this much common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry Tznkai Ed's correct. Restrictions are broadly or narrowly construed for a reason. A sysop's inability to enforce bans (or not enfoce them) when and where appropriate is their problem and is a) one of the reasons we have RFA processes to test the common sense and discretion of admins, and b) why sysops who make ... unusual arb enforcmenet decisions are asked to stop or are desysoped. If an editor is under restriction they should understand they need to be careful and if they are in dodgy territory they should simply walk away from it, not doing so is their problem and is not something that can be legislated for--Cailil 18:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- The proposed residual exception is so unclear (at least to me) that it would be harder for an admin to interpret than the interaction ban itself. It is known that interaction bans have problems, but they are nonetheless useful. In your Kumquat example (above), party A is in fact violating the interaction ban, but asking him to self-revert would be the best plan. (Unless editor A does this kind of thing frequently). We assume that the typical admin enforcing an interaction ban would have this much common sense. EdJohnston (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Agree with Beeblebrox - plus such a wording creates confusion & loopholes that, in effect, "defeat the purpose" of the lesser restrictions themselves. Also "directing" administrators not to enforce restrictions handed down by arbcom (as many such restrictions are or are by proxy through topic probation etc) is in diametric opposition to existing guidelines for Arb Enforcement and restricted users' behaviour.
- Let's not go there. Generally, topic bans are deliberately made to be construed as broadly as possible. We don't want to go creating ways for topic banned users to wiki-lawyer their way around them. Half the point of a topic ban is to get the user to go do something else, if they are taking it seriously they won't even be watching the area they are banned from. In the extremely rare instance that enforcing the ban would be the wrong thing to do we already have WP:IAR to guide us. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)