Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. 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

WT:BAN

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Explicit policy on third party "appeals"

I propose two changes/additions to the page to reflect how policy is actually being enforced:

Explicitly state somewhere that third-party appeals are not entertained, similarly to the page on blocks.
From the table in WP:BLOCKBANDIFF, change: "Bans imposed by community consensus or for repeated block evasion may be lifted by community discussion (unless needing ArbCom review)" to begin with "After appeal, bans imposed by community consensus ...".

Background for this can be found here. Having these two statements would have saved me time, and the time of some very annoyed administrators. Epachamo (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this proposal about a month ago, with no feedback, I'm extremely hesitant to just make the changes to such a high profile policy page. Is this a be bold situation? Do I need to get an administrator to make a change to a policy page? Epachamo (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AN section you linked is now archived here. Sorry, I don't have an opinion at the moment but people are generally reluctant to change long-standing wording that has generally worked. Also, there is always an WP:IAR possibility that a third-party might have a good reason to ask for an unblock of someone and that should not be shut down by more wording here. Johnuniq (talk) 04:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to PROXYING

WP:PROXYING, part of this policy, limits what actions editors can take at the direction of banned or blocked users. We don't currently have any constraints placed on the banned/blocked users themselves. I'm suggesting that we add such constraints, though I don't have a draft in mind. Is there any interest in proscribing, possibly with some exceptions, directing others to edit on your behalf when subject to a site ban or site block? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Directing others to edit on your behalf while banned is ban evasion, which is discussed in Wikipedia:Banning policy § Evasion and enforcement. One potential consequence is discussed in Wikipedia:Banning policy § Reset of ban following evasion. isaacl (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?

If it does that seems to create problems for both the editor and any Admin trying to enforce it. Note this is not a hypothetical question as it’s based on a ban from gensex with this exception. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard set of restrictions described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set includes page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic). So admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. As a matter of practicality, they should be very clear on the boundaries of that subset. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with isaacl. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Isaac but want to note that Contentious topics rules are set by ArbCom so we can't really come to a binding consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's not a matter for community consensus, but I also don't think we should read something into the contentious topic procedure that isn't there. As currently written, it doesn't specify that editing restrictions under the scope of the standard set must be on a broadly construed set of pages, and as far as I can recall, there is no context in the procedure that implies this. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if "broadly construed" were automatically required, it would go without saying. In the vast majority of instances, it's beneficial to say "broadly construed", so it gets said the vast majority of the time. But the fact that it gets said implies that, if it had not been said, then it wouldn't necessarily be the case. We now even have page blocks, so in theory it should be acceptable to ban, explicitly, from a clearly defined narrow set of pages, if that is the chosen sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The CT topic, broadly contrued, is where admins have these rights. Within which they may restrict a user from editing "entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic". The topic, narrowly construed, would certainly qualify for this. It may be argued that "specified" requires giving a better definition than this, but the admin is still permitted to issue such a restriction. Animal lover |666| 10:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting them from the entire topic appears to effectively be a restriction broadly construed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless otherwise stated, yes. But an admin can restrict a user from any subset of these pages, including by making the restriction be narrowly construed. Animal lover |666| 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree but there seems to be some ambiguity here. @Doug Weller: can you specify whether this is a ban from the whole topic area or a subset? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back it is presumably from the entire topic as no exceptions are mentioned. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So a whole topic ban... Which isn't broadly construed? I would agree that doesn't make much sense Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a topic ban?

Is there a way to request a ban from a certain topic? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For whom? Wikipedia:Banning policy § Authority to ban describes who is able to enact editing restrictions (such as topic bans) and the circumstances for each case. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't have power to issue TBANs based on editor request, though I guess you could request a block and then request a TBAN as an unblock condition. TBANs are not enforced by any technical measures, so they depend on the banned editor governing their own behavior, in addition to scrutiny by other editors. If your goal is just to engage in that sort of voluntary restriction with some limited accountability to others, you could put something at WP:RESTRICTIONS#Voluntary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban is a restriction enacted due to problematic behaviour, so the community normally won't enact one without actual poor behaviour. In any case, the most general form of a topic ban can't be enforced by a block, so if you're just trying to keep yourself from succumbing to temptation, a topic ban won't help. If there is a specific page from which you want to be blocked, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Self-requested blocks, which has a link to a list of administrators who will consider your request. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Default unban appeal terms

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Default unban appeal terms