Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User rights of (site) banned users

RfC on user rights of (site) banned users

Should the user rights (e.g. template editor, autopatrolled, etc.) of site banned users be removed when banned (case-by-case or otherwise)? If so, subject to case-by-case restoration if unbanned? There was a previous RfC that was similar to this in 2012 which spawned WP:INDEFRIGHTS, but its question was quite broad, referring to all indefinitely blocked users. This RfC was created with the partial intention/inspiration as a "refresher" on consensus, but with the main focus this time on banned users rather than the broad classification of "indefinitely blocked". As such, I believe that this RfC would be beneficial to pose.

Pinging all (non-blocked) participants of the last RfC (if I missed anyone, please do let me know and/or ping them) & per request: @NeilN, Fuhghettaboutit, Nikkimaria, Mifter, Monty845, NE Ent, Szyslak, Ansumang, Jeepday, Dennis Brown, Epipelagic, Seraphimblade, Timotheus Canens, Worm That Turned, Armbrust, Anthonyhcole, Targaryen, Jc37, ThatPeskyCommoner, Collect, Toddst1, Fluffernutter, Acalamari, TheGeneralUser, GreenMeansGo, Iridescent, and Newyorkbrad:.
Ping closer of previous RfC: @Beeblebrox:. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 20:17, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• To clarify as there was some confusion: this only applies to banned users, not the much broader subset of users that are "indefinitely blocked". --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey

• meh this seems to be mostly make-work (i.e. what problem is it trying to solve?). In general, I don't see it as a problem for an admin to degroup accounts that don't have a need for the group (such as by nature of being banned) - but it isn't something that really needs to be worked on either. Notably, if someone is long term banned many of these groups such as the "template editor" group in the example above, already have inactivity removal provisions that can be used to clean them up over time. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Well, it would seem sensible to remove any discretionary right from a banned user before return, but proactively doing it would be a bore. Guy (help!) 20:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Support generally. A siteban is removal from the community. Someone who subsequently rejoins the community should need to re-earn trust-based userrights, especially after a long absence. At the very least the default should be revocation, with restoration permissible on a case-by-case basis where there’s a need for the userright or no obvious concerns. Things like template editor, autopatrolled, account creator, etc. should probably not be automatically restored. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Keep it conditional based on if the reason for the block (or unblock conditions) are related to the user right, if they aren't then unless its a particularly dangerous right I don't think they should automatically be removed however maybe after a year they could be. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Not every user who is banned is actually "banned". There are those who voluntarily request an Admin block for personal exclusion reasons with varying agreements on time scales and changing of mind. One such case was caught by this just the other day. I doubt that they welcomed the reminder email! Leaky caldron (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

By my read this proposal only applies to site-banned users. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron and Beeblebrox: Beeblebrox: we (edit conflict × 2)'d on this, but I was explaining the same thing. Leaky caldron has a good point, but blocked and "banned" are not the same thing (though it is true that banned users are blocked as well). I hope that helps clarify, Leaky caldron! --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 21:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I think Xaosflux puts it well. I don't see a serious issue in need of a resolution here. It's not an issue at all unless and until they are unbanned, and any admin can revoke any user right they think may be abused. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Meh on what's done to people banned from now on at the time of the block. Totally oppose what initially prompted this—the OP unilaterally deciding to retroactively strip currently-banned editors of permissions—per my original comment; quite aside from the ethical issues raised by the mean-spirited vindictiveness of symbolically stripping people of rights they're already unable to use, it's actively disruptive. Because of the way Echo works, any change to someone's userrights generates an email notification unless that editor has specifically opted out at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo; consequently, editors who've moved on from Wikipedia and editors who are dutifully biding their time waiting until they're ready to submit a standard offer request will out-of-the-blue receive a "we've decided to kick you when you're down" email from Wikipedia, which they'll quite legitimately consider rude and which has a non-negligible chance of reminding trolls and vandals who've given up and moved on just why they had a grudge against Wikipedia. Consequently, stripping of userrights from existing banned users has definite negatives, with no positives other than allowing the person doing the stripping to feel good about themselves (stripping the rollback right etc from a banned user has no effect since they can't use any of these permissions as long as the block is in place). ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Standard for hard indefs, stay as we are/case by case for others - the most standard siteban for experienced editors (those with extra userrights) are probably 3RR breaches. It'd be ridiculous to remove them for that. But I think a full hard indef would be a reasonable case - they indicate a full loss of trust, and I feel it would be better to remove them immediately then when someone is returning with a standard offer. I wouldn't be particularly fussed with PC, but the other rights pose a more substantial risk that might as well be resolved. Everything between short and indefs can be decided by Admin discretion. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  Nosebagbear, I can't think of a single occasion in which anyone has ever been sitebanned for a 3RR breach, and I find it hard to imagine any circumstances when the community would support it. Have you got any examples? ‑ Iridescent 22:07, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

  @Iridescent: - when writing it I'd thought that breaches of it under AE could be sanctioned as site bans, but of course that's not part of an enforcing admin's authority under discretionary sanctions. Blame the lack of tea at this late hour Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per Iridescent's well reasoned response listed above, .. and again here There's far too much gloating and grave-dancing done now when an editor is hounded off, or blocked out of the project. Leave people with a shred of dignity and respect. They aren't going to sneak back in and block someone, delete a page, and I HIGHLY doubt they'll confirm an edit. — Ched (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• What is the point of this? If they are banned, they cannot do anything with the rights, so there is no point in them having them. That said, assuming they are blocked (and I cannot imagine someone being site banned but not blocked), they cannot use them anyway so there is no point in removing them. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only advanced right that you can do anything with if you're blocked is admin, in which case you can view deleted. So site banned admins should have the admin bit removed, but for any other user rights I don't see how it matters either way. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:34, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Does anyone know if a block prevents a person from using rights that do not involve an edit? Accepting a pending revision and patrolling a page come to mind. I presume they would be prevented from doing so. -- Dolotta (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• @Dolotta: there are a few beansy things in the admin and other very special restricted groups that could be used when blocked, but reviewing activities are not some of them (they fail with with various errors to various degrees of helpfulness, similar to "unable to complete because you are blocked" or "permission denied."). — xaosflux ^Talk 21:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)