Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Organization

Is listing primarily by case the best approach here? I would think that a listing by user:

UserX	Case1	Restriction1
	Case2	Restriction2, Restriction3

would be more useful to people trying to determine what a particular editor was subject to. Kirill 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the expiration date may be of more immediate interest than the date when the restriction was imposed. Kirill 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. What about restrictions on use of alternate accounts? Where do we want to record those? Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is probably as good a place as any. Kirill 04:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done December and November 2007, and will resume working on this tomorrow. Jehochman ^Talk 04:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

September and October 2007 are done.Jehochman ^Talk 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Expiration date

I'm working on adding the list of users from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. How should I handle expiration dates, when none was specified? Just leave it blank? --Elonka 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite. Jehochman ^Talk 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

I went ahead and added in the list of editors from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. It was a complex case with many editors, and sanctions listed in two different cases, so I'd appreciate if someone could doublecheck my list and tweak as needed. --Elonka 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good work. The names of some of the remedies have changed. The list of possible values is at the top. "Supervised editing" is now "Probation". The other ones you want to use are "Revert limitation" and "Civility restriction". I can make adjustments later, but I am heading AFK right now. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is much duplication in the Armenia-Azerbaijan remedies. Can an arbitration or clerk look at that and confirm if we can collapse those to just the three point list? Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to trim older restrictions in cases where they're superseded by more recent ones. Kirill 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Status

Everything back to April 2007 appears to be done. As we go back to 2006, the workload will be less because only indefinite sanctions will still be in effect. Jehochman ^Talk 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bug

Sort table and rowspan are incompatible. We must decide which feature to lose. I am not so fond of sorting because it is easy enough to search for a particular username with the browser. Jehochman ^Talk 19:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the sorting would be useful to grab subsets by type and expiration date, though. Kirill 19:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. We can remove the rowspans and the cells, there aren't many of these, and then everything will work. Jehochman ^Talk 19:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

2007 done

All restrictions from 2007 are now logged. Before making effort to log 2006, I suggest determining whether it is worth the additional effort. I recommend that the committee consider placing a sunset date on all remedies. Of course, if an editor returns to old ways, a quick appeal to the Committee should be sufficient to reinstate any lapsed remedy. Perhaps the Committee can agree to terminate all remedies more than one year old, subject to speedy reinstatement if problems resume. Jehochman ^Talk 05:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Organization (2)

Three items relating to organization of this page:

• As noted above, how about combining multiple sanctions for the same editor?
• This page does not appear to be in any useful order. Is there a good reason for that, or do we all just have better things to do with our time than alphabetize?
• There are a couple of red-linked editors. Is it worth maintaining them on this page?

Matchups (talk) 02:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Old community sanctions

Please see Wikipedia:Community sanction/Log. There is an old sanction there for Gene Nygaard and disagreement over whether the sanction is still in place or not. I suspect if it is, then it should have been moved to here. Since it wasn't, what should happen? My view is that the sanction is now very old (18 months) and is no longer needed and should be formally lifted. The underlying problem is that it is unclear who should lift an indefinite sanction placed by the community. Does it require another full community discussion or what? I can dig up links to the old history and the current mini-flare-up of this dispute, and will notify Gene Nygaard and Husond, but want to get this uncertainty sorted out one way or the other. Current state of the discussion (as of this timestamp) is here. There was also an ANI thread archived here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Some old ANI threads are here and here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong here.

Nothing should happen; it is what that pages says it is—something kept for historical purposes only, a historical record of a failed procedure with no consensus, and one which had no basis whatsoever at the time of the original action:

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is retained for historical archive. A historical page is either no longer relevant or consensus has become unclear. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should seek broader input via a forum such as the proposals page of the village pump.

Furthermore, Husond, who remains the only one making these claims, has already unsuccessfully made his claims and they have been answered at ANI. Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. I'd view sanctions as surviving the obsolescence of the process that put them in place. ANI no doubt is the proper place to discuss whether they should still be in force or should be lifted, but I would not be so cavalier as to dismiss them purely on legalistic grounds as you appear to have done. ++Lar: t/c 00:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In this case, it isn't even a matter of surviving obsolescence; that process was both after the fact and rejected. And no, ANI is not the proper place in any case, and even if it were, it has done so last November. Gene Nygaard (talk) 08:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Lar: it certainly seems this is the wrong place. Husond has seemingly ignored or forgotten my note, Lar arrived very late, Gene took a day or so to arrive. I suspect no-one is actually watching this page. What should be done? I would like to petition for Gene's sanction to be formally lifted, but that is a weakness of the community sanction process. Blocks can be undone by single admins. Bans and topic sanctions seemingly require a full debate, unless the sanctions are limited by a time period. No productive editor (as Gene is) should be under indefinite sancions forever. At some point they should be reviewed and lifted. Carcharoth (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually I've just bumped into this, I hadn't noticed your message on my talk page. In my view, Gene's probation is still in force unless lifted by the community. Gene keeps bringing on the "this page is inactive" sign at the top of the community sanctions page, but he forgets that "historical" does not mean "revoked". In fact, as he should have pasted along, his probation is under section "Current sanctions" (not "former sanctions") and as one reads "Gene Nygaard is banned from non consensual article moves until further notice". Further notice has not occurred, therefore the probation remains unchanged. It can only be lifted following community consensus for such, most likely at ANI. Húsönd 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI really really is the place to take this for resolution. This sanction IS in place at this time as far as I am concerned. I would certainly look favourably on a request for a lifting of this sanction if the request acknowledged that the sanction was in place, and that there was a valid matter of concern, and if it demonstrates that things have changed, and that the behaviour that caused the sanction to be imposed has changed. On the other hand, if the argument is advanced that "the sanction is not in force" or "there was no basis for it", or "ANI isn't the place to discuss it", or "the behaviour never occurred" I'll be among those voices arguing strongly that the sanction be maintained in force without change, or strengthened further. Because, make no mistake, the revert/move warring that was occurring was disruptive, and needs not to recur. That's the basis to discuss this... that the disruption isn't going to continue, not any procedural wankery. Any ruleslawyering will hold zero (or less) water with me. I am but one voice and perhaps others will feel differently but somehow, I suspect not. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Expired restrictions

How are we handling expired restrictions? Just delete them off the page, or move them to an archive? Also, one of the affected editors, Skyelarke, recently changed names to Scott Free (talk · contribs). They're no longer under their initial 3-month ban, but other restrictions continue to apply even after the original ban. How should this be notated? --Elonka 01:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

User OrangeMarlin

Since the decision was made vacant, shouldn't his name be cleared from the ArbCom enforced ones? Or moved to Community after this compromise with jpgordon? Samuel Sol (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed him from the list. PhilKnight (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Responsibility for "declaring" consensus and logging restrictions

To firm things up a bit here for the "community" enacted restrictions, could we have some discussion of whether the person logging the restriction here could be the person (hopefully an 'uninvolved' admin) that both assesses consensus at the community discussion, closes that discussion, and records the restriction at a user subpage (if needed) and on the user's talk page? This seems to be how things are done at the moment, but some confusion has arisen recently on whether responsibility for enacting/lifting bans and dealing with appeals and other paperwork lies with a particular admin, or with the "community". I think it is better to have an individual deal with things once the discussion has ended (and be a point of contact), but that the "community" should be the one to overturn any restrictions or discuss any appeal. With the proviso of course that the editor in question can still appeal directly to the community (if they feel the "point of contact" is obstructing them) or direct to ArbCom (who will, I believe, hear appeals against restrictions that both they and the community hand down). I'll leave a note at WP:AN. Carcharoth (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that no ban is properly effective until there has been a close, a responsible administrator. However, requiring that a closing admin return to the community if the admin, presumably based on new evidence or analysis, determines that the original decision was faulty, is a problematic (read highly inefficient) departure from how we make other decisions, including block decisions, and I see no reason why a topic ban should have more complicated requirements, and more stringent process, than a block or, say, an AfD. We undo decisions, routinely, by appeal to the person or body that made the decision, and the community does not make decisions, directly. It makes them through a process that collects evidence and analysis from members of the community, and which then results in a single individual who makes a determination presumably based on that. Typically, the community comment includes !votes in both directions, but a closing admin is free to decide differently than indicated by any !vote count, this is the meaning of "We do not vote," and the closing admin typically, as well, closes the discussion. And what an admin is free to decide in the first place, it vastly increases our efficiency if the admin may, on his or her own discretion, reverse that decision or set conditions that may not have been clear in the original decision, which would include, for example, the term of a ban. I agree that if the closing admin cannot be persuaded to reverse the decision, or directly refuses to discuss it, it would be wheel-warring for another admin to reverse the decision, and a new comment process would be necessary. If, however, the admin withdraws responsibility, then there is no close, effectively, and any admin could make a new close, if desired, which could consider new evidence, which should be specified, and which might be accompanied by a courtesy notice to the body which made the original decision.

There is an actual case which precipitated this, and sometimes discussing "rules" in the abstract can fail to be understandable; judges, for example, do not generally issue rulings on law absent a specific case where existing rules are possibly deficient. But I'll leave it to others to decide if the case should be mentioned.

We don't face this problem with blocks, because blocks are self-enforcing. With a block, we consider and give the unblocking admin full discretion to reverse the block, even if there was full consensus for it in a preceding discussion. There are exceptions, but the norm is that the blocking admin may lift the block without consulting. For any other admin to lift the block requires the consent of the blocking admin, or a new discussion overruling the block or, at least, showing lack of consensus for it. Thus, by analogy, lifting a ban would require the consent of the closing admin who certifies it, or further process. That certification includes listing the ban in Editing restrictions, which is equivalent to listing a user in the list of blocked users that Wikipedia maintains (or setting a blocked bit, same thing). What the admin may list, the admin may unlist, or may permit another to do so. This is really very simple, consistent with other process, and should bypass much convoluted and contentious process that some seem to think necessary for lifting a ban based on a discussion, say, at AN/I.

It might seem there is an exception, blocks based on an ArbComm decision. But with ArbComm, the "body" actually makes decisions by actual vote, hence ArbComm is the place to go to change a ban, and it makes itself readily available for that purpose. Bans or blocks are routinely undone by ArbComm, sometimes based on private email to the Committee. ArbComm does not necessarily reopen a case to alter an outcome, in fact, I can't recall ever seeing it. ArbComm, through vote, takes the place of a single administrator in the rest of our process. --Abd (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)I'm under a self-imposed general ban from editing outside my user space, but there are some listed exceptions, and this issue is one covered by them, though I don't intend to debate here, I just wanted to put this view before the interested community. I was, in fact, recently blocked because I strongly asserted this view, plus other complications.

In my observation, once one has passed judgment on an issue one becomes personally involved to a considerable degree. Matters involving any challenge or modification should be heard by someone else. For continuity , there is no harm in the original person coordinating things, but there should be ready appeal. DGG (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the involvement issue. But we don't have that in place, anywhere, except with unblock requests, but a user may also negotiate unblock with the blocking admin, and that's common. Ready appeal is a different issue, essentially the second step in dispute resolution. The first step is discussion with the admin who has taken an action. The issue I've raised is quite simple. If an admin closes a discussion, and takes action based on that closure, may the admin reverse the decision without reopening the discussion, thus taking the situation to where it would have been if the admin had made a different close in the first place? We do this with blocks and XfDs. Why not with bans? It's less fuss, not more. --Abd (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note that User:Kirill Lokshin and I did much of the early work putting together this page. The list is a convenient index; nothing more. Any editor in good standing can fix what is written here if it is not correct. The admin who closes a community discussion should record the result where the discussion occurs. It is then a mere secretarial task for that same admin, or another editor, to copy the restriction here, verbatim, with a link to the discussion. Please read WP:BURO and let's not have solutions looking for problems. Jehochman ^Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So in your view, a ban becomes a ban when an administrator closes the discussion and not when it is listed here, correct? I think either would be satisfactory from a process perspective since either demarcates a specific and objective point in time. Is this a formal rule already in place, or merely customary practice at this point? WP:BURO is all well an good but some of these procedural ambiguities cause a lot of disruption. Take, for example, the entire WW flap at WP:AN. --GoRight (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Now, let's not argue over mere procedure. Sanctions come into force as soon as an administrator closes the relevant discussion, "confirming" the consensus of the community. As suggested above, Wikipedia:Editing restrictions is nought but a convenient index. When the thread surrounding the ban proposal is closed, meaning that no further comments may be made and hence the consensus at that instant is what is to go into effect, the sanction is considered to be in effect. Anthøny 01:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think that a user could properly be blocked for violating a ban that the user was not notified of, so courtesy and common sense would suggest that the sequence would be (1) close of the discussion, (2) notification of the editor, and (3) logging of the ban, here, and, I just learned, creation of the log file in the user's space. The latter does not create the ban, the close does, but it only takes enforceable effect upon the notification of the editor. (That's the "warning" that must precede block.) The logging is, as described, doable by anyone, but if it isn't done, the ban is less effective. Logging here is just to make broader enforcement possible. It's possible that the closing, notification, and logging could be done by three different editors, but it's also simplest to assume that the responsibility for doing them is with the closing admin, just as it it normally the closing admin who actually deletes an article from an AfD. If there is nobody with the responsibility, then it might not get done, and I don't see anyone else who would have the responsibility. It should be, simply, part of the close, as with deletion.--Abd (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that in the case that prompted this, it seems that initially no-one bothered to close the discussion (at least not formally), and it was assumed that a community topic ban had come into effect, but it seem the editor in question was never notified and the first they heard was someone complaining about them breaching the ban. Fritzpoll then closed the new ANI discussion (implying that the ban had come into effect, even though the original discussion never got closed and is still there in the archives, unclosed) and notified the editor in question, and things went from there (the later dispute concerned a different-but-related point about where an appeal should be made and who should be taking responsibility for the topic ban). The point is that for future admins dealing with the topic ban, there needed to be a permanent record, preferably both here and in the editor's userpages, but as far as I can tell, that never happened. You can have too much bureaucracy, but you can also have too little. Let's try and get the balance right. There should be a minimum of paperwork needed for something as serious as a community-based ban to take effect, whether it is total ban, a topic ban, or something else. Arbcom and the clerks can cope with the paperwork for the Arbcom-sanctioned restrictions. The community should at least do the same with the restrictions they come up with (and to be fair, someone does most of the time). One more point. Jehochman says: "The admin who closes a community discussion should record the result where the discussion occurs." This is not sufficient for AN and ANI discussions. Once archived, they are not visible enough unless a link is recorded somewhere else. The reason it is good practice to record an entry here, and to record it on the user talk page and in the userspace of the editor concerned, is because that: (a) shows that the editor has been made aware of the restriction; and (b) this page is a more visible and more easily found record of such discussions compared to trawling through the AN archives. Arbcom is higholy structured and its decisions can be found easily. The community is not so organised, and its decisions can be harder to find unless recorded properly. That is not WP:BUREAUCRACY. It is WP:COMMONSENSE. To get more specific, if any of the editors on this list at the moment wanted to appeal their restrictions, where should they do so? Blocked editors get detailed instructions on how and where to appeal. I see no such instructions here. Where is the first port of call for someone wishing to appeal a community topic ban, or to say they will agree to conditions needed for a topic ban to be lifted? Carcharoth (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Example of unlogged community ban

See here. Can anyone here say that if the same problem comes up again in the future, that they would know where to look to find the previous discussions? The block log summary says "Community request by multiple editors on ANI & elsewhere". It would be nice to have a link for that, wouldn't it? Or maybe an entry at Wikipedia:List of banned users? Possibly I'm misunderstanding this, and it was an indefinite block for something specific, and not a community ban. I've asked the blocking admin if they can remember where the discussion got archived. Carcharoth (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It was an indefblock that, three weeks later, turned into a community ban. I've responded in more detail on your talk page. Best, EyeSerene^talk 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Might I suggest someone takes responsibility for this and logs it at Wikipedia:List of banned users? Carcharoth (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've done that, though I've no idea who closed the ANI ban discussion - my only real involvement in all that unpleasantness was to issue the initial indefblock. Maybe there should be some guidelines on closing threads at the top of WP:ANI somewhere? EyeSerene^talk 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice closed the discussion as "ban" with [1]. The question of ban maintenance is worthy of discussion. Normally, we appeal a decision by first contacting the person or body that made the decision. The community, I know of only one exception, does not actually make any decisions, rather they are made by individuals, often after advice from the community, but the individual actually is responsible for the decision, and, I'd suggest, an individual should never make a decision based purely on the number of editors giving advice, but on the evidence and arguments. This, then, is the go-to person as the first step in any dispute over the decision, which is very simple and which can resolve many issues with practically no fuss. The exception is ArbComm, which makes decision according to formal rules as a body, so to reverse an ArbComm decision requires, just the same, going back to the actual origin of the decision, and ArbComm reverses its decisions, even privately sometimes. No new community discussion. A new, broader discussion of a community ban decision should not be necessary unless, under the new circumstances -- which may include new evidence or arguments not previously considered, somebody disagreeing with it wants to bring it up and discuss it. The point is that this is a highly efficient process, if followed, one likely to maintain consensus efficiently, compared to discussing everything over again in a larger group. We do it with AfDs, we do it with blocks, so, I suggest, we should do it with bans including topic bans. I've seen drastically disruptive results from this not being clear. --Abd (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll point Mangojuice here. Would be good to get some more opinions. Carcharoth (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

More opinions on what? Is CarolSpears trying to appeal? There's an entry on the list now, it looks correct, looks like everything is fine. Mangojuice^talk 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was obvious. We are trying to get people to remember to add entries here. It gets confusing if people forget to log things here. See my comments above about the relative efficiency and organisation of ArbCom (which has clerks) versus the community (which doesn't), as regards logging and recording bans. I know, I know, sounds horribly bureaucratic, but some functioning level of bureaucracy is needed to ensure things don't take ages to look up later if needed. And no, as far as I'm aware, CarolSpears is not trying to appeal. It was just the closest example I had to hand of a recent community ban. Carcharoth (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. Honestly, I don't know about that list, it seems to flirt with WP:DENY. IMO, as long as the ban is clearly noted, with relevant links available, on the user's talk page or user page, we've got what we need to enforce the ban and easily handle non-starter appeals that might be made. In extreme circumstances, it's good to have a summary, but that's what WP:LTA is all about. Plus, this is unachievable anyway: many users are "de-facto" banned since they are blocked and no admin is willing to unblock them. Mangojuice^talk 02:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I think in principle it makes sense to record these somewhere central, though I hate unnecessary bureaucracy. It's only formal (ie community-decided) bans that are being discussed, if I've correctly understood the comments above. De facto 'bans' - those indefblocks that no-one has challenged or expressed a willingness to undo - would be wildly impractical to revisit to see if there's community consensus for a formal ban; I'd bet the vast majority by far are vandal-only accounts with half-a-dozen edits and issued via AIV or somewhere similar. However, I think this issue of an indefblock that later becomes a formal ban (as happened with CarolSpears) is worth examining. I certainly wouldn't have thought to record the ban here had I closed that discussion, although I was peripherally aware of the existence of this list. Is the suggestion that all such bans be recorded here, or would a link in the block log be sufficient? (in which case, it would be fairly straightforward for the closing admin to re-block to update the log). Either way, some guidelines would be helpful on the relevant noticeboards. EyeSerene^talk 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't need additional bureaucracy, but WP:Editing restrictions I see as a way for a closing admin to ask for help enforcing a ban. It is entirely possible that an admin doesn't consider this necessary, and is willing to take full personal responsibility. There is no harm from not listing here, and some benefit, I'd say. A topic ban is a bit like a block. It can be imposed by a single admin with no consultation at all. Or it can be imposed, after discussion, but it's important to recognize that we don't make decisions by vote, period. Discussions here are purely advisory. The actual decision is made by an editor, but in cases involving the use of tools, an administrator, who, in the case of a ban, makes the decision through, most importantly, warning the editor of the ban, it is not in effect until then. If any admin warns a user against editing a topic, that user can be blocked based on that warning. Here, though, normally, only "community bans" are listed. (ArbComm bans being somewhat different). These are bans that resulted from a discussion and close. Given that any admin could close such a discussion, with any decision, no matter what the vote, this admin can also handle -- and in analogous situations does often handle -- any appeals or requests for clarification. And that admin can, here, ask for help enforcing the ban, and any admin can block for violation of what is properly described here, without personal investigation other than verifying that the violation took place. The original closing admin remains responsible for it. As I have described it, it is a nonbureaucratic process, and it isn't broken. The problems I see with it, in a recent case, have to do with the responsibilities of the closing admin. Is that admin simply a rubber stamp for the community, with no personal responsibility for examining the evidence and arguments, making the decision based on preponderance of the votes? If so, we have devolved to a voting system for making decisions, and, indeed, bureaucracy and rules and enforcement of rules and all the rest will be required. I see no need to move away from the concept of decisions being made by closing admins. It's when a closing admin thinks, "I didn't make this decision, the community did," that problems arise. Can I RfC the community for an error? Whom do I notify? But if an AfD close is incorrect, in my opinion, I can simply discuss it with the closing admin, it is very simple, it takes place without a rush, we can go back and forth a few times, it's highly efficient. Wider discussion is only needed if, several steps down the road, we come to an impass. And we need to keep it that way. --Abd (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, although I think in the case of an endorsed community ban proposal the only real decision the closing admin has to make is when to close the discussion. As I understand it, support for such a ban has to be unanimous anyway - if even just a single admin expresses a willingness to unblock, the editor in question isn't banned (and then interpretation may be needed, because a range of options could come into play). In practical terms, I don't believe an admin who regularly goes against community consensus is likely to hang on to their tools long either ;) However, even though there may not be much room for interpretation sometimes, I fully agree that, once given the tools, admins accept personal responsibility for their use and the consequences thereof, and by closing any discussion, an admin is indicating a willingness to take responsibility for its outcome. EyeSerene^talk 20:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Abd, you have a few things wrong there. First, discussions are advisory, but it's not the conclusion of ban-or-no-ban that they advise... that conclusion is advisory too (and would have no effect if it was plainly wrong, other than to confuse people). What they advise is the actions taken to enforce the ban: e.g. the actual block placed on the user or their sockpuppets, or the reverting of their edits, or handling subsequent unblock requests. Also, admins do not have the power to topic-ban people, except in areas where ArbCom has set up "discretionary sanctions." I think what you're saying is that in some cases, bans need to be actively enforced: blocks, deletions, et cetera, over a long period of time. In such cases, if they're bad enough, I agree with having a description of the user and the cause for the ban; having reviewed LARGE numbers of sockpuppetry blocks for banned users, I would definitely find this helpful. However, I think there's no reason to suggest that this be done in all cases. Decisions should be transparent, so relevant links about the ban should be easily available, but that's enough unless the user's disruption has gotten to the point where we can call it long-term abuse. Mangojuice^talk 00:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I may have some details wrong, but what I wrote is, I think, confirmed by what you wrote, Mangojuice, i.e., discussions are advisory. All discussions. It may well be that admins, by tradition, don't have the power to topic ban, but, actually, I've seen the opposite, i.e., I've seen, for example, an admin condition an unblock on a topic ban. If the admin could condition an unblock on it, they could refrain from blocking based on conformance to it. It may well be, though, that it isn't done, ordinarily, except for ArbComm "disretionary sanctions," but that doesn't change the essence of what I've written: that the one who makes the decision, is the one who is responsible for enforcing it, generally, that nobody else can, ordinarily, reverse that decision without discussion. The truly important point I'm reinforcing is that responsibility for decisions rests with individuals, and that, if an individual can make a decision, they can also reverse it. The only decisions that are not made by an individual are ArbComm decisions, which are made by vote. So an individual can't reverse an ArbComm decision; but they could reverse an enforcement action, i.e., if an admin blocks a user based on an ArbComm sanction, they can unblock at their own discretion.

It may seem like this is much fuss over nothing, but we just saw a situation where a topic ban was voted upon at AN/I. There was no close, though there were a majority of !votes for the ban, though suggested length varied widely. Later, when the user edited contrary to the presumed ban, which had never been declared, the user had not been warned, there was a complaint, and an admin warned the user; however, when the user complained about the ban, the admin said something like "Don't blame me, it was a community decision, I'm just the messenger." This was not an admin taking responsibility for a close decision. He was just telling her about the ban, but nobody had decided to ban. When I approached him about it, he decided, okay, he was the closer, but when I asked him for the evidence underlying the ban (i.e., diffs showing improper behavior repeated after warning), he turned out not to have that evidence, and it had not been presented at AN/I. Typical AN/I case, unfortunately, lots of editors !voting, but very little actual investigation. The now-closing admin said that he could not reverse the ban without going back to the community that decided upon it. Hence my point: the community doesn't make decisions, individuals do, and elsewhere, our process is pretty clear; when a closer makes a decision, presumably based on evidence and arguments, not on votes, the closer is the responsible person, the first person to go to if one wishes to appeal the decision. Object to an AfD close? First stop: the closing admin. It's a lot more efficient than DRV, particularly if one has new evidence or can show that the AfD process was flawed. Closers will normally decide in the same lines as rough consensus, but they are free to decide differently, and, indeed, they should if they see that the welfare of the project requires it. The closer can then decide on specific terms, conditions for lifting the ban, and whether or not those conditions have been fulfilled, and can also lift the ban based on new evidence or arguments. It shouldn't be necessary to discuss it. We have no procedure for automatically notifying those who voted Delete on an article, for example, that the closing admin reversed his or her decision. The new decision, just like the original one, can be challenged at DRV, and, as well, a DRV close can theoretically be challenged by various means. When it works, it works very well. The vast majority of decisions made in the project, editorial and behavioral, are made with minimal group discussion, when there is discussion it isn't binding on anyone, though certainly those who have the tools to implement their own decisions may consider, and should consider, any discussion that has taken place.

Is there any place which describes our decision-making process? I don't really recall reading about this, I've only come to understand what I've said here by observing examples. Given the possible damage done by decisions with major import (an improperly blocked or even topic-banned user may simply disappear, many people don't respond well to coercion or threats, I've come to understand the system of individual responsibility to be one that can allow rapid review, if it is recognized.

Community topic bans seem to be pretty uncommon, to look at the list here. --Abd (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

No, admins really don't just place topic bans. I have seen several cases where a user ends up topic banned, or under parole or probation, as a condition of an unblock but in all cases, those were proposed to the user and accepted by them as a compromise. Mangojuice^talk 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC on Civility restrictions and other questions

I have started a RFC, available at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC, about the questions the community and the ArbComm has raised with regard to civility restrictions. Comment is appreciated there. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5