Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Topic ban

I suggest that a guideline is created for topic bans as the instrument appears to be applied more often. Currently, WP:Topic ban redirects to here where there is just a single sentence, apparently open to multiple interpretations as well. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 10:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I've clarified the wording slightly. I don't think this extends the definition at all, but will hopefully clarify some recent misunderstandings. Verbal chat 08:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Please don't do that. You are not the owner of this policy.

The current text reads:

• Topic ban The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so.

For now, I suggest to change this into:

Topic ban The user is prohibited from editing any article related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so. The user is furthermore not allowed to discuss the topic except in cases where the user's conduct or the ban itself is addressed. A topic ban does not extend to user (talk) pages but, when asked by another user, the user should withdraw from discussing the topic on that other user's talk page. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 09:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this page policy? It's not tagged as such. The topic ban should extend to discussing the topic anywhere. You should be able to discuss the ban without discussing the topic. I would suggest:

• Topic ban The user is prohibited from making any edit related to a particular topic to any article or talk page, and may be blocked if they do so.

or

• Topic ban : The user is prohibited from making any edit related to a particular topic and from any page related to the topic. They may be blocked if they do so.

it is the edits on certain topics that are restricted, not pages. That's why it's called a topic ban. I don't like the introduction of unnecessary caveats in your version. Verbal chat 09:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely if someone's banned from editing articles relating to a particular topic, they need to have access to the talk pages, so they can propose changes that they themselves are not allowed to make? Unless those imposing the ban have found it necessary to forbid the user from even discussing the topic, which I would have thought would be over the top in most cases.--Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well the current text includes talk pages of a topic, and editors are often topic banned because of their disruptive talk page behaviour. In Guido's case his toic ban specifically mentions talk pages for that reason. Again, they are banned from the topic - so shouldn't be posting about it anywhere. If we are going to have different levels of topic ban than that should be made clear, but the general definition should be the simplest - a ban from the topic. Verbal chat 10:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on my case everywhere in Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 11:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it ought to be made clear one way or the other when the ban is made. I would expect the default to be a ban from editing articles, but not from discussing. If there has been disruptive talk page behaviour that necessitates the ban being extended to discussions, then that ought to be explicitly stated.--Kotniski (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

So perhaps we should say that generally topic bans ban the user from discussing the topic anywhere, but specific bans may be more lenient? Therefore the default is strong, and as the definition used and my calcification above, but a topic ban could be restricted to only article space if the person enacting the ban so restricts it (explicitly). Verbal chat 12:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is that better? You doubtless have more experience of this area than I do, but is it really more common for bans to include discussion than not? I would have thought in the case of simple edit warring bans, we would want the user to engage in discussions as a way of returning him/her to good standing, since it tends to be a failure to so engage that's the initial problem. Surely if you're imposing a ban and you want to extend it to discussions, then you must have specific reasons for so doing, and those specific reasons need to be stated, so you might as well state the extended scope of the ban at the same time. If you don't, then we assume the ban doesn't cover discussions.--Kotniski (talk) 12:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We're talking about topic bans, not bans for editwarring or anything else. The current text includes talk pages. We should expect the topic ban to include all edits about the topic - it's simply what topic ban means. Verbal chat 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How are topic bans "not bans for editwarring or anything else"? Presumably bans are not handed out for no reason, so they must be for something. If it really is WP custom that the phrase "topic ban" is understood to include discussing the topic, then fine, but since it goes against my intuition I'd appreciate at least some authority for that besides your personal statement.--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

If anything it should be the other way around, I have never seen a case where a user is barred from discussing a certain topic outside pages that are directly associated with it (articlespace and related talkpages). Even 'broadly construed' refers to articles and talkpages that involve the topic, not discussions elsewhere that touch on it. Unomi (talk) 12:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hello Unomi, odd to see you here. You have seen such a case, the case of Guido (above) and the case Science Apologist. What bit of "topic ban" is unclear? Verbal chat 13:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you should stop alluding to hounding, this is a fairly high profile discussion and you have tried to make sweeping changes to policy, of course I am going to comment. I am not particularly conversant regarding SA's topic ban, but I believe that he tried to edit Fringe Theories policy and it was somehow not covered by his topic ban, whether those edits contributed to his later sitewide ban, I do not know. As for the exact wording of Guidos topic ban, I could not find it, perhaps you would be kind enough to provide a link to it? Regardless, most topic bans specifically list talk pages if the ban indeed covers those, this means that the standard topic ban is fairly narrow and requires explicit broadening when appropriate, I believe this is sound. Unomi (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The current text "The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so." includes articles and talk pages. I have not tried to drastically alter policy (or this page, which isn't policy). Guido has removed the terms of his topic ban, but here is a diff. Maybe it should be added to the list here, it's an arbcom ban. Verbal chat 13:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff, I agree that it should be added to the restrictions list. Topic ban on CFS topics on all articles and talk pages for one year. certainly reads as though it was meant to be interpreted as broadly and restrictively as possible. Unomi (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Without the email exchanges, the information is not complete. Regards, Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 15:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact, relevantly or not, looking at the list on this page, I see that quite a lot of the topic bans explicitly include talk pages, quite a lot explicitly exclude them, and some don't say one way or the other. This leaves me confused as to whether those in the last group are supposed to include them or not.--Kotniski (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment topic bans are not page bans. If an account is banned from a topic it is banned editing and/or commenting on it anywhere in wikipedia - not just an article page. A page ban is where an account is banned from a particular page. A site ban is where an account is banned from the site. These are 3 distinct bans all that the disposal of the community (see Wikipedia:BAN#Community_ban. Furthermore, if a banned editor is unclear about where their ban extends to they should seek clarification either at RfAr (in the clarification section) or on ANI depending on whether the ban is from the community, an admin or ArbCom--Cailil ^talk 16:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The actual topic bans listed on the page contradict that. Kotniski is right, in practice there seems to be a variety of possibilities all under the header of 'topic ban', so my text above is not accurate. I still suggest it to be the standard, but the text should indicate that variation is possible. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 18:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, some are given leeway. A topic ban (like yours) is in general a ban from the topic. Verbal chat 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Look GdB it's very simple a topic ban is called a "topic ban" because it's a ban from a topic. Page bans are bans from pages. The only group of people usually disqualified from editing articles but suggesting/commenting on material on talk pages are editors with a conflict of interest--Cailil ^talk 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're kinda contradicting yourself here. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No I'm not GdB. Accounts with a COI are usually asked not to edit pages (but they aren't banned unless they violate policy) - see WP:COIC. But people who are topic banned are banned from topics - in every and any article, talk page, category, portal, wikiproject, thread in user space and/or noticeboards, etc related to that topic on wikipedia. People who are page banned are just banned from particular pages. It's very simple--Cailil ^talk 20:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Cailil, while it could make sense to explicitly distinguish between topic bans and page bans, there is currently no definition for page ban, but the term topic ban is also used in such cases. How do you suggest we proceed? Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 21:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Common sense is the best way to proceed GdB - the current definition of "topic ban" is quite explicit. The number of page bans is small comparatively and are obvious, also I have never seen a topic ban imposed in the place of a page-ban. And as verbal says some topic bans are qualified either by ArbCom or the sysop imposing them. Seriously GdB a 'page ban' is exactly what it says on the tin - there's no need for instruction creep when common sense will do - if a definition was to be added it would simply read: 'Page ban: a ban from editing a specific page' and that's so clear from the term that the definition is itself redundant. Besides page bans come under 'discretionary sanctions' imposable by admins and may vary (it's up to the admin imposing such a ban to specify it)--Cailil ^talk 23:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all a new area to me, but if what you say is true, then I'm concerned that we might be being manipulated by our own terminology into imposing sanctions that are inappropriate. If there are two basic sanctions: "page bans" (on editing specific pages) and "topic bans" (on addressing specific topics), then there's a huge gap: there's no term for a ban on editing content (not talk) pages on a specific topic. And this is just the sort of ban I would have thought to be appropriate in many cases (where the behaviour leading to it did not involve talk page incivility etc.). I wonder whether people on observing aggressive editing (but not uncivil) behaviour don't think "oh right, good case for a topic ban", and fail to take into account that there are no grounds for the ban to include discussions.--Kotniski (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. There seems a good case in principle to have a "topic editing ban" and a "topic ban". The former would permit discussion. However I'm not sure in practice how useful that would be; I suspect most cases of "topic editing ban"s will quickly merit "topic ban"s. Still, it may be worth having a distinction, it may help in some cases. Rd232 ^talk 13:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

→(outdent) In practice that would be rather difficult though - usually people who 'edit aggressively' end up breaking 3RR and wind-up being sanctioned for that (and get placed on 1RR or 0RR). I'm not aware of a case of a topic ban that didn't arise from WP:DE and disruption of talk space usually happens first. One of the things that must be borne in mind is that a page ban has been discretionary sanction that developed through practice and that topic bans were the more lenient form of community bans. Both of these sanctions developed from practice rather than theory. Could you point me towards some topic bans that would/should allow talk page involvement. Also it's worth bearing in mind that all sanctions (whether imposed by the community, ArbCom or an admin) can be unique (in terms of scope, length etc) and that instruction creep might not help the situation--Cailil ^talk 14:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are many topic bans listed on this page that explicitly allow talk page involvement. As I say, I don't have much experience of any of this, so if those who are involved in this area are happy there's no problem, then I won't complain further. I was just a bit surprised coming here finding how it's done (perhaps because most of the DE problems I've personally encountered have not involved disruption of talk space, but rather failure to use talk space).--Kotniski (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's particularly WP:CREEPy to clarify current practice in policy. Some topic bans extend to talk pages, and some don't. In some cases this is explicit, in others it isn't. It shouldn't be that hard to find a formulation that encapsulates these issues and clarifies what tools are available; it's not like we're giving guidelines on when/how these should or should not be used. Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I am mostly in agreement with Cailil that it is unhelpful to wikilawyer on this. A topic ban usually involves a ban from a topic (that is, a set of affected pages). We don't waste our time listing each and every page explicitly (nor do we go about fortune telling on what potential new pages will also fall under the topic) - instead, we expect the sanctioned user to use an amount of common sense, follow the terms of the restriction, and effectively comply with the topic ban to avoid being site banned altogether. If he/she is unsure about something, then seeking clarification is encouraged, and important - but where a topic ban is broadly construed, this means avoiding editing on pages that could possibly fall under the topic ban, unless expressly given clarification/allowance to do so before-hand. Some "topic bans" don't involve an entire topic, and involve just specific pages, but due to the nature of enforcement (i.e., if you edit on the set of affected pages, you will be sanctioned according to x y and z), it's put under the category of topic-ban - the other categories simply don't fit. Sometimes, restrictions that fall under the category of topic ban will include/exclude either certain specific pages (like a particular article) or certain types of pages (like all talk pages in the topic). It really is a case-by-case thing, but I hope that help clarifies the underlying point. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So to clarify things for newcomers to the topic like me, would there be any objection to changing the sentence from The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so. to The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, often including talk pages, and may be blocked if they do so.?--Kotniski (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

yes there would I'm afraid: 'often' is not accurate. And talk pages is not broad enough. Seriously, look at the definition of the word "topic" - it's quite clear. There is a common sense issue here. if you are banned from a topic that means anything about it anywhere in wikipedia (not just talk or article space). And I would like to see these topic bans that should be called page bans - It would be helpful, because we make rules on WP to reflect practice. The reason teh definition of topic ban is left to common sense is simple: its a discretionary sanction adapted to fit the particular situation by those imposing it--Cailil ^talk 18:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's getting late here; I didn't understand any of that. Will look again in the morning.--Kotniski (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This conversation is confusing me. I'd suggest distinguishing between (a) a general topic ban - ban from editing or discussing a topic, wherever it appears on WP; (b) a topic editing ban - ban from editing articles or policy pages only. I think we're agreed that both cases do and should exist; so can someone explain how establishing some recognisable terminology for these is a bad thing? We're not talking about either summarising current practice or setting up guidelines for it - just recognisable terms which can only (a) aid clarity of discussion and (b) make it clearer that these distinct options exist, and that a general topic ban isn't the only option. This (obviously) doesn't restrict in any way the sanctions that may be imposed, which can be tailored on a case-by-case basis as appropriate as before (is that the concern?). Rd232 ^talk 18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the ArbCom rulings re: discretionary sanctions? If not please do take a look at them [1][2][3][4][5] - it should clear things up a bit.
I stand over the position that the wording currently reflects a) common sense and b) the necessary flexibility needed for discretionary sanctions, and c) that further qualification borders on instruction creep (I also agree with NCMV that such qualification may retro-actively open the door to wikilawyering).
Secondly, if we rally have to have an explanation of page bans: I suggest we use the word from the arbcom rulings re: discretionary sanctions ie: A page ban restricts a user from editing any page or set of pages. Again Topic bans are from the 'topic' (that means everywhere that topic comes up: talk pages, noticeboards, categories, portals, articles that mention the topic, the articles about or related to the topic etc) - we could put that in a glos if we must be it is really redundant if you look up 'topic' in a dictionary. The distinction you draw between topic and topic-editing rd232 is redundant no ruling has ever used such terms and such a qualification would really be at the discretion of the imposing admin or the community.
Thirdly, if there are topic bans that don't include the talk space please show them to me - I'd be interested to see them, it would also show a material reason to change the policy--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That's quite an impressive display of not listening to a word I said; perhaps the most egregious example being that I haven't mentioned page bans et all. One constructive point you made was on wikilawyering, but only insofar as I can disagree with it: I don't see much danger in retrospective wikilawyering, because anybody foolish enough try to that will soon get the issue clarified for them by whoever imposed the ban, or else by the community. As to examples (a) I don't know any, but I'm sure they exist (b) the fact that policy doesn't provide a terminological handle for it (or mention it) is surely a contributory factor to under-use of it. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I don't think this page is policy, just explanation, so no-one need feel threatened by any attempt to make the explanation clearer (in fact I see someone has already made such an attempt, which looks pretty good to me). Secondly, if you want examples of topic bans that don't include talk page, you can find some on this page - OK, they are a minority (though we might ask ourselves whether they should be), but they don't seem totally exceptional. See the sanctions for TallNapoleon, Snowded and Idag, for example.--Kotniski (talk) 07:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for giving some examples Kotniski. I'll look at them and if there are reasons given for the talk page exemptions we can discuss them.
Rd232, if someone is banned from editing a single page (ie article or policy pages) but allowed to edit the talk space then that's a page ban - that's why I mentioned it. The 'terminological handle' already in use for a ban restricting a user from a page or pages is "page ban". You'll also see that the distinction between the two is the point I was making to GdB from my first post here.
Finally if you want to change the definition of a topic ban (or insert a definition of a page ban) then I suggest you use the wording from the ArbCom rulings that I listed above--Cailil ^talk 16:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"if someone is banned from editing a single page (ie article or policy pages) but allowed to edit the talk space then that's a page ban" - OK, now I see why you were on about page bans. I disagree with that definition, it's quite unintuitive, and I see no evidence in your Arbcom links that it's used that way (though I may be missing sth - if so, give me a quote). I've understood "page ban" as being a ban from a particular article (or policy page); essentially a limited-scope topic ban, which covers a whole subject across many articles. And looking again at the Arbcom links, I don't see what wording would be helpful for the distinction I wish to draw between talk+edit bans and edit-only bans; those links are generally not explicit on the matter. In sum, I still don't see why establishing two new terms - "general topic ban" and "topic editing ban" seem reasonably clear - in addition to the existing vague "topic ban" is such a bone of contention and confusion. Rd232 ^talk 16:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a lot of discussion for what seems to me to be a simple matter. Guido den Broeder suggests a guideline for topic bans, and then notes that topic ban redirects here, where there is only one sentence: The current text reads: "The user is prohibited from editing any page related to a particular topic, and may be blocked if they do so." It seems to me that we do have a guideline, and it is a good guideline, and I do not see how it admits to multiple interpretations. "Any" means any. Of course it must include talk pages - people who are so banned are often banned not only for multiple reverts but also for being disruptive on talk pages. A ban is a ban is a ban. It means: edit Wikipedia, but no edits at all relating to topic x. Arbcom wording sometimes deviates from this boilerplate, by being more specific, but that is because ArbCom is ruling on a particular case based on the particulars of that case. If someone feels an ArbCom ruling is ambiguous, the remedy is not to edit this page, the remedy is to consult with ArbCom and ask clarification. ArbCom has the freedom to rule as they wish based on the specifics of a case and this page will neither constrain them, nor be a subsdtitute for asking them to clarify a ruling. But when ArbCom or a community consensus develops that simply bans someone from any edit related to a topic, there is no ambiguity and no need to say anything more. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Your reply neatly illustrates the problem. Were it not for your sentence "it must include talk pages", the problematic ambiguity would exist throughout your reply: is "editing" limited to editing mainspace article content, as in Editing The Encyclopedia (a common meaning on WP generally, I think; see eg WP:Editing policy), or does it mean the technical operation of Edit This Page (on the wiki)? It may be that Arbcom rulings are clear (or they may not) - but if the issue were specific Arbcom rulings or Arbcom rulings in general, this conversation would be taking place elsewhere, and have a different character. The issue is, quite simply, looking to the future (not the past, not to existing Arbcom rulings, etc) would it be helpful to establish additional, more specific terms for a topic ban that includes talk pages and one that doesn't. I'm mystified how this could be seen as a bad idea. It will have no impact on existing rulings which do not use the new terms. Even if there turns out to be no need for edit-only bans (and there seem to be existing examples that use that, and your reference to "often" rather than "always" implicitly acknowledges that), the term will do no harm, and eventually disappear. If we create the terms and nobody ever uses them, they'll disappear harmlessly. Rd232 ^talk 19:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think we agree that the current guideline is unambiguos. You are proposing a second guideline. Frankly, I just disagree. The only result I see is allowing the person to use the talk page as a soap-box. Disruptive editing in my experience has always manifested itself on both the article page and the talk page. Talk pages exist only to improve the articles. If we believe that an editor is capable of improving the article, that person should not be banned at all! If the person is banned, look, banning is our heaviest sanction, and a topic ban is just under a general ban. If a person is not capable of making constructive edits to the article, then they are not capable of discussing constructive edits. If they are capable of discussing constructive edits, then don't ban them. But if they are banned, that means: "no." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that's clear - but I disagree. It is unsound in principle - it is perfectly possible to imagine editors who have edit-warred without disrupting talk pages being banned only from editing - and also in practice: see the current sanctions for TallNapoleon, Snowded and Idag (Wikipedia:Editing restrictions). Just because an editor can't restrain themselves from edit-warring doesn't automatically mean that they can't constructively contribute to talk pages, especially once they're in a situation where disruptind talk would get them banned from having any input to the topic. Plus, once they're banned from editing, it almost forces talk page input to be constructive, because the editor can only edit by persuading others (and being disruptive will get them banned from talk as well). Rd232 ^talk 20:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic bans are the most underutilized admin tool around here. Many editors who are just too passionate about particular topics to edit constructively in those areas could otherwise help the project. And if people are really here to help, and not to grind a particular axe, I don't see a topic ban as punitive in any way. I hope any expansion of the policy recognizes that. Dlabtot (talk) 19:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As for the other issue, talk page input can sometimes have the potential to be just as unconstructive as the actual editing, which is why they are banned from talk page input - especially tendentious problem editors. However, there are occasions where either the community or ArbCom are ready to allow editors to use the talk page because they can provide constructive input there, which is why talk pages are excluded sometimes. In any case, I hope I've clarified the definition of topic ban now, on the page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be an improvement, thanks :) --Kotniski (talk) 08:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility parole/restrictions

Could someone confirm that the last time a civility restriction was placed was October 2008 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian? If so, is there a reason they are now out of favour? --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Any thoughts? --Joopercoopers (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They work only as well as the admin corps is unified.--Tznkai (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Humiliating process

The process of placing a community restriction page in the user's userspace is potentially humiliating and should be stopped. The relevant information should be placed on this project page. Jehochman ^Talk 13:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the user have thought about that before doing whatever it was that got them restricted? --Kbdank71 14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But there's also another matter. Jehochman himself initiated this so-called "humiliating process" back in March 2008 (when he logged the details of a sanction at this project page, and then created User:Whig/Community_sanction). Now he wants what has become common practice, stopped, due to one objection raised at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Allstarecho/Community_sanction. I'm at a loss as to why more thought was not given prior to initiating such a practice, and why block logs were thought to be inadequate for a simple topic ban. Can someone address these concerns please? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you please stop repeating the same argument, which suggests that Jehochman is a hypocrite. You're starting to get on my nerves. At the time, somebody else suggested creating that page as a place to log blocks under the sanction. I believe it was in fact an arbitrator who suggested doing it that way. Since then, another editor raised an objection that the user space page is a Scarlet Letter. I agree, and think those pages should be removed. Instead, we should create a central mechanism for logging. Jehochman ^Talk

Perhaps when someone begins to get on one's nerves it's better to withdraw. It's perfectly reasonable to point out a discrepancy and request discussion. If that hits a raw nerve then discussion can be postponed. No one is calling names other than Jehochman. Durova²⁹⁴ 15:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What hits a raw nerve is that the question is being repeated after I already answered it at another venue.[6] I have not called anybody any names, Durova. Please correct your post. Jehochman ^Talk 15:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with using quotation marks and no diff is that it can give the mistaken impression that a person has actually said something they haven't. Of course I've read the surrounding discussions; I initiated the ANI thread that led to it. Please be more careful in future. And the suggestion about taking a breather when someone gets under one's nerves is sincere advice. Nobody's out to get you; we're just trying to manage a bad situation without making it worse. Durova²⁹⁴ 15:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

But you've made it worse by sidetracking a thread. We're here to talk about this page, not my behavior. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, if your answer to my previous question was adequate enough to address my concerns here, I would not have raised them. I echo Durova's comment. Also, I don't think it's very nice to personalize a discussion by writing 'you're starting to get on my nerves' and then accuse a neutral third party of sidetracking the discussion when they suggest stepping back. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

They're my nerves. I know how they feel. I feel like you are trying to annoy me on purpose. I feel like you are not listening to me, and that you are arguing for the sake of argument. Maybe those aren't your intentions, but that's how I perceive them. Why are you sidetracking this discussion? We're here to talk about better ways to handle this project page. Please address the substance. If you want to talk to me about your perception that I'm a hypocrite, go to my talk page and we'll clear it up. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Trying to discuss substance. I don't care who may or may not be a hypocrite. If you feel that part of the discussion should be elsewhere, stop replying here and move it. --Kbdank71 16:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I got yelled at for moving a thread. Anybody else here can move this wherever they like. I won't do it. As you suggest, I'll not reply further here. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 16:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Jehochman, please review WP:AGF. Ncmvocalist has never called you a hypocrite. I don't know his intentions, but neither of us can read his mind. The default assumption is that he simply wants to discuss why you had a change of heart about a practice, or perhaps whether there's a nuance that he's missed. Either way, your focus on your nerves suggests this is a discussion best delayed. No angry mastodons are going to break down the door and trample our computers. Have a break; this can all be discussed later. Best wishes. Durova²⁹⁴ 16:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that Jehochman would like to reverse the original action, but I think he seems to be repeatedly missing the crux of my concerns. Below are substantive questions that are relevant and need answering prior to putting the issue to bed. These concerns of mine were brought up at the right venue, and should firmly stay here without modification. On the other hand, the perceptions he suggested up until now (which I believe are unfounded), perhaps do not belong here. In the meantime, none of this is urgent - so I think we can all do with a breather for now before we discuss more. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerns

Below I've raised some concerns - answers to which would be appreciated. Firstly, the objection raised was not unforeseeable. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Which arbitrator made the suggestion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Where was the discussion that went alongside the action? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Why was more thought not given? What happened to the block log when enforcing topic bans? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• And of course, Kbdank71's question: shouldn't the user have thought about that before doing whatever it was that got them restricted? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• Can we avoid such after-thought actions in the future? How? What should we do? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm going to go out on a limb and say the above questions (except mine) really don't matter. In fact, asking them smells like a witch hunt. We don't flog people for making mistakes or changing their mind. I've put forth many ideas that I've later wanted to be changed, for a variety of reasons. It's part of life. What's done is done, constantly badgering about the "why did this happen and make sure you don't repeat it" isn't going to go back in time to change anything. How about we give it a rest and move forward? Do we change the process or not? --Kbdank71 13:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
    • That really isn't a helpful reply. In the Navy we used to do exercises called 'lessons learned' after a situation went wrong. The aim was to get the key people in a room and look at the overall dynamic for weaknesses, to come up with better solutions for similar situations in the future. A defensive reply along the lines of you're just trying to make me/him feel bad would be unthinkable in such a setting: people are expected to prioritize the mission. If such a thought does occur, people keep it to themselves because it generates nothing useful. Durova²⁹⁷ 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • That's great for the Navy. Where I come from, we don't grill people for the equivalent of "Hey, let's do it this way." "Hmmm, that doesn't seem to work, let's do it a different way." As I said, it's called changing one's mind, everyone is free to do it, and shouldn't feel like they are wrong for it. Seriously, I get the distinct impression that the two of you only got in a crazy because the same person who came up with the idea is the one who said it might not be a good one. Would you have been so insistent on looking for a lesson to learn if it were I who said "You know, maybe we could do this better"? If we had all put the same effort in figuring out a solution as we did in pointing fingers, this would be resolved already. --Kbdank71 16:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the Navy certainly is. Let's not adopt their practices. (The only grilling I will participate in is one that involves red meat, or seafood.) Jehochman ^Talk 18:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
        • That's a pretty non sequitur. Durova²⁹⁷ 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I am glad you noticed my attempt at humor. There are two ways to deal with somebody who tries to pick a fight: (1) fight back, or (2) tell them a joke and see if they lighten up. I prefer a joke, but sadly, you're not laughing. Jehochman ^Talk 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Kbdank71, one would hope that you would at least have the courtesy to stop insisting that the answer to your question is all that matters, when the reality is, it has no more priority than the others posed. But sadly, perhaps that is false hope - given that the paranoia and toxic suggestions of a witch hunt have not stopped. All this exercise does is attempt to find ways to improve and avoid making mistakes, particularly the same ones again and again. This does involve looking at how things were thought out in the past, and brainstorming on better ways for the future. However, you may as well continue with this approach of yours, if you would like to make ill-considered practice (including the same avoidable mistakes) even more commonplace and standard across Wikipedia - you are doing a great job of furthering that cause with the other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
• Subpages are necessary to log enforcement-actions that aren't blocks, such as page bans - this is only necessary for probationary measures. Where a log is not fixed in the sanction discussion, should we continue to leave them in the userspace, or should we move it to a subpage under this project page? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

New structure for community sanctions

I propose using a format similar to this. Thoughts? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. Looks good. Mikaey, Devil's advocate 06:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

A centralized list? Sensible. Durova²⁹⁷ 15:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Organization, again

I notice a lot of discussion above about organization. The current sanctions seem to be in no particular order at all, is that right or is there something I'm missing?--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I also notice that there are at least a dozen editors on the list who are indefinitely blocked, making prior editing restrictions redundant. Perhaps there are good reasons to keep them on this list (?), but it seems from the point of view of keeping the page manageable, they should be archived. Rd232 ^talk 10:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate restriction

[7] This was placed there inappropriately. Three people - Durova, NW, and ChildofMidnight have stated that there was no authority to lay such restrictions. Only Edison and BWilkins supported them. There was clearly no consensus and the ArbCom case filed about Jehochman being an involved, so the placement here by the user without any consensus was inappropriate. I ask that this be immediately removed as there was no appropriate consensus. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with alleged involvement or bias. Individual administrators are not empowered to assign broad sanctions unilaterally, except in the context of certain rare arbitration decisions. If community action is going to take place, it needs to happen via consensus decision of the community. Individual arbitrators aren't empowered to impose restrictions unilaterally--they have to hold a majority vote. So it would be nonsensical for an individual administrator to hold more power than an arbitrator. Durova³⁵⁵ 04:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Durova, please recuse yourself from matters related to me. This restriction is broadly supported by the community. Your persistent wikihounding of me is both obnoxious and disruptive. If Ottava does not like the restriction, he can appeal it. Jehochman ^Talk 11:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the issue, not the contributor. Durova³⁵⁵ 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And anyway, under a realistic interpretation this 'restriction' works just as a formal warning to Ottava that some admins are really losing patience and that he had better try to behave like an adult because from now on he will be treated like one. It's not in Ottava's interest to give him the impression that there is no support for this 'restriction', when there is plenty of support for it as such a warning. He might get the message that his behaviour is OK. (Now where did I get this absurd idea from?) Hans Adler 11:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Very good point. Things are reaching the point where a community restriction may become necessary. I write this with due respect for his outstanding content contributions and a very heavy heart, but the alternative--outright siteban--is already being discussed seriously. It's a tough situation because Ottava Rima's content work is remarkably encyclopedic, high quality, and prolific. Here's wishing he were better with people. Yet it only makes real resolution harder to achieve when one administrator steps to the razor's edge of all plausible authority. Let's head to an appropriate venue and resolve this together as a community. Durova³⁵⁵ 17:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman, -you- were involved with me so your statement applies to yourself. Furthermore, there was no community consensus. You had two supports and three people saying you had no right. That is clear consensus against. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am inclined to agree with Hans Adler, but Jehochman, I don't think you should be flinging accusations that there is something obnoxious, or that which rises to the level of wikihounding disruption, merely because an user has criticised you or the way you've exercised your judgement on more than one occasion. I'm not sure why you'd respond to a comment Durova made at a discussion 3 months ago, within a few minutes of making a wikihounding claim - if you want wikihounding to stop, you should stop having much interaction at all. But I'm more curious as to what you considered constituted obnoxious and disruptive wikihounding, when Durova has consistently maintained a position at more than one discussion, that admins cannot individually impose restrictions without broader support first. Whether sanctions can be implemented unilaterally, or not, remains unclarified by policy, and ArbCom clearly noted that in a recent decision - so the only useful way to respond ot that issue is to be working on that, rather than calling anothers criticism as obnoxious, disruptive and wikihounding. You are welcome to disagree with feedback and justify it as you did below. But the remainder of your response above did not appear to help (another example, Ottava Rima clearly indicated that he does "not like the restriction" by opening this thread). Ironically, some may consider much of this as feedback too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Once and for all, I did not just drop in out of the blue and sanction Ottava Rima because I'm an angry, power-crazed hooligan. There was a community discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Sanction. I read the discussion, thought about it, and decided that the restriction represented the consensus of thoughtful editors. Here are some remarks for those who can't be arsed to read the whole thread:

• "I would love to see some official recognition that Ottava Rima's interactions with other editors are excessively combative, supercilious, threatening, and unacceptable" - Akhilleus
• "Something MUST be done to stop this editor from getting away with such problematic editing."--Sky Attacker
• "his constant aggressive bullying an violent abuse of editors is wholly unacceptable and needs to be stopped." -- Paul B

Don't believe me? Go read the discussion. You'll see that this isn't a lone administrator acting on a whim. There was a substantial discussion, and a strong consensus to do something. Should Ottava not like this sanction, which is really just a formal warning and some cover for the unfortunate admin who actually dares to block him, Ottava may appeal to WP:ANI for the restriction to be lifted. Rattling around on other pages forum shopping and stirring up trouble is disruptive and needs to stop (or be stopped). Jehochman ^Talk 12:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"I did not just drop in out of the blue and sanction Ottava Rima" The ArbCom case verified that you did. The only reason it wasn't taken was that it was at 3/3 and there weren't any other Arbs around at the time. You are an involved user, had a long history with a group of users that were proven to have a long history of antagonizing me, and you had no right even within any of our policies to do what you did. Three strikes against you, Jehochman. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

And Jehochman, not one said that they agreed with a restriction in your quotes above. If anything, they may have said a block or a ban, but not one endorsed your restriction while multiple people said you didn't even have the authority or was there a right to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

So you are complaining about Jehochman because he gave you an out-of-process slap on the wrist instead of following process and blocking you? I hope that will be a message to all admins who deal with you in the future. Hans Adler 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If he would have blocked me, there would have been stronger reason for the Arb case and he would have thankfully be desysopped, as his history of antagonizing, intimidation, and bullying on the behalf of his friends just against me has violated all ethical standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Guys, this is not the venue. Even if Jehochman took this action as an individual admin (in which case there will obviously be a lot of debate), the appeal needs to be put in front of the community to sort out. Even if Jehochman took this action after a community consensus, the appeal needs to be put in front of the community to sort out in line with normal practice. It is therefore a community matter either way, because it was placed at WP:RESTRICT. Ottava Rima, have you appealed this formally at ANI? If so, or once you have, can you please provide a link to that discussion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is the venue because there was never a certified independent ability to determine consensus nor was the procedures followed appropriately. We have protocol about this. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your threats verify that your posts here are inappropriate. Thank you for that. Now we can resume discussing the removal of what constitutes as vandalism without having to deal with your claims that this is not an appropriate venue. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response to my very simple question verifies that you need to disengage, promptly, for your own sake. I've made no threats; please stop imagining them. Moreover, classing a good faith action taken by another administrator as vandalism, and refusing to appeal the restriction in line with the feedback you've been given, seems to further clarify the disruption that you are causing here. Again, would you like me to spell out what will happen if you continue to be disruptive by keeping this discussion here? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK makes it clear that talk pages are for discussion of material on the page itself. Your statements above show a clear threat and hostility. Your over reaction is highly inappropriate. Good faith doesn't make something less inappropriate and you know it. Now, you can stop trying to disrupt this thread, or you can continue. But you have made three off-topic and inappropriate posts. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: Ottava wants to repeal the restriction but is not getting clear feedback whether the right place for that is at ANI or here, or whether the restriction holds in the first place. I don't think that's fair.

I think something like the following could work: Jehochman removes the restriction from this page as a contribution towards consensus and goodwill, without prejudice. And then we start a discussion at WP:AN on whether it should be reinstated, or more generally how to deal with OR's behaviour.

Or perhaps someone has a better idea, but we can't go on like this. Hans Adler 16:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth has already laid down a foundation for this page and what is appropriate or not. I have asked him to respond. I have also publically asked Vassyana if an RfAr/Clarification can be put together to have the full ArbCom respond to Jehochman being an involved admin, then declaring that he can do it on his own, and then declaring a consensus when there was none and listing on this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I disagree that Jehochman should first remove the restriction. If Ottava wants to appeal the restriction, which was placed pursuant to a community discussion, that's fine, but if it's removed, there's nothing to appeal, is there? I think WP:AN would be the correct place for an appeal.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

From above - "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" 1. the discussion was not "closed". 2. the log was placed by an individual who was involved and not independent. 3. there was no consensus, as it was clearly three saying he had no right and only two agreeing with it. Therefore, there is no restriction to begin with. As Jehochman has stated: "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" Jehochman Talk 00:30, 17 August 2008. According to Jehochman's own standard 1. this can easily be removed and 2. it should never have been placed there to begin with. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ottava_Rima_.22community.22_sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima appears to be filing a request for arbitration following the close of that discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong information posted?

Coffee posted that Kurt Weber may not edit in articles or Wikispace. This conflicts with Will Beback's reports on ANI. I made some corrections but Coffee said that I should not because only administration should edit this page. This link is only good until ANI is archived. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#In_the_interest_of_getting_it_right Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The editing restriction was placed per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Kmweber ban discussion.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Coffee was correct to revert Suomi Finland 2009's edit which was not appropriate - it has less to do with user-category as it does to do with whether the edit was appropriate or correct. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5