Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

RFC on this page

I just realized I failed to post a notice here of a discussion of this page, it is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RFC on WP:RESTRICT. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The new archive

Just some updates about the new archiving procedure.

• I've just finished going through the arbcom section, it was quite a chore, but I believe it's done for now. I made a few WP:IAR decisions in edge cases, such as old sanctions on groups (I don't think arbcom has even done those for many years) where one user out of the group made a single edit just shy of a year ago, and a few other situations like that. If anyone objects to any of that, feel free to move them back.

• I'm still hoping to get a bot to keep this up to date, since I can't think of any way to maintain this other than someone going through the entire list once a month or so, which will get easier as time goes on but I can assure is mind-numbingly tedious

• I also kind of made up a new rule on the spot, that anyone subject to an "office ban" where the foundation itself has globally locked them out can just be removed whenever. (I only found one instance of this so far) I think that makes sense as a restriction here is no longer relevant and if they somehow manage to get the lock overturned we can always put them back on the main page. If anyone disagrees with that let me know.

Beeblebrox (talk) 03:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Turns out the community-imposed section is even more laborious. There's an awful lot of restrictions there on people who have been blocked or are inactive for more than five years. At some point we may want to discuss the utility of preserving this stuff indefinitely.

• I think we should ask that unless a restriction is an iban, that users not be grouped even if they are subject to the same restriction. I've run into several where one user is blocked/inactive and the other is not.

• I also think we should exempt userspace edits as I've run into a number of restricted users who have come back after a long inactivity just to archive their talk page and disappear again, so I've pretty much been doing this in practice with my edits today.

• I'm out of gas for the moment, but if nobody else steps in I'll try to get this done in the next day or two. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe the initial archiving is now done. Anyonw with some time to kill is welcome to double check. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Improving the interface

I am planning to make some changes to improve the interface of this page, in particular to reduce the clutter and make the listings more easily searchable. Please feel free to revert if you disagree with any of the changes. Alex Shih^Talk 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see the tranclusions as an improvement, Alex Shih. If there's information anywhere on the page about where to actually log the restriction, I can't find it. IMO this makes it harder for the not-so-technically proficient admin, and is making me hesitate to place editing restrictions at all. I don't mind clutter so much as I mind not being able to figure out what to do. Bishonen | talk 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

I am the not-technically proficient admin. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Bishonen Drmies I don't disagree. But I think it's fair to say that the previous format was growing incredibly tedious (loading and scrolling, incredibly painful to log the restriction, at least for me) even after the changes made by Beeblebrox. I don't think transclusion changed anything (the appearance is the same), but I understand the point and made some tweaks to make it easier to find "log the restriction" for each category, if you don't mind, please take a look. In the meanwhile, requesting opinions from SpacemanSpiff, Primefac and KrakatoaKatie (sorry about the ping). Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 15:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That helps, Alex. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 15:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

I do like having the specific types on subpages. Navigation to those pages is a little odd at first, but once you know what you're looking for it's not too bad. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: I think the layout is better than earlier but I still dislike the way the sanctions have to be logged (and this isn't new to this format), adding a table row is very painful (and I've created many lists on here). We had a similar problem on WP:GS/Caste where I copied over this format but it was turning out to be far too painful and we just switched over to a simple text. Some sort of a fill up form/gadget like for cite templates or even a script like at RfPP would be helpful. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff

SpacemanSpiff, if you like I can whip up some sort of template like {{new sanction}}, with the six params being the four columns. It would be a subst-only, basically allowing for easier adding of content. Would that work? Primefac (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Six params..? God. I fervently agree that adding a table row is pure pain. Though in my opinion, so are templates created for "easier adding of content", sorry. Why can't we have a simple list like Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log? Adding a sanction to that is very simple and comfortable compared to tables with columns and/or templates. I know computer nerds technologically proficient users are partial to columns and templates... but Alex and Primefac, there are also idiot admins like me and Drmies. Well, especially like Drmies. (I'm not including SpacemanSpiff, because he's probably a little smarter.) Bishonen | talk 16:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC).

Yeah... four params is one thing, six is a little excessive. As far as the actual format goes I'm rather indifferent, and if anything I agree with you that the table version "looks nicer" but is harder to modify. It is also, as I recently discovered, a terrible setup for "updating", since you have to either make a huge row or remove content entirely. If consensus is that we should do it ArbCom's way, then I'm happy to chip in with the transition. Primefac (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bishonen, WP:DSLOG which is supposed to be more paperwork intensive is easier to update than this one, which is why I switched the format for WP:GS/Caste from this to that. If we can go with something like DSLOG that might make more admins amenable to closing these kinds of discussions! cheers.—SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I actually like the WP:DSLOG way too. Back in my mind I was thinking about creating sub-pages for each individual user sanctioned and create a button that links directly to a preload screen, but if we can do it the simple way and have each individual user having their own sub-section in one page (making it easier to access and update), I think that would make life easier too. Alex Shih^Talk 16:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Informal proposal

Based on the above discussion, I'm putting forth an informal proposal to modify the logs. Consider it a pre-RFC poll, since starting an RFC for something that won't pass is silly. Please indicate whether you'd prefer DSLOG, GS/Caste, No change or other, along with any comments you may feel are relevant. Primefac (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a discussion about building tools for managing Editing Restrictions

The Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team would like to build and improve tools to support the work done by contributors who set, monitor, and enforce editing restrictions on Wikipedia, as well as building systems that make it easier for users under a restriction to avoid the temptation of violating a sanction and remain constructive contributors.

You are invited to participate in a discussion that documents the current problems with using editing restrictions and details possible tech solutions that can be developed by the Anti-harassment tools team. The discussion will be used to prioritize the development and improvement of tools and features.

For the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

DrChrissy

Since DrChrissy himself is literally dead, shouldn't his restrictions be removed as housekeeping? Hill Crest's WikiLaser! (BOOM!) 04:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the two which applied solely to DrChirssy. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I should've looked at this page first, but I just made an IAR edit to remove the other one that pertains to DrChrissy. Revert if inappropriate. Seemed like an obvious WP:NOTBURO move. It seems undesirable to retain the record of an "active sanction" against someone that has died. How would either he or Jytdog interact with each other such that it's meaningful to retain? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No longer Arb restricted.

The probation on my former restriction has long since passed. May I please have my name removed from the ER list? GoodDay (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Archiving again

I was repeatedly told that a bot could run once a month or so to keep the archive current, but after 14 months of waiting I’m pretty sure it’s not really happening. Doing it manually is possibly the most boring thing I have ever done in over 10 years of editing here. (checking each and every username listed to see when their last edit was and if ti qualifies copy/pasting the restriction to the archive) Does anyone have any other thoughts on how this might be accomplished? Even if it was only once a year it would still mitigate the list at least a little. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't look like a bot ever archived anything on this page. Maybe a ping to the bot op that said they could run this task might be in order? Primefac (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No, there never really was a bot to do this at all. I did all the initial (and as far as I know only) archiving manually. It took days. I asked at WP:BOTREQ for a bot to take it over and was told it would be forthcoming. I pestered the user who said they were working on it a few times and was told it was imminent, but clearly it was not, so I’ve given up at least on that person doing it at all, but maybe a new request would get a different bot operator to consider writing something up. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

No luck so far. Wondering if there is at least a script that might make it easier, something that could automatically highlight anyone with no contribs in 2+ years. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Dispenser used to be able to pull usernames from a page and give the age of the account (i.e. "last edit" etc) but when the domain lapsed I don't know if it every got shifted to a new home. Primefac (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC Enforcability of logged editing restrictions

An RfC has been opened about whether voluntary editing restrictions logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Voluntary can be enforced in the same was as those logged at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community. Your input would be appriciated.

The RfC is located at WP:Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions Jbh ^Talk 06:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ER/UC

As per recommendation by Alex Shih, I am asking this question here for clarification.

What is the actual purpose of "Final warnings/Unblocking condition"? And how the entries are logged there?

It seems that only Swarm has logged entries on WP:ER/UC this page by picking up the part "These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator.." but not the rest that ""...in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking. Restrictions may be logged here but must be logged as a permalink or diff in the unblock log." The several entries logged by him[1][2][3] didn't involved any restriction or unblock in exchange but appears to be single admin notes designed as "final warning" without any unblock or sanction.

Kindly clarify the purpose. Thanks. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: you added the "must be in the unblock log" wording here, noting a "tweak to main policy". Which tweak was that? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 11:08, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • ​This one. I’d updated it after discussing it with Bish and Callanecc, who had helped draft the original requirement to log here that most admins either didn’t know existed or ignored. I notified the talk page of WP:BLOCK here.
    Tl;dr: the requirement to log conditional unblocks here wasn’t being followed, the users who helped create the language that required it realized that and didn’t think it was a big deal anymore, and there have been no objections to updating the policy page to reflect practice in the three months since. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

​ Okay, so the change didn't really have anything to do with logging warnings that didn't originate from a block appeal? If so, can the language here be refined? Or is this section redundant? I see that many of the "warnings/conditions" logged here are really a formal topic or interaction ban. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

If someone wants to clarify it, they can. The section was rarely used to the point of having to update the blocking policy to not reference it, so I wouldn’t mind getting rid of it. I don’t have strong opinions on this page. My main concern was that the blocking policy followed practice rather than mandate a bureaucracy that wasn’t being used. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion linked by TonyBallioni and current purpose of the section only concerns unblock conditions. Since there is clear absence of any consensus for wider scope, I believe that the entries unrelated to unblock conditions should be removed. Accesscrawl (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right. I'm going to try something. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging the admins and former admins who have restrictions logged in the Final warnings/unblock conditions section: @Salvidrim!, Vanjagenije, Callanecc, BU Rob13, Alex Shih, Beeblebrox, Cryptic, Swarm, Primefac, and GorillaWarfare: (I skipped Coffee since they're on a self-imposed block); I'm also going to post notes in a few places. Many of the unblocking conditions listed in this section are really formal topic bans or interaction bans. Is there any benefit to having these listed in a separate section from WP:EDRC ("placed by the Wikipedia community") or could these two sections be combined? There are also a handful of entries here where users have been admonished or warned but have not had formal restrictions imposed - do they need to be on this page at all, and/or should they be in a separate section? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is what conditional unblocks normally are: TBANs, IBANs, 0RR, etc. We treat them the same. Since we can note them in the unblock log entry, though, having another section here seems redundant to me. The important thing is that they are noted somewhere and that admins remember to consistently do it. I think the log entry makes the most sense: it’s simple and it’s by and large what we do anyway, but if people also want to log it here, they can. We just don’t want a wikilawyer situation where someone claims that these restrictions don’t count because they weren’t made formal. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• My 2¢: For all intents and purposes, final warnings/unblock conditions are really just voluntary editing restrictions that are intended to function the same as any regular TBAN, IBAN, 1RR, etc., enforceable by blocks, and with the purpose of finding a path that allows the editor to continue/resume editing while also avoiding the original problematic situation. Some of these voluntary editing restrictions are agreed upon between the subject and a single admin, some are the result of a community discussion, but that doesn't change much and the appeal should always be on AN if they're indefinite. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 16:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Are they really "voluntary" though? I dislike the idea of voluntary restrictions anyway, but in this case, say I unblock someone and say "I'm unblocking you but on the condition that you're topic banned from pie, broadly construed", then a few days later they go and edit key lime pie, I'm going to block them again for violating the restriction. What part of the restriction is voluntary? Or is it "voluntary" because they can choose whether they abide by the restriction or get blocked? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
    • "Voluntary" may not be the most exact term, I meant "not against their wishes"? "which the user has agreed to"? Voluntary in that they voiced their acceptance and understanding of the restriction in return for being allowed to continue/resume editing, as opposed to it being applied by the community/ArbCom regardless of the user's acceptance or protest? Maybe trying to distinguish between unblock conditions, final warnings, voluntary/forced... maybe that's the mistake. Maybe there should be three classes: (1) applied by and appealable to ArbCom, (2) applied by and appealable to the community, and (3) applied by an admin as part of an agreement with the user. For example a user being unblocked with a TBAN condition as the result of a community discussion, there is no functional difference between that and a not-already-blocked user having a TBAN applied by the community. Whether the community restriction is intended to allow the user to continue or resume editing is fundamentally the same and both must be appealed to the community anyways. The example that comes to mind is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive269#Indef-block_appeal_for_Ratel which I paved the path for. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 18:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Thank you. The current purpose of the page has been already noted as "warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking". It seems enough. It is not possible for a single admin to impose a very broad warning or sanction at this moment in absence of dealing with an unblock or imposing an Arbitration enforcement. If it was possible then wouldn't need Arbitration enforcement where since a single admin can take action only if violation of a specific Arbcom remedy has been discovered. I don't think we should be removing this section entirely because a record is still needed for others to know. Voluntary restrictions are recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Voluntary. Accesscrawl (talk) 17:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not seeing anyone addressing the root of the issue here, which is whether "final warnings" can be logged in a section that says "final warnings", or if that phrase is misleading and erroneous. I've always interpreted "Final warnings / unblock conditions" to mean that both could be logged in that section, and it's never proven to be controversial or even questioned by anyone, until Accesscrawl declared war on their recently logged final warning for, ironically, battlegrounding, among a wide variety of other things. Their appeal to the community just backfired spectacularly with a formal endorsement, and now they're trying to have it struck from this page over procedural objections. It's obvious that hard sanctions can be imposed per the policy on conditional unblocking, but the section in question is not strictly framed a log for conditional unblocking, but also "final warnings", per a reasonable interpretation of the header. This confusion can easily be rectified by splitting the section into separate "final warnings" and "unblock conditions" sections. But, it's also worth considering that the matter is being pressed by someone who's trying to weasel their way out of a community-endorsed final warning for disruption including "providing disingenuous objections". Swarm ♠ 17:39, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Per the sentence "These warnings/sanctions are generally imposed by a single administrator in accordance with the policy on conditional unblocking." the intention appears to be that these final warnings are essentially "imposed" as a condition of unblocking; there's no mechanism for an admin to "specially" warn a user in a logged manner. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There doesn't seem to be utility in maintaining a list of users who have been "warned" - how do you even really define a warning? Swarm used the words "final warning", so ok that's a warning. What if I tell someone that "you should not revert again because you can be blocked for edit warring" - is that a warning? The other aspect is, if I don't then log in this list that I warned that user but someone blocks them anyway, can they say that they were warned improperly and escape blocking? I'm not looking for an answer to that, of course they can't. That brings me back around to the point, I think: Swarm's warning was in the form of a close at ANI; it wasn't necessary to log it anywhere. If some other administrator (or Swarm, for that matter) sees Accesscrawl continuing the same behaviour that they were told to stop, and blocks them, Accesscrawl can't turn around and appeal that block because the warning was logged improperly. So why log it at all? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Definitely confusing. If the final warning is meant only as a part of unblocking conditions, then why is it there at all? Clearly, an unblocking condition is already a "final warning" in the sense that if the user breaks it, they get blocked or banned. Regardless, I think Ivanvector has it right and there is no need to log the warning. I do suggest that, for clarity, we delete the words "final warning".--regentspark (comment) 19:40, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• The warning itself serves as adequate notification, Logging it on this very, very long and bloated list should not be required. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Obviously it's not "required", and some may feel it's not necessary in most situations, but the question at hand is whether an admin can log a final warning at "final warnings / unblock conditions", as the name implies. It seems silly to be able to log a final warning as issued as part of a conditional unblock, but not otherwise. Swarm ♠ 20:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Another relevant question being, why would a user who is specifically the subject of a logged final warning, who has just failed at having said warning invalidated by a community appeal, immediately make it their priority to de-list/prevent the logging of final warnings from a procedural standpoint? Even if there is potentially some academic confusion as to the intent of the section, it's something nobody has ever cared about or felt the need to address before this particular user, who has strenuously tried to protest and invalidate their final warning. Ivanvector is quite right that de-listing final warnings from the section won't make them any less valid, but this seems to be an obvious attempt to reduce the visibility and the level of scrutiny surrounding the warning, rather than a good faith effort to improve EDR practices. Swarm ♠ 21:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• The section clearly states that it is restricted to conditional unblocking. There is no concept of a "final warning" in normal circumstances. The policy prescribes blocks after warning(s) depending on the history of sanctions. In this case, the policy doesn't recommend outright indef block for anything, without a prior warning, that can be handled with a short term block. Block should be made only after a clear offense, however your final warnings in these cases which you have listed were without a prior sanction and had nothing to do with conditional unblocking. I believe that policy is very clear about blocks. You can discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy if you wish to to debate further otherwise we are already good with complying with the current rules. Kraose (talk) 05:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not 100% sure what the question is here, but responding to the ping. I don't think final warnings should be logged, since no individual admin can require other admins to act in response to future infractions. Unblock conditions that involve actual restrictions should be logged somewhere. I don't care where. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:33, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
• Since the consensus above is clear that warnings are not logged on WP:EDR and "final warning" concerned only unblocking conditions, I have removed some entries that I had initially observed as unsuitable.[4] I will look into others later. Accesscrawl (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• No, Accesscrawl, you don't get to do that. Let other editors/administrators deal with this. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• @Alex Shih: I believe we had enough opinions from uninvolved editors and administrators to remove those entries now so it was fine for me to implement what seems already obvious. This is not really "request for comment" so I guess we wouldn't be expecting more opinions on the matter for stating the obvious. Thanks Accesscrawl (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• I checked them and will consider removing three of those entries soon unless someone has particular objection with removal. I figured out problem with one more entry that was made by Primefac and have notified him on his talk page. Kraose (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I still object, because apparently everyone is ignoring the "final warnings" part of the page/section title, but since I seem to be not getting the point I've shifted that section over to the "voluntary" restrictions. I think it's time the formal definitions/descriptions of these RESTRICTions are updated. Primefac (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

• WP:CONDUNBLOCK previously required conditional unblock conditions to be recorded on WP:EDR but it now only requires it in the block log. Any warnings admins give should not be logged here IMHO as these's no requirement that the user abide by it, it can't bind other admins and has no community support (in policy). I don't really care whether or not unblock conditions are logged here, it might be useful for other editors trying to find them but since they're in the block log, that's not such a concern. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:07, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
• Color me confused. It was my impression that the "Unblock conditions / Final warnings" section contained two different types of things. One was actual conditions imposed on an editor that they were required to follow to be unblocked, and the other was final warnings given by an admin to an editor who, if they returned to the behavior described, could then be blocked, either by the admin logging the warning, or by any other admin. To me, therefore, both are logged not so much for the benefit of the editor involved, but for the benefit of admins, who have a convenient place to check to see if an editor who is misbehaving has been either unblocked on condition that they don't behave that way, or has been warned that continuing to behave in that manner will result in a block. Since such warnings placed on user talk pages are allowed to be deleted, and searching the noticeboards or a user talk page history is not the easiest thing in the world, I suggest that the section serves a definite and useful purpose, and should not be deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  That was the basis of my thinking. Primefac (talk) 23:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

  This is why it has been suggested above that the words "Final warnings" should be removed. There is no policy that support it as some form of a restriction. Kraose (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• There may be no policy, per se, but there have been years and years (and years) of admins issuing final warnings to disruptive editors, as part of their administrative discretion. The practice is widespread and invaluable, and in line with WP:AGF – which is core policy. The alternatives to issuing final warnings are to either essentially ignore the continuing disruption or to block immediately, which is not in the spirit of either AGF or WP:ROPE. Given the value of final warnings, mention of them ought not to be removed from the list, for the practical reasons I gave above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

• A restriction has to be justified by an existing policy. Kraose (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm in favour, generally, of removing any entry from this list that isn't related to a formal, enforceable sanction (i.e. a ban of some sort). Warnings are not obligatory (other admins don't have to act on them) as several others have pointed out, and they are also not required: an admin doesn't need to check here first to determine if a user has been warned before making a block, and I suspect that most admins probably wouldn't check here in favour of checking for talk page notices. However I do think unblock conditions should be logged when they take the form of a formal sanction, such as "I'll unblock you as long as you don't edit about French fries" - the unblock condition is effectively a topic ban from fries. I suppose that also raises the question of whether a sole admin has the authority to impose such a restriction. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I also expect that if a serial offender is reported to admins, that the reporter is going to refer to past instances of the user being warned against the same behaviour, and should probably provide a diff of a past warning in that case, wherever the warning was posted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:32, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

But you're advocating the elimination of a logical and reasonable place where that past warning can be listed, which refers an inquiring admin to the original place where the warning was given, which can then be used as a diff. That doesn't seem like a functional improvement to me, especially as it is based on what appears to be a personal interpretation of the function of the list, that everything listed must be formal, enforceable and obligatory. A final warning which says, often, "Here's the situation with this editor, if you see this behavior continuing, you should consider blocking them -- I will if I see it", is certainly only advisory and not obligatory, but then almost no administrative action is obligatory, and administrative discretion is broadly interpreted.

The final warnings are information, and it seems foolhardy to eliminate a useful centralized source of information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Like Callanecc has written that warnings logged here have no factual reasoning, I think that discussions here would fail to create a "final warning" restrictions. These recent warnings were result from misreading of the subtitle "Final warning". If we were going to create a restriction called final warning then I believe that we would be required to gain community consensus prior any implementation of a yet non-existing restriction. It would need to be clarified if a final warning should depend on the amount of past sanctions such as block and topic ban and how it will work. Kraose (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's entirely a red herring. No one is claiming that there's a restriction called a "final warning", what's being claimed is simply that admins issue final warnings to disruptive editors (that's a fact, and a normal happenstance with years of history behind it), and that information is or might be of interest to other admins. No one is obligated to block a disruptive editor who has received a final warning when they continue their disruption, but the admin issuing the warning is saying to their fellow admins "If I see it, I will block, you might consider doing so if you see it." That is no way a restriction, it's information, and why anyone should be opposed to a place where this information can be shared is incomprehensible to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That is how it is being interpreted as, since this page is itself categorized under Category:Wikipedia sanctions. Everyone gives final warning to someone. Would you log this warning too here? It is just useless to keep warnings since is no obligation that the users should abide by the warning listed here. Kraose (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Reoccurring spelling error

"formally" appears on this page('s subpages) 11 times, of which eight should be "formerly". I was gonna just go and fix it myself, but it looks so obvious that I was wondering if there was a specific reason for it or if it was meant as a joke or something. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

It's just an error, probably based on copying earlier text and the fact that "formally" is correctly used in a few places. I'm too afraid of Muphry's law to fix this section's heading, but "recurring" would be better IMHO. I fixed some. Johnuniq (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Requesting edits

Hello, please see Template_talk:Request_edit#Other_reasons_for_edit_request for a discussion on how restricted editor's edit requests could be processed. Please comment at that thread to keep the discussion centralized. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

x

My entry from Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Voluntary should be removed as it no longer applies to me and because it was voluntary. I am now cancelling the agreement. -- Flooded w/them 100s 11:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ping Primefac: it doesn't appear to me that this restriction is voluntary, based on this discussion. Also note that the original revocation of Flooded with them hundreds (formerly User:Zawl)'s pagemover userright was endorsed at AN. I'm pointing this out to request clarification, it's not clear to me what's voluntary and what isn't here. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:54, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. (edit conflict) Ivanvector, it's in the "voluntary" because certain individuals (not FWTH) objected to it being in the "unblock conditions" section of WP:RESTRICT (see #WP:ER/UC above). That being said, the "stick" part of the restriction is rather moot since FWTH no longer has PGM. If someone else wants to bring a case and make it an "official" sanction where they cannot move these pages in general (i.e. not via the PGM right) they are welcome to do so. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for following the request through. I forgot about that discussion, it doesn't seem to have resolved anything. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to add a date column

I think a date column should be added to the ArbCom list to match the other sections of WP:EDR. There is no special reason to exclude it here. (I can't do it myself becausedirect editing of that page is limited to arbitrators and clerks.) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sitebans by WMF Office

We typically don't have a list of sitebans per WP:DENY, however we need to list those issued here Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by WMF Office for the sake of transparency and so that administrators and bureaucrats don't make the mistake of interfering with them. My view is that transparency is good. If this is the wrong place to keep a log of these actions, please suggest a better place to put them. Jehochman ^Talk 15:41, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think a list of WMF Office actions belongs here. I don't have a suggestion as to where to put them. It's not clear to me that they need to be listed anywhere.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Your transparency argument doesn't make sense. Administrators/bureaucrats know they are not permitted to interfere with Office actions. In this instance, they did so willfully. Listing the Fram ban here wouldn't have stopped anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:31, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not an editing restriction, it's a ban; we don't list those here. I've nominated the subpage for deletion. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Account rename

Dear Arbitration Committee members and clerks,

please note that B dash, who is mentioned twice on this page, was recently renamed to A1Cafel [5]. I hope I have informed you sufficiently.

Sincerly, Taketa (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated the pages. Primefac (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Note of discussion involving this page

Users may be interested in this discussion which involves this page. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

SO and IBANs

Does WP:SO apply to IBANs? Is there policy on this, either way? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editing restrictions/Placed by the Arbitration Committee

For reference only I have corrected a obvious typo on that page.--GZWDer (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of plot summaries

I was conditionally unblocked with the agreement, "No addition of any plot summaries anywhere in Wikipedia". Can this be amended to restricting me from adding plot summaries from existing sources, and not those that I write on my own? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

This is not the correct venue to appeal your unblock restrictions. I suggest you make a request at WP:AN, notifying the admin who unblocked you and any other editors who were involved in that discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, done. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Clarification

Would I be right in assuming that a topic ban from articles about "race" includes articles on antisemitism? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably yes, but it would depend on the wording of the topic ban. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It just says "race", but I assume it's not about F1 or the Derby. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)