Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Do topic bans extend to talk pages?

This is a very basic question, which I'm sure has been asked before, but I was unable to find anything about it said explicitly in the policy itself, or in the archives of this talk page. So I will ask it: do topic bans extend to the talk pages of articles covered under the ban? I am pretty sure they do, but I think it would be good to have some authoritative confirmation. (And, if so, is this true in all cases, or does it depend on the specific details of a user's sanction?) jp×g 21:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Its quite clear. "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic". It doesnt have a prescriptive list of every type of page because there are lots of them and there is no point. No talk-page of an article could in any way be construed as 'not related to the topic' of which the article is about. Anyone attempting to do so would either be an idiot or much more likely, someone looking to edit clearly in violation of a topic ban. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

If it does, then I should be expecting a site ban very soon. JsfasdF252 (talk) 19:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of recent changes

I think this is worth discussing, but in general, when non-admins, ones under a topic or interaction ban, make changes here, it would be good to discuss them here too. Referring to this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@François Robere: Can you please explain what you meant by your edit summary "Per admins"? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe the edit may have been left in retaliation to this conversation User_talk:Guerillero#I-ban. Since Guerillero basically said "just leave each other alone" rather than sanctioning the other participant, it appears François Robere made a pointy edit to the banning policy that the other participant's actions must have been fine. I'd revert personally. Worm^TT(talk) 07:49, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why some people like playing with fire... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:55, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@King of Hearts: I was made aware of this thread, where these comments[1][2] by Johnuniq and Wugapodes (admins), which express what I later added here; Guerillero merely seemed to "sign on" to that interpretation. I disagree with this interpretation wholeheartedly, but it is what it is and it's better that it was clearly stated then people had to guess, ask around, and potentially land themselves into trouble. François Robere (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC) (Updated 12:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC))

Revert the changes. This is going to cause people to wiki-lawyer and no good will come of it. --Yamla (talk) 10:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I already did. I still think that several aspects of this policy are ambiguous, which leads to wildly different interpretations and "wiki-lawyering", but if the community is satisfied... so be it. François Robere (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the policy is already pretty clear. The addition is already covered by the existing text Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other. Emphasizing this only encourages editors into territory where a slight error can result in a block. I don't think the change should be restored.

The line is drawn there because it has to be drawn somewhere, but I would go the other way. If it does need clarification I would add something like While it is permitted to edit the same pages or discussions as the person you are in a ban with, ibanned users are cautioned that this is risky as a small error could result in a block. This wording would of course need improvement.

My point is that this technically allowed territory should be emphasized as a danger zone, not as a safe zone. As another user so aptly put it, this is playing with fire. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

In general yes, but the "same discussion" clause has an edge case when one party participates in a discussion started by the other party, which could be seen as a "reply to" or "reference to" them. That's the cause of the differing interpretations here. François Robere (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you that this is not the case; I don't know why you're still unclear on that.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Pawnkingthree: I do think it makes sense to clarify a relatively common situation and potential source of confusion, though. In many Internet forums, top-level comments are considered "replies" to the OP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

That's one part of it. The other is the one about "direct or indirect reference", which seems to raise more questions than it gives answers. François Robere (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

When I saw the changes come through I didn't think much of it. FR is right that the exceptions listed are, as I see it, pretty commonly held exceptions. However I do think codifying them as "official" exceptions is likely to cause us more grief than benefit as it seems like we would open up new grounds for wikilawyer and/or still having whatever harm is caused now when someone shows up in a discussion started by someone they're iBanned with. Without having it in the policy it's easier to say "it's really best to avoid replying" even if we're not ultimately going to sanction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that having a policy that isn't codified - especially one that is as unintuitive as this one - undermines what policy is all about, and can create pitfalls even for veteran editors (eg. myself). While I don't understand why something that is strongly discouraged is still allowed, if that is the case then we might as well state it clearly: "the following is allowed but strongly discouraged". François Robere (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING (banning policy): Clarification needed

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPP § WP:PROXYING (banning policy): Clarification needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Reporting obvious vandalism or banned users

If an editor is banned from project space (or some specific project-space pages), there is no clear way to report obvious vandalism they cannot fix themselves (for whatever reason) or socks of banned editors other than on the talk pages of random admins, which is obviously not ideal. I don't think anyone would consider reporting these things to be a violation of a topic ban but it isn't mentioned at WP:BANEX. The simplest way I think to fix that is to change "Reverting obvious vandalism" to "Reverting or reporting obvious vandalism", which is what I'll do if nobody has any objections. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Context: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#DSMN-IHSAGT. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please, no. Topic banned people are banned for a reason and giving them a method of pursuing their passion is not helpful for them or the community. It's not true that Wikipedia will descend into chaos if a particular occurrence of vandalism is not reported by the first person (who happens to be topic banned) who saw it. Leave it for someone else. If really necessary, the person could email someone to report the problem but that cannot reasonably be put into rules. Johnuniq (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why we would allow people to revert but not report vandalism? It wont change anything at all about who is watching which pages and wont open up any new avenues of abuse. It seems really very odd and rather detrimental to the project to say that if you see vandalism you can fix, you can fix it, but if you see vandalism you can't you aren't allowed to tell people about it. Thryduulf (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess it's not a big deal and I'm not going to revert insertion of "or reporting" at WP:BANEX but my instinct is to oppose WP:CREEP which starts listing all the things that apply in a specified situation, particularly when the list is things that a user can do as exceptions to their topic ban. It's very unusual for someone to be topic banned from WP space and thus unable to report an urgent problem at ANI. In the case in question, the person is permitted to post at ANI's talk page and they could have reported the problem there where it would get fast attention. Also, the edit being reverted was diff which isn't "obvious vandalism" or a BLP violation. That makes me think that WP:BANEX doees not apply in this case. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I, the banned editor in this question, was dealing with WP:LTA/BKFIP. Irrelevant.BKFIP was reverting me repeatedly at an obscure list article. I proceeded to revert forty-five times at the list article, correctly believing that my editing was excepted from 3RR (WP:NOT3RR). Topic banned people are banned for a reason and giving them a method of pursuing their passion is not helpful for them or the community. You're right. I was banned for a reason, Irrelevant.and now I'm slightly angry whenever I want to put something up at REFUND or update a WikiProject page. However, I was dealing with an LTA here, and excessive reporting of not-vandal-vandals was not the reason I was banned. Irrelevant.I was just following WP:BMB. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I feel like CREEP is a bad argument against clarifying BANEX. It seems highly likely someone could end up in terrible trouble because someone else thinks "Of COURSE reporting isn't included in BANEX. If it were, it would be so stated. This person's ban needs to be extended by another year." —valereee (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

• This is a bad idea. When somebody is banned from an area we don’t no want to allow pushing the envelope, skirting the rules, or engagement in an area where the person does not have sufficient discipline to participate. Just stay away. If there’s a problem, somebody else will deal with it sooner or later. Jehochman ^Talk 11:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jehochman: Can you give examples of a situation in which there's pushing the envelope, skirting the rules, or engagement in an area where the person does not have sufficient discipline to participate when a banned editor is reporting something? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I don’t keep an index of things that didn’t happen because they were not allowed. But the burden is on somebody suggesting something new to prove that it is safe. The burden is not on me to prove that a new idea is unsafe. Do you have any examples of bad consequences that occurred because a banned editor wasn’t allowed to report vandalism? Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  @Jehochman How is reporting vandalism in an area a person is banned from any different to reverting vandalism in an area a person is banned from? The former is not currently explicitly allowed but I've never heard of anyone being sanctioned for it, the latter is currently explicitly allowed. The reason I'm not understanding these objections is that I honestly don't perceive any meaningful difference between the two, nor can I foresee any potential for abuse in one that doesn't exist in the other. Thryduulf (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with you that the inconsistency is wrong. It would be better to ban both activities. If there is one error, we should not make a second error to be consistent! Jehochman ^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence the current allowance is an error though? As far as I'm aware it's generally regarded as a benefit to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

  I’m not requesting any changes. I don’t like the existing exemption but until there’s a problem, we can leave it be. Jehochman ^Talk 18:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• No, we should not open this up. If obvious vandalism needs reporting, someone else will be along shortly to take care of it. --Jayron32 15:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jayron32: If someone else was along shortly to take care of it, then why, if I may ask, does Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Responder role exist? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Probably as part of the years-old effort to make RfA more palatable by unbundling some of the admin functions. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Because the people who need to be banned from projectspace don't have patience. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed with everyone else - this shouldn't be added to the list of exceptions. If it is actually an issue, someone else will report it. If someone is banned from project space, they likely have problems differentiating issues from non-issues (i.e. that tends to be part of the reason for the ban) so why would we want to let them report things if the community has decided they don't have the competence to do so? TonyBallioni (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That wasn't why I was banned. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    • This thread isn't about you even if it was started because of something you were involved in - it's about a change to the policy. If you want to request an exception for your ban, the correct place to do that is WP:AN. There's really no way to reply to you here without it floating WP:NPA, since talking about your behaviour in a discussion about a policy wouldn't be appropriate, even though you keep bringing it up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with everyone else. If someone can't nondisruptively participate in project space, they won't make good reports, either. All this would do is allow reports from the very, very few users who are banned from projectspace; the absence of these very, very few users from AIV etc. does not have a noticeable effect on the project. This, the proposed change is more likely to cause problems than solve them. Levivich 18:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pile on agreement with all those above, in particular TonyBallioni. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
• If editors can generally revert obvious vandalism I don't see why they can't report it, reporting strikes me as less of a problem than reverting directly to me. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• If this isn't an exception to BANEX, we should make it clear. I understand people wanting to avoid CREEP. I want to avoid someone getting their TBAN extended because we didn't want to spend the $0 to make this clear because CREEP. —valereee (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to change "Mediawiki" to "MediaWiki" in "Difference between bans and blocks" section

"The Mediawiki software allows the ability to block editing of individual pages" should be "The MediaWiki software allows the ability to block editing of individual pages" if I'm not mistaken. OffAndSphere (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Fixed. --Jayron32 19:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)