Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

Can a topic ban from a ct area specifically exclude “broadly construed”?

If it does that seems to create problems for both the editor and any Admin trying to enforce it. Note this is not a hypothetical question as it’s based on a ban from gensex with this exception. Doug Weller talk 17:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The standard set of restrictions described at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Standard set includes page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic). So admins are authorized to impose an editing restriction for a tailored subset of the designated contentious topic area. As a matter of practicality, they should be very clear on the boundaries of that subset. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with isaacl. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with Isaac but want to note that Contentious topics rules are set by ArbCom so we can't really come to a binding consensus here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it's not a matter for community consensus, but I also don't think we should read something into the contentious topic procedure that isn't there. As currently written, it doesn't specify that editing restrictions under the scope of the standard set must be on a broadly construed set of pages, and as far as I can recall, there is no context in the procedure that implies this. isaacl (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that if "broadly construed" were automatically required, it would go without saying. In the vast majority of instances, it's beneficial to say "broadly construed", so it gets said the vast majority of the time. But the fact that it gets said implies that, if it had not been said, then it wouldn't necessarily be the case. We now even have page blocks, so in theory it should be acceptable to ban, explicitly, from a clearly defined narrow set of pages, if that is the chosen sanction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

The CT topic, broadly contrued, is where admins have these rights. Within which they may restrict a user from editing "entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic". The topic, narrowly construed, would certainly qualify for this. It may be argued that "specified" requires giving a better definition than this, but the admin is still permitted to issue such a restriction. Animal lover |666| 10:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Restricting them from the entire topic appears to effectively be a restriction broadly construed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless otherwise stated, yes. But an admin can restrict a user from any subset of these pages, including by making the restriction be narrowly construed. Animal lover |666| 16:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree but there seems to be some ambiguity here. @Doug Weller: can you specify whether this is a ban from the whole topic area or a subset? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back it is presumably from the entire topic as no exceptions are mentioned. Doug Weller talk 17:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So a whole topic ban... Which isn't broadly construed? I would agree that doesn't make much sense Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a topic ban?

Is there a way to request a ban from a certain topic? Kowal2701 (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

For whom? Wikipedia:Banning policy § Authority to ban describes who is able to enact editing restrictions (such as topic bans) and the circumstances for each case. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Myself? Kowal2701 (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Admins don't have power to issue TBANs based on editor request, though I guess you could request a block and then request a TBAN as an unblock condition. TBANs are not enforced by any technical measures, so they depend on the banned editor governing their own behavior, in addition to scrutiny by other editors. If your goal is just to engage in that sort of voluntary restriction with some limited accountability to others, you could put something at WP:RESTRICTIONS#Voluntary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

A topic ban is a restriction enacted due to problematic behaviour, so the community normally won't enact one without actual poor behaviour. In any case, the most general form of a topic ban can't be enforced by a block, so if you're just trying to keep yourself from succumbing to temptation, a topic ban won't help. If there is a specific page from which you want to be blocked, see Wikipedia:Blocking policy § Self-requested blocks, which has a link to a list of administrators who will consider your request. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Default unban appeal terms

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Default unban appeal terms

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesome Aasim (talk • contribs) 22:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Include reverting ECR violations to exceptions of limited bans

I believe this is consistent with the spirit of including reverting vandalism and BLP violations as they are highly obvious such that they do not count towards 3RR and a lot of them are needed. There is a current PIA5 case at ArbCom in the process of handing topic bans to seven prolific editors, several of whom are active in reverting ECR violations. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Allowing topic banned editors to do anything in the topic would be a very bad idea. It would encourage people to dig deeper holes. If there is a problem, someone else will fix it. Re PIA5, ArbCom appears to be counting votes. Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

If ArbCom wants to add ECR reverts as an exception to bans it has issued, it can. I don't think we should do so for them, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The ECR situation in place is unique. I agree with above that it should not be stretched to new areas. CMD (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

ECR violations, specifically what qualifies as a good faith edit request, are not as black and white as vandalism, nor as pressing as BLP violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

agreed, let non-tbanned folks handle it. other areas of wiki remain available to edit without toeing the line. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

was anything in PIA5 related to this? just to let tbanned folks to undo arbecr vios? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• One of the points of tbanning users from certain topic areas is to actively discourage them from following these articles, and to encourage them to work on other parts of the encyclopedia. Ideally, tbanned editors would remove all articles from their watchlist that fall under the topic ban, to remove the temptation from breaking their restriction and risking more severe penalties. This should not be an exception, because it goes against the spirit of topic-banning. Risker (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Seeking consensus about WP:AVOIDEDITWAR

According to WP:AVOIDEDITWAR, nce it is clear there is a dispute, avoid relying solely on edit summaries and discuss the matter on the associated talk page, which is where a reviewing administrator will look for evidence of trying to settle the dispute. Instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag and keep in mind that there is no due-date.

Admins User:Star Mississippi and User:voorts are here are proposing an IBAN based on the fact that I added relevance inline tags to edits by an editor who has been making personal attacks, bludgeoning and playing WP:IDONTHEARTHAT for the past month. I commented on content, not personalities. But Star says " No talk pages, no articles, no tags"

If "instead of reverting, add an appropriate cleanup tag" is by the letter advice given to editors to "avoid edit wars" then I request it be added to the letter of this page at WP:IBAN and explained thoroughly and without any chance of misunderstanding. Kire1975 (talk) 02:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

• Please stop opening multiple threads about the same question. You are being disruptive. I am not further participating as per your own request. Star Mississippi 03:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not the same question as any other. Do you deny that you said [1] that edit warring means "adding appropriate cleanup tags" even though WP:AVOIDEDITWAR says the opposite? Kire1975 (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I seek consensus to add language about tagging content and seeking consensus about content created by "Foo" to the interactions that are banned by WP:IBAN. Kire1975 (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I recommend that you hold off on these two changes until you resolve the change being actively discussed at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#Seeking consensus about WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. While it may be that these two changes differ from that change, the more discussions you have open at once the more likely it is that other editors will say "no" simply because they don't have the time to understand your issues and fear that "yes" may be the wrong answer. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The change being discussed is resolved. Kire1975 (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Which change is the one being discussed that is now resolved? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh pardon. I read it wrong again. There was another resolution somewhere else and the solution is that I am banned from describing it. Kire1975 (talk) 03:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, let me try this: Are you looking for any discussion to take place on this page at the present time? Or should we consider the matter closed (for now). - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe that all of wikpedia would benefit if "tagging and seeking consensus about Foo's edits, even though it's recommended for undepecrated users at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR" were added to the list of examples on WP:IBAN. It's presence could have prevented the disruption and drama that occurred this week that I am not allowed to name but there are links to above. Kire1975 (talk) 07:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying the proposed change. Do you want - and have the ability - to (a) discuss this proposal now, or (b) wait a while to let the unnamed "disruption and drama" to cool down a bit? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

BANREVERT: style and tags

There have been recent instances of BANREVERT being used to justify edits to articles that change its style, including removal of tags for date format and ENGVAR and changes in punctuation from MoS-compliant LQ to non-compliant style. For example, here.[2] Whether or not these changes were made originally by a now-banned editor, where an article’s existing style is MoS compliant, or is tagged to reflect national ties or to retain its long-standing format, BANREVERT should not be used to force an unjustified change in style. I have made a bold edit to add this point into the article with "Care should also be taken to preserve the existing style and format of an article, where this already conforms with the Manual of Style, and to respect article tags where these already reflect WP:TIES or RETAIN." MapReader (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm just trying to undo the changes of a sockpuppet where they seem to be violating guidelines and policies. There are some cases where the changes were ambiguous and I have erred on the side of reverting in those cases. While their MOS violations are how I found the account originally (I've been working on an edit filter related to date format changes against the existing date format), I'm also very concerned about the amount of political POV-pushing and other problematic changes in their edits (e.g., inserting dozens of images of right-wing politicians into various articles).

If the state of the article prior to their changes is consistent with one variety of English or another, then let's have a discussion about encoding that with a template, but I don't think it serves the community's interests to adopt their changes wholesale.

Regarding the example you cited (Nicolae Ceaușescu), I checked the state of the article prior to the sockpuppet's edits and the spelling seemed somewhat more consistent with American spelling (which is perhaps why Marginataen went to town). The first substantial version of the article where you can tell the English variant was also originally written with American English.

Regarding the change you made to the policy, I'm not in favor of the change. The policy shouldn't be a repository for venting and the MOS is not on par with the other policies being cited. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

You've made dozens of mindless changes, including removing tags when the correct ENGVAR for the article is obvious, because they are biographical articles about British or American people, or where the ENGVAR or date format is very clear from a review of the article as it was before the sockpuppet edits. This isn't constructive at all, and there isn't any "ambiguity" about the correct ENGVAR and date format for articles like Sir Frederick Fletcher-Vane, 2nd Baronet or Myles de Vries or William DuBois (architect). You've also made edits that insert LQ errors back into an article. The object of the proposed change to the policy was to clarify that BANREVERT shouldn't be misused to change article style nor to restore formats that don't conform with the MoS. MapReader (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Many LTAs infest Wikipedia and they cause enormous trouble—trouble that can end up driving away good editors who become frustrated that they can't get help. The only help available is WP:DENY. Please do not make a fuss because that only encourages troublemakers to keep going. If you believe some edits are needed, please just make them without mention of any other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 11:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

A banrevert can't change article style, it is a revert. It does not force anything. Requiring editors to go through sock edits to check for specific MoS compliance is a massive waste of time. CMD (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

An editor removing ‘British English’ and DMY tags from an article about a British baronet, or deleting ‘American English’ and MDY tags from an article about an American architect, when those are the only changes achieved by their revert, should surely be looking and thinking about the changes they are making before mindlessly clicking on ‘publish’? MapReader (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

No, editors should not be burdened with double checking the edits of every disruptive sock. If the tags matter (and it sounds like in those two cases the tags are irrelevant due to the situation being obvious) another editor will add them. CMD (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

They only need to look at the edits they are making the once, to realise that they are unhelpful. MapReader (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Those involved in sock cleanup are not making specific edits, they are performing janitorial work. The less time they spend doing that, the more time they have to actually go and make the edits they want to make. CMD (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)