Wikipedia talk:Banning policy

One-way Ibans

I partially undid this recent addition. Two-way to one-way is pretty straightforward (and maybe isn't needed), but potentially encouraging someone under a one-way Iban to continue to pursue an editor by seeking a two-way can get problematic quickly. If that is going to be mentioned at all, the language would need to be crafted with care.

Requesting 1-way to 2-way isn't appealing the ban, but requesting new sanctions, so that doesn't really belong at the line in question. Generally, someone under a 1-way should not be pursuing the other editor at all, and the language I removed leaves that too open. Only in extreme cases (e.g., WP:HOUNDING using the one-way) would a one-way to two-way request be valid; the person not under the sanction by nature has fairly wide latitude to discuss the sanctioned editor normally before it reaches that threshold. If there is going to be text on this specific scenario, there's going to need to be quite a bit of similar warning including that there is a high risk of WP:BOOMERANG for such a request. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This was twice confirmed at AN this year. The exact argument you're making was rejected twice in appeals, which is what led to my clarification in the first place. I put it back to what I changed it to. If you want to remove the whole thing we can launch an RFC, but what I added has consensus from AN whereas what you added doesn't have consensus anywhere. The whole issue is 1-way to 2-way not the other way around. Levivich ^harass/_hound 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please remember to gain consensus for significant policy changes like this rather than continuing to reinsert it. You claim consensus, but are only making broad generalizations about AN. If there was consensus for a specific change, it should not be hard to link what you keep referring to. That said, appeals do not make policy, and crafting specific carefully tailored language to implement policy should be done here even if a rough intent has been drawn out elsewhere.

On that note, it would also be odd and premature to suggest launching an RfC all of a sudden and seems to have missed what I said when I only partially removed the change. There were specific issues that needed to be addressed there and above. That's the purpose of this new section. I'm also confused as to why you now want your addition about 2 to 1-way bans removed even though no one was objecting to that part. Either way, an RfC wouldn't be warranted (read WP:RFCBEFORE) until well after if editors on this page could not agree on specific language.

A few technical notes just to reiterate them, but the bullet deals with appeals of a ban, not requesting new sanctions. Likewise, the language addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum already addresses at least in concept a case of where a one-way banned user might be hounded by the other, but those examples are going to be very case-by-case to the point crafting specific language on that would need to be careful of WP:CREEP. We're not going to have every example of that here, so care is needed for examples that are included. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with you reverting it in whole. The two AN threads mentioned in my edit summaries are from May 2020 and Dec 2020. I'll consider launching an RFC. Levivich ^harass/_hound 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging with that addition. However after reading over those, there was no such mandate as claimed in either of those threads by far. While Wugapodes merely undid their block in the first, that one actually does outline exactly the kind of behavior we're trying to avoid where the 1-way editor takes potshots at the other under the mantle of discussing their own ban as Wugapodes explained to you there. The second just looks to be a continuation of that where the one-way editor did not help themselves in how they acted even though admins then saw issues with the unsanctioned party too. That's exactly the type of instance where carte blanche language I first removed would only encourage editors into messy situations like that, especially since interaction banned editors typically have already demonstrated they really can't handle addressing the other party appropriately.

Instead, requesting a 1-way to 2-way by the involved party requires both solid evidence and focus solely on continued inappropriate interaction by the other. It's not a "free pass" to air all grievances about the other party (e.g., WP:NOTTHEM), but must be specific to issues with the interaction sanction itself with a high risk of a boomerang if they deviate from that. Nothing has changed in that regard, so we can't add language that would even inadvertently circumvent that and possibly lead to more harassment. If someone wants to work on more appropriate guidance for I-banned editors, they are more than welcome to chime in on starting that process. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not characterize my behavior as "potshots"; that feels like a potshot. Our policies document what we already do. I haven't looked everywhere, but at the WP:AELOG the only related example I see is where Tryptofish appealed a two-way IBAN which they received from a case which you filed against the other party. I think the purpose of many IBANs is to prevent users from engaging in personalized editing disputes or filing complaints which do not relate to themself. Requesting that a sanction be placed on another party makes sense as an exception to protect a sanctioned user. I am not sure why there would be different standards for requesting a 1-way to 2-way conversion by the involved party. A vexatious complaint against someone who has previously been the target of harassment would be virtually guaranteed a boomerang. I don't think we have any evidence demonstrating a reluctance from administrators to issue boomerangs.... I would expect that there would need to be new evidence of harassment against the subject of a one-way IBAN to show that there is still a problem, because any evidence of harassment would have been brought up at the initial case. (Unless IBANs are issued without a noticeboard discussion?) Old evidence would be appropriate to show a pattern with the new evidence, just like any other case. We shouldn't have to spell all of this out. We do actually have an Arbitration principle which seems applicable: Consideration of evidence. Maybe this language would work:

*appealing the ban, including requesting 1-way IBANs be converted into 2-way IBANs (or vice-versa). Certain considerations of evidence should be made for such conversion requests.

Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC) Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

And that was what I was talking about. Excluding ban appeals, you should not be getting involved or even be concerned about discussions of your interactions with Specifico.

For the rest, considering this discussion looks to be based more in a recent personal dispute, it's probably better to let this be since trying to change policy in such instances is generally discouraged. If you are still having troubles with your interaction ban, that shouldn't be hashed out here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Besides my complaint about your comment, I have not been discussing anything about myself. I have been discussing policy which applies to everyone. A request to change a one-way to a two-way is not an appeal. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, Besides my complaint about your comment, is commenting on my summary of what other's have said about your interaction with Specifico. There is no way around that and should not have been done under an interaction ban. That isn't normally something we would need to add additional instructions on though since most editors understand that even tangential returning to the dispute like that is not ok. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm responding here because of the ping, although I don't want to get much involved in this discussion, if I can help it. I'll just state the way that I view this question.

As for requesting that a 2-way be changed to a 1-way, so as to appeal the part of the 2-way that applied to oneself, I believe that should be regarded as a permissible and rather routine kind of request.

When the request is to convert a 1-way to a 2-way, there are some matters of context that come into play. In other words, it may not be enough to simply say that 1-way to 2-way appeals are always acceptable. When the person making the request is the person not subject to the 1-way restriction, and they are in effect asking the ban to be extended to apply to themselves, that's a somewhat unusual situation (and not, I think, what has been discussed here), but it would generally be prudent to grant the request.

So that brings us to the more expected variant, which is where someone subject to a 1-way IBAN asks that it be made 2-way, to apply to the other person. If the context is that the other person has been following the restricted person around or baiting them, making it difficult for the restricted person to adhere to their own restrictions, there might be a case for such a request to be valid. We certainly don't want people abusing 1-way bans by taking advantage of the person under the 1-way restriction. But that requires that the restricted editor, the one requesting expansion of the IBAN, both have clear documentation that this is actually going on (with diffs) and simultaneously be absolutely clean in adhering to their restrictions (not doing anything to bait the problem, not simply doing opposition research). In those limited conditions, I think such an appeal is appropriate. But otherwise, it's not appropriate, because that would mean the person under the 1-way is indeed not respecting their 1-way restriction, and as KofA correctly said, it would be asking for a new sanction as opposed to an appeal.

What I think that means is that it may be a mistake to say that appeals to change 1-way to 2-way are always OK. It may be better to say that persons subject to a 1-way may make good-faith complaints about the other party, if the other party is unilaterally making the 1-way restriction untenable (leaving it to others to decide what to do regarding the other party, and with the possibility of a boomerang if the complaint is without merit).

I want to emphasize that I am not implying and not thinking that anything I said there applies to anyone in this discussion. Rather, that's how I would want the language of the policy to be thought about. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I would add that reasons to request expansion would be any forms of persistent incivility or major incivility towards the banned party, such as major grave dancing, personal attacks, etc. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I also want to add that nothing I have said here applies to anyone in particular. My focus is on what will be good for editors in the future. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish, however, between grave dancing and personal attacks that are aimed directly at the other person in ways that the other person cannot avoid even when trying to stay out of the way, versus those things happening where the other person would only be looking if doing "opposition research". In other words, someone placed on a 1-way IBAN should not be observing the other person to look for these things. I know that can sound unfair, as in why should that be happening behind someone's back, but I still believe that it is necessary if 1-way IBANs are to work. Banned means banned, or else it becomes meaningless. I'm OK with third parties raising complaints about such situations if the problem is genuinely serious, and the 1-way banned editor can be notified and allowed to comment when that happens, but I also see this as something that can be abused by third parties: a 1-way IBAN should not be weaponized against the editor it was supposed to protect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the banned party should not be monitoring the person they're banned from. Certainly anything that directly interferes with editing is the most actionable, but persistently casting aspersions to harm someone's reputation, or unfairly criticizing the banned editor on talk pages they both are participating in, for example, should also be actionable. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Talk pages they both are participating in": there should be no such thing. As for reputation-harming, the unrestricted editor should not be, in effect, actively canvassing against the restricted editor, but again "you're harming their reputation" is weaponizing the 1-way in an inappropriate way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I am referring to: "Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other" at WP:IBAN. Yes, there is risk of abuse. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

That's a good point, thanks. We're actually thinking the same things, and have just been saying them in different ways. An editor on a 1-way who is scrupulously following what you just quoted, but unavoidably sees the other editor badmouthing them or baiting them on the very same talk page, should have every right to object to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• Responding because I was pinged---I had actually seen this change a few days ago when responding to some BANEX questions, and I thought it was an accurate summary of de facto practice seen this year so I left it alone. Do I think it is prudent to let editors under a 1-way IBAN ask that the other party also get an IBAN? No. Do I think it is established practice to allow it? Yes. As such it should be documented in some way until a widely publicized discussion comes to an explicit consensus on the matter. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:29, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm getting drawn into this discussion more than I had intended, sorry. But I disagree that we make changes to policy because something has been happening, as opposed to because something has gotten consensus. If it's been happening so widely and without dispute, that may be a de facto temporary consensus, but I'm not sure that has happened here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

• I just posted this: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Would this language for WP:BANEX work:

Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following:

...

• appealing the ban, including requesting that 2-way IBANs be converted into 1-way IBANs

3. Requesting that 1-way IBANS be expanded to 2-way IBANs. Certain considerations of evidence should be made when the subject of a 1-way IBAN requests that the ban be applied to the other party.

Does this cover the concerns? Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

In one fish's opinion, I would support the addition to the bullet point, which is the same as what KofA tried to do in this edit: [2]. But I would probably not do the #3, because it tends towards WP:CREEP, and when I look back at the policy page, the first bullet point in the bullet point list really covers it: "asking an administrator to take action against a violation of an interaction ban by another user (but normally not more than once, and only by mentioning the fact of the violation)". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait, I made a mistake in saying that. The first bullet point deals with violations of an existing IBAN, not violating the spirit of the IBAN. I'd have to think about this some more. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll wait to see what you were thinking, but I'll chime in that #3 is still sort of a WP:BEANS invitation (e.g., opening up the non-sanctioned editor for further harassment, which is more a concern than a rarer case of gaming). That's especially since 1-ways are supposed to tell the other to leave the editor alone, full stop. It definitely needs to be much stronger language in that context given that it's already established a sanction was needed. Honestly, I think WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED already covers the spirit of the original concern, but there might be ways to make it harder for sanctioned editors to try to game that part of the policy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

3. Misconduct towards the subject of a 1-way IBAN may permit that user to request that the ban be expanded to a 2-way IBAN to protect them from abuse by the other party. Certain considerations of evidence should be made.

This is kind of awkward, but it includes WP:CONDUCTTOBANNED which I had overlooked. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I have to concur entirely with the post by Kingofaces43 at 22:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC). Also agree strongly with Tryptofish: "disagree that we make changes to policy because something has been happening, as opposed to because something has gotten consensus". If it's been happening so frequently that it looks like a consensus shift, then (as Levivich, I think, was suggesting) open an RfC about changing the policy. The implication above that if three or four editors here come to some agreement that this is consensus to change the policy is incorrect (see WP:PROPOSAL, WP:PGCHANGE). If a few editors fail to do so, that may be a good indication that consensus for such a change is unlikely to emerge. But a tiny handful of regulars on a policypage (who often agree with each other) are very likely to come to a "micro-consensus" amongst themselves that does not reflect broader views (i.e., a WP:FALSECONSENSUS). No substantive changes this major should be made without RfCing it, whether that is now or later. FWIW, I oppose any change that makes it easier for someone under a 1-way to make further trouble. They got put under that restriction for a reason. If the party not subject to that I-ban uses its 1-way nature to harass the banned party, this will become apparent to other editors, who are welcome to report the problem and suggest it be converted into a 2-way.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• I have a question. In addition to the incidents that have already been linked to in this thread, have there been instances of an editor under a 1-way IBAN requesting that it be made 2-way (not third parties requesting it), where the request has been agreed to? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

  I haven't been able to find any. We could go through the two-way IBANs at WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community to see if any had been converted by request...but it seems rare. Kolya Butternut (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

If we can't find consensus would it make sense to just link to this discussion from the page? Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to simply give this discussion some more time, to see if more editors show up. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• First, I'm going to say sorry to Kolya B., who I think got caught up in this through no fault of their own. But I have now concluded that I oppose any change to the IBAN section unless there is a widely-announced RfC with a consensus to change it (and I don't think there is a good reason to take up the community's time with such an RfC). I think the existing wording is sufficient to allow appeals, and I've concluded that no good will come from inviting requests to make 1-way into 2-way. I've been led to this conclusion by events elsewhere on-site, that are separate from this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Conversion to 2 way can easily be used as a soapbox for attacks disguised as an appeal, thus defeating the point of the ban. Contrast that with an appeal on the basis of the 1 way IBAN enabling harassment, with no suggestion as to whether to remove the IBAN or convert it to 2 way (allowing the community to decide itself on that particular). The latter, I’d think, is already permitted under existing policy? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, we've discussed the gaming issue. Appeals may work but due to WP:NOTTHEM they may be challenging. I think we need to separately discuss the consequences of the policy to the banned editor and the protected editor. Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  The answer to what PR actually asked is that, yes, it's already adequately covered by the existing wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  NOTTHEM is not really applicable to IBANs, since, unlike topic bans which are all about the editor being banned, IBANs are entirely about interactions with another editor. I think the existing provision already covered such an appeal. The issue with the appeal leading up to this decision was the focus on getting the other editor ibanned, rather than appealing ones own IBAN which was causing difficulties. There’s a difference between the two. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  The main reason I don't think the appeal process adequately covers this is because appeals are limited and apply to past events. If the one-way protected editor was intent on perpetually harassing the banned editor, the banned editor may exhaust their appeals without their requested IBAN expansion being granted, and continue to experience harassment. I started a new section below to try to illustrate the potential experience of a banned user. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  I think IBAN harassment usually quite rare, but it could happen. I don’t think there’s any limit to appeals, as long as they’re reasonable. If it’s not reasonable, it could be seen as pushing an agenda. I think your appeals ran into misfortune partially due to heavy-handed admining (justified or not), and the fact that you worded your appeals as attempts to IBAN the other editor, rather than as appeals for your own IBAN (again, letting the community decide whether that’s dealt with by lifting or by converting to 2 way). One can also always have the option to contact a thoughtful admin privately with your evidence. If they’re convinced, they can raise an appeal in their own name, without involving the ibanned editor at all. You were just unlucky in that you chose an admin who has a stronger policy of transparency/stuff being onwiki (perfectly reasonable, and they did disclose it on their userpage). If you choose an admin more open to private conversation, what I just said might’ve worked. I don’t think any policy needs changing here, there are various options for 1-way ibanned editors to deal with harassment, all those mentioned plus private appeals directly to ArbCom. I think you were just really unlucky in your appeal in various ways. I’m not sure how much more we should elaborate on this page about it though, or if we should explicitly loosen the protections. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

  I want to be clear that I have no skin in the game here. You may contact me by email if you would like to discuss anything to do with me personally. There are limits to appeals according to WP:AE:

  While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.

  And, "Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction...."[3] While this is all very rare, it shows the one-way IBAN as it is written is flawed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Consequences to banned editor

So, if we treat conversion to 2-way as an appeal that means the banned editor experiencing harassment can only complain to their blocking administrator and then post to WP:AN or WP:AE once, and then finally to ARCA. The banned user cannot complain on-wiki to administrators, cannot post at WP:ANI, and cannot post at WP:AN or WP:AE more than once. If I have that right, I would say that that would maybe be fair if Arbcom was more willing to hear such complaints by email than others? Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Listen, I'm undergoing the kind of abuse that results from gaming right now, in real time, and I'm losing patience here. The consequences to the banned editor are that they have to conform to the ban. What you say about "cannot complain on-wiki" is not what the existing language says ("and only by mentioning the fact of the violation"). Editors have the right to submit private evidence to ArbCom via email, and we cannot change ArbCom policy here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I have been following your experience and I am sympathetic, but I feel that we have to consider scenarios of abuse in either direction. I'm not sure if I understand your interpretation of my words, but when I said "cannot complain on-wiki to administrators" what I meant was that a banned editor cannot complain on an administrator's talk page or ping them to their talk page to discuss the other editor. Editors who are protected by a one-way IBAN who are experiencing abuse have the privilege of being able to talk openly about it, but editors who are banned by a one-way do not have that privilege. While we cannot change ArbCom policy here, we can decide what changes we should pursue. The timing of all of this is odd, so maybe we should come back to it.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

What I tried to say, admittedly not at my best, was that one can contact an admin, but must do so "by mentioning the fact of the violation" and providing a link, without further commenting on the other, not-banned, party. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether that line applies; I don't know if the protected editor can technically violate a one-way IBAN against another party. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibility of asking topic-banned user about the rationale of an edit they made within that topic

Is it correctly understood that if an editor is topic-banned from a certain topic, they are prohibited from answering any questions regarding any edits they made in that area prior to the ban? The reason I'm asking is that I'm currently trying to find sourcing for a claim made in Quackery which was added by an editor who was topic banned as a result of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. I have been unable to find a source to support the statement so far, and thought it would be easier to ask the person who originally added the statement, even if just to get pointers to guide me in the search, but found they were topic-banned now. If my assumption is correct, does this not create an issue whenever old edits need to be discussed, or is the rationale that any benefits of allowing such a discussion are outweighed by the interest in preventing whatever behavior led to the topic ban resurfacing? Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 20:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Just my individual reading of the policy, but my inclination would be not to ask the editor, because it would put them in a difficult position, and they really would not be permitted to reply to you. My suggestion instead is to ask about the point in general (not in terms of that editor's particular edit) on the article talk page, or maybe at WT:MED. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That was my inclination as well. Just wanted to get it confirmed. I will try to find answers elsewhere. Thanks! Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 12:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

authority to ban

This statement is confusing: {{xt|Except as noted above, individual editors, including administrators, may not directly impose bans.}} That's not really correct, though -- individual admins can topic ban, for instance. Is this just maybe outdated? —valereee (talk) 19:20, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It's covered under #3 of the list above the sentence. Admins can implement community consensus of topic bans, or can topic ban in certain topic areas where the community/ArbCom has delegated banning power. Otherwise, they can't ban editors unilaterally I believe. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

What that editor said. Administrators can block for disruption or policy-based reasons, but the greater sanction of a ban has to originate from the community's authorization, either directly or delegated (the arbitration committee derives its right to ban through the arbitration policy, whereby the community delegated authority to the committee). isaacl (talk) 01:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban evasion

Does WP:BANEVASION also applies to edits made in contravention of a topic ban? Does it cover all of the following: mainspace edits, comments, starting an RfC, nominating an article for GA etc.VR _talk 21:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it does. That's why topic bans typically include the phrase "broadly construed". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish. So should we amend WP:BANEVASION to include topic ban too? Another question is how to determine if an edit violated TBAN? Its fairly easy to detect violations of site-bans but detecting violations of tbans are harder.VR _talk 00:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You're very welcome! I've never thought that that was a problem. Is there a recent example that would indicate a need for clarification? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:FA and WP:FA nomination processes

Do topic bans preventing someone from interacting within these spaces?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)