Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 2

message: Hello,
I don't know how to propose some IP to pe blocked, but check this IP:
80.3.96.10
He has been vandalising articles for some time and no action has been taken.
--PET 17:45, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A little late to be answering this one but for anyone else wondering the same you should refer to WP:AIV. An administrator will then look into it. Cheers, MartinDK 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  blocking an IP 

message: There's currently discussion on the relationship between use of indefinite blocks and community bans at Wikipedia_talk:Blocking_policy#Indefinite_Blocks. --Barberio 20:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite blocks and comunity bans. 

message: The article presently says: 
::Partial bans usually do not extend to talk pages.
This description has a narrow and restrictive scope, although the "usually" provides a way out.  Partial bans which exclude talk pages miss one of the more common problems in Disruptive editing where an editor engages in frequent and lengthy discussions on an article's talk page advancing original research or a particular point of view.  I suggest the description be revised to give a more positive scope to partial bans:
::Where appropriate, partial bans may extend to include talk pages.
--SteveMcCluskey 23:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking objections, I made the proposed change.  --SteveMcCluskey 21:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial bans including Talk Pages 

message: A perceived WP:COI is sufficient {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Banning_policy&diff=110884134&oldid=110656617]
My edits were described by the arbcom as responsible but I got banned anyway. User_talk:Jdforrester/Arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba_arbcom_case_2:_banning_of_Andries_for_one_year
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sathya_Sai_Baba_2/Proposed_decision#Editing_by_Andries Andries 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No misconduct is necessary for a partial ban 

message: Can we define the "relevant noticeboard"? Navou 21:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion above.  At the moment, it doesn't say "the relevant noticeboard", it says "a relevant noticeboard". At the moment there is not only one relevant noticeboard, whether there should be or not. JPD (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon my misuse.  I mean, should we define the boards? Regards, Navou 13:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, any relevant noticeboard means just that.  --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "noticeboard" is unfortunate wording in my opinion, anyway. It seems to indicate either WP:AN  and subpages, because of the name, or any actual noticeboards, where such discussions don't really take place. "Relevent" was added to go some way towards rectifying this, but I think it should simply convey the fact that any discussion that demonstrates community consensus should be sufficient (and if an admin can't determine whether a particular discussion in a particular forum is community consensus or not, they shouldn't be involved in implementing bans). Dmcdevit·t 08:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of relevent notice board in the "community ban" section 

message: Navou changed the wording of the community ban section, changing "Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and may note the block on a relevant noticeboard" to "Administrators who block in these cases should be sure that there is a consensus of community support for the block, and are encouraged note the block on a relevant noticeboard."  The edit summary was: "change may not to are encouraged too, revert if this is not the case. Does not seem creepish, at least I don't think."
Well I've reverted and this is my explanation.  We've had months and months of a slow creep towards the very unwikipedian concept of a community ratifying bans that are made on the basis of consensus, but our policy doesn't required this, only that concensus should exist.  Raising an expectation that the ban be noted on a noticeboard raises the expectation of consultation beyond that necessary to determine whether consensus exists. Take for instance the case of an editor who has been found by checkuser to be socking for serious vandalism.  No consultation should be expected.  This is an instance for which consensus already exists to ban.  It is for anyone who objects to such a ban to raise it and ask for review.  It should not be implied that the administrator needs to ask for review of such a ban if he's already certain (as is the case here) that it's one for which consensus exists. --Tony Sidaway 19:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The point is that admins are encouraged to ask the public when it is appropriate, not just encouraged in general. There is no reason to think that it is necessary for every case, but this implies it is (encouraged at least) for every one. As if we don't expect administrators to understand the difference. This is unnecessarily prescriptive, which makes it still instruction creepy to me. Dmcdevit·t 09:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of [[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of an edit by [[User:Navou|Navou]] 

message: Something that occurred to me in an IRC discussion...
As it is, if a user is banned indefinitely, they are not allowed to come back and become a productive contributor without appealing the ban (and the deck is stacked in every way against such an appeal). That may seem fine now... But what about down the road? What happens fifty years from now, when that snotty 15-year-old kid who thought it'd be hilarious to move pages to "On WHEELS!!!" is now collecting social security? Now, you could say, if he keeps his mouth shut, we'll never know it's him, and he's free to contribute all he wants. But are we really going to say that he can't admit to a mistake half a century gone by, because of a still-active ban?
Why should any ban last more than ten years, ever? Or even one year? If they keep doing whatever they got banned for, they can be banned again, or if they're doing it while still banned it can be renewed.
#Yes, I know Willy on Wheels has never been formally banned.
#Speculation on the survival of social security is beyond the scope of this argument.
--Random832 01:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinite bans and the future 

message: The official policy says:
----
Any edits made in defiance of a ban may be reverted to enforce the ban, regardless of the merits of the edits themselves.  As the banned user is not authorized to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion.  Users are generally expected to refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.  Users that nonetheless reinstate such edits take responsibility for their content by so doing.
It is not possible to revert newly created pages, as there is nothing to revert to.  Such pages may be speedily deleted. Any user can put a  to mark such a page.
-----
This is flawed for one major reason. Imagine a user creates a great page which becomes a Featured article, then it is later found out that this user was previously banned for some reason. What should happen to this Featured article that the user created? Let's imagine that hundreds of other users had put a lot of work into it and the consensus is massively in favor of keeping it. This policy clearly states that such pages may immediately be speedy deleted and makes no mention of any exceptions. I propose that the policy be reworded to leave room for exceptions and make it clear that if a page is created by a previously banned user and the page existing (or the edits themselves existing) is constructive to Wikipedia and improves it in some way then they may be kept if a consensus supports a keep. Wikidudeman (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the page only will be speedied if little or no additional work has been done to it since the banned user created it. If it turns out that a sock of a banned user created an article two years ago, and today others have done tons of work to it and it's featured, no one in their right mind is going to speedy it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: With this reasoning, you may consider speedily deleting Sathya Sai Baba movement that I created. Andries 19:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Navou, "May" be reverted when? Does it specify when it "May not" be reverted? If the consensus is to keep "may" it still be reverted? Wikidudeman (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seraphimblade, While that may be true, I fear that some people may use this flaw in the wording to make reverts or deletions that harm the project. Wikidudeman (talk) 03:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enforcing bans. Flaw in policy. Proposed change. 

message: Discussion moved from WP:AN:
I'm discussing block/ban policy wording with other editor/s on those pages, over concerns that the wordings of WP:BAN doesn't completely describe day-to-day reality and usage. Although basic noob points and in some cases stated in WP:BLOCK or WP:BAN, it would help to re-check some fundamentals, as input:
:
Q.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            	Comment/example
1. Which types of removal of editing access are properly described as "bans"?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 	For example, editor 1 picks up a 1 week block for repeated personal attacks on co-editors on an article, editor 2 is banned by an admin from editing on religion for a month following lesser blocks and personal attacks on atheists there, editor 3's edits are all personal attacks and the editor is indef blocked by an admin, editor 4 is indef banned by arbcom for incessant personal attacks - are these all "bans"?
2. Is a ban always the social construct of removal of an editor for a period and a block the technical means of implementation? (See WP:BAN)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	For example, would it be accurate to describe users who pick up a 24 hour block for disruption, as technically being short-term banned with the ban supported by a block?
3. In some cases (eg vandal only SPA) an account is usually described as  "account/user X indef blocked, vandalism". In other cases (eg at arbcom) an account is usually described as "account/user X indef banned from Wikipedia for vandalism". Both seem to have the identical aim and effect: to protect the site from vandalism by long term excluding the vandalistic user. Are these in fact the same thing? Different?	Comment: My impression is that we tend to use ban to mean, long term exclusion of an editor who is/was part of the community from the site (or part of it), and block to mean the removal of someone who never was part of the community, or is not being long term excluded from it. (As well as using "block" for a technical means of enforcing a ban via software.)
4. WP:BLOCK refers to partial bans to protect articles, referring to WP:BAN for more detail. But WP:BAN focusses on long term/indef bans. Neither of these document a user being short term partial/topic banned by an administrator from an article or page (eg to avoid losing good edits elsewhere). What is communal understanding on short term article/topic bans?                                                      	Example: User Z has good edits generally but POV wars on sexuality. A 1 week ban is now reasonable for repeated OR/CIVIL on sexuality related topics, but rather than giving a 1 week block that will affect all edits on the site entirely, an administrator decides to ban him just from sexuality related topics (only) for a week, to protect those topics and without losing good contributions elesewhere. Is this an option open to unilateral administrator decision?
Even though the above points are (apparently) referenced somewhat by policy, it would help to have communal double-checking. Thanks :)  FT2 (Talk | email) 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of that looks very good to me.  First, no one should be getting blocked for "NPA."  Second, absolutely no one should be banned for NPA-related anything.  If anything like that is occurring, I can only hope that the subjects of the blocks are appealing them.  Some Wikipedians use the term "ban" when what they're talking about is by no means a ban.  WP:BAN is right: it's reserved for very special cases.  A ban is a ban -- don't come back.  We have had very, very, very few bans of established editors, and a good many of those were later reconsidered.  A ban is for Willy on Wheels.  This is different from a topic/article ban, which is usually conditioned additionally by time.  "You are banned from editing booger for six months."  First, such things don't generally have genuine force without going through RFAR but really are consensual or contingent (e.g. when I see you at snot, I decide that you're violating the booger-ban and block you, with the block being the contingency).  In general, no one should be using the word "ban" for something an administrator does, because administrators cannot, should not, and must not desire to ban someone.  That's ArbCom's job.  Geogre 11:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's why it needs communal input. I'm going back to back fundamentals, since the divergence of policy wording, usage and intent is a bit wide and it's no longer 100% clear what the community does think consensus is, here. Obviously bans are intended to be very serious, and uncommon, but the usage, implementation and descriptions used are not reflecting that, and it's not certain what the community thinks. The above 4 questions are the crux of the matter. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, could you have a go at answering each of those 4 specifically? It'd help :) Thanks FT2 (Talk | email) 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban terminology and usage (moved from [[WP:AN]]) 

message: Per this discussion I propose we add Attempts to coerce administrative action through threats issued onsite or offsite constitutes grounds for immediate sitebanning to this policy.  Rephrase as appropriate if you like.  Disclaimer: per the link above, I was targeted twice in this way.  Had to invoke WP:IAR for my response because policy hadn't anticipated that problem.  Consensus at the administrators' noticeboard has been strongly in favor of the principle.  I'll refrain from editing policy on this point since I am an involved party. DurovaCharge! 00:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You havent made it clear you are also referring to off site actions, and I think you need to do that to achieve your purpose, this is a no brainer on site but re off site actions may be controversial, SqueakBox 00:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so amended.  A coercive threat issued via e-mail or another website would have no less chilling an effect on administrative integrity. DurovaCharge! 01:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, you'll need to be a lot more specific about the type of threat if this is to fly; as it's written, "unblock me or I'll take you to arbitration" could be grounds for a ban, which is (presumably) not the intended effect. Kirill 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, Kirill.  I'll think about that.  In the interim, proposed rewordings are welcome.  As the target of that action I might not be the best person to compose the draft language. DurovaCharge! 01:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Good point, Josh, SqueakBox 02:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd tend to agree, the wording here seems to me to be in the same vein as legal threats, which have been disallowed for quite some time, but wouldn't include "If you keep this up I'll start an RFC on you." Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: O.K. then I refactored to "clearly malicious". That should be clear.--Fahrenheit451 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the actions not within Wikipedia process handles Kirill's objection. DurovaCharge! 01:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks good to me. JoshuaZ 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would approve of that wording.--Fahrenheit451 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone else can edit the policy page if they think consensus exists per the AN thread.  I'll stick to talk on this issue, at least until the dust is well settled. DurovaCharge! 02:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coercion: proposed additional to banning policy 

message: I've linked Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to the community banns section. If that noticeboard is the "relevant noticeboard" mentioned, as it apparently claims, than this should be an uncontroversial edit. If not, then there needs to be some discussion. See also my comments at Wikipedia talk:Community sanction noticeboard Banno 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed - so is the "relevant noticeboard" WP:CN or WP:ANI, or both, or either? I'd say either. Banno 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Either. Holding two simultaneous discussions on both isn't useful. >Radiant< 09:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the policy to reflect this. Banno 10:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community banns 

message: One way to present the above two changes would be:
There have been situations where a user has exhausted the community's patience to the point where he or she has been blocked long term (usually indefinitely) by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them.  Such users may have been blocked as a result of the  blocking policy, or the community may have discussed their behaviour on a relevant noticeboard such as Community Sanctions or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and reached a consensus to ban the user. Bans may be proposed and discussed by any party, provided that they make full disclosure of their involvement in related disputes. If there is a demonstrated consensus of community support for the block amongst those not involved in such a dispute, the user may be considered to be banned. Users blocked under these circumstances are considered to have been "banned by the Wikipedia community" and should be listed on Wikipedia:List of banned users (under "Community").
The two additional conditions are italicised. Banno 07:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Ban: proposals for new wording

message: Does anyone know why Willy on Wheels was banned ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by King Nitro (talk • contribs) 12:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a notorious vandalism spree involving renaming numerous articles to titles ending in "on Wheels", using a huge army of sockpuppet accounts to get around blocks.  There are only a small handful of articles, such as Meals on Wheels, that legitimately end in this phrase, so anything ending in "on Wheels" turning up either in article space or as a username is immediately suspect. *Dan T.* 12:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willy on Wheels 

message: Arbcom deliberately eschews precedent, and I note that the page Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Precedents has been quite correctly removed to Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions.  The link in this policy document has therefore been changed to follow it there.  Please change any wording (and perhaps, your concept of what Wikipedia is) accordingly.  --Tony Sidaway 10:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom deliberately [[wikt:eschew|eschew]]s precedent 

message: The wording seems to have drifted a bit perhaps due to editors inserting wishful thinking into the document.  The situation is that a user is banned if no admin will unblock him.  All the rest is wikilawyering. --Tony Sidaway 10:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be interesting to repeat this post at WP:CSN Banno 22:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well. sort of. However we've already established that silly voting forums like votes for banning have no authority on banning.  I'm simply removing the rubbish that says that it does.  --Tony Sidaway 03:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony, remember that not all bans are sitebans.  Some are article bans or topic bans.  Most of the policy discussion has focused on the former, but the community can and does implement all kinds.  Those milder remedies don't automatically appear in a block log. DurovaCharge! 07:29, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The wording 

message: Aloha! A community ban has been defined (in one variation) as a user blocked indefinitely where no administrator is willing to unblock. (In the policy page as, "he or she has been blocked long term (usually indefinitely) by an administrator—and no one is willing to unblock them.")
Now, my question is, Is this too strict? (Or perhaps, does it need re-worded for clarity?) I'll explain.
My concern is that it requires just one admin who is willing to unblock (and effectively, unban). What happens if there is a (or a few) long-time, non-admin editor(s) in good standing that dispute the block? If adminship is really "no big deal", as has been said, then shouldn't a user in this position also have some say in the outcome of the ban? If admins are really not a higher "caste" than non-admins, and adminship is just getting a few "janitorial" tools (like a mop), shouldn't they be equal in these regards? 
In full disclosure, I have thought about this in terms of the on-going arbitration case regarding Ferrylodge. However, I do not want to discuss the details of that particular case here. I am asking a more general question. I am not disputing that community ban here, and I request others do not either.
I don't necessarily dispute the definition either, I am just seeking clarification. Is being an administrator that big of a deal that it places more value on your opinions concerning a community ban? Or can a couple of (non-suckpuppet, obvously) editors in good standing carry the same weight? Does the definition of a community ban need reworked to explain the difference (or even reword to make it stricter, and more difficult to unban someone)? Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 18:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are a forgiving community and do not often permanently ban users. (That is the reason that a  community ban is one that last only until another admin unblocks so not permanent.) There are more than 1000 administrators that were chosen because they are thought to be trustworthy (at bare minimum meaning not a vandal, a banned user, or a troublemaker.) If not a single one of them will unblock then there is a serious problem with the editors conduct. We know that some banned user attempt to cause trouble here by coming back as sockpuppets to support users that are causing problems. For that reason while administrators listen to the opinion of editors, we can not let a small group of editors over ride the opinion of the more experienced administrators.  FloNight♥♥♥ 21:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that I understand that, but what makes you think an administrator is more experienced than a non-admin longtime editor? And I would doubt that you saying editors that are not admins are not trustworthy. So is it the fact that being an administrator is a big deal? Thanks for helping me walk through this. :-) --Ali'i 21:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, using administrative tools to indef block an established user is a big deal. After the community gave this responsibility to administrators, instead of Jimbo or arbitrators alone, the community became more selective about choosing administrators, I think. The community tends to shy away from promoting editors that are controversial. And administrators that use their tools in controversial ways frequently are pressured to give them up or have them removed by the Arbitration Committee. That said, being an administrator should not be a special class or status that is out of reach of most established users. In that way, we should think of it as not big deal since most established users can be one if they want to help out with the work that administrators do. Hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about community bans 

message: The community ban wording is hopelessly confused.  Surely we don't mean to give each of 1400 administrators the power to veto a ban.  That would reduce Wikipedia's security to the level of the least competent, most gullible sysop.  That's clearly not what we want.  For community bans, I propose the following wording:
Version A:
This is in direct response to the Sadi Carnot case which is now heading to arbitration.  See WP:RFAR.  This revised wording would save us a lot of time and trouble and help prevent wheel wars. - Jehochman  Talk 13:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't point 1) contradictory to the second sentence you propose? --Ali'i 13:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The two cases are connected with an "or".  The second sentence specifically clarifies that administrators may not unblock in order to overrule a community consensus to ban.  Feel free to suggest better wording. - Jehochman  Talk 13:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The wording could probably be tweaked for clarity, but I think there's basically two types of community bans: de facto and consensus. A de facto ban is when no admin is willing to unblock. The other is when there's a community consensus that the user should be banned. A de facto ban would be terminated when any admin decided to unblock. A consensus ban would have to be overturned by ArbCom or the community, not a single admin. This is how I understand it anyway. Chaz Beckett 13:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Something to that effect would be an excellent idea.  The policy also has a serious omission: it conflates all community bans with sitebans.  The community can and does issue article bans and topic bans, usually by consensus discussion.  Wherever feasible, these lesser restrictions should be preferable over the extreme measure of sitebanning. DurovaCharge! 17:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the talk page of .  We're actually in complete agreement.  We should work with him to hammer out the wording so this policy will be clear to everyone.  I think it's being misunderstood badly by a couple of admins. - Jehochman  Talk 17:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Further discussions have been going on at my talk page and at WP:RFAR#Sadi Carnot. There's broad input. We need to fix this ambiguous and internally inconsistent policy so that it reflects the consensus that we practice. Let me try a few edits and see whether anyone dislikes  enough to revert.- Jehochman  Talk 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community Bans 

message: I think somewhere we need to add a section on community ban process.  What does it take for their to be such a thing?  How much time?  How many uninvolved users?  Also, some way to make it cleart that it is not neccessary to actually unblock for an administrator/sysop to contest a Community Ban during a Community Ban Discussion.  The disruption caused by out of consensus unblocks/reblocks is astounding and we need to find a clear way to avoid it.  --Rocksanddirt 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually we don't go into so much detail with a policy.  That sounds more like a guideline.  We can see if there is support for creating a guideline.  - Jehochman  Talk 00:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah, something though....there are two current arbcomm cases substanitally involving this issue.  --Rocksanddirt 00:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: maybe.  but there are grey areas, such as User:Sadi Carnot, and User:Ferrylodge, and to a different extent people like User:PalestineRemembered.  Where there are admins, who will unblock without catching overwhelming shit, because the community is in some whay not certain about banning them (though many think they should be banned).  In those cases, should we have a "consensus standard"?  --Rocksanddirt 23:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Such cases go to arbitration. As the policy says. Banno 20:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess then, why?  Why waste so much arbitrator time on fairly straightforward cases?  I think it unlikely that User:Sadi Carnot, and User:Ferrylodge will be restored to "user in good standing" by the arbitration committee, but the committee has to take a full and clear look at those cases.  If we had a "consensus standard,"  and approriately applied it in these cases it would be over, but for the user appeal.  --Rocksanddirt 20:38, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm OK with going to Arbcom if any administrator objects.  I did, and haven't complained about it.   . - Jehochman  Boo! 20:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a consensus standard? Banno 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the current text in the banning policy.  I guess I'm asking for a change in what "fail to achieve a consensus" means.  As interpreted by Banno (and many others; please correct me if I'm mistaken):  It means that when a single Admin in good standing objects to a community ban/sanction discussion and by the conclusion of the discussion has not been swayed off of the objection, consensus is not achieved.  There is not a requirement for investigation/involvment/independance or anything else, effectively an admin. veto of community sanctions/bans.  --Rocksanddirt 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. - Jehochman  Boo! 20:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Just an idea—I'm not sure if heads put together can turn this into an implementation.  What went right in the case I linked above was that a temporary block (first one week, then extended to a month when the abuse continued) was put in place while discussion ensued.  Discussion was mediated and thorough and lasted four days.  No one was anxious to pull the trigger, there was no "voting" and there was no time pressure—the abuser was blocked for a month, so there was time to reflect.  These conditions yielded a good chance of success.  In the two cases which have led to these discussions, we had "fingers on the trigger" precipitous action: in one case, quick to ban when other admins were still discussing, willing to overturn and not everyone had been able to enter evidence, and in the other case, quick to unblock without discussion.  Is there a way to motivate/force lengthier discussion, to help encourage discussion rather than vote tallying, to give all time to weigh in and not have discussions restricted to those with a vested interest, and to avoid that rush to pull the trigger?  Isn't that most of the problem?  Don't we want issues to end up at ArbCom only after measured discussion and not because of rushes to pull the trigger?  If the case (linked above) that affected me had come up on an RfC or a CSN, I would have jumped on the "out now" bandwagon (which would have quickly and easily prevailed), and I would never have heard the mentor's reasoning for a longer-term, hopefully more stable solution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree very much with SandyGeorgia'a comments.  I'm concerned that arbcom will be overwhelmed by community sanction discussions that are not able to reach an aggreement.  Maybe with some (dreaded) guidelines or rules about what needs to be in such discussions, we can avoid or at least make it easy for arbcomm's involvement.  --Rocksanddirt 16:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They can reject cases that don't need to be heard.  A user can be blocked without being banned. - Jehochman  Talk 14:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not quite along the lines of the rfc. 

message: Given the importance of this page to the project we need to ensure that it's clearly written. Some of the writing is wordy and ungrammatical, so I'd like to fix it. I most definitely do not intend to make any changes in meaning at all and if I accidentally do so please set me straight. Here's an example of what I have in mind. Raymond Arritt 21:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it Raymond, this is Wiki, if anyone doesn't like your work it can be reverted and discussed. You've obviously got an eye for copy-editing for clarity (and quality of language tone), and understand how not to change content. What's the phrase ... "Be bold!" :) Alastair Haines (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarity 

message: I've reverted to change to the policy in regards to what a banned user can not do.  I think it is already clear, and this adds creep.  Regards, Mercury 12:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit reverted 

message: Dear friends,
I hope I understand the difference between block and ban correctly. Blocks come in several flavours of technological possibility that render impossible various kinds of edit in Wiki-space to a given account, static IP address or both, for a specified or indefinite period of time. A ban, on the other hand, is a specific agreement with a user for him to refrain from various kinds of editing for some particular duration, or indefinitely.
I particularly like the ban, because it builds respect for the one banned. You heard me correctly. An agreement based on trusting the one banned to comply with the conditions of the ban presumes the banned one to be willing and able to contribute a specified kind of silence. This is precisely what all editors are asked to do in any form of edit war ... self ban, as it were.
I note the "pride and integrity intact" comment. I am with that sentiment. However, I am concerned that this be more than sentiment. For a start it is an exaggeration to say the Wiki community ban someone. Were Jimbo to make an executive call on something, he would not claim the authority of the community as backing (though we probably would, yay Jimbo:). Without the unanimous feedback of every Wikipedian all that can be claimed is "respected representatives of the community requested ..." This more accurately reflects the process.
While I concur that threats and slander are grounds (probably legal and above our pay grade) for summary blocking, I think there are important reasons for us not to presume to construe or term banning in punitive terms. Quite the contrary, users who have respected a "ban" have demonstrated a self-restraint above and beyond that of other users. I think this should be communicated clearly in policy, in the course of any "banning" action, and explicit thanks for co-operation be recorded at the user page of any "restored" user.
Wiki is not about freedom of speech, but it is about absence of censorship (not ideologically, of course, which would be POV). Even "hate speech" is documented from the NPOV at racism, sexism and anti-semitism, alongside the POV that condemns such speech morally.
Blocking and "banning" are as inevitable as vandalism. There will always be people who believe something should stand in the text of an article that, as best most people and sources would think, should not stand there. Some will believe this passionately, even morally; some will argue their cases unpleasantly. At this point, Wiki incurs an educational responsibility if we are to maintain an environment conducive to quality co-operative documentation of knowledge. We make this our business by boasting the highest possible standard of text -- one that dares anyone to "improve it if they can" ([edit]).
I think we want to back our boast, by offering people access to the highest court of appeal possible to legitimate their use of that button. But, the converse is, this same court of appeal needs to help some people see that precisely the same access is available to users with contrary opinions. In some cases, an executive ruling needs to be tolerated, and those responsible for the ruling have the right to be wrong.
Friends, I'm probably naive and unrealistic, help me understand why we need to speak of "community banning" and "probation", when we could adopt self-restraint agreements, advocacy and mentoring instead. Can we take "welcoming" to this higher level?
I'm busy for a month or so, after that, were I considered suitable, I'd offer to mentor a "ban-ee" or "banette". Maybe that'd teach me. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matters of principle 

message: I've added a sentence to "Enforcement by reverting edits" that reflects the overall section header "Evasion and enforcement".  Namely, that enforcing bans is (primarily) about improving the encyclopedia.  I've seen several sections on AN/I lately about people reverting banned users and inadvertently reinstating material in violation of more important policies like NPOV or BLP.  It's not a new situation, either, but it seems to be a small epidemic right now.  
It might not be a bad idea to expand this bit just a little with suggestions on what an editor should do if they're not sure if reverting an edit by a banned user might be worse than leaving it.  I'd suggest reverting it, and posting a notice to the article's talk page requesting more involved editors to look into it (as I'm assuming obvious violations of BLP, for example, should be...well, obvious).  Thoughts?  --InkSplotch (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor update to "Enforcement by reverting edits" 

message: Why should ban be reinitiated for the same period if it's not completely exhausted before the editor resumes? Justice is in that only a period when observance was not effective should added to the length. 
So if you were banned for 10 days and you edited on the seventh to the ninth, then you've already sat six days ban and you've done your 10 when you finish day thirteen.
It makes sense to me. It should be changed. How to do??63.243.141.74 (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ban duration 

message: Regarding the recent Arbitration Committee remedy, I have started a discussion of community bans at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans. Please discuss there. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Committee remedy on Community Bans 

message: : Peter Blaise says: Here's how I experience it:
:: "...Whoever gets here first and becomes an admin sets the level of emotional maturity and tolerance.  Subsequent visitors who make the primary contributors uncomfortable will be banned.  That is, the wiki will not grow beyond the imagination and tolerance of the initial admins...."
: Ouch!
: Click! Love and hugs, Peter Blaise peterblaise (talk) 17:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch, indeed. I do sympathise with this, but I hold more hope that over time things will change (both for the better and for the worse). The current culture will always reflect the emotional maturity and tolerance of the most outspoken people, but if enough people speak up, then that can change. Also, people themselves do change. Both those who get banned and those doing the banning can grow up and mature and change. That, in my view, is a primary reason why banning should not be "for life". Even life imprisonment (in the UK) often only means "10 years and then you are eligible for parole". Carcharoth (talk) 14:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many 'may's and 'can's to make this policy enforceable 

message: There seems to be some disagreement over the status of User:Defender 911. He was blocked on 11 August, and banned two hours later by, curiously, an editor who'd only been here three weeks. There was never any effort to bring this to the attention of the community, so I've reverted the template. People are now saying it's been "discussed" at WP:AN#User:Defender 911, but this is four months after the fact, no diffs or rationale have been provided beyond vague innuendo. Am I wrong for reverting the template here? If a tree falls in the wood etc.? -- Kendrick7talk 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Once anybody plays the "harassment card", all rational discussion goes out the window, and it's all "Burn the Witch!", no actual proof required. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to get basically the same conversation started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Community Bans, but discussion seems to have fizzled out. --Ali'i 18:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll look at this.  A ban can always be reviewed, and an inappropriate ban should be lifted as soon as possible.  That's without prejudice to whether this particular ban (which at this point I know nothing about and haven't reviewed) was appropriate. --Tony Sidaway 18:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Attempting to gain the personal information about someone after being told to stop over and over is simply trolling, this is a valid block. Reading that WP:AN thread, I see a pretty strong consensus in favor of the ongoing ban. 1 != 2 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that whole drama played itself out within a few hours, so it's not like he persisted for days or weeks in an unreasonable demand.  It also seems he was just trying to gain that information by asking people for it (who always said no), not by actually stalking anybody or engaging in sneaky sleuthing.  The whole thing seems more like an episode of temporary silliness than an ongoing history of abuse, and a permanent ban seems overblown. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Untrue, this user persisted for many days in trying to get this information. 1 != 2 02:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess this particular example is a moot point now. However, it might be wise to clarify this policy to prevent these sorts of back-alley bans going forward. -- Kendrick7talk 05:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does an indef block become a ban automatically simply by not bringing it to anyone's attention? 

message: Back in 2005, I remember seeing the word "hardbanned" mentioned here, is it still used now, or is it rarely used to describe users here?? The last time I remember seeing it was in a block log edit summary for , but rarely anywhere else.
Anyone know if this is true or not?? --Solumeiras talk 12:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardbans - do they still exist anymore?? 

message: In the User pages section it reads that:
:Banned users' user pages may be replaced by a notice of the ban (my emphasis)
The rationale given is:
:The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits.
The rationale only supports adding a notice, not replacing the page. I have sifted through the archives for this discussion page to see if this has been dealt with previously, however finding no such discussion. Either the rationale must be amended, or the provision changed from replacing content to merely the addition of a prominent notice. __meco (talk) 08:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rationale doesn't fit action 

message: About the section of "Enforcement by reverting edits". I find the policy seriously flawed.
What if such edit is so good that it can turn it to the quality of a featured article? It says there that Wikipedians may revert it however good or bad it is since such user is not permitted to make edits to the encyclopedia. Now that is flawed. And I thought that we oppose bureacracy. Reverts should be used to better the encyclopedia, not to enforce bans. -- Felipe Aira 02:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice the keyword may. They don't have to be. TJ Spyke 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, currently in an AfD, this is being used as the rationale for deleting an article that meets notability and that other editors have made edits to.  It seems to be a limited policy. matt91486 (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No bureacracy 

message: Looking at my overall edits, do you people think I will be banned soon? I hope not, but I am afraid my account might get closed. A big member around here who is called Chris said I was "waling on thin ice"... If I get banned, I want you people to know I loved working with them. Honestly. The best wishes, The One and Only (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already been exceptionally patient with you for making edits such as, this. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bann 

message: Please review and tweak: Wikipedia:Requests for remedies. A very simple three-step system that can make trusted, final decisions on very tricky or complex matters, based on evaluations from trusted, uninvolved users on a given case in the dispute resolution process. It does add new process, but not many layers, or particularly complex layers by any stretch of the imagination. It's built entirely around consensus and the idea of certification, and is the opposite of Votes For Banning. Please weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for remedies. The community needs a way to move forward in a trusted, fair manner on high-end, complex problems that are either unworkable for normal WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RFC to handle, or that the Arbitration Committee can't take on, or that the Arbitration Committee relegates back to the Community. Lawrence § t/e 22:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Requests for remedies]] - possible solution to dispute resolution scaling problems 

message: My understanding was that a community ban was simply an indefinite block that is not going to be overturned. The "banning mechanism" need be no more complicated than adding  to someone's userpage once they've been blocked indefinitely (, ). Or am I doing something wrong? Moreschi (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an admin, I'm just an observer but as I read the  documentation, adding that template will automatically add the user to the Category Banned Wikipedia Users.  AFAIK it will not add the user to the Wikipedia:List of banned users, so that should probably be done manually. Once there's consensus, I think those two steps would do it. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly bureaucratic 

message: Hi, I've been reviewing several dispute resolution procedures lately, as part of my involvement with the working group, but I've gotta be honest here, this policy still confuses me.  I've read it several times, I've looked at discussions of banned users, I've reviewed the template, and I still don't get it.  It's not that I disagree with it, it just seems that "banning" is something that's done by those admins who understand what it is, and the rest kind of ignore it (maybe because they're confused too?). I'd help rewrite this page, except like I said, I don't understand it, so I'm not clear how to even improve it. 
I'm perfectly willing to continue ignoring this page, but just in case anyone would be interested in further clarifying 
things, I would recommend:
* Go into more detail on the difference between a ban and a block
* Explain how to go about banning someone.  What steps need to occur first?  What are common problems to avoid?
* When is a ban more appropriate than a block?
* When is a block more appropriate than a ban?
* Describe different types of bans.  Some seem to be blocks, some seem to be "topic bans" or "article bans"?  What minimum authority is required to implement such a thing?  Do all bans require a "community consensus" discussion, or can some admins just go in and implement them?  What are some typical examples?
Thanks, Elonka 06:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka, this policy exists for those admins who view the project not as building an encyclopedia, but as a MMORPG. You can easily identify these admins by looking at their contributions list and seeing mostly edits to project space and block logs several pages long. WP:BANNED includes scores of users who have "de facto" community bans not discussed anywhere on-wiki. 198.203.177.177 (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elonka raises serious questions that deserve a serious answer, not sarcasm and ad hominem attacks.  I agree the banning policy has significant gaps.  She outlines most of them quite well, although not quite with the priority I'd give them: a policy page should be understandable by everyone, not merely by the administrators who implement it. DurovaCharge! 14:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Durova.  As a case study, I could bring up an editor that both you and I are familiar with, , whose behavior led to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Even with a unanimous decision by the arbs, it's still been an ongoing situation for several  months now.  Would a ban have been an appropriate option at some point?  Or if not, why not?  And if it was, which "precursor" steps should have been done, that were missed? Is a ban still an option now, or does this come off the table after the arbs are involved?  Sorry if these appear to be dumb questions, but I'm still trying to understand this policy. Thanks, Elonka 10:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion 

message: Could we have some comments on how to handle Wikipedia pages created by banned users? Effectively, these pages (usually policy pages) embody some idea or concept or guideline that may not be accepted by the community, but may end up generating discussion. Sometimes, the fallout from the banning of the user (or the discovery that the creator was the sock of a banned user) sees people assiduously hunt down such pages and delete, or attempt to delete, them, even when the idea has already taken root and been adopted and community discussion (in good faith) has taken place. Some examples of this can be seen at the following deletion discussions:
*Deletion review for Wikipedia:Numbers need citations
*Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Numbers need citations
*Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Quotations should not contain wikilinks
There should probably also be something that says that even if a banned user creates a page, subsequent good faith discussion by others on the talk page of that page should be handled sensitively (saying "you've been trolled" is not always the best way to handle such a situation, and in some cases saying that, especially if there was no trolling, can poison a productive discussion). By all means announce to those discussing things on the talk page that the creator of the page is a now banned user, but let those at the talk page come to their own, independent conclusions as to what to do, and don't steam in wielding G5 like the blunt instrument it is. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Banned users and Wikipedia namespace pages and discussion pages

message: This important article needs a discussion of the procedures for implementing and enforcing topic / article bans.  The notion that a ban can be enforced by a block doesn't really apply to a topic ban, since the editor (as I understand it) isn't blocked but is free to edit on all other areas of Wikipedia.
There needs to be some guidance on how and where the editor should be notified.  Admins who have experience in implementing bans would probably be the most helpful people for drafting such a section.
A good method for notification would be through a standardized template.  There is presently a template for general bans Template:Banned user to go on the User page and for topic or article bans to go on the article or article talk pages Template:User page ban, Template:User article ban, and Template:User article&talk ban, but I don't know of any templates for topic bans to go on the user page.  Perhaps something along that line needs to be created.
Finally, enforcement of topic bans, which I presume is done by elevating the topic ban to a general block.  Once a topic ban is established, am I right that any admin can initiate a general block once the ban is violated?.
--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I had been topic banned by the arbcom though the arbcom explicitly stated that I had not edited inappropriately, so I do not accept such a template. Andries (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

text: At the moment, the page says that enforcement is done by reverting edits. That is somewhat strange in cases where there is nothing wrong with the edits themselves. But I find the entire policy very confusing on topic bans, while the concept is really not all that complicated. I've just received an article ban myself and I have no clue, and I get the impression that neither does the banning admin. I'm also with Andries here; since no evidence has been presented for what I am supposed to have done wrong, I would not accept such a template either. Guido den Broeder (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This doesn't seem to be the place to discuss the merits of particular cases.  Does anyone have opinions on defining procedures to eliminate the apparent confusion reported by Guido den Broeder?  I've seen similar uncertainty among admins on AN/I about how to close and log a topic ban, so there does seem to be a problem.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks procedures for Topic Bans 

message: http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/1953/banningza1.jpg
Thoughts? Daniel (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically correct. Buuut slightly more complicated than that. De facto ban --> can lead to discussion which can lead to a full community ban OR no community ban. Similarly defacto unban (for want of a better description) can lead to discussion and a ban (so the unban indicated may be temporary). And it probobly doesnt need to be said, but perhaps should be that a willingness to unblock doesn't need to be followed by an actual unblock. ViridaeTalk 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't give up your day job to become a graphic designer. Looks accurate. Do you want to rewrite the policy and then we'll edit war to make it stick see if anybody reverts and then discuss things? Jehochman Talk 11:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My day job is a graphic designer. Oh, wait, was it a professor of philosophy? Gah, I always forget what profession I'm in :) </bad taste> Daniel (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pretty diagram

message: I have a concern over the policy of banned users not being allowed to edit their talk pages. Editing their talk pages is a good way for banned users to engage in discussion with administrators, so they can understand what is required of them and if there is a chance for them to come back one day, what procedures they must follow. Most of the time admins don't even warn users about this policy and are quite happy to have a discussion about their ban on the talk page. Without any discussion, the banned users are far more likely to turn to sockpuppeting to evade their ban, rather than take the advice of administrators. I ask that, if there is consensus, there following statement removed: "Unlike editors who have been temporarily blocked, banned users are not permitted to edit their user and user talk pages." 86.29.140.131 (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talk page 

message: Why is there no mention of hard banning? EVCM (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is not a distinct concept. There is no "soft banning" with which to emphasize a contrast. — CharlotteWebb 18:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hard banning 

message: I noticed that some of the information on this page had gotten a bit out of date, so I took the liberty of reworking things.  The main points of my changes were to:
* Add information related to the ArbCom authorized "uninvolved administrator" bans. See Wikipedia:General sanctions
* Rework a couple sections that seemed to have some confusion between bans and blocks
* Emphasize that bans are not usually permanent and project-wide, but are often temporary and of limited scope
If anyone has any trouble with my changes, please feel free to fix. I was not attempting to make new policy here, but simply to make the page easier to understand. --Elonka 06:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I've attempted to clarify the documentation about where ban discussions should take place. Please see WP:AN#Location of ban discussions for details and disucssion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the change, and modified it to reflect current practice - part of my rationale for opposing the change is also located at WP:AN#Location of ban discussions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of ban discussions 

message: Perhaps there needs to be a revision in the banning policy so that after a user has been indefinitely blocked for a certain amount of time, that user shall be officially banned. The concept of a ban being merely a social construct also needs to be revised to send a stronger message to prospective vandals.
Therefore I propose the following:
*That the clause "Users may be banned as a result of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators who are enforcing rulings of the Arbitration Committee" be replaced with
:"Users may be banned as a result of the dispute resolution process, or by uninvolved administrators who are enforcing rulings of the Arbitration Committee. In addition, users who have been indefinitely blocked shall be banned automatically should the user remain blocked after 365 days and there is no pending appeal by the blocked user."
*that the clause "Bans are social constructs, and are not enforced by the MediaWiki software. However, users who violate a ban may have their account access blocked entirely, as a way of enforcing the ban." be replaced with
:"Bans are social constructs, but may or may not be enforced by the MediaWiki software. However, users who violate a ban may have their account access blocked entirely, as a way of enforcing the ban."
*that the clause "In the case of project-wide bans, the primary account of any banned user may be entirely blocked for the duration of the ban." be replaced with
:"In the case of project-wide bans, the primary account of any banned user shall be entirely blocked for the duration of the ban."
*that the clause "Generally speaking, the banned user will make the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration by a clerk." be replaced with
:"Alternatively, if the user is permitted to edit their talk page, then he or she has the option of making the request on his or her talk page, which will be copied to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration by a clerk."; and
*that the following section be inserted after the "Administrator ban" section:
::Auto-Banning of Indefinitely Blocked Users
::If a user account has been indefinitely blocked for any reason other than a user name policy violation and no permanent and project-wide community ban is forthcoming, the following shall apply in relation to the user involved:
::1.The user page is blanked and tagged with a template declaring that "This user account has been blocked indefinitely." Full protection shall be applied
::2.An announcement that the user has been indefinitely blocked is appended to the end of the talk page. The talk page shall be semi-protected in order to prevent possible disruption to the talk page by IP vandals.
::3.Subject to the restrictions mentioned in point no. 6, the user is allowed 365 days to appeal the block.
::4.At the expiration of the 365 days mentioned above, if the user remains indefinitely blocked and no appeal is pending, then the user shall be auto-banned. If an appeal is pending, then the user may not be auto-banned at all unless the appeal is unsuccessful at which point the user shall be auto-banned.
::5.Where a user has been auto-banned, the indefinite block template on the user page shall be replaced with a template declaring that "This user has been banned from editing Wikipedia" as well as any relevant information connected to the circumstances leading up to the indefinite block and auto-ban. Unless the user has engaged in sockpuppetry or there is another good reason for not doing so, the user's talk page shall be deleted and protected from creation on auto-banning. If the talk page is not to be deleted for any reason, then it must be fully protected once the auto-ban commences.
::6.Notwithstanding point no.4, if an indefinitely blocked user abuses the unblock request template, makes frivolous threats either on or off wiki or engages in sockpuppetry after the indefinite block, then the user shall be auto-banned immediately. Points no. 5 and no. 7 shall then apply.
::7.Once a user has been auto-banned under this policy, the revocation of the user's editing privileges shall be final. Any attempt to evade or appeal the ban from this point onwards on his or her part may result in legal action against the banned user.
::The task of auto-banning users (including related tasks such as the deletion of talk pages) shall be performed largely by a automated bot specifically designed for that purpose.
Hopefully, the above suggestions will send a strong message to would be vandals. In particular, the proposed auto-banning policy will introduce for possibly the first time, the concept that once a user account has been indefinitely blocked for a reasonable amount of time, then in the absence of a community or administrator ban, the user shall be officially banned from editing any part of Wikipedia, including their talk page. Of course, a change in policy as radical as this one will require consequential amendments to other relevant policies as well as the creation of a new bot to implement the auto-ban scheme. 122.105.149.196 (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not support any form of auto-banning. Bans are more serious than blocks. Those who have been indefintely blocked under one account may be editing productively in a different area under another account without bothering to ask for the blocked account to be unblocked and retired. Also, people can reform and change even after a year, and want to return to editing. The current process works well, in my view. Also, the legal point you make at the end is not appropriate. Taking legal action against ban-evading users is not something that would ever be desirable in my view, and is not something that the community can decide. That would be a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation. Carcharoth (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indefinitely Blocked Versus Permanently Banned