Wikipedia:Banning policy

From Free net encyclopedia

(Redirected from WP:BAN)

Template:Policy2 This banning policy describes the circumstances and process in which users may be banned from editing Wikipedia, in part or in whole. A ban is not the same as a block, which is used to enforce bans but also for other purposes, such as dealing with vandalism. Please respect these bans, don't circumvent blocks, don't bait banned users and don't help them evade their ban. Bans can be appealed.

Contents

[edit]

What is a Wikipedia ban?

A Wikipedia ban is a formal revocation of editing privileges on all or part of Wikipedia. A ban may be temporary and of fixed duration, or indefinite and potentially permanent. The standard invitations Wikipedia extended to over six billion people worldwide to "edit this page" do not apply to banned users. Banned users are simply not authorized to edit Wikipedia, or certain pages on Wikipedia.

Users are banned as an end result of the dispute resolution process, in response to serious cases of user misconduct. Actions that have resulted in bans include, but are not limited to:

Template:Seealso

Partial bans are applied to users whose disruptive activities are limited to a specific page or subject matter. For example, a user who disrupts the article Foo, or on articles related to Foo, may be banned from the single article or the entire subject area, depending on circumstances. Users who violate partial bans are typically blocked temporarily to enforce the ban. Partial bans usually do not extend to talk pages, except in extreme cases.

Bans should not be confused with blocking, a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. Blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, but they are used for other purposes too, such as dealing with rogue bots and simple vandalism, and they are not the only mechanism used to enforce bans. A ban is a social construct and does not, in itself, physically prevent the user from editing any page. Confusion between the two terms arises as many users, including some administrators, say "ban" when they mean "block", and vice versa.

If you are banned, please respect your ban and do not edit Wikipedia, or the pages from which you are banned in the case of a partial ban, while it applies. You can still contribute indirectly by publishing resources elsewhere on the Internet that Wikipedians can use, such as GFDL or public domain articles and images. Alternatively, you may contribute to one of our forks.

[edit]

Decision to ban

The decision to ban a user can arise from four places. Bans from all places are equally legitimate.

  1. The Wikipedia community, taking decisions according to appropriate community-designed policies with consensus support, or (more rarely) following consensus on the case itself. Some editors are so odious that not one of the 876 administrators on Wikipedia would ever want to unblock them.
  2. The Arbitration Committee can use a ban as a remedy following a request for arbitration.
    • The Committee may delegate the banning power, and in the past it has done so using two mechanisms: Probation and Mentorship.
  3. Jimbo Wales retains the power to ban users, and has used it.
  4. The Wikimedia Board of Trustees has the power to ban users, but has not done so yet. The closest was when a Board member extended a ban on a user from the English Wikipedia to all Wikimedia wikis.
[edit]

Appeals process

Community-derived bans may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee, which will decide such a case based on whether the ban followed a genuine Wikipedia policy, whether the procedures were correctly followed, and whether the ban was consistent with other Wikipedia policies. Arbitration decisions may be appealed to Jimbo Wales, who reserves the right to overrule or modify any decision of the arbitration committee.

Users who have been banned indefinitely may, if they wish, appeal to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales after one year.

[edit]

Penalty for evasion

The penalty for evading a ban is that the "ban timer" is automatically reset (no formal consideration is typically necessary). For example, if Fred is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer will be reset from four more days remaining to ten days remaining. If Fred doesn't subsequently evade his ban, he will have been banned for a total of sixteen days.

Banned users with poor self-control may effectively end up banning themselves indefinitely, until they regain control of themselves, and cease attempting to rejoin Wikipedia.

[edit]

Dealings with banned users

It is inappropriate to "bait" banned users, taking advantage of their ban to mock them. Being banned is stressful and unpleasant enough without people intentionally harassing an individual. Indeed, as a general principle, it is unwise to post comments to users who are banned, as they cannot easily reply without breaching their ban. Doing so might encourage them to breach the terms of their ban, which is inappropriate. However, you are free to talk to banned users outside of Wikipedia (for example, by email, or on IRC).

Because we discourage people from using Wikipedia to interact with banned users, it is likewise inappropriate to post comments and discussion on behalf of banned users. Such activity is sometimes called "proxying". As people respond to such material, this will inevitably draw in the banned user, and again may tempt them to subvert their ban. Our aim is to make it as easy as possible for banned users to leave Wikipedia with their dignity intact, whether permanently, or for the duration of their ban. Offering to proxy is likewise inappropriate.

[edit]

Enforcement

Wikipedia's approach to enforcing bans balances a number of competing concerns:

  • Maximising the quality of the encyclopedia.
  • Avoiding inconvenience or aggravation of any victims of mistaken identity.
  • Maximising the number of users who can edit Wikipedia.
  • Avoiding conflict within the community over banned users
  • Dissuading or preventing banned users from editing Wikipedia.

As a result, enforcement has a number of aspects. Note that nobody is obligated to help enforce any ban.

  • IP address blocks

Wikipedia will typically block the IP address of banned users who edit from a static IP address, for the duration of the ban. In extreme cases, IP ranges or dynamic addresses may be similarly blocked. Range blocking should be done with care, and only when absolutely necessary, because it may prevent legitimate users from editing Wikipedia.

  • Account blocks

The primary account of any banned user, if they have one, is blocked for the duration of the ban. If the banned user creates sock puppet accounts to evade the ban, these may also be blocked. See the section on reincarnations.

  • Short term IP blocks

When a banned user edits from a range of addresses, it is normal to use short term IP blocks if that user tries to edit Wikipedia. The expiry time of the block may vary depending on the size of the network and other considerations, but 24 hours is a typical length.

  • Reverts

All edits by a banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. As the banned user is not authorised to make those edits, there is no need to discuss them prior to reversion. We ask that users generally refrain from reinstating any edits made by banned users.

As a general guideline, consider if you found the text in question on some open content website elsewhere—is it sufficiently high quality that you would copy it to Wikipedia? If not, you probably shouldn't reinstate it. Also, you should be aware of possible problems with the text. For example, if a banned user is known to edit in a biased manner, you should be especially careful to check such text for bias. Users who knowingly reinstate an edit by a banned user have taken responsibility for it, in some sense, so there is no benefit in reverting that edit again, and there is the risk of causing unnecessary conflict in the Wikipedia community.

  • Deletion

It is not possible to revert newly created articles, as there is nothing to revert to. However, such pages are candidates for speedy deletion. Non-sysops may add the deletion template

  1. REDIRECT Template:Tl, which adds the article to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. An administrator will subsequently delete the article. An article created by a banned user qualifies for speedy deletion only if the page was created while the ban was in effect. Otherwise, if you feel a page created by a banned user before his or her ban should be deleted, list it on articles for deletion.

If someone else has edited the page, particularly if they have made substantive edits, deletion is not appropriate. If you feel it is necessary, try instead to edit the page to remove or rework content contributed by the banned user, and keep content contributed by others. If you feel a newly created article may have been deleted in error, list it on deletion review. For example, you might list a page if you think it's a case of mistaken identity, or because you feel it is of sufficiently high quality (see note for reverts, above).

  • User pages

The banned user's user page may be replaced by a notice of the ban and links to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned user's edits.

[edit]

Reincarnations

A reincarnation is a banned user who has returned to Wikipedia under a sock puppet account. This is a difficult issue, where we have to try to take into account all the competing concerns above. Blatant reincarnations are easily dealt with—the account is blocked and contributions are reverted or deleted, as discussed above.

The issue normally arises where a few users start to suspect that some new account is being run by a returned banned user. The first thing to do in this situation is to ask. Where there has been a case of mistaken identity, the victim of the mistake will normally make efforts to prove, by a whole series of means, that they are not the person you're looking for. This invariably sorts the issue out, and everyone can mutually apologise and carry on working on the encyclopedia together, in a renewed spirit of trust. This slight inconvenience is much better than working in a climate of suspicion, so it's a good thing.

Sometimes, the suspected reincarnation does not give a straight answer to the question, and instead comes out with a rant about the right to privacy, or a rant about being innocent until proven guilty, or just stony silence. This is clearly not very helpful, and tends to be good evidence that the suspected reincarnation is in fact a returning banned user. This evidence, together with a few paragraphs of explanation by the user(s) who have suspicions, is normally sufficient evidence to justify blocking the account, though there will always be fringe cases that provoke discussion.

To our knowledge, this rough policy of ask politely, show evidence, consider, block does not appear to have caused any collateral damage. The closest Wikipedia has come to making a mistake on this issue, and blocking someone who was not in fact banned, was when one banned user tried to impersonate another banned user, and was blocked as a result. If it causes collateral damage in the future, naturally that's something we'll have to review.

If Wikipedia does make any mistakes on this issue, they can be appealed following the appeals process noted above.

[edit]

See also

de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung hu:Wikipédia:Kitiltási irányelvek ja:Wikipedia:投稿ブロック依頼 pl:Wikipedia:Polityka banowania

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Wikipedia:Banning_policy"