Template talk:Banned user

Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans, take 2

What is special about arbcom bans, and why do we want to omit the visible tag (and potential link to confirm the situation) that is consistently used for other cases? DMacks (talk) 15:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Ping Opabinia regalis who implemented it. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal? Would there be a benefit from having more BANNED! messages? Johnuniq (talk) 08:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

My proposal is that arbcom-bans are not special-cased, but instead display the same box as other bans. I see places where the template is placed twice example: once with the arbcom token (hides the box, and therefore no link to the arbcom case about it) and a second time with no parameters (just displays the box). So that's twice the tagging for still-incomplete functionality. As I mentioned, the lack of traceability is one of my concerns, should someone wish to re-visit the situation in the future (precedence for future cases or appeal of the ban itself). And worse, there may be actually no visible indication except for the cat that the user is even banned at all (example: neither user nor usertalk). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

What is the actual problem? Do you think an admin might unblock the editor in your example despite their contributions and the block log showing "...with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Per motion)"? Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It makes it needlessly more difficult, and special-cased for no obvious reason. Would you support abolishing the visible box altogether? I'm proposing to make it consistent with how we have a visible tag on every essentially other indef'ed userpage (banned for other reasons, and indef'ed in cases other than bans). DMacks (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Couple months late, but yes: I would support abolishing the visible box altogether if and only if all bans were logged reliably in the block log. This is true of all ArbCom bans/blocks, but not of all bans in general (which often happen well after the initial indefinite block). KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I missed the ping above but I'm (sort of) back now :) IIRC the special case for arbcom bans was just because those were the ones arbcom had a direct interest in the display for (and also had to read the emails of people upset about their bans), and as Kevin says, there's other documentation for arbcom bans anyway. As a personal preference I don't like the tag-of-shame style and would prefer invisible for all instances. Links to relevant history should be in the block log or talk page notification IMO. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Concur with DMacks (there is not reason to suppress this, and it presence with the parameters filled helps verify that someone is banned and why) and with L235 (even if we wanted to suppress all such ban-notice displays, not just ArbCom ones, that is not presently practical because of procedural failures).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request

Please change the bolded word "banned" so that it has a link to Wikipedia:Banning policy#Site ban. Partofthemachine (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:41, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Hide template for all cases (not just ARBCOM)

The main concern about posting this template on banned user's pages is that it serves as a giant neon sign that the person has done something wrong and that they should be ashamed (whether or not this is the case, that is the concern), a form of WP:GRAVEDANCING. On the other hand, having a record of who was banned (as opposed to simply blocked) and a link to the discussion leading to their ban is useful. I suggest that the template remain, but that it be a hidden category by default, like ARBCOM currently bans are. The template being hidden will allow bans to appear on list of banned users and also allow users to see why they were banned (by looking at the page source), but the template should no longer act as a box of shame on their user page. This will hopefully prevent repeats of what happened after Roxy was banned. What does everyone think? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I support this idea. It grows out of the discussion at WT:Banning policy#Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars, and I think it's a very helpful way of avoiding problems that have kept happening over and over. The less drama, the better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Adding: In case admins or spi editors feel that there are situations where the template needs to be displayed visibly, perhaps there is an option of having the template default to non-displaying, but having a variable that lets it switch to displaying. Perhaps, that variable could be admin-only. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm a strong proponent of the idea to remember that there are real people behind usernames.

However, in this case, we're not talking about an active editor anymore. And userpages aren't "yours". And a notice to readers and editors to prevent confusion falls under "preventative, not punitive". If a user's been banned from editing - they shouldn't be here. So there should be no "shame" involved. I understand caring about wiki-friends, but "if they're gone, they're gone". If they later have a successful appeal, then the notice is removed and life goes on. Is there any purpose to this proposal (or even to my alternate proposal below) that benefits Wikipedia? - jc37 23:27, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm losing count of the number of times that I've pointed out that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent". Look, we can do this, or we can say something in the banning policy that random editors should find better things to do than just go around posting the template. Or we can just keep on with the status quo, which is that an edit war and a shit show breaks out every time an experienced editor gets CBANed and someone who is not the blocking admin gets it into their head to put a tag on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm going to say some things that I think you already know. But I don't know how else to convey it.

It's "indefinite", because on Wikipedia, we tend to follow the precepts of redemption, and to allow a banned editor to post their appeal. Not so that they can use their userpage as a social media forum.

And there is a difference between a block and a ban. If this was merely an indefinite block, I might well be agreeing with you. But this is a community ban. It says that the user no longer welcome to edit here.

All that said, I agree with you that people should not be edit-warring over notices.

As you know, I reverted my WP:SNOW implementation of the suggested text at WP:BAN. I did that primarily for two reasons: a.) the discussion you and isaacl were having on that talk page and your talk page, convinced me that SNOW was no longer appropriate, and b.) while making that consideration, I realised I was starting to form an opinion. I really had not thought intently about the pros and cons of what was being proposed until that point. I had been just sort of mechanically implementing what the community wanted. But after thinking about it I came to the opinion that, to prevent disruption, the suggested text, probably was the right path. That you and Tamzin had the right idea. And I still think that.

More for the peanut gallery who may be watching than really for you (since I would think by now you know this, as we've encountered each other on Wikipedia for years now), but when it comes to project-level discussions and processes, even during those times where I may disagree with you, your contributions are typically exemplary, and you have been, in my not so humble opinion, generally an outstanding contributor, who not uncommonly says things that I wish I had said. (Incidentally, your "Typofish" comment made me laugh out loud : )

If I were to suggest a way forward, I think the best solution would be to go back to WT:BAN and start an actual "official" RFC on the text and see if it can get implemented. (I think the current discussions are starting to get near trainwreck, and a clear proposal thread is probably needed). I think that as a resolution should put an end to the disruption. - jc37 00:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

If no one else will, I guess I can do a formal RFC. I'll do that sometime this week if no one else beats me to it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 06:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the limited amount of contributions in the previous discussion, one of the village pumps might be a better venue to get broader feedback. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm just going to say a very big "thank you" to jc37 for that lovely comment, along with a big back atcha! (Oh, and I think a focused RfC at WT:BAN is the right way to go.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should regard the proposal here (the original one, to make the template non-displaying) should remain under active discussion, because the discussion at WT:BAN isn't exactly getting anywhere. Maybe there will be an RfC, maybe not, but there are too many editors who are too far apart in their views. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Meh, I think it's useful. And for someone banned, I think it is appropriate. It is a very matter-of-fact template, not something to shame someone. Knowing that a user is banned can help other users know why attempts to communicate with them will likely fail. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Would that make it more useful to announce it on the user talk page, but not the user page? In my opinion, it does. And we also have the reality that ArbCom has made a deliberate choice not to have this display for the users that they blocked. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  A blank userpage with just the banned template is what works best for me; that is the page "about this user" and is useful when trying to coordinate things cross-projects and you come across users with multiple blocks, getting information about the nature of the block easily from a template like that saves a lot of time as compared to having to read the block log that may or may not have a good log summary. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  I actually agree that that makes sense for those kinds of cases, cross-project long-term abuse and the like. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure if the displayed message is hidden based on a discussion solely on this talk page, someone is going start a thread at the village pump asking why it was hidden, and saying it shouldn't have been done without broader consultation from the community. I'd as soon just skip to having the conversation there. isaacl (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's fine with me. But before we make that "skip", we ought to evaluate locally whether or not there is even enough interest to make it worth pursuing. I'm not sure how much other editors are inclined to argue in favor of the proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• Please see: WT:BAN#Well how about that!, WT:AC#Templating banned users, and WP:AC/C/P#Enacting bans and editing restrictions. I'm starting to think that the idea of a non-displaying template used by ArbCom was a myth. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • No, actually, there is already a template setting that makes this template non-displaying, and ArbCom uses that by default. If that's the case, it seems to me that it would be pretty easy to make a modification to the template to allow the same option to be available if chosen for non-ArbCom CBANs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • See [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

    If there's no longer a need for a banner for any banned user, then it's easy to take out all the banner text and surrounding logic that makes it conditional. Just the categorization logic is needed. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

    Per the comments of some other users here, there are still times when it's very appropriate to have a displaying version of the template. Examples include cross-project bans, long-term abuse, and extensive sockpuppetry. Admittedly, this makes things more complicated to implement. But it is for just those reasons that I like the idea of giving some discretion to the ban-enacting admin. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

    There are already templates for sockpuppets and WMF-banned users. I think in cases where there are specific larger-scale issues, a tailored template is better than a generic one. isaacl (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

    I like the idea of having a general template, corresponding to this one here, that defaults to non-displaying. And then have the option of changing it to display, or better yet, have such tailored templates available, as you described. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

    At present, Category:Banned Wikipedia users has four sub-categories:

    • Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee, which is non-diffusing and is added by this template
    • Category:Wikipedia users banned for a limited period, which I believe is also non-diffusing and is added by this template
    • Category:Wikipedia users banned for repeated sockpuppetry, which is added by {{Sockpuppeteer}}
    • Category:Wikipedians banned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which is added by {{WMF-legal banned user}}

    isaacl (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed. This notice, like block notices, informs the community what the status is and (as long as the parameters are filled out) how to find out why. This matters. What next? Are we going to start hiding the fact that people are blocked and why?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternate proposal

I really don't have much of an opinion on any of this, but I think that perhaps the way forward might be to place the template in "Editnotices/Page" instead.

That way any editor who comes to the pages will see it before they edit, but it's not on outward display all the time. - jc37— Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 12 June 2023‎ (UTC)

• That's an idea, though it'll be a bit harder to implement since it'll require moving all of the templates on every banned user with a template over. I wonder if it'll still show up in categories? ...Do Edit Notices show up in categories? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:14, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  • I had not considered the category side of this. Consider this proposal withdrawn, as far as I'm concerned. Not closing it, since there's been discussion. Some other uninvolved person can, at some point, I suppose. - jc37 00:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think I prefer the original proposal. If editors really want the information, they shouldn't have to open the edit window for it, and it's a little against the spirit of the proposal to have the information pop up every time someone does open the edit window. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  If they shouldn't have to open the edit window, then they probably shouldn't have to look at page history either... - jc37 23:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  They can also look at the category. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Editors can select the link to see the user's contributions to see if the user is blocked, and the block log message will describe the reason why. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Does anyone actually have a problem with the original proposal? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

At the talk page of a blocked user, if I edit a section or add a new one, I see a prominent red banner at the top showing the most recent block log entry along with the admin's reason. I don't need anything else to alert me, and in fact the more banners there are the more I am likely to ignore them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed. The utility of this template to the community is that it tells us quickly that someone is banned and (if the parameters are filled) why.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Alternate #2

Growing out of discussion at the policy page, it just occurred to me that there is a very easy alternative to accomplish what the proposal intends, and it doesn't require changing anything anywhere. Editors can just apply the category to a banned user's user page, without using a template to do that. In other words, just put [[Category:Banned Wikipedia users]] near the bottom of the user page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand the thought, but, speaking as someone who's experienced hundreds (thousands?) of user category discussions, I think that is a can of worms probably worth avoiding. - jc37 23:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, even though I understand what you mean there. The category is already added by the template, so anyone who is going to get worked up over the category is already getting worked up over the template, and the template does nothing to fix that (except maybe distract that editor from the category). And I think the addition of a category just isn't going to be conspicuous in the way that a template is. And – of course! – it's not exactly like we avoided a can of worms the way the present case worked out, so I'm still strongly in favor of looking for better ways to handle this. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Adding the template is an act of notification, and having the category added by it, implicitly treats that as notification as well. Merely adding the category will create other issues, and would honestly be substituting one disruptive situation for another. - jc37 23:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

What are those other issues (created by merely adding the category)? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, but I think I'm going to just sidestep that and say WP:BEANS. Probably not as helpful as you might like, but I'm just suggesting that I don't believe that that sidewalk goes anywhere near the positive resolution that anyone might like. - jc37 00:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm trying, with little success, to break the logjam that we are having with the discussions here and at the policy talk. Without spilling any legumes, is there a problem with adding a category, that is avoided by using a non-displaying template that applies the category? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this carefully, and I'm pretty sure that applying the category, followed by full protection of the user page, should be workable. I believe that editors should feel comfortable doing it that way. (Obviously, one needs an admin to full protect.) --Tryptofish (talk) 17:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• Opposed. The utility of this template to the community is that it tells us quickly that someone is banned and (if the parameters are filled) why. Virtually no one is going to notice such a categorization.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Better idea than suppressing the template for ArbCom...

I think we should permit the template to display but with different wording. For example, "As decided by [arbitration case], [name of user] has been banned from the English Wikipedia. Administrators, please review the banning policy and consult with the Arbitration Committee before unblocking.

Please direct any questions to the Arbitration Committee." or something similar.

BTW this is just some wording similar to {{WMF-legal banned user}} which I proposed without much fuss. Awesome Aasim 04:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I think this would have to be decided by ArbCom, not here, wouldn't it? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Did ArbCom decide to suppress display of the template? It makes it harder to actually view the relevant case that led to the ban. There are several advantages including serving as a cautionary tale as to what not to do. It is not for public shame, that is what the WP:STOCKS are for. Awesome Aasim 23:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that they did. If you go through the earlier discussions on this talk page, and maybe some archived talk sections from WT:BAN, you'll find discussion about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I jogged my memory, and found Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 24#Templating banned users. There's some lack of clarity about how much ArbCom really discussed this, but there's enough reason to conclude that they made some sort of decision, that I think this would have to be run past them. And as for what you say about public shame, please be aware that this remains a topic of significant disagreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting... I think the solution might be to provide options for display of the template. For example, we can have "This user is subject to arbitration remedies. See the case for more details." as a way to alert others to the editing restrictions or ban. Maybe there needs to be a bigger question into why we use such harsh and sometimes unhelpful language that ArbCom decided to suppress the banner. Awesome Aasim 23:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to poke the hornets' nest right now, but I do intend eventually to reopen discussion about the plusses and minuses of having a displaying template. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The arbitration committee could have chosen to reword the message as they saw fit for its bans. They instead chose to not have any visible display; any discussion about it took place off-wiki and so the details are not available (though the discussion Template talk:Banned user#Suppressing the banner for arbcom bans, take 2 on this talk page indicates the concern was about any message being made visible, regardless of the wording). Wikipedia talk:Banning policy#Just tone down the template contains discussion about whether or not the committee can actually prevent the community from having its own message, even if the committee doesn't want to place one. As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 11 § Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars, the non-visible template places the user into a category, Category:Wikipedia users banned by the Arbitration Committee. I appreciate why some may like easy access to the decision (be it a case, motion, or other mechanism) by which an editor was banned, but I also appreciate the view that making it prominent on a user's page may be unduly reductive of their overall tenure. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree a bit. Thinking about it a bit more, this can be a problem a la "Template:Blocked user" where having a message can come out as demeaning. If there is consensus at some point to remove display of this ban template for cbans, then the only time that we would display any template is if the WM Community imposes its own global ban or if WMF bans users locally or globally, in which case we have {{WMF-legal banned user}}. Any kind of ban should be made prominent in the block log, and not even with any wording "banned by the committee/community", just "per [decision on ArbCom/ANI]" would suffice. Outside of the block log, WP:EDR is the appropriate place to note topic and interaction bans. Awesome Aasim 03:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

One other place where it does serve a good purpose to have a displayed template, with little downside, is for large-scale sock farms. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

As discussed in an earlier thread on this talk page, there are four subcategories in the banned user category, two non-diffusing, and two for those two categories: sockpuppeteers, and WMF-banned users, which have their own templates. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Would having the template hidden to all but administrators be helpful? Since this is an administrative template anyway and it gives a first warning to any admins to be careful before unblocking. See what I did in Template:Banned user/sandbox. Awesome Aasim 04:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Please implement my changes in the sandbox, either partially or fully. I think having the template visible to administrators only will address the problems that led to the suppression of the template for the arbitration committee in the first place, but also for community bans as well. Those that need to see it can still see it as a warning not to unblock the user, but everyone else who does not need to see it will have it hidden. It also removes the deleted {{namewarning}} template from the notice. Awesome Aasim 23:15, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: sorry I'm not seeing consensus for any particular change yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ Can you at least remove the namewarning template functionality which was deleted at TfD? Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_23#Template:Namewarning Awesome Aasim 21:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Revive

I am actually debating TfD for this template. But I think what should happen might be better defined in an RfC. We could decide that ban templates should be subject to their own exceptional criterion, except for WMF and global bans. Awesome Aasim 19:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)