The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
The Banning section says that a site ban may imposed as a consequence of having "engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active". This tells me that until that situation arises, a person with an account that was indefinitely blocked for malfeasance isn't considered site-banned—even though the person is not allowed, under any account or as an IP user, to edit any page on the project. But I thought that that condition was the definition of a site ban. I'm reading it as "If a person's account has been indefinitely blocked for misbehavior, that person is not permitted to edit any page on this project (except perhaps their talk page) under any account or as an IP user and, if they do, they will no longer be permitted to edit any page on this project under any account or as an IP user."
Can someone clarify the difference that I'm not seeing here? And perhaps add this clarification to both WP:Sockpuppetry and WP:Banning policy? Or else, if I'm right and there is no distinction, change the wording in both place to make it clear that the consequence of an indefinite site block for malfeasance is a site ban? Largoplazo (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A normal indefinite block can be lifted at an admin's discretion while lifting a community ban requires consensus at WP:AN. Spicy (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that clears it up for me. I see that the difference is real, but at a purely administrative level. From the point of view of a person who's been blocked or banned who doesn't seek to get the condition overturned, it's exactly the same thing. Either way, they aren't allowed to edit. Either way, they can edit until caught. It's only the appeal procedures that differ. Perhaps it would be useful to explain at least that explicitly. "Editors who are confirmed by a CheckUser to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block that is active, for any reason, are to be considered site banned by the Wikipedia community, a status that is much more challenging to appeal than a mere block." Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is something going on that I have missed? I rarely file SPIs but I don't remember it taking this long...my CU Request/SPI has been on the docket since April 13th but I know there are other much older ones hanging around... Thx, Shearonink (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a non-CU behavioral request backlogged since the 12th. It's definitely looking like a challenge at the moment. Lol I'd take the sysop and dig in but I don't think anyone wants that. XD Simonm223 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
