Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Avoiding pointless ban-tag wars

Threads like this are timewastes and drama magnets. An editor does not become more or less banned by the presence or absence of a ban tag on their userpage, but editors nonetheless love to edit-war over them when an established editor is banned. I propose appending a single sentence to the penultimate paragraph of WP:CBAN: A site-banned user's userpage may be blanked and/or tagged with {{banned user}} at the discretion of the banning administrator when the ban is imposed, or at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator or SPI clerk in the event of subsequent misconduct. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I support the idea, and for me the main thing is that we shouldn't have tagging by editors who just self-appoint themselves to go around and do it. When someone with the appropriate permissions does it, I think the community can feel comfortable with the reasonableness of the decision, but when some random editor just goes around doing the tagging, it results in the example that brought you (and me!) here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Is there ever a situation in which not tagging a cbanned user as cbanned would be reasonable? From what you said there must be, but I can't think of one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure: If people feel it does more harm to the encyclopedia than good. I'll note that ArbCom stopped tagging banned users years ago (well, they tag, but it only adds a category) due to the drama it causes. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Has such a situation ever occurred? In theory its always possibly, thats basically a summary of IAR after all, but what harm could the tag theoretically do? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You literally just got into an edit war over a ban tag, so... Yes, it has occurred. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

How are you reaching the conclusion that more harm than good was done? And if edit conflict is the metric for bad what is the metric for good? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Harm: We're talking about this instead of doing something actually useful. Good: ???. Neutral: Roxy the dog remains CBANned either way. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:01, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes that would be the problem, you've set up a scenario where harm can be quantified but good is unquantifiable (you can't prove for example that an editor was convinced by the tag not to make the same mistakes that Roxy did and therefore remain a productive editor, an outcome which would far outweigh even the most long winded and brutal of edit wars) making any claim based on it unfalsifiable. Unless you can quantify both is completely meaningless. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit I've been that person once, tagging JGabbard after an unsuccessful appeal of an indef. (I was an admin already, but probably involved.) But I would have been fine with asking the closing admin to do so (or at least blank his userpage) instead, if such a policy had existed then. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agreed. I assume an admin considering any unblocking will be aware through the block lock that a block was a CBAN. (Is that right?) In which case the tag seems pointless except for WP:GRAVEDANCErs. DeCausa (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That begs the question of why the template exists, we don't have pointless templates after all... They're all the result of consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

They exist to aid administrators and other users with the appropriate permissions in conducting block reviews and other business. Just because a template exists, doesn't mean that editors should feel free to use it gratuitously. I'm under the impression that there has been at least some consensus that the purpose of this template is not to be tossed around as a badge of shame. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

DeCausa is arguing that they do not aid administrators and other users with the appropriate permissions in conducting block reviews and other business because for that purpose they are redundant. Do you have a response to their argument? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Per what Tamzin says below - admin's don't need them. Pointless is the word. (PS I didn't participate and have no particular view on the Roxy thread and have only just noticed that this seems to have come out of a further kerfufle at ANI. Again i have no knowledge/view on that either.)DeCausa (talk) 17:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

My answer would be that editors shouldn't just go around putting those tags on user pages. If someone who really understands the ban decided that the tag wasn't beneficial, then it's gratuitous for someone comparatively uninformed to do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

So you do feel that these tags serve a purpose and are in many cases beneficial? Would you elaborate on what the purpose you feel they serve is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, per current policy the block must note that it's a CBAN. (And when already-indeffed users are CBANned, they're usually reblocked pro forma.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• (multiple edit conflicts) Not sure if this is supposed to be a !vote, but either way I support this proposal. — SamX [talk · contribs] 17:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• Me too. No harm in codifying it for future avoidance of doubt; and with the added advantage of allowing us to find another obscure corner of the 'pedia in which to knock seven bells out of each other continue to build one dam' fine fount of free knowledge  ;) SN54129 17:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
• My 2c: either the tag serves a purpose and should be added without prejudice or favor to every single blocked account or it serves no purpose and should not exist at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  But that would remove discretion from admins, which is kind of what we trust their judgment to decide... SN54129 18:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  We don't allow admins absolute discretion, many of our community consensuses remove discretion from admins. Admins are not supposed to be gods with complete discretion to deal with mortals as they see fit and I doubt you will find many who would endorse that position. I'd also note that we don't technically trust their judgement, anyone is allowed to challenge the edit, decision, or ruling of an admin. If we were required to trust their judgement a challenge of that judgement would be impossible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  We're talking about placing a tag on a user page, not separating the upper and lower firmaments. Gods have nothing to do with it. SN54129 18:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  But if this admin was separating the upper and lower firmaments would we allow them absolute discretion or would we insist on a globe earth rather than a flat one? As I said, admin discretion has limits... This would not significantly alter those limits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  The point is is that if this God-admin was repeatedly ballsing up the splitting of heavenly waters, then I'd be the first to drag him before the FirmCom. But if all they were doing was sticking tags on snakes in the garden, we'd let them get on with it. SN54129 18:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thats a good analogy, the snake is a snake regardless of whether they are tagged or not... But what is the benefit of tagging? Note that in the philosophical analogy none of the snakes would need to be tagged because their very nature (that they are snakes) is self evident... Tagging a snake with a tag that says its a snake is decidedly unhelpful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Personally I choose to believe Godmin is a woman, her omnipotent love nurturing the drama gardens of AN/I. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Based on the (gesticulates wildly), the problem seems to be that there is no common understanding of when bans should be tagged, not a disagreement on just who should tag them. This proposal probably would reduce diruption caused by disagreements, but so would letting Lennu decide every content dispute. The better solution is to decide and write down when banned users should be tagged. And if we're doing that, given the current paucity of non-hand-wavey arguments to the opposite in this thread, I am drawn to agree with Horse Eye's Back. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  But what is the purpose of the tag? DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  That's exactly what I'm wondering. But even above that, why would you only tag sometimes? That's why I agree with HEB: that either we should tag banned accounts or we should not tag them. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  As noted above, ArbCom decided that there are times when they don't want tagging for bans that they enact. There are times when there may be an expectation that "indefinite" does not mean "permanent", and it seems counterproductive to tag the user page while the person is seeking to fix things on the talk page. On the other hand, there are situations, such as when talk page access has been revoked, or when tagging sockpuppet accounts helps in keeping track of ongoing sock problems, when the tags serve a purpose. The proposed language here clarifies the source of confusion. Instead of editors who don't know everything about what happened running into a dispute over a tag that they placed, we should limit the tagging to being something done by someone who understands the reasons for tagging or not tagging. And this isn't about anything theological about admins. It's just a matter of letting the process be done by people who know the reasons for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm sure the President of Finland's pet Boston Terrier has a great sense for sniffing out unreliable sources. And yet WP:RS actually tells us how to assess source reliability, not how to consult the canid-in-chief on the matter. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I'm a fish, not a dog. And while we've been talking, the proposed language has been WP:SNOW-implemented. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Updated text

I merged in the proposed text, per WP:SNOW. I added Arbcom clerks, for obvious reasons, and tried to split the sentences to (hopefully) avoid future disruptions (and possible future wiki-lawyering), also splitting out the info on general ban talk page notices, since this page has grown to cover more than just sitebans.

I didn't close this discussion, in case you all would like to continue to discuss finessing the language or whatever. And, since the recent kerfuffle which prompted this discussion seems to be over whether an admin can do x or y, if someone does decide to close this discussion (takes off my admin hat to offer only my opinion), I think an admin should probably close it. I hope this helps. - jc37 19:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a couple of hours is enough time to establish that there is near-unanimous agreement on the proposed change. There have been multiple persons who have expressed disagreement. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Isaac, please let that go. As a matter of procedure, I suppose so, but as a matter of common sense... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Isaac, you're 100% right. There's not unanimous agreement on the proposed change. Most people who would care aren't even aware that the change has been implemented... --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

While I may disagree somewhat with User:Isaacl's assessment, I don't have an issue with allowing another uninvolved admin assess this discussion. I only reverted the "admin/clerks" part, since that's essentially the update to policy in question.

If consensus is determined (by WP:SNOW, or otherwise) - The (now removed) text: "At the discretion of the administrator implementing the ban (or any other uninvolved administrator), or any ArbCom clerk or SPI clerk in the course of their duties," would presumably replace "At editorial discretion,". - jc37 00:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I guess I have to say that I support the re-addition of the new language. (Sigh.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Suggested addition

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I was thinking about what caused the original confusion in this incident, and I'm wondering whether we should make something explicit, that is implicit in the changes already agreed to.

At the end of the middle (second) paragraph of the User page notification section, I'm suggesting adding this sentence:

When a template notice has not been placed on the user page, other editors should be cautious about adding it on their own initiative, because it may be perceived as gravedancing.

Perhaps something stronger than "should be cautious about", such as "should generally refrain from", would be an alternative. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I would push back on that, marking the existence of a grave is not the same thing as dancing on it. If we take the context of what caused this as an example none of the editors who added the template were gravedancing. Maybe something even clearer like: "This should not be used as justification for gravedancing or edit warring, if reverted seek consensus at _________" (not actually entirely sure where the venue should be, but it definitely shouldn't be on the user talk page) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

This is just an opinion (and the precise location probably doesn't matter that much), but if something like that is added (and I think we already have some general guidance like that about talk page templates, "somewhere"?) - I think it may be probably better noted under Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Conduct towards banned editors. - jc37 21:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that a straightforward informational message should be labeled as gravedancing. I appreciate, though, that for some there is a connotation of a badge of shame. If this is felt to be an issue, then I agree with the previous commenters that we should discuss whether or not the message is desirable for any editor. I feel it's a waste of time tailoring a decision for each individual banned editor: it just sets up a scenario for post-ban arguing between the supporters of different viewpoints. isaacl (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

In your opinion would adding an addendum to the current template which explains that its not necessarily permanent and broadly the ways in which it could be reversed remove the perception of it as a badge of shame? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the negative connotation is based on the ban message being placed there at all, regardless of the content. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think editors are making valid points about the "gravedancing" part of it, and I also think jc37 is clearly right that this aspect of it is covered already in the "Conduct towards banned editors" section. So I'm withdrawing the part about gravedancing as a reason why, and I want to focus instead on the aspect, directly related to the notification section, of telling editors that they should refrain from drive-by tagging in the event that admins and the other user groups mentioned in that paragraph have chosen not to tag.

When a template notice has not been placed on the user page, other editors should generally refrain from adding it on their own initiative.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps some way for an admin to mark that they have refrained from adding it but have custody of the issue? That would certainly give me pause, I'd want to take it up directly with that admin rather than do any thing on my own initiative. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the benefit of telling someone they are a disgrace and BANNED? That only creates unnecessary ill-feeling. When an editor is blocked, we want them and their supporters to find something else to do, rather than battle at Wikipedia with socks. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a significant part of my own thinking on this. I suspect that, for some of the editors who make it their business to go around putting up tags after a ban discussion has been closed, it's simply a way of making things "orderly", and maybe they see it as a way of making constructive edits. I'm actually more concerned with that, than with editors who put tags up with malicious intent. I'm trying to find a way to make it clear to the "tidying up" editors that they risk getting into a dispute that they really don't want. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

If this is a concern, then we shouldn't put the message on any banned user's page. There are other ways to find out if an editor has been banned, such as looking at their contributions and seeing the message regarding their block. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Higher up in this discussion, there's been some explanation by me and maybe by others of the situations in which the tagging serves a useful purpose; I won't repeat it. But I really wouldn't object to deprecating the tags entirely, if admins feel like that would work for them. However, I want to emphasize that completely abandoning the templates is not the only way to address the problem that I described. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to simply clarify some things about the policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the previous points regarding the usefulness. Those advantages don't depend on the specific editor, though. I don't think it's a great use of time to try to argue whether or not the disadvantages for editor X outweigh the general advantages. It's just a magnet for discussion to rehash why some think banning editor X is a bad idea, and to start weighing the relative values of banned editors Y and Z versus X. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the solution might be to continue tagging banned users, but to hide the tag, like ARBCOM tags. At least then the user will show up as a banned user. The link to the ban reason can still remain. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• I oppose all of this, including the unilateral change to WP:Banning Policy without any consensus. The tag has a purpose: it lets users know why someone was banned, and also allows banned users to appear in category:banned users. How else are we supposed to know who is banned vs. simply blocked? Why even differentiate at this point? If we're going to get rid of the tag or allow banned users to not be tagged as banned, and we have no way of knowing if a user is banned or simply blocked, then what is the point of the policy? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 05:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Bans are noted in the block log regardless of tagging, as well as on the user talk page if there isn't automatic archival. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 12:08, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can see some value in continuing to have Category:Banned users, if it's really that important to some editors "to know who is banned vs. simply blocked". One can apply that category without posting a template on the user page, and I also don't think anyone has objected to the tags on user talk pages. I also harbor some doubts as to why some editors in this discussion really think it's that important that they know it. I keep getting the implicit message that some editors feel the need to place banned users (and again, indefinite does not mean permanent or final) into a neatly labeled box in order to accomplish... what? To have a neatly labeled box? As I see it, there is a good use for templates in cases of long-term abuse and extensive sockpuppetry. But the desire of some editors to template experienced users who have done something that got themselves banned, and who are trying to find their way back into good standing, is just... peculiar. There are a lot of things we could potentially do here, but I think the simplest and most basic is to determine that going around and placing those tags is not something for editors to do, simply as an editing pastime. Maybe we should have an RfC on that? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I could see some value for those wanting to do research, but if they want to be able to look at trends over time, then I think parsing the block log will be a better way. I think most editors just want to know if specific editor X is currently blocked, and this information is readily accessible from the user's contributions page, which is available from the tools menu/sidebar on the user's page and talk page. isaacl (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  It's good to know who is and isn't banned. Otherwise we'll find ourselves requesting CBANs of the same user again and again, which happened back when we got rid of WP:LOBU and made it just a category. I do think though that the best option is to hide the template like we do with ARBCOM bans, though. So it's still recorded and a link to the discussion is still there, but it doesn't result in gravedancing. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Then let me see if I can find some things where we have common ground. If we agree that there are times when it serves a purpose to be able to determine that an editor has been blocked or banned, and that it serves a purpose to know which (block and/or ban) it is, and we agree that it's desirable to steer clear of the appearance of gravedancing or shaming, then maybe we can work from that. It sounds like we have some useful tools, namely block logs, the banned users category, and non-displaying templates (that, in effect, apply such a category). So I ask: given those tools, can we get by with also reserving the use of displaying templates on user page to admins and other users who are involved in carrying out the sanctions? Can we agree that editors who are just going around and placing these displaying templates really don't need to be doing it? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Tryptofish: I agree, and support finding a common ground. I made a proposal to make these templates hidden by default here. Then it won't really matter if the template is on the page. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for starting that discussion, and I want to encourage all editors watching here to take a look at it. I have supported it, and I think it may be a good way to solve the problem we have been discussing here, without needing to substantively change this policy page any further. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  From the Department of Going Around in Circles: There is a growing sentiment at the template talk page that we should drop the idea of making the template non-displaying, and return to considering the language that Tamzin created. It sounds like we will have an RfC about it, with a notification at the Village Pump (and, I'm thinking, maybe listing it at WP:CENT). In my opinion, a good way to frame the RfC question is as whether or not to change the existing language at WP:BANNOTICE to the revised language. I'm saying this here, with the thinking that it would be good to see what other editors think about how to go about the RfC. That way, maybe we can have some local consensus on how to conduct the RfC, before the RfC is opened. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Adding: Before we open the RfC, I'd like to have more discussion of my suggested addition in this sub-section (revised version, partway down). In my opinion, we need to make that point explicit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Eh, I don't see anyone opposing the idea of making the template hidden? I'm confused... where do you see that? --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:23, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking of jc37 saying we should come back here and have an RfC, and you saying that you agreed about having the RfC. But at this point, my head is spinning. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  Since a site-banned editor can't edit, I don't think there's much to trigger a request to ban them again. And even if it did happen, someone will look at the contributions log, see that they are banned, and close the request. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  There was a case where someone was banned, came back as another user, and was banned again at a later date even though it was well known they were the same user... I don't remember the details anymore though, that was ages ago. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  The one that comes immediately to mind is Wik/Gzornenplatz perhaps because of the whole editwar on userpage thing though given the ambiguities and much more informal nature of policies at the time, the case is quite arguable. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  In that situation, the presence or absence of a notice on the original user's page wouldn't change anything with respect to requesting a block of the sockpuppet. When an admin suspects that a user is a sockpuppet of another user, whether through their own observations or a request, they need to check the other user's block log to reliably know whether or not the user is blocked. isaacl (talk) 20:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I legitimately don't remember any detail beyond that they were the same banned user, and everyone knew who they were, but were not aware that they were banned as it was only marked on LTA and not in the block log, so they did two CBANs on the same user. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Isaacl: one minor quibble, the current block log was only implemented following the deployment of MediaWiki 1.4; hence older blocks will not be available in the log although some from the 1.2 and 1.3 timeframe can be seen on Special:BlockList. LTA master accounts were mostly later reblocked just to be sure, so admittedly it probably isn't a particularly relevant point. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 21:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

This has apparently sprawled over multiple pages, and I'm not sure where to put this. For the record, I oppose these recent changes. The effect is to replace a simple instruction (put a ban tag on the page) with something that begins with "at editorial discretion" and providing absolutely no guidance as to what should inform that "editorial discretion" (presumably this would require some big consensus-building thread to see if there's consensus to place it, even though there's no longer any basis on which to judge said consensus). Per WP:BRD, I've reverted the bold changes pending discussion. To add: If there is a change to be made in the service of avoiding the perception of WP:GRAVEDANCING, it is a clarification that part of the blocking/banning process involves the blocking admin placing said tags, which should not be removed (or added) by anyone else. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I take your point about "at editorial discretion" being undefined, and I'm already in favor of language that would define it more precisely. And I do think that we are going to need an RfC to evaluate these issues more broadly. On the other hand, is there a problem with having created a separate section for that material? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Not at all, but there already is one? The edits just renamed it from "user pages" to "user page notification" and changed the heading level. Is there a reason for it to be a lvl 2? Isn't it usually just part of enactment of a ban? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess not, but there were other small changes that I would have thought were not controversial. For example, moving the "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using email" sentence to the Further enforcement measures section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, my only real objection was to the replacement of a clear instruction with something significantly less clear. Apologies for the other edits that got swept up with it -- restoring them shouldn't be controversial (at least not on my account). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

[1] OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement "and such pages may be blanked." is a bit strange, because the user then won't appear in WP:LOBU. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:20, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

No. IMO that's worse than what was there before. It does just reinstate little improvements, it again completely changes the the policy from a simple instruction to something unclear. Why "may be placed"? Why would they be blanked? By whom? For what reason? Or does the blanking refer to everything other than the ban notice? I think what you're looking for is an RfC that simply asks: (1) Should all banned users have a ban notice on their user page? (2) If yes, who should place that notice? (3) If not, in what situations should[n't] there be a tag? Or perhaps (1) when should a tag be placed: always, sometimes, never (2) if sometimes, in what circumstances should a tag be placed? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I self-reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: I still strongly think that a tag should always be placed for all indefinitely banned users, but it should be always hidden, honestly. This would completely solve this entire problem. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the point of that? My main concern is that we're consistent. When it comes to blocking, we're talking about people feelings at their lowest point on Wikipedia, tempers are running hot, and it's a sensitive time for all involved. The last thing we need is some vague advice to sort out "editorial discretion" or "do this but it can be blanked" without any reasons why it would be blanked, leading to yet more disputes involving someone who at that point can't even really participate. Either tag everyone or don't tag anyone (or tag but figure out a better way to display the tag, which may be what you're suggesting?). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. Be consistent: tags are always placed on the page, but the tags are also invisible so they don't act as a badge of shame. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Side-by-side

This is not an RfC. I'm just trying to make the discussion more focused. Here are two possible approaches, side-by-side for easier comparison. On the left, I have the status quo language that is on the policy page. On the right, I have one possible version of the proposed changes:

User pages, on the page now Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using email.

User page notification A notice of a ban should be placed on a banned user's talk page, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. At the discretion of the administrator implementing the ban (or any other uninvolved administrator), or any ArbCom clerk or SPI clerk in the course of their duties, an appropriate template notice (such as {{Banned user}}) may be placed on a site-banned user's user pages and talk pages. Also at their discretion, such pages may be blanked. When a template notice has not been placed on the user page, other editors should generally refrain from adding it on their own initiative. The purpose of placing a notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. Note: "Indefinitely site-banned editors may be restricted from editing their user talk page or using email." is moved to the section on Further enforcement measures.

In my opinion, the revised version on the right is superior, because it gives clearer instructions, and avoids the dramas that have led to these discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I still think the version on the left is superior. When a user is banned, they should always have a notice on their user account. Why should some accounts, at admin discretion, get marked with a badge of shame, and some not? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Rockstone. The discretionary nature of sock tag application exists for good reason. But here nothing both similarly common and compelling is at issue. The inevitable problems this leads to with certain contributors receiving different treatment than others is just not worth it. As always, exceptional circumstances can be handled as they arise. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 22:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Here are what I see as the flip-sides of those arguments. As for why should there be a badge of shame at admin discretion, I would ask why it should be at the discretion of any random editor who happens to get the idea of placing the tag. I agree that socking (and long-term abuse) present special cases, but I'll also point out what ArbCom decided for ArbCom bans. As for exceptional circumstances, they are more common than exceptional, and the attendant drama is worth trying to prevent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

why it should be at the discretion of any random editor This can be fixed by simply altering the text at the left to say that it should be added by the blocking admin.

"Badge of shame" is a value judgment. The purpose isn't to shame anyone, but to communicate a particular status to everyone else. If there's consensus that it is indeed a "badge of shame" then the solution to what to do about it wouldn't be to create vague guidance but to simply never use it. I don't know where I fall yet regarding always tagging vs. never tagging, but either is preferable to "maybe sometimes tag". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the approach of considering modifying either the left or right versions, instead of an up/down vote, so I'm very receptive to adding the "blocking admin" language to the version on the left. But then we get questions about whether we want to say "or any uninvolved admin". And we could still add language about other editors generally refraining. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

What if instead of at rando's desecration or at admin discretion we just add it to all of them and then there is no possible way it could be interpreted as a badge of shame? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We currently have ArbCom using a non-displaying template (essentially adding a user category), so we already don't have a tag-all approach. And the IP commented above that sometimes we don't tag in order to WP:DENY. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

The non-displaying templates are tags, just not visible ones. Extending this to all indefinite bans, we could allow any editor to mark a banned user as banned without it being gravedancing. I still think this is the best solution. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been supporting that, and I'll support either approach if it can get consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I just don't see a lot of difference between having to click "Edit" on the user page versus "User contributions" to check if someone is site-banned. Plus, since templates could be added or deleted by anyone, and their insertion/deletion can easily be missed when they produce no visible content, going to the block log is necessary anyway. If the community consensus is that there shouldn't be any message displayed, personally I think it may be better not to have any template. I appreciate, though, the desire to have a category is strong with some editors. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the IP right though? WP:DENY appears to be silent on the subject. With socks the discretion is that we aren't always sure about whether a particle account actually is a sock, so often an account will be blocked without being tagged because while its obviously disruptive its not directly attributable to a master. That is not about denying recognition though and in this context there is no point at which that sort of call needs to be made, we know that the account is banned and there is no question about that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair question, I don't know. I think it wouldn't be based on a specific statement in DENY, but on an SPI admin's sense of what DENY means. But I admit that I've never seen that. Nonetheless, we still have ArbCom using a non-displaying template. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, totally agree on that bit. I'm not saying there is any one way it *has* to be done just interested in exploring the possibilities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

To be clear I was just referring to sock tags, not cban tags for which WP:DENY isn't really much of a concern. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Do we do it with sock tags though? We often refrain from tagging IPs, but thats an outing concern not a deny one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

There's no one hard and fast rule, but after the first dozen or so socks have been tagged it's rarely necessary to continue unless new socks display novel behaviors. In the past some sockmasters have striven to set the record for largest sockpuppet category. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Having been involved in a number of sock puppet investigations I would say its very necessary to continue because you generally can only see what's novel or significant in hindsight. The ones striving to set a record would be an exceptional case, but does seem reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree it can be complicated. I don't want to get too far off topic and much of my knowledge is now quite dated anyway, so I would recommend continuing this by querying the clerks at WT:SPI who can certainly give a far more comprehensive and up-to-date picture than I can. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: As for why it should be at the discretion of any random editor it wouldn't be, all cbaned accounts are tagged by default, and that's how it's been done for a while. The who doesn't really matter much. This isn't a situation where elevated technical permissions are usually required to implement the edit, so there's no reason for it to be sysop only. If exceptions really are as common as you seem to imply, you should be able to list them easily, but I can't really think of all that many. Given the total number of cbans they really are exceptional cases. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

But it's not true that all cbanned accounts are currently tagged by default, at least not on the user page, which is what we're discussing here. All accounts get a message on the user talk page, but not all get the tag on the user page as well. The reason we got here is because of the tag on Roxy's page, and if you look at all of the knock-on unpleasantness that has followed, this isn't a case of how often it happens, but of something where we would be foolish not to look for ways to avoid the unpleasantness happening again. And using this most recent case as an example, it's important to note that no administrator tagged the user page, for a couple of days after the ban was enacted, but then an editor who had been otherwise uninvolved with the discussion came along and placed the tag. By my count, that led to two threads at AN and one at ANI, as well as the discussions here and at the template talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Granted I've been away for years at a time, and I don't exactly follow the noticeboards religiously, so I could be wrong, but if so it should be trivial for you to provide a dozen examples of cbanned accounts that were not tagged. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, as far as I know, since the original List of Banned users was deleted in 2014, there has never been a case where banned user intentionally was not tagged as being banned until Roxy. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:27, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A little bit of my thinking in not producing such a list is at User:Tryptofish/Lazy policy arguments#The auditor; you can of course agree with that or not. But a more substantive concern I have is that I don't want to create a Streisand effect for such user pages that I know to exist. But yes, they do exist. I just took a quick look at another one that I know of, and confirmed it. So it is categorically the case that some CBANed user pages are not tagged. I invite any admins who are familiar with this to confirm what I say. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If they're not tagged, they should be. If we're going to make exceptions, why even have the tag in the first place? Why even have the CBAN system if we can't keep track of who is CBANned? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

We can't keep track of who is CBANed? That's completely false! Pretty much every policy on Wikipedia has exceptions, even 3RR. The sky does not fall if we allow exceptions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

If we don't put anything on user pages (even something invisible) indicating that someone is banned, then it becomes impossible to determine who is or is not banned.

If your argument is that marking a user as banned should be discretionary, why should some indefinitely banned users get special treatment? I just don't understand the logic. To my mind, all indefinitely banned users should be treated identically. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 21:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(As you know, I support your proposal for the non-displaying tag.) It's important to understand that I am not arguing that some banned users should be impossible (or even unreasonably difficult) to identify as such. The idea that there must be a displaying tag on the user page, or everyone will be hopelessly confused, is simply not true. So I'm not arguing that some subset of banned editors should be able to go sneaking around sub rosa. Of those CBANed editors without user page templates that I'm aware of, there is not a one that editors would have a hard time realizing are CBANed. So the argument that we must have absolute uniformity in order for the community to function properly does not hold water. And I hope that the argument isn't that it's "special treatment" that interferes with punishing those editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but do you think it's not special treatment to not mark community banned users as being banned? I don't know how it wouldn't be. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As isaacl correctly notes just below, there are plenty of other ways to make the identification. Where you ask me about "special treatment", no, I don't see it as that. I see it as case-by-case discretion, but I don't see it as letting some users off the hook. I think it should always be possible to make the identification, but I do not equate that with having a user page tag on display. As long as we agree that the purpose is not as a badge of shame, and as long as it is still easy enough for editors to recognize that the ban exists, then I don't see it as special treatment. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, I guess the question is, are there any circumstances where the tag would be inappropriate? And if so, what are they? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

For one, apparently every ArbCom ban. But for CBANs, I want to logically break that down into (1) not necessary, and (2) inappropriate. So for (1), as long as there is already another way for editors to know, then it's never necessary. That really becomes a situation where the enacting admin makes a thoughtful determination when the tag is necessary. And when the admin has not made that determination, we come upon what I regard as (2), inappropriate. Inappropriate is when some random editor comes by and decides that they know better than the enacting admin did, or that the enacting admin made a mistake, and takes it upon themselves to place the tag, sometimes setting off the kind of protracted unpleasantness that happened with Roxy's page. (Nothing wrong with that editor going to the admin's talk page, and asking why the tag isn't there. Just with presuming unilaterally.) That's really the central issue for me. I just want to shut down random editors going around and doing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

But that's just it, ArbCom bans do have a tag, they're just hidden. Roxy had no tag at all. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll answer that below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Or we can just accept the fact the wikis work because random people go around and make edits in random places trying to uphold policy as best they can. One could after all just as easily inquire as to why, if the implementing sysop deliberately didn't tag someone, the sysop didn't revert the addition, and why busybodies are stepping in to do their job.

Compared to the number of cbans the number of tag edit wars is vanishingly small. Avoiding special treatment due purely to social relations (as opposed to bona fide exceptional circumstance) is an unsolved issue and one we should avoid exacerbating. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

For the vast majority of banned editors (everyone since the introduction of the block log, and anyone who was reblocked after that in order to create an entry in the log), it's noted in the block log. This is the definitive way to tell that a user is blocked and for what reason, since anyone could add or remove a template from a user's page. isaacl (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Right, but then there's no easy way to get a list of all banned users. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to your statement that it was impossible to tell determine who is or is not banned without something on the user page. Regarding having a list, it's true that it would require more work to generate a list through parsing the block log. It seems to me, though, that anyone who wants to research lists of banned users would need to see how they change over time, and so parsing the block log would be desirable to get a timeline view. isaacl (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point. I wonder if there's a mechanism to do that already? Hmm... -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:25, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

As long as we have a way of putting banned users in a user category (as we currently do for ArbCom bans), then the category page serves as such a list. And I find it a little strange that anyone would care about having such a list. The current wording of the policy is that the proper purpose is to make other editors aware that the particular editor is banned, but I'm not seeing the point of having a list to simply look up everyone who is banned. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Just to make that more concrete, here is a link to Category:Banned Wikipedia users. For anyone in search of such a list, I think that's it, and we already have it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but if there are some users for which we don't put the tag on their user page, they naturally won't show up in the category list. Like I said though, I have no problem with the ban notice being hidden. The list is useful to have a general idea of how many people are banned and how often, and for what reasons. There needs to be some way to track it, anyway. (and yes, curiosity is surely a part of it) -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:44, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we're arguing the same thing. I'm just pointing out that failing to tag a user page entirely means they don't show up in that category. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, first of all, curiosity is not a valid rationale. But there's another easy way to fix that problem, one that I fully support. It's easy to put any page on Wikipedia into a category, including a user page. One just puts the category in double brackets near the bottom of the page. One does not need a template, displaying or non-displaying, to accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Why would curiosity not be a valid rationale? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, if you're curious, my answer would be that someone can be curious if they want to be curious, but as a matter of policy, it's not much of a reason to say that we have to put something into policy in order to satisfy some editor's curiosity. And I'm trying to discourage editors from wanting to, in effect, rubberneck at a crash site. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Did anyone try to do that with Roxy's userpage first? -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Good question! No, they didn't, and I'm very sure there would never have been an edit war if that had happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

OK. Then while I'd prefer that the tag just be rendered invisible like ARBCOM bans are, I wouldn't see anything wrong if the policy were changed to state that every banned user should be added to the banned user category. Maybe something like: A notice of a ban should be placed on a banned user's talk page, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages, and every banned user's user page should be added to the banned user category, with an edit summary linking to the discussion or decision-making process resulting in the ban. Then the second paragraph can say "at the discretion of the admin..." or something similar. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 23:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I can definitely work with that. I'll note, though, that jc37 is discussing with me some concerns he has about that approach, at the template talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

His explanation of concerns is rather lacking since he just invoked WP:BEANS. Kind of hard to have any substantive discussion if someone does that. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I don't know that I disagree with the reasoning at the auditor so much as not understanding why it was invoked, this isn't really a privacy related thing. As a matter of logic, proving a for every tends to be much more difficult than proving a there exists which is why asking for counterexamples when a for every is challenged is fairly standard procedure. Now as it so happens I am aware of some untagged cban cases, although given the age and circumstances behind them, an independent observer is probably going to be inclined to place them in the exceptional circumstance group pathological couterexamples if you will.

I suppose if more than 5% of de jure cbans were untagged that would be compelling enough for me to revisit the presumption that the current policy reflects community practice and should be left alone, but agreeing on standards of evidence and non-moving goalposts seems likely to be more trouble than it's worth so maybe we should just drop it.

As a minor aside not only am I disinclined to tag any such accounts as would be offerred as counterexamples, I'm not even technically capable of doing so well baring transclusions of {{unlocked userpage}} anyway. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:43, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Let me ask of those editors who favor a displaying tag being used on all CBANS: would you be in favor of petitioning ArbCom to switch to displaying, from non-displaying, templates for their bans? If not, and for a reason other than just not wanting to go to the trouble, how do you reconcile your support for visibly tagging all bans, with not doing so for ArbCom bans? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I speak only for myself, but I don't really care if the arbs want to do their own thing. I don't really care whether or not it displays for cbans either, but we've been uniformly tagging all cbaned accounts for forever and only rarely has it caused consternation. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that I'm in the "always display" camp, but if other bans were "always display" then yes, I'd think arb bans should be the same (granting that there are some exceptional situations arbcom deals with which might require exceptions). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. I asked the question in order to see if editors could help me understand a logical reason that would support the need for tagging when the community bans, while equally supporting the need for invisibly tagging when ArbCom does it. And I'm not seeing it, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist. Not really caring what ArbCom does is, effectively, the same thing as just not wanting to go to the trouble of taking it up with ArbCom. And granting that there can be exceptions when ArbCom is justified seems to me to lead logically to needing to grant that there could be exceptions in community bans as well. The fact that ArbCom deals with complicated cases might mean that they would need to make exceptions more often than the community would, but it doesn't follow that the community must never make exceptions. And let's please remember that ArbCom does not treat it as exceptions: they never visibly tag, as a matter of ArbCom policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

In fact not really caring what the Arbitration Committee does with their tags is precisely that, even if I were ultimate supreme overlord of the wiki and could make them do whatever I wanted it's just not an issue that I care about.

My only, very slight, hesitancy with hiding these cban tags is essentially WP:FENCE based and that is being explored further below. Overall still fairly neutral on that one, but perhaps primarily because I view them as informational rather than badges of shame. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Is it worth revisiting the stated purpose to see if tags are actually the best way of achieving it? The purpose on this page is presented as to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. It's probably not terribly important to be able to see if a user is banned in, say, the article's interface or even the article history. It's important for users to know when they go to leave someone a message, but that's already handled by the block notice, right? I suppose it could help to provide context to past disputes or dissuade someone from pinging them? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Talk page messages can be blanked unless talk-page access is revoked, and even then are sometimes archived. The interface will nonetheless provide notice if you actually start to leave a message. The template provides categorization and could still do so even without visible display. Granted visible tags are more likely to catch the attention of someone inclined to ping, but then again we don't place similar notices for all indef-blocked users who are similarly unable to respond. I suppose in the past blocks logs were not invariably updated when an indef was converted to a cban, nor was the link to the discussion always provided but that's not a current issue.

As a historical matter Jimbo often initially announced bans on the mailing list so a custom written before there was a templatespace ban message on a userpage served as an on-wiki notification for those who were otherwise not aware. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I like the idea of revisiting the stated purpose, because going back to basics in that way can sometimes shake out some new ideas on how to solve the problem, so thanks for putting it that way. I also think it's possible to overthink this, so I'm going to say that, regardless of the multiple other ways editors can ascertain the existence of a CBAN, there is nothing so special about a template that is (1) displaying, and (2) on the user page, that it should be regarded as indispensable.

I'll also identify what, for me individually, is the basic reason for wanting to discuss these issues. It actually isn't about changing anything on the policy page about discretion or the lack thereof, or about admins versus Arb clerks or SPI clerks, or naming the template. For me, this is fundamentally about what I've referred to as random editors going around and adding the tag on their own initiative. If we consider just adding language about that to the status quo, that's something I'm happy to discuss. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to be to repetitious but this is becoming a bit fragmented maybe we should start a new section or something. Anyway random people doing things in service of policy is literally how wikis work. Either we should tag everyone uniformly the idea that exceptional circumstances exist is assumed that's why they are policies not hard-and-fast rules. We should tag no one. Or we should explicitly define when and when not to tag, but whatever the choice it should be applied uniformly. Further sysops are empowered to serve a technical role but do not have any special power over the content of pages which are the responsibility of the community as a whole, so restricting that class of edits to only those flagged with that usergroup when there's no technical need to do so is rather odd.

The most likely result of implementing a discretionary policy is that users with the right social connections and history (vested contributors) will be excluded, while everyone else will continue to be tagged uniformly, which can only serve to further the notion that the tag is intended as a badge of shame when it should not be viewed that way. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Picking up on the point about how wikis work, it's actually not true (despite all the sloganeering about "anyone can edit") that en-Wiki does things that way. We don't take the attitude that any editor who thinks it's a good idea to vandalize a page should be at liberty to do so. We set community norms about whether or not something is really a good idea. There's nothing wrong with examining here whether or not it's a good idea for random people to place the tag. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: As I said, in service of policy, which vandalism is obviously not. Given the lack of technical need, it's unclear why sysops are any more or less random than those in some other usergroup. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, in terms of "in service of policy". But for the same reasons that we give admins the block button without giving it to everyone else, we make a determination that admins can be trusted with various things-to-be-sensitive-to in respect to blocks, and non-admins have not been vetted for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a couple issues there. One is that it's rock-bottom policy that sysops have no special power over the content of pages which are instead governed by the community as a whole. Even if we set that not precisely minor issue aside, while sysops are elected to fulfill certain technical tasks assigned to their usergroup, they have not been specially vetted for the task under discussion, and could not have been since the written policy has been stable for quite some time. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

This is not a content issue. Just because something (in this case a template) gets put on a user page, that does not make it a content dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is a content issue (its rather odd to say that it isn't since the circumstances under which a specific template should be present on a userpage are precisely what's under discussion). The contents of userspace, or projectspace, or templatespace, are no less a community concern than the contents of mainspace, even if the community has chosen to govern them according to differrent policies and guidelines. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Continuing the original exploration of why we do this, over at the template talk page Xaosflux added that when conducting cross-project coordination these tags can save time compared to reading potentially unclear block log entries. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Completely arbitrary section break

Banned user templates, IMO, have a very narrow use: sockpuppets and maybe indef blocked accounts. For limited length blocks/bans, tagging editor user pages (even if such a tag merely adds a category) is a form of gravedancing. I question the wisdom of even having a blocking admin add them for situations outside of socks/indef'd accounts. The block log exists, and if there's some issue with the log (not enough detail/explanation) it's possible to edit/redo the block for the purpose of providing a more clear summary of why the block was made. If there's a compelling use for seeing a list of all blocked users (the categorization) I'm sure someone can figure out how to use Special:BlockList or scrape the results for a friendlier output. The user page does not need to be directly categorized to accomplish this. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: as I write this Category:Wikipedia users banned for a limited period is empty but for the testcases page. Temporary cbans were never common and now are extremely rare. Practically then such a change would have essentially no effect, which is not to say it isn't worth making and CFDing the limited period category. 74.73.224.126 (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to make the case that it is appropriate to tag the user page in some circumstances, such as those, but that there is no need to treat it as an automatic practice. And something has happened that I think is very significant to this discussion, so I want editors to know about it. The admin, El_C, who enacted the CBAN on Roxy, who closed the ban discussion and determined the consensus, has posted something about it at AN: [2]. The diff is a little messy because the admin also reverted the archiving bot, but you need to scroll down to the "Note from blocking admin".

To quote: As the blocking admin who closed the discussion and imposed the CBAN, I purposefully did not add the tag, because I didn't feel it was needed. Though, when I do tag, it's usually to the user talk rather than the user page (unless an LTA/Sock). I was away during this incident, or I'd have attended to it myself, with it likely not being added. Ultimately, I don't think it's really that important, but if Roxy the dog (←ping) feels strongly about it, I'd be inclined to do remove it. Generally, I usually had been using my own discretion for CBAN tags, but I ordinarily default to not adding them.

So editors need to hear that. Experienced admins frequently feel the way that admin does. The editors who have claimed in this discussion that user page tagging is normal procedure for CBANs and the exceptions are rare simply have their facts wrong as to current practice. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

An alternative approach

I've been thinking about an idea first proposed by Rockstone, and with which I agree, and I'd like to start discussion on it. I'm thinking about adding the sentence shown below, or something similar to it, to the section on user pages:

Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages. The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. When a visible template notice has not been posted on the user page, editors are strongly encouraged to consult with the blocking administrator before adding one.

This makes what I think is a constructive addition without really changing existing policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

In the near future, I'm planning to put this up for a widely-publicized RfC, unless there are objections. So if anyone has any concerns or any word-smithing, I'd be interested in knowing about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rockstone35: I appreciate your most recent comments here, and I'm hoping to find ways for editors with different views to find areas of agreement that we can build upon. Especially given that this approach was originally your idea, do you think that we might be able to work with something based on this? And do other editors here have comments about it? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Time has passed, and with some more distance from the events that started this discussion, I personally think that the edit I suggested just above is a good idea. I'm thinking about just going ahead and making that edit, and I'll say that here and see what reaction that gets. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting... no reaction! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, everyone's already expressed their viewpoints on the overall topic, so repeating them doesn't seem necessary. In my opinion, I don't see a consensus for your proposed change, but I appreciate it will make you more satisfied, even if it makes me mildly more dissatisfied. I'm not sure though if there is a net gain in satisfaction across all interested persons. isaacl (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I see exactly zero people, prior to you commenting just now, who have expressed a viewpoint on this specific proposed edit. And your comment is more a procedural one, than a substantive one. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already stated I prefer removing any visible notice entirely if there is a consensus about the notice being perceived negatively. isaacl (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, the proposed edit is just a milder version of what you advocate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a bit imprecise; I should have said "if there is a consensus that notices can be perceived negatively". I wasn't referring to the outcome of a discussion about a specific notice. I don't think it should be left up to the blocking administrator to decide to add a visible notice (again, as previously discussed, excluding the reasons for site-banning that have specific templates for them). The proposed edit gives more authority to the blocking administrator whereas I prefer less. However, if as you intend, it results in less discussion about it, that would be good (though I'm not convinced that will be the case). isaacl (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I guess I favor more of one specific type of discussion, which is that an editor consults with the blocking admin before acting unilaterally. And I see that as a way to lower the risk of the less desirable form of discussion, which is the kind of back and forth that happens when an editor acts unilaterally and thereby generates controversy. As I see it, this would be a good thing. I don't see it as giving the blocking admin some kind of extra authority. It's really just giving that admin the courtesy of being consulted. As written, the proposed edit does not even say that permission from the admin is required. It just says that there should be some discussion, but not that what the admin says is binding on the editor. And furthermore, it doesn't even say that consultation is required, just "strongly encouraged". I think the immediate effect of the proposed edit would be some useful dialog, with minimal inconvenience to anyone, and the maximal effect would be that someone who repeatedly makes a habit of tagging without ever discussing it might get scrutiny for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see this as an improvement. I would like to see less need to consult anyone and leave it more like a maintenance tag. Can be left by anyone and no big deal. PackMecEng (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Except that it obviously is a big deal. I said these things recently in talk, to assess whether or not there would still be pushback. Since there is, I won't presume to make the edit unilaterally, but I probably will start an RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, it's important to acknowledge that certain individuals can sometimes overreact to maintenance tags, but such reactions shouldn't be taken as representative of the majority opinion. While those instances might appear prominent, it's essential to remember that they don't necessarily reflect the prevailing sentiment. As I'm sure you've noticed, the prevailing sentiment here is quite the opposite, with most individuals disagreeing with your perspective. PackMecEng (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I've noticed that certain individuals overreact to any proposal to change anything in the ban and block policies. It's quite an odd phenomenon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool story, bro? I am not sure what you hope to accomplish with that remark but okay, that's nice. PackMecEng (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

In all seriousness, I could readily understand editors objecting if, hypothetically, there were a proposal that editors must get permission from the blocking admin before placing a tag, but that's not what is being contemplated here. Indeed, I'm using a construction that was, originally, the idea of another editor, who opposed most proposals for change, but who actually suggested this. So I have to ask myself, who would feel imposed upon by language that says that they are "strongly encouraged", but not required, to "consult with", but not get permission from, the blocking admin, before placing a tag? Who would feel like "I feel so strongly that I should be able to use it like a routine maintenance tag that I feel abused by even having a suggestion that I should be encouraged to find out what someone else thinks first"? If I try to envision such a person, that truly seems to me to be someone who is not only overreacting, but who should probably be reigned in from casually tagging. I cannot see how a reasonable editor would feel unfairly treated by this. And that's not me overreacting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I find myself somewhat at a loss here. Developing the ability to perceive situations from different vantage points could indeed prove to be a valuable asset for you in this context. Based on my observations of objections that extend beyond my own viewpoint, it's apparent that the proposed changes you're suggesting haven't garnered much support. In fact, it seems more like an insistence on change for the sake of change, rather than a pursuit of genuinely beneficial alterations. As I've been keeping track, you've contributed a total of 101 posts in this discussion so far, excluding the BANHAMMER discourse. Despite your substantial engagement, a consensus remains elusive. Maybe it's time to consider the suggestion to drop the stick, in order to facilitate a shift in focus and approach that could potentially lead to a more productive and agreeable outcome. PackMecEng (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's more of an attempt to "shame" me, than a substantive argument about the merits of the proposed edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact, my approach in this discussion to listening to those with different vantage points has been that I listened to an editor who disagreed with me, and saw the value in something that editor said, and that was the basis of the alternative idea that I have proposed here. Your approach has been to call me "bro". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That is because the proposed edit is without merit. Also if that is your only take away from this discussion and everyone else's input then I am afraid we are at an impasse here. PackMecEng (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As for everyone else's input, "bro" came from your input, not anyone else's. Other editors might wonder why I've continued to discuss this with you as long as I have. I've had a lot of experience developing proposals on Wikipedia, and one thing I've learned is that it's best not to rush into a proposal, whereas it's very useful to give those who disagree as much opportunity as possible to say what they think, because that way, I can learn what their arguments are and see how they reply to various arguments that I might make. It's not about convincing someone who is never going to agree with me, but rather, to get them to put all their cards on the table. So you've been very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Well how about that!

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Templating banned users. I decided it might be a good idea to check with ArbCom about whether, in fact, they do use a non-displaying template. At least based on the answer I got, what do you know, they don't! Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures#Enacting bans and editing restrictions, they use the same template that the community does, and it's displaying, and they seem to always use it. So whoever told me that they use a non-displaying template appears to have been wrong, and I want to treat my post here as me also striking through every place on this page where I repeated it. This is making me really reassess my previous position. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Same discussion, it now turns out that there's a parameter setting that does make it non-displaying. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Encountering edits

As written, the policy says that The purpose of this notice is to announce the ban to editors encountering the banned editor's edits. I think I can understand that as meaning edits that the user had made in the past. But, as written, it sounds like there is an expectation that the editor is going to continue making edits that other editors will consequently encounter. Since, by definition, there can be no such edits, that makes no sense. I suppose that this issue could be addressed by a simple edit, changing it to "the banned editor's past edits". But I feel like there needs to be a better-reasoned rationale, because this goes very much to the other things being discussed here. I can see reasonable rationales for specific things like keeping track of sock-farms or cross-project long-term abuse. But those are for specific cases. What exactly is it, that should be "announced"? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The purpose is when someone sees their work on an article or edits on talk pages in the past they know about the ban. It is not for edits that person may have going forward. It is to announce to someone going by that the person is banned. PackMecEng (talk) 00:59, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts regarding what I actually asked about. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Should copyright violations be a BANEX?

Should the BANEX #1 include obvious copyright violations (e.g. article content which is clearly copied verbatim from a non-free source) alongside vandalism (for severely damaging encyclopedic content) and BLP (due to libel laws and privacy protection), owing to the gravity of copyright infringement on Wikipedia? Obviously, this wouldn't apply to users subject to copyright-related topic bans, or to reporting copyright infringement through venues or tags which the user is banned from using. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Just tone down the template

It is baffling that some Banned Wikipedia users' user pages display an informative template, while others display nothing more up-to-date than the last info posted by the editor, such as {{Off and On WikiBreak}}, which generally does not describe the present situation.

I missed the above discussions, and confess that I have only scanned them quickly. Acknowledging WP:GRAVEDANCING, may I suggest that the text and links of {{Banned user}} be trimmed to something less wounding but still informative to other editors, e.g.

"This user is not currently contributing to English Wikipedia.

(block log • contributions • more info)"

In the second line, "more info" would link to the discussion that decided on the ban. This reduced banner would then be displayed in all cases, i.e. including ArbCom bans. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

First a small point of order: the community can't decide to change ArbCom ban templates only ArbCom can. I think on a more substantive manner, the question is what is our template attempting to do? If we can get some level of consensus about that (and given how contentious such things have been I think we may not be able to) then what the template should say seems like it should be straightforward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I guess I should note here that I have not forgotten about the various discussions above, and I'm aware of the need to try to find a way to more consensus. I have some ideas about working towards that, but I'm holding off until I get to a time in my off-site life when I know that I can be around for an extended amount of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Re "what is our template attempting to do": At present, the banner

(i) categorises the user as banned, or as banned by ArbCom if applicable; and

(ii) if not banned by ArbCom, presents information with links to find out more, but in a way that may inflame hurt feelings.

Under my proposal, (i) would continue without change, and (ii) would become universal (subject to ArbCom approval) and less inflammatory. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Note there has been recent discussion on this topic at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Ban notice. isaacl (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Barkeep49 - "First a small point of order: the community can't decide to change ArbCom ban templates only ArbCom can." - Arbcom is elected by the community, it's not "more equal" than the community. It merely is acting as the community's representatives to address certain behavioural issues. Arbcom exists as a service to the community, not the other way round.

But that aside, if the community decided to change any arbcom-related template, then that template would be changed. To suggest otherwise, is contrary to quite a bit of Wikipedia policy. - jc37 17:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I certainly agree that ArbCom exists to serve the community. And the work that the community has entrusted us is either ones the community can't handle under policy (normally for privacy reasons) or is work that the community has been unable to handle and there is a reason that ArbCom's actions, within scope - and enforcing decisions via template fall within scope in my opinion, are CONEXEMPT. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

This feels to me like it would fall under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, which makes it clear that the handling of certain types of bans is inside the remit of the committee. Templates used to handle those bans would be part of that. In point of fact, handling these type of appeals is a very large portion of what the committee does on a daily basis, it just mostly happens via the mailing list so the community is largely unaware of the sheer volume of it. In any event, I agree that changes to ArbCom templates should be an ArbCom decision, though nothing is stopping any member of the community from going ahead and directly asking the committee to consider their proposed changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Not anywhere that I see on either page.

Does it fall under Arbcom's remit to assess whether someone should be banned? Sure.

Does it fall under Arbcom's remit to vote to ban an editor? Sure.

But any editor can boldly notify the community about an Arbcom action. And that's all that the bannning template is - a type of notification. (And of course, just like anything else, the interdependence of WP:BOLD and WP:CON applies.)

If WP:Oversight is involved, that's another thing.

But a generic notification template that isn't even specific to the editor in question? No, there's nothing "arbcom special" about that. - jc37 07:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Generally, ArbCom blocks and banned are handled, in every aspect, by the committee and/or the clerks. I'm not sure why you would think that is not the case, or should not be the case. Every time the committee blocks or bans a user, it is either the result of an arbitration case, or is based on private evidence. It manifestly is ArbCom business. What I'm getting at here, and I think maybe Barkeep is as well, is that the committee should not be dragged into the debate about whether to add banning templates, in the case of arbcom blocks it obviously should be an arbcom decision. On the larger issue, we clearly do need a rule of some kind, either we tag them all, or we don't tag any of them. The lack of clear guidance has been the cause of endless bickering. I don't think that is the case when it comes to ArbCom bans, so this really is not the central issue here. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

My response doesn't have anything to do with "the debate above", it was about Barkeep's "point of order".

And there is a difference between determining an action, and then taking that action, and then notifying about that action.

The arbitration committee may determine the action (an ban).

Technically, any admin could enact that action (by pushing the block button), though usually it's done by an Arbcom member "for the committee", since (most) arbcom members are also admins.

Anyone can notify the community about the action. Are you suggesting that I need Arbcom permission to post to the WP:AN about one of their decisions? To an editor's talk page? Of course not.

Have we created some nice noticeboards to help with that notification? Sure. Do we have templates that help with that notification? sure.

But there is no reason that the Arbitration committe suddenly trumps the community on how acts by arbcom are notified. That's quite a bit beyond "assessing editor behaviour". If there was an community RFC tomorrow on how to notify editors about a bannned editor, and it included about template usage, there is no way that CONEXEMPT would apply to that. - jc37 18:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you need permission from thre committee to discuss an arbitration action? Of course not. Nobody is arguing that.

What is odd is the idea that anyone not on the committee or the clerks team would be the one to place a block or ban notice on behalf of the committee. It just doesn't make sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

We're a wiki. Anyone can step up to help. If you were to close an XfD discussion wearing your admin hat, and for whatever reason didn't implement your close, someone else could come along and help out.

All that said, I'm not adverse to the idea of setting a guideline that only admins (those who arbcom typically delegates or defers actions to) should be the only ones to tag an arbcom banned editor. But that would require a discussion - which is what I think is happening here.

And whatever the text is of that template can be edited per the normal processes. We're a wiki.

And arbcom is ceded its authority by the community, who still retains full authority to recind, modify, or change, any part of that ceded authority. - jc37 21:44, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The community is ultimately sovereign, but the community can't just rescind, modify, or change that authority outside of the process it has designated for such changes without ArbCom agreement. That's what the community has decided. And as it stands now, the work that the community has entrusted us is either ones the community can't handle under policy (normally for privacy reasons) or is work that the community has been unable to handle and there is a reason that ArbCom's actions, within scope - and enforcing decisions via template fall within scope in my opinion, are CONEXEMPT. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Placing a template (or any notification) is not "enforcement". It is notification of "something". There's a difference between determining to ban someone, pressing the block button to implement that decision, and notifying about that decision and/or action. Undoing an arbcom-placed block may potentially come under CONEXEMPT, but placing or undoing a notification? No. Not that I see. - jc37 01:15, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a HWID ban possible

I think this could help with long-term sockpuppets, not sure if this the place to suggest though. Have a good day! Sebbers1010292929 (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

"Total" ban

@Bbb23, you explained this revert by saying "not an improvement." I believe it is an improvement because (a) "total" is used in WP:BLOCK and (b) an newbie editor who encounters the phrase "total ban" elsewhere and then goes looking for the definition at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF won't be left to wonder whether they've found the answer. Does that explanation change your mind? If not, why not? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 17:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

My take on it is that we do say "full ban", and there are diminishing returns to explaining that "full" and "total" are the same thing, which is self-evident. I looked through WP:BLOCK, and I didn't see where it is used. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"Total ban" is at the end of the lede (". . . bans may be enforced by blocks; users who are subject to a total ban, or who breach the terms of a partial ban, will most likely be site-wide blocked to enforce the ban.") Perhaps we should change "total" to "full" there. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Oh, now I see, thanks. I could see changing "total ban" to "site ban" there. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I left a note at WT:BLOCK: [3]. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

• It shouldn't be changed to "site ban". Site ban is a term of art, whereas "total ban" is not and is not being used that way. It's just being used colloquially to distinguish it from a partial ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

  Well then, should it be changed to "full ban," to match the colloquial phrase used here? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

• Gonna be honest, "site ban" is better than "total ban" because the latter is likely to be confused with "global ban". I'd suggest the hierarchy be partial ban --> site ban --> global ban. Risker (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add sandbox to the para for "TBAN"

The para on TBAN says the person with TBAN isn't supposed to edit articles related to a particular topic. However, the decision involving me suggests that even sandbox edits related to the topic is considered a TBAN violation. Therefore, I request to specify clearly on the said para of Project Page that sandbox editing is also covered under TBAN. Dympies (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The section very clearly says that "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic". Galobtter (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

But sandbox is generally considered a practice ground and hardly any other editor visits it. Dympies (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I could see adding a bit of language to indicate that it also applies in user space (which of course includes an editor's sandbox). From time to time, there have been issues when somebody violates a TBAN on their talk page, and perhaps it's worth clarifying this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING - can indeffed users ask other users to copy paste an XFD !vote?

Can indeffed users ask other users to copy paste an XFD !vote? Can indeffed users ask other users to fix a typo? If not, can we reword WP:PROXYING in a way that this can't be wikilawyered? Thanks.

Context: User talk:Sennalen#MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Prefer truth, User talk:Sennalen#Typo –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The other would have to have a "independent reasons for making such edits" which doesn't seem possible in this context. There are valid independent reasons for making changes to content, there are none for adding an ineligible editor's comment to a XFD. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what revision, specifically, would be needed. I think the proxying section is pretty clear about this. Reviewing what happened with the XFD, there seems to be a consensus that posting the requested comment was not permitted. As for fixing a typo, there is room for another editor taking over responsibility for a noncontroversial fix, but when a banned editor keeps making such requests, that should generally be stopped. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:PROXYING currently only aims explicitly at editors executing requests by blocked or banned users, but not at the blocked or banned users making such requests. It follows common sense that when a banned editor keeps making such requests, that should generally be stopped, but can't we codify this in some way (without WP:CREEP) to avoid wikilawyering? Either here or at WP:TPA. –Austronesier (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Three times ban?

Does the three time ban happen if the sockpuppeteer abused accounts for 3 years? I have seen it on revisions after a sockpuppeteer was tagged as banned 3 years after being tagged. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

An example is here, here and here. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 18:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:BANNOTICE apply to topic bans?

WP:BANNOTICE states Banned editors' user and user talk pages should be updated with a notice of the ban, linking to any applicable discussion or decision-making pages.

Does WP:BANNOTICE apply to topic bans? Seems to by a strict reading of this page, but I've never seen this enforced. Just want to double check. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• We use the same term "banned" for both, but they are very different things. One of the traditional problems with topic bans is that there isn't a template that tells other users that they are not supposed to be participating, and enforcement depends on people simply remembering. The flip side would be, do we want to force a Scarlet Letter on someone's user page saying they can't edit in XYZ topic? Current practice (which dictates policy) is no, and we only tag individuals that are site banned. The implementation of partial blocks solved a few of these cases, btw, but not most topic/interaction banned situations. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Semantic markup

@Tryptofish: the HTML is Semantic HTML. '''...''' is the wikitext version of <b>...</b>, which is not meant for empahsis (even though countless editors use it for emphasis...). Likewise for italics: from MOS:EMPH, The most accessible way to indicate emphasis is with the HTML <em>...</em> element or by enclosing the emphasized text within an {{em|...}} template. Italics markup (''...'', or <i>...</i>) is often used in practice for emphasis, but this use is not semantically correct markup, so emphasis markup is preferred. There is recent discussion on this matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Strong tags. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about this: [4]. I don't know whether that discussion at a MOS talk page really represents community consensus, but it certainly does not match my day-to-day experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:EMPH indicates that we should use <em>...</em> for emphasis over '''...''', and MOS:BOLD says that in the rare cases bolding is used as emphasis we should use <strong>...</strong>. With all due respect, I don't believe day-to-day experience trumps accessibility concerns. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:16, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I can't tell from the MOS discussion whether there are really accessibility concerns or not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I realize it is a fairly dense thread :) From SMcCandlish,

Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time. What's never going to be helpful is using ''...'' (equals <i>...</i>), or '''...''' (equals <b>...</b>) where semantic emphasis is intended, because that is purely visual formatting with no semantic implications (e.g. italics around foreign terms or book titles, or boldface to mimic the bold keyword in a directly quoted definition that was boldfaced that way in the original source). Screen readers will ignore that non-semantic markup on purpose and are never going to change in that regard.

Screen readers and other assistive tech need to distinguish between semantic emphasis and presentation. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I just commented there, that there should be community buy-in or there will be a lot of pushback resembling the revert that I made. The first step in getting buy-in is for the community to understand the need for a change, if indeed such a need even exists. And I have to admit that I, for one, still do not understand. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the scope of this campaign? Is every use of wikitext going to be replaced with "correct" html? On all pages? Johnuniq (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

If the wikitext is correct, then I have no plans to touch it. If I come across incorrect wikitext, I try to correct it (the same way one might correct a typo).

I think "campaign" is the wrong word to use: I am not going around and looking for changes to make. In this case, while reading the page for an unrelated reason, the underline of this exception <u>does not</u> allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards caught my eye: <u>...</u> is for things like seplling errors, not for emphasis. While I was making that edit, I also fixed other markup to semantically meaningful. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:24, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't doubt the good intentions of this, but I have real concerns. One of the things you changed in that edit was an anchor for a section, doing away with using Template:Anchor for that purpose. I've always thought that anchors were for where something was linked to, from somewhere else. Unless I'm missing something, that has nothing to do with accessibility, nothing to do with screen readers. It's just some editors' personal opinion of what the "correct" markup should be. Has that template been brought up at WP:TfD? If there are real issues having to do with accessibility, if there are real reasons to do emphasis one way and not another, then there is a process of addressing that community-wide, but a small discussion at a MOS subpage talk page isn't that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The anchor template was substituted per its documentation: see Template:Anchor#Rationale for substitution in the header. That is not an accessibility issue; I sincerely apologize for implying otherwise. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. [5]. But my other concerns remain. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rereading this, I think I should clarify that the recent discussion is not the impetus of the change. MOS:EMPH has said we should use <em>...</em> (and not use ''...'') for emphasis since 2011. I opened that thread at the MOS talk page to make sure I understood the current guidelines, not to change them. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:16, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, but frankly, I'm shocked that MOS has said this since 2011, since the number of editors who follow that guidance can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. (I don't think it's an expectation at Featured Articles, for example.) I'm pretty sure that if this were put to a community-wide discussion, a lot of other editors would feel the same way that I do. (And I'm sorely tempted to do just that.) For that matter, it's also shocking that, for all these years, the WMF markup for the editing window has never been made congruent with what MOS says there. Perhaps MOS has become a sort-of walled garden where most editors only look when something (like this) draws their attention, but that's a discussion for another talk page, not here. It also makes me wonder how big an issue it really is for accessibility, since it seems to have attracted little notice. Please understand, I'm coming at this from a perspective of wanting to be friendly to accessibility issues, but there is so much about this that is so bizarre. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

You are obviously coming in good faith (and I am sincerely glad we can both recognize that). Though I would say "WMF has not added it to the toolbar" is hardly anything surprising (as just two examples, WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU and graphs still disabled). I would welcome an RfC at WT:MOSTEXT. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I want to confirm that I also see all of this as good faith. I don't know if I will do anything like an RfC (or maybe a more general discussion), but if I do, it will more likely be someplace like the Village Pump, definitely not at a MOS talkpage. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there any chance of a direct answer to the spirit of my question. Let's say there are six million articles and uncountable other pages. How many of them are likely to use apostrophes for wikitext and fit the above "incorrect wikitext, I try to correct"? What is the status of Help:Wikitext#Format? Johnuniq (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

In articles, apostrophes are correct the vast majority of the time. <em>...</em> and <strong>...</strong> are for emphasis, not formatting. At MOS:TEXT, there are numerous reasons to use bold/italics; all of them except emphasis should use apostrophes. How many pages will be impacted? Not many in mainspace (when was the last time you saw emphasis used in mainspace? I can't recall the last time I encountered it...), none in the various talk spaces (except for possibly in banners), none in userspace. So, the direct answer: I don't know, but mostly in the project/help/template namespaces. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel like this doesn't add up. I thought this was about accessibility, for people who use screen readers. But now, I'm hearing that we have to distinguish between formatting, and formatting for emphasis. Are people who use screen readers confused when, in the context of a policy page (not a mainspace page), the screen reader tells them that some text has been formatted in italics or bold, but does not tell them whether or not the intention of the formatting was to provide emphasis? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Using semantic markup has been part of the HTML standards from the beginning, so this isn't new guidance. Generally, though, most people don't think about the labelling their words semantically when writing. Instead they consider how they want their words to look. Some semantics are clear: text editors will have a list button, as users know what that will look like. They have italic and bold buttons instead of emphasis and strong emphasis, though, as it's not apparent what visual effect that might have. For that matter, the semantic difference between the two is fuzzy as well. This fuzziness contributes to the difficulty in implementing a standard handling mechanism by screen readers. Some people have suggested that the screen reader voice could provide additional emphasis on elements marked up as having emphasis or strong emphasis. A lot of use of bold text on the web, though, is more about creating guideposts in text passages to help readers navigate to what they are looking for, and it might not be suitable for these passages to be read with emphasis. Having editors provide easy options for italic and bold is probably a better choice in the overall scheme, to avoid imparting misleading semantics by default.

A side note on what screen readers do in practice: as I understand it, some provide an option to announce when an emphasis or strong emphasis tag is present (I believe it could be a verbal announcement, some kind of sound, or an alternate voice), more intended for proofreading when editing than regular reading. They don't provide support for a emphasis voice intonation (which to work well would probably need some type of AI-based program to take into account the surrounding context).

My personal advice would be two-fold: first, we should look for other ways beyond marking phrases in bold to help readers navigate through text. Perhaps more nutshell summaries should be provided at the start of sections. (This wouldn't be appropriate in articles, but as mentioned by HouseBlaster, this type of guidepost technique isn't used in articles.) Second, given that even on Wikipedia guidance pages, emphasis semantics is not really critical to communicating the ideas being presented, I would focus on very specific situations. Perhaps on a given page, just one phrase in the overall nutshell summary ought to be marked as having emphasis. isaacl (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

To repeat: Are people who use screen readers confused when, in the context of a policy page (not a mainspace page), the screen reader tells them that some text has been formatted in italics or bold, but does not tell them whether or not the intention of the formatting was to provide emphasis? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're repeating your question to me; I did read it after you posted it moments ago and don't have any insight into reader confusion. I will note, though, that as I understand it, screen reader users don't generally browse web pages using the proofreader mode enabled where elements get announced, as it results in too many extraneous announcements. isaacl (talk) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be testy, sorry, but I think my question gets to the heart of what this talk section is trying to resolve: whether this policy page should be formatted one way, or the other. But I think you actually just provided some information that helps to answer the question. If the typical Wikipedia user who reads this policy page using a screen reader for accessibility is likely (at least most of the time) to do so with the screen reader set to a mode that does not distinguish between fonts that we format using multiple apostrophes, and fonts that we format with HTML markup, then this isn't a real accessibility issue. I'm inclined to think that the edit to this policy page should be reverted back to what it was before (except for that anchor).

I'm also starting to realize that this as-yet unchallenged 2011 edit to an obscure corner of MOS should also be reverted: [6]. It uses, as an illustrative example, some text that is clearly supposed to look like part of a mainspace article ("Gellner accepts that knowledge must be..."). Yet we are being told here that there are no plans to make changes of that sort throughout mainspace problems in mainspace are rare. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC) Revised. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say I have no plans to touch mainspace. I said Not many in mainspace (ironically, emphasis added). Emphasis in general is not used throughout mainspace, but on those rare occasions it is used it should be with <em>...</em> or (in extraordinary circumstances) <strong>...</strong>. (In the example at the MOS page, semantic markup is correct.)

Additionally, respectfully but strongly object to the idea that if most screen readers ignore these tags that means it is not an accessibility issue. Most people don't need a screen reader, but that doesn't mean we can ignore the needs of those who do. Again, I would welcome an RfC on the subject. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying to ignore this particular issue, but that there are practical difficulties in dealing with it, and that there is a better benefit-cost ratio for resolving other accessibility problems. Not having certain phrases marked up as being emphasized is mostly not a significant loss in communication; it's a progressive enhancement for those who can make use of it. In articles, given the broad spectrum of reader cultural backgrounds, I think recasting the sentence to avoid emphasis would be clearer. isaacl (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If I understand correctly, this isn't a matter of some screen readers paying attention to the tags and others ignoring them. It's that readers who use them are unlikely to be using them on policy pages in proofreader mode, and so the only reason to change policy pages as you have done is to accommodate those few readers who do read the policy page in proofreader mode. And (I think) those few readers who do use proofreader mode will still know when there is italic or bold font, but they will just not be told by the software whether that font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. When sighted readers (like me) read policy pages, we see italic and bold fonts, but nothing tells us (unless we go into the edit window and are aware of the distinctions being made in this discussion), whether the font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. Of course, most of us easily infer what the purpose of the font was, assuming we even care. And I suspect that readers who use screen readers are just as able to infer purpose from the context. So what's the accessibility issue? What will confuse people who use screen readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Based on my understanding, announcing the emphasis elements has been tried by at least one screen reader and disliked by its users, and thus it isn't a default behaviour for that implementation. I mentioned what I've seen about proofreader mode in JAWS because it is a workaround to still get these elements announced, but it's intended to let people check that they wrote their markup correctly, so they're willing to put up with additional verbosity. (I believe the specific element is announced, since that's key to knowing if the markup is correct.) isaacl (talk) 00:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this additional information provides even more reason to conclude that there is not a legitimate accessibility issue here the accessibility issue here is not substantive enough to justify changing the markup on this policy page, and maybe not substantive enough to justify changes elsewhere. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC) --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I felt it helped illuminate the relevance of the question too, so I was surprised you repeated it. I do think semantic markup of this type is ideal, but given the practical difficulties in achieving it or making use of it, I feel the benefit-cost ratio is low. I'm mostly ambivalent about the original edit that initiated this discussion; either way doesn't bother me too much (other than the underlining, which traditionally is taught as a typewriter-equivalent to italics before italic fonts became readily available to everyone, but I get that not everyone has that reaction).

Regarding the manual of style diff, as it's in alignment with the techniques described in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, I can't object too much to it. But as I mentioned, personally I suggest focusing on specific, targeted instances, and off-hand I can't really think of something that really benefits from this in an article. (Taking that sample fragment as an example, I think I'd rewrite it to try to convey the same connotation in a different way.) isaacl (talk) 23:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you about the cost-benefit. And my comment about the MOS diff was more of a rhetorical point, than a proposal to actually revert it, especially since this isn't the page to decide that. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to do anything too hastily, so I'll just post here that I think that any changes to policy pages are expected to have consensus if they are disputed, and I'm still waiting to see if anyone wishes to rebut the most recent arguments made in this discussion. Absent such a rebuttal, I think it will be appropriate at some point to undo the formatting changes. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me try again: The HTML spec says <b>...</b> (which is the HTML produced by '''...''') is not for emphasis. That is what <em>...</em> and <strong>...</strong> are meant to do. There are plenty of sources which explain why using semantically appropriate HTML is an accessibility concern (see, e.g. [7][8][9]). I am not sure why a change for accessibility needs to be considered substantive enough to be worthwhile. If you argument is that MOS:TEXT is incorrect, that is an argument you can make at a RfC. I am reminded of File:Diagram of IGNORE.svg: if the rules are wrong, the solution is to change the rules, not ignore them. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe you could summarize how those "plenty of sources" rebut what I said above? I said: If I understand correctly, this isn't a matter of some screen readers paying attention to the tags and others ignoring them. It's that readers who use them are unlikely to be using them on policy pages in proofreader mode, and so the only reason to change policy pages as you have done is to accommodate those few readers who do read the policy page in proofreader mode. And (I think) those few readers who do use proofreader mode will still know when there is italic or bold font, but they will just not be told by the software whether that font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. When sighted readers (like me) read policy pages, we see italic and bold fonts, but nothing tells us (unless we go into the edit window and are aware of the distinctions being made in this discussion), whether the font selection was made for the purpose of emphasis, or for some other purpose. Of course, most of us easily infer what the purpose of the font was, assuming we even care. And I suspect that readers who use screen readers are just as able to infer purpose from the context. So what's the accessibility issue? What will confuse people who use screen readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

PS: I've done a quick read of the three sources you linked to, but I'm not an expert on the subject. I think I'm reading that "semantic markup" is a good thing, because, for example, it's better to label a button for people to click on as a <button>. I'm not understanding how that refutes what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

It is the same logic as the button example: just as it is better to label a button a button, it is better to label emphasis as emphasis. Using apostrophes will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken". An analogy would be a GA: a GA is not a "bad" article, but that doesn't mean a FA isn't a "better" article. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, and it seems to me that this is, indeed, what it boils down to. I referred below to ipse dixit assertions, and I think that's what "it's better" amounts to in this instance. I can agree that, in a sort of general, almost philosophical, way, it is kind-of "better". But I think we have gotten some progress towards consensus by you agreeing that the older formatting won't confuse anybody, and wasn't literally "broken". And it seems to me, per what I said above, that we aren't so much dealing with a matter of accessibility for persons with disabilities, as we are with something that is kind-of "better" in the way that it can announce the purpose of some formatting as being about emphasis when users of screen reader software enable a particular software mode. But it isn't really something that we need to do, to prevent readers from becoming confused, any more than we need a way to tell sighted readers why some text is formatted the way that it was. So it seems to me that it's misleading to call this an accessibility issue. It's more an issue of the most "elegant" way to markup online text.

And when we're in that context, it's fair to consider what is convenient for most Wikipedia editors, and what is most familiar to most Wikipedia editors, and the fact that WMF still gives us software where the multiple-apostrophe markup is the default. If we're not really doing this to accommodate readers with disabilities, then we can reasonably consider how best to accommodate most editors here, who routinely markup text the way we routinely do. And that's where I'm coming from. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Where we disagree is that about whether it is an accessibility issue here. Emphasis should use emphasis markup, because semantic markup is more accessible. MOS:TEXT currently says we should use <em>...</em> (and <strong>...</strong>) when we want to emphasize things. If you wish to revert the change to this page, I think the most appropriate thing would be to propose a change to MOS:TEXT. (C.f. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that it will not confuse anyone, put differently, it is not "broken", while at the same time you are saying that it is an accessibility issue because semantic markup is more accessible. Please explain to me why non-semantic markup is less accessible, even though it will not confuse anyone. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, this line of discussion is something that is better suited to a RfC than this talk page. That being said, it will not confuse anyone because <b>...</b> and <i>...</i> are presentational markup—it is no more confusing than just not emphasizing anything at all. That being said, to communicate emphasis, semantic markup should be used. To quote SMcCandlish (part of which I included in my third post in this thread): Whether screen readers right this second support this semantic markup very well is immaterial; it [semantic markup] exists and is well-defined as serving this semantic purpose, and support will get better over time. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:55, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Either it's an accessibility issue or it isn't. Clearly, you are advocating treating it as such an issue, not because anyone will be confused, but purely on an ipse dixit basis, because semantic markup should be used or because another editor said that it's immaterial whether or not it affects readers. You keep acting like the burden is on me to open an RfC at MOS, but I could just as well demand that you get consensus to change Help:Wikitext#Format, as another editor pointed to earlier in this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TEXT is a guideline, Help:Wikitext is not. Most of the time presentational markup is what should be used, which is why Help:Wikitext recommends what it does. With all due respect, I have explained how semantic markup is beneficial: it makes it easier for machines to process information, which is the cornerstone of accessibility software. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying stuff like "with all due respect". I'm not trying to upset you, really, but I'm just insisting on logical thinking, not ipse dixit commandments, and I'm taking your replies to me as they come. I really don't want to have an edit war on a policy page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Whether to use formatting or not

Here is my feedback on each change:

• When the word "page" is used in a ban, it means any page on Wikipedia, including for example user, talk, discussion, file, category or template pages. Bold weight feels unnecessarily loud. I suggest re-writing it to "When a ban refers to a page, this includes any Wikipedia page, across all namespaces."
• Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. Strong emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing bold weight.
• If someone is banned from the Wikipedia namespace, administrative boards, or is under a similar restriction, this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to administrative noticeboards. Underlining is not recommended by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § How not to apply emphasis, and again emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the underline.
• Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee can appeal ... The styling is presentational, with the bold text indicating a type of inline heading. The italic setting for "by the Arbitration Committee" isn't really necessary, but could be considered to be additional presentational markup to help separate the text from the rest of the heading. I suggest leaving this as italic markup.
• The measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good. This one is not presentational. Personally I would remove the italic markup as I wouldn't give it additional emphasis, but I can see the argument for using emphasis markup.
• This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor... Emphasis feels like an unnecessary intensifier. I suggest removing the italic markup.
• Editors in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned or blocked editor... Italic markup seems unnecessary. I suggest removing it.
• Editors who are banned from specific pages or topics must immediately cease editing these pages or topics. If they do not, then a block will be used to enforce the ban. "Then" is extraneous and could be removed. However it might be better to recast with something like "Failing to do so can result in being blocked to enforce the ban."
• Such a block will necessarily prevent their editing of the entire site, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community. Italic markup seems unnecessary. With the advent of partial blocks, I suggest recasting to "A full block will prevent banned editors from editing the entire site beyond their user talk page, but they are not banned from the site and remain members of the community."
• It is unacceptable to take advantage of banned editors,... Though personally I wouldn't give this additional emphasis, I can see an argument for it and thus using strong markup.

isaacl (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that one of the changes was actually of something that was presentational, rather than for emphasis. It seems to me that, while switching many of these to plain text might be a good way to resolve the dispute, there are really two separate questions. The question that has been at hand throughout the discussion is whether or not to use the multiple-apostrophe markup when non-plain text is intended. The second question, whether we need non-plain text at all, is really a separate question, and I suppose that in each instance an editor had a reason for the formatting when it was originally added. (I know you realize that already, and that's why you presented the list in talk.) I'm hoping to get a clear resolution to the original question, beyond just ipse dixit assertions, and I'm still waiting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The general question is broader than this page, and stirs up a lot of passionate debate amongst some, so to try to reach a compromise on what should be done with this page in the meantime, I examined each case to see when emphasis might be warranted, and only found two. Editors often think "this seems important; it should be set with some kind of emphasis", but as you alluded to, just because that's how it currently is doesn't mean that's actually the most effective way. Within plain prose, bold weight has a shouting connotation to many, which can be unpleasant to read. I think italics are often used by editors to mimic a speaking stress, but that can be overused, and can be difficult for non-native English speakers to interpret. isaacl (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, I did not change the bolding of Editors who are blocked from editing by the Arbitration Committee (in other words, I did not change anything that was presentational to use emphasis markup). I purposefully left it as '''...''' because it is presentational. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

In this edit, you changed the markup for the italic setting to emphasis, and my comments were about that portion of the text. isaacl (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I see that as emphasis (i.e. this avenue of appeal is only open to editors blocked by ArbCom). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:24, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The bold phrases are essentially inline headings describing categories of users. There's no parallelism between the two headings that would warrant emphasizing part of one. Emphasis can come across as speaking louder and it's somewhat strained to be louder at the end of the heading. Thus I do not feel that emphasis is appropriate. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There's another change, not listed above. It's in a footnote in the WP:BANEX section. The relevant part of the text is this exception does not allow for reporting vandalism to, where "does not" is underlined. The markup for underlining there seems to me to be particularly wonky, and I don't think there's a compelling reason for underlining instead of italics or bold. Maybe we could change that to either italics or bold? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I discussed this change. I suggested just removing the underline. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Woops. I see it now. In this case, I think some sort of emphasis serves a good purpose. But the "new" formatting for underline is awful looking, when viewed in the edit window. If we could just change it to some sort of emphasis, that won't change the meaning of the policy page, and with that, the remaining changes that are contested are not overly confusing to editors looking in the edit window. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, when I hear the different forms of emphasis in my mind and compare them to a normal reading of the sentence, I feel the regular reading is the most natural and fully conveys the intent of the sentence. Typographic changes are best used in a sparing manner. I appreciate, of course, that you and others may have a different view. We both agree that underlining is not a best practice for this sentence. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I changed it: [10]. With that, the overall cumulative changes to the policy page are this: [11]. As that stands, while I personally am not particularly happy about it, I also don't think it's that big a deal. There's nothing that will seriously (and, yeah, I wrote ''seriously'') confuse editors who edit the page and are accustomed to the multiple-apostrophe markup. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't really like changing it to bold. To me, bold is being loud, and thus I wince when reading that sentence. Emphasis markup would be less jarring. isaacl (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

At this point, I wince when I read this discussion. If everyone is a little bit unhappy, maybe that's good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I passed that point long ago, which is why I tried to find some compromise for this page. :) If someone wants to address the broader issue somewhere else, more power to them. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

If we aren't all unhappy, it ain't a compromise :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no interest in starting a broader discussion elsewhere. Again, [12] is the cumulative total of what has changed. If anyone wants to come along and revert most of it back, I won't object, but I'm personally not going to do it. The one broader comment I want to make here is that editors who want to make these kinds of changes on policy pages would be well advised to bring it up in talk before jumping in and doing it, no matter how certain you are that it is The Right Thing To Do^TM. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for necroing this, but I saw it at RFA today, and I don't really want to comment negatively in the RFA. But converting a bunch of concise code to verbose code seems questionable to me. A search for <strong> in MOS:ACCESS reveals no results prescribing that we must do it this way, suggesting that these types of changes do not have consensus yet. Seems also to run afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT. I think it would be wise for wikignomes to not start mass converting these yet until a stronger consensus is formed. These types of changes have a history of controversy even when they have consensus, for example MalnadachBot's HTML linting task. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

You're right that it isn't in MOS:ACCESS; I hadn't realized that before. The part of MOS where it does appear is MOS:EMPHASIS. The case for it being an accessibility issue is fairly weak. Screen readers used in their normal mode of operation cannot tell the difference. The only way it comes into play for screen readers is when they are used in "proofreader mode", and I'm not even sure if that's really an accessibility issue. This seems to arise from some editors believing that, in HTML, it's more elegant or correct to code that way. In the discussion above, I was pointed to some sources that, primarily, are making the argument that display items, such as a clickable button, should be coded with HTML tags such as <button>, rather than in other ways, which makes sense, but the argument made for text emphasis at MOS:EMPHASIS (about the standard markup provided by the WMF software edit window being "semantically incorrect") strikes me as something that is likely not to have widespread community consensus. As for whether that part of MOS should be changed, that's a discussion for there, not here. Personally, I would be in favor of changing it, but it's a discussion I have little appetite to start. As for the issue here, I've already said that I would have no objection if someone wants to revert this policy page back to where it was before the changes, but I also have little appetite for reverting it myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Are "site bans", "CBANs", and "indefinitely blocked by the community" all the same thing?

Drbogdan was recently blocked, and the closer stated the community's consensus is that Drbogdan is blocked indefinitely. Is this the same thing as a CBAN? Is this the same thing as a site ban? This policy intermixes the terms a bit so I would like to get clarification, and possibly edit the policy to be clearer about this. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Banning policy § Community bans and restrictions, a community ban is a sanction agreed upon by the consensus of the community (thus covers any type of editing restriction). Editors indefinitely blocked by community consensus are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". Some editors have argued for a distinction between being indefinitely blocked and a site ban; others (including me) feel that an indefinite block is just the technical means used to enforce a site ban. There is no operational difference between a consensus finding of "site ban" or "indefinite block" with respect to appeal, but it may affect how editors choose to deal with the sanctioned editor's previous edits, or user talk page edits. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I think community-imposed sanctions should be appealed to the community, regardless of what we call them. I think that's mostly what WP:CBAN and WP:UNBAN are about, as well as making sure enough time is taken on serious matters. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I was part of the uncertainty at the thread at Drbogdan's talk page that prompted Novem Linguae to raise the question here. Actually on checking this policy it's quite clear it is a CBAN as it says Editors who are indefinitely blocked by community consensus, or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community, are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". It's even clearer when you look at the RfC that's the citation to those words which seems to address this specific point. DeCausa (talk) 08:15, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Basically CBAN is the who, site ban is the what, and the indef is the how. Someone who thoroughly fucks up is "banned from editing Wikipedia, by the community, enforced with an indefinite block". The first part is often left implicit but, even though the RfC DeCausa mentioned stopped people wikilawyering on that point, I still think it's good practice to always include the word "ban" when closing such threads. – Joe (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

On that last point, see the comment here from Ivanvector (the blocking admin for Drbogdan which prompted this). DeCausa (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

My overall sense was that an indef block is basically like handing down a life sentence/whole-life tariff while a ban is like giving someone 500 years in prison— there’s no practical difference, it’s just that one is a straightforward description and the other is more a symbolic “insult to injury”; either way they’re in jail forever (literally or metaphorically). Personally I’d like to do away with “banning” people because it’s confusing to newcomers and feels like punishment, not prevention (see the aforementioned comparison) Dronebogus (talk) 05:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Neither is necessarily a "life sentence". "Indefinite" is not necessarily "permanent", and some editors who were previously community banned have successfully returned to editing after they figured out what they did wrong and convinced the community it would not happen again (and some were, or at least said they were, rather young when they did the stuff that got them banned, and with some age and experience realized how foolish they'd acted). Of course, some others screwed up the second chance (third ones are an awful lot harder to talk your way into), and some did things so horrendous that no one would ever be willing to risk their return. But while those are editors who probably are in fact out for good, that's not true of every indefinitely blocked, or even community banned, editor. (And indef blocks even less so—I'm always willing to talk to editors who I indef, and if they really do get it and seem willing to do better, I'll generally give them a chance to prove it.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like community indefinite blocks are a step above regular indefinite blocks. With regular indefinite blocks, making a sincere and convincing unblock request can show that the editor is going to stop doing the behavior, and make the block go away quickly. With a community indefinite block, the community just finished a big ani, and if the editor immediately appeals and it is copied over to ani again, I suspect the community will be unlikely to consider it until a significant amount of time has passed. The 6 months in the standard offer comes to mind. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Administrators can only impose blocks for specific disruptions that are contrary to policy, or when authorized via a contentious topic designation or a community authorization to impose discretionary sanctions. The community can reach a consensus to enact an editing restriction based on patterns of behaviour, up to restricting editors from editing any page on the site (by default, leaving the user talk page as an exception). Editing restrictions outside of arbitration rulings have to be appealed to the one responsible for the restriction or to the community. (For contentious topics/discretionary sanctions, the admin is acting on the authorization of either the arbitration committee or the community, and so the restriction is appealed to the authorizing body.) I don't know exactly what you are thinking of when you say "a step above", but community-imposed sanctions (whatever they are) do need to be appealed to the community, not just a single administrator. isaacl (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)